Summary

Dale Cripps argues that falling HD equipment costs have made HDTV investment viable for mid-market TV stations, dismissing fears of financial ruin. He contends that passive, high-resolution viewing remains the mass-market priority over interactive television, with sports broadcasting as the clearest proof of HDTV's compelling value.

Source document circa 1998 preserved as-is


Wiht Dale E. Cripps

PART 2 Continued___

The Future Is Bright.

 

Randall Paris Dark
If I owned a TV Station, trust me, I'd be coming on in high-definition as fast as possible. I'd let everyone know in the Low-Def world and the High Def world. Look how up-to-date we are! You're not left behind by watching my news program. I think that's worth it's weight in gold.

HDTV News: Is there any chance of being first, and then being broke as a result of it?

A year ago, I would have said absolutely! It's a very high risk. It's very expensive. But if you look at what has happened to the cost of high-definition, and the competition that is out there now... Prior to a year and a half ago it was basically Sony. That was it. When I bought an HDC 500 camera it's a half a million dollar gig. These camcorders are a little bit more than REC 601 prices; edit suites are springing up everywhere, and there just a little bit more than NTSC.

There is more bang for your dollar. You are looking at TV stations that are mid-market that are investing in this equipment.

The other thing that we all have to realize: When was the last time you heard of a TV station going bankrupt? When was the last time you heard that a TV station was sold for less than a half a billion dollars? Now, I have a couple of friends, as you do too, that own TV stations. We all know what they are worth. We all know what they have been turning over. I think a TV station going bankrupt because of the cost of the equipment is...remember the first million dollar baseball players? Excuse me! They now make six million dollars! Anyone go broke?

I think we have to be prudent in our business decisions. We have to wait for the time to be right. As a businessman right now, I've been able to stay in business when the equipment was expensiveing. 't be at the Sve for. ,now it's easier for me with the equipment more affordable and there are more choices out there.

HDTV News: You're in the business of making pictures. Some of the people will say, "Well, you know, we can afford this all right, and we think we should pay for it, and we can pay for it by using ancillary data." Have you been in any discussions with people who have had serious concepts and thoughts about how that is going to occur, and whether that is a real choice to be made, or simply one that is unaffordable?

What people have expressed the biggest interest in, is pure High-definition. Everyone sees that as the home-run technology. There is going to be a convergence of technology, granted, but for the most part, people are looking at a passive experience in their home entertainment center.

HDTV News: Again there is a contingency being born out of the enthusiasm for the world-wide web that says, 'you know, we're not so sure that passive is the future.'

Yes, and I think that there is an element of society that can justify a very coherent and successful business plan where you are making the home display a very interactive environment. I don't dispute that. We work with Microsoft. I have a very good handle on what I think that sort of program is going to be like,, My company anticipates developing those sort of programs...however...there is a great segment of our society that spends a lot of time on the computer, a lot of time working at their desktops during a business day, and when they go home, the last thing on the planet they want to do is have even a passively interactive experience.

I think that television, the way it's structured right now, is about mass market appeal. That's what justifies being able to pay ER 13 million dollars to have high-end programming. I think that those sort of experiences are very passively done.

I'm a sports fanatic. I love sports. There is no way I am going to watch a super bowl with me wanting to pick the cameras. That's not the experience you want, because there is so much exitement in the game, and so much intrigue, you're not going to miss a play because you can't figure out if you want to look at the cheerleader or the guy running a touchdown.

Those tests were done in the late 70's, for goodness sake, and they failed miserably, because the people that thought up these programs were techno-geeks--not sports fans. There's an element of auxiliary data at your finger tips that's going to be very important. I think that on a high resolution screen, for me to have access to information about my favorite golfer, or my favorite baseball player, and get stats on command is a very important aspect of it, but it's what I call a very passive interactive part of the viewing experience...but it still requires a big screen, high resolution image to get the willing suspension of disbelief to kick in, or that feeling of "better than being there".

480p and 480i doesn't give you that. That's what we all strive for. If I can't be at the Super Bowl, my goodness, I want the next best thing. Period. What will I pay for that? How will I want to involve myself? Again, ABC, in their wisdom, is going to prove this point to the world, that if I can't be there in person, I want my HDTV, because that's the next best thing.

I think that if you look at it historically, it's true. I give you three choices right now. I'll let you go to the game for free, I'll let you watch TV for free, I'll let you listen to the radio for free. What's your number one choice? Obviously, I just gave you the order. Now I'm going to redo that. I'll let you go for free, I'll let you watch it in high-definition for free, I'll let you watch in low-definition for free, and radio. What's your first, second, third choices?

These are no-brainers. These are givens. If anyone disputes that they obviously don't understand the sports fan. Period.

I knew at the end of the day that this situation would be resolved and the ATSC system would move forward...with maybe a little angst initially, but it would be resolved fairly quickly.
Same thing with feature films. If you have the ideal experience...I will let you go into a movie theater by yourself. You don't have talking, you don't hear other people walking around, you don't hear coughing and sneezing...you get that theater experience. Number one. Number two, low definition. Number three, you can read the script that gets published. The second thing will now be seeing it in high-definition. I think if you look at it that way, things start falling into place, and you say, "yes, this does make a lot of sense. It is a viable alternative," and people will pay for that.

The broadcasters have been faced with a PR problem with regard to the Sinclair tests. The Sinclair situation rose up, it scared a few broadcasters into thinking that they were not going to get an audience that could receive them. There's been a response now by two, and maybe more companies that are going to apparently answer the most of the Sinclair complaint. How did you see that, and did it concern you at the time?

You know, the yin and the yang of that when I heard what Sinclair was doing ...number one, it made me very happy. Then it worried me. I knew at the end of the day that this situation would be resolved and the ATSC system would move forward...with maybe a little angst initially, but it would be resolved fairly quickly.

I think it is imperative that companies like Sinclair question. That's what makes America so great. We don't with blind faith look at something. They brought an issue that we all knew was an issue. I don't think it surprised anybody. That there were issues in the technology mean that it is a flawed system, or a glitched system? I look at the evolution of any technology, and whether it's the first black and white TV set that came out, if that was the be-all and end-all of television, it would never have happened. The first color TV... If that was the quality I wager it would never have happened.

The first decoders coming out, the first test system, the first generation. Obviously, there's going to be situations that aren't as perfect.

Here's a little story I want to share with you, Dale, and I think it made me not be anxious about what was happening with Sinclair. I knew that there are two or three or four . . . and I think that by the end of the day, there are going to be five or six companies coming out and saying, "Here's the next generation that resolves these issues."

I recently bought a DirecTV because I'm tired of the quality of my cable. When you buy DirecTV you can't pick up local stations. I went to my Circuit City. I bought the most expensive set of rabbit ears I could get--the ones you power up and crank out. I hooked it up to my NTSC television, turned it on, and tried to dial in my local station. If I had Sinclair with me, they would have looked at me and said "look, Randall, this system doesn't work."

Using the latest and greatest over-the-air technology proved to me that NTSC doesn't work. If that's the best picture I'm going to get, then I'm going to be miserable. Not only that, Dale, when my wife turned on the blender, I lost my picture entirely.

So using Sinclair's scenario, NTSC is in big trouble as far as I'm concerned! Now, using intelligence and talking to different people in the industry, I bet eventually I can improve my home signal from what I'm getting. When I heard what Sinclair was doing, I applauded their efforts, because they were bringing an issue that needed to be addressed.

HDTV News: They knew they were going to win either way.

Yes, and I think that what Sinclair did was bring an issue to the forefront and caused people to pay attention to it.

I'm very unhappy with Sinclair for one reason. I applaud what they did, but they should have kept it private We have a group of people attempting to standardize a world-wide system that would help America, and I think they did a disservice to the ATSC by making it so public. I think what they did was great. I applauded their efforts. I just wish there would have been a quieter situation initially and letting all the set-top makers say "oh, we recognize this issue. Give us a couple of months and we'll show you the improvements".

In defense of Nat Ostroff, I think he recognized that he needed to have a little public air to cause anything to happen.
I have the same problem with NTSC at my home that Sinclair was having there. I was getting over-the-air reception that was horrendous, with the best of technology today.

To me what they did in the long run is going to help the industry more than hurt it. I have a 64 inch high-definition consumer TV, a 34 inch consumer TV, and for the last six months I have been monitoring the WFA signal every day. I shot a lot of the stuff they show. So I know the genesis of the technology. It (transmission) has been flawless. It has been beautiful. It has been perfect. KXAF has been broadcasting in Dallas. Now I monitor their signal. It has been flawless. It has been perfect. Now I have many things to say about the variety of programming! But I know that will change.

I don't want to criticize Sinclair because I didn't see their test. I wasn't part of it . . .

HDTV News: Everybody that went there said there was something wrong.

Yes, but all I can go with is that I have the same problem with NTSC at my home that Sinclair was having there. I was getting over-the-air reception that was horrendous, with the best of technology today.

HDTV News: Do you think this is the last boulder on the runway? Can we throw these engines into full forward now without any further concern?

No, I think that there is too much at stake for a number of companies to stay as passive as they are. In the evolution of any technology, especially a technology that supplants other technologies and therefore other businesses, a number of issues will be raised. But at this point in the evolution it is so prime-time, it is so user-friendly, it is so cost-effective, that it's just an alternative that we are now going to have.

HDTV News: Would you see any reasons for a broadcaster on the brink of making an investment in equipment to be reticent about that investment at this juncture?

The only reticence is market-share. Where are they in the market, and where are they in the evolution of their own technology? No matter what, all broadcasters eventually have to buy new equipment. Period. It gets obsolete, it gets used, abused, beaten up. Let's say within the last few years I have invested heavily in low definition equipment. It would be prudent to wait a couple of years until the last possible second. That's just business. If there is a point in the evolution of their in-house plant that they have to up-grade, now is the time to do it, because if they don't do it now, they are going to lose market-share eventually.

HDTV News: Cable hasn't been as aggressive. You did some pieces for John Malone of TCI. He was always rather sympathetic towards it, but I think from a business standpoint he didn't have a lot of vision for it. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing his position. How do you see cable today? Let me stratify this question by suggesting in your anwere you consider that there are big cable companies, there are modest cable companies, and a whole bunch of little ones.

That's an interesting question. I think it will all boil down to market share. The cable companies don't see an erosion of the market share yet. DTV is making some impact, but not a lot. They are going to watch this very closely, and trust me, as soon as they see erosion of any market share, they are going to have to jump on the band wagon.

If you look at what's happening in New York, and with Masison Square Garden and Time-Warner, positions are already being stated, money is being invested. It's just a matter of time before people embrace the future or lose market share. I think that the cable companies are in an interesting situation. They're going to watch very carefully, but all the tests have been done. Can HDTV go through cable? Absolutely. Has the leg-work been done? Has the research been done? Absolutely. It's just when do they implement, and that's the big question.

This is not a loss-leader for these people. They know it's a business. They know it's an evolution. They are now committed to move forward because everything is about timing.
What's going to be exciting about this Christmas is that there's programming; there's television; there's high-quality. Flat panels are coming out. I think that all of a sudden the people that thought the best of HDTV was coming will soon realize that that was a fallacy. HDTV is here to stay. Not only that, they are going to have to consider it a lot sooner than what they had originally planned in their 5 or 10 year business plan.

HDTV News: Do you think that the larger manufacturers share your enthusiasm, or are they still a little bit scared?

Not scared. Absolutely, they share in that enthusiasm! I can only talk about real work experience. From the manufacturers that I am personally dealing with there is a great excitement.

Just because of the quality of the product that they are displaying...again, I have two high definition consumer TVs that are absolutely spectacular that I would put in my house in a heart-beat. So the quality of the product is there. You wouldn't see the manufacturers investing so heavily to help out the broadcasters unless they truly believed.

This is not a loss-leader for these people. They know it's a business. They know it's an evolution. They are now committed to move forward because everything is about timing. The equipment has to be prime-time user-friendly . ...cost effective. The TVs have to be able to work.

At a moment in time it is all coming together. the date is Monday Night Football here in September. That's when, in my mind, is the true kick-off, and I mean that sincerely. What CBS did last year with the play-off, was testing the waters...getting our motors revved for the future. There were some issues to be resolved.

As far as I can see, the true kick-off, the true launch of High Definition is happening. You take your hats off to the manufacturers. You take them off to CBS, to ABC, because they are ensuring the future of High-Definition by what they're doing this fall.

HDTV News: That brings me to the question of 1080 versus 720. Is there a difference? Are there any material things that the public or the professionals should be concerned about?

I've had the unique opportunity to use both formats. I prefer 1080i right now because the equipment is in it's 5th and 6th generation. It's user-friendly; it's cost-effective; it has end-to-end solutions. I've seen my stuff go from 1080i to 720p. It looks great.I don't have a problem with it as a creative person.
720p vs. 1080i? We live in a very bright society. Black boxes are being designed and built to handle all these issues.

Manufacturers are constantly bringing forth different formats, trying to get market share. The TVs handle both formats. They both look good. To be quite honest I don't think the consumer will be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. It would have been nicer to settle on one format because in my shop I'm going to have to have 1080i and 720p equipment. But that's the nature of the beast. I don't think it's an issue to be concerned about. I just want to make sure that I have an end-to-end solution for my customers. Right now I do have that in 1080i.

HDTV News: Does 720p cause any concern for international program exchange?

I haven't heard it. There are going to be multi-format standard converters out. I think that the secret to being successful as an entrepreneur, or as a program provider, is that you have to shoot wide-screen; you have to shoot high-res; you have to shoot digital.

720p vs. 1080i? We live in a very bright society. Black boxes are being designed and built to handle all these issues.

HDTV News: Now we see 1080p on the horizon, and I understand that it is even coming in a camcorder format. Does that threaten any body's inventory?

No, I don't think so. How good is good? I've had computer people look at my 1080i stuff and be positive it's progressive--that it's 1080p already.

HDTV News: What about the equipment, though, Randy? Is somebody faced here with having an inventory of 1080i equipment that is going to be not sought out as vigorously as would be 1080p?

I think 1080p is still many years off for a complete end-to-end solution. I'm just about to draw out X number of million dollars for buying 1080i equipment that I know I can amortize over five or six years easily, and still have an extended shelf-life, not worrying about 1080p.

HDTV News: Let's talk about the facility you have now, the facility you are going to have in the short term, mid term, long term.

Right now, as you know, HD Vision is a complete High-Definition production and post-production facility. Presently, we have two trucks that we use for single, and we have another truck that we use for multi-camera capability. We announced a deal recently with CBC and WRAL where we are building a multi-camera, 53 foot state of the art high-definition mobile that will have editing capabilities on-board. We're pricing it for the HDTV consortium, so that they get the opportunity to get their feet wet without it being a price penalty. We have the complete digital post-production facility here. We've recently added complete color-correction DVE capability; we're anticipating expanding HD-Vision to LA and New York. We're in the negotiations for that.

The future is bright.

Sounds great! Might even be a job for me there!

Absolutely! You know it's been a roller-coaster ride in the HDTV business. You, out of all, knows that. It's been almost schizophrenic. When I first started doing HD thirteen years ago I thought it was going to be an over-night sensation! I was young and naive back then. But I believe in the image. The image is all-powerful, and there is nothing like a High-Definition picture. I am excited that the vision that I've had for many years will be shared...that the consumers are going to get the opportunity to enjoy what I've been enjoying for thirteen years.

Thank you Randall

Copyright 1999

|Home| |E-MAIL|