Editing Television (section)

===Digital===
{{main|Digital television}}
{{see also|Digital television transition}}

Digital television (DTV) is the transmission of audio and video by digitally processed and multiplexed signals, in contrast to the analog and channel-separated signals used by [[analog television]]. Due to [[data compression]], digital television can support more than one program on the same channel bandwidth.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/digital-hdtv.shtml | title=HDTV Set Top Boxes and Digital TV Broadcast Information | access-date=28 June 2014 | url-status=dead | archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160522191336/http://www.disabled%2Dworld.com/artman/publish/digital%2Dhdtv.shtml | archive-date=22 May 2016 | df=dmy-all }}</ref> It is an innovative service that represents the most significant evolution in television broadcast technology since color television emerged in the 1950s.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kruger |first1=Lennard G. |last2=Guerrero |first2=Peter F. |title=Digital Television: An Overview |date=2002 |publisher=[[Nova Publishers]] |isbn=9781590335024 |page=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BIAfWq2V3wgC&pg=PA1 |location=Hauppauge, New York}}</ref> Digital television's roots have been tied very closely to the availability of inexpensive, high performance [[computers]]. It was not until the 1990s that digital television became possible.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benton.org/initiatives/obligations/charting_the_digital_broadcasting_future/sec1|title=The Origins and Future Prospects of Digital Television|date=22 December 2008|access-date=22 March 2015}}</ref> Digital television was previously not practically possible due to the impractically high [[Bandwidth (computing)|bandwidth]] requirements of [[uncompressed video|uncompressed]] [[digital video]],<ref name="Lea">{{cite book |last1=Lea |first1=William |title=Video on demand: Research Paper 94/68 |date=1994 |publisher=[[House of Commons Library]] |url=https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP94-68 |access-date=20 September 2019}}</ref><ref name="Barbero">{{cite journal |last1=Barbero |first1=M. |last2=Hofmann |first2=H. |last3=Wells |first3=N. D. |title=DCT source coding and current implementations for HDTV |journal=EBU Technical Review |date=14 November 1991 |issue=251 |pages=22–33 |publisher=[[European Broadcasting Union]] |url=https://tech.ebu.ch/publications/trev_251-barbero |access-date=4 November 2019}}</ref> requiring around 200{{nbsp}}[[Mbit/s]] for a [[standard-definition television]] (SDTV) signal,<ref name="Lea"/> and over 1{{nbsp}}[[Gbit/s]] for [[high-definition television]] (HDTV).<ref name="Barbero"/>

A digital television service was proposed in 1986 by [[Nippon Telegraph and Telephone]] (NTT) and the [[Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (Japan)|Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication]] (MPT) in Japan, where there were plans to develop an "Integrated Network System" service. However, it was not possible to implement such a digital television service practically until the adoption of DCT video compression technology made it possible in the early 1990s.<ref name="Lea" />

In the mid-1980s, as Japanese [[consumer electronics]] firms forged ahead with the development of [[High-definition television|HDTV]] technology, the [[Multiple sub-Nyquist sampling encoding|MUSE]] analog format proposed by [[NHK]], a Japanese company, was seen as a pacesetter that threatened to eclipse U.S. electronics companies' technologies. Until June 1990, the Japanese MUSE standard, based on an analog system, was the front-runner among the more than 23 other technical concepts under consideration. Then, a U.S. company, General Instrument, demonstrated the possibility of a digital television signal. This breakthrough was of such significance that the [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC]] was persuaded to delay its decision on an ATV standard until a digitally-based standard could be developed.

In March 1990, when it became clear that a digital standard was possible, the FCC made several critical decisions. First, the Commission declared that the new ATV standard must be more than an enhanced analog signal but be able to provide a genuine HDTV signal with at least twice the resolution of existing television images. (7) Then, to ensure that viewers who did not wish to buy a new digital television set could continue to receive conventional television broadcasts, it dictated that the new ATV standard must be capable of being "[[simulcast]]" on different channels. (8) The new ATV standard also allowed the new DTV signal to be based on entirely new design principles. Although incompatible with the existing [[NTSC]] standard, the new DTV standard would be able to incorporate many improvements.

The last standards adopted by the FCC did not require a single standard for scanning formats, [[aspect ratios]], or lines of resolution. This compromise resulted from a dispute between the [[consumer electronics]] industry (joined by some broadcasters) and the [[computer industry]] (joined by the [[film industry]] and some public interest groups) over which of the two scanning processes—interlaced or progressive—would be best suited for the newer digital HDTV compatible display devices.<ref name="bambooav.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.bambooav.com/information-about-interlaced-and-progressive-scan-signals.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090816184950/http://www.bambooav.com/information-about-interlaced-and-progressive-scan-signals.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=16 August 2009 |title=Information about interlaced and progressive scan signals |access-date=22 March 2015 }}</ref> Interlaced scanning, which had been specifically designed for older analog CRT display technologies, scans even-numbered lines first, then odd-numbered ones. Interlaced scanning can be regarded as the first video compression model. It was partly developed in the 1940s to double the image resolution to exceed the limitations of television broadcast bandwidth. Another reason for its adoption was to limit the flickering on early CRT screens, whose phosphor-coated screens could only retain the image from the electron scanning gun for a relatively short duration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.isfforum.com/FAQs/view/All-About-HDTV/What-s-the-Difference-between-Interlaced-and-Progressive-Video/33.html|title=What's the Difference between "Interlaced" and "Progressive" Video? – ISF Forum}}</ref> However, interlaced scanning does not work as efficiently on newer display devices such as [[liquid-crystal display]] (LCD), for example, which are better suited to a more frequent progressive refresh rate.<ref name="bambooav.com"/>

[[Progressive scanning]], the format that the computer industry had long adopted for computer display monitors, scans every line in sequence, from top to bottom. Progressive scanning, in effect, doubles the amount of data generated for every full screen displayed in comparison to interlaced scanning by painting the screen in one pass in 1/60-second instead of two passes in 1/30-second. The computer industry argued that progressive scanning is superior because it does not "flicker" on the new standard of display devices in the manner of interlaced scanning. It also argued that progressive scanning enables easier connections with the Internet and is more cheaply converted to interlaced formats than vice versa. The film industry also supported progressive scanning because it offered a more efficient means of converting filmed programming into digital formats. For their part, the consumer [[electronics industry]] and broadcasters argued that interlaced scanning was the only technology that could transmit the highest quality pictures then (and currently) feasible, i.e., 1,080 lines per picture and 1,920 pixels per line. Broadcasters also favored interlaced scanning because their vast archive of interlaced programming is not readily compatible with a progressive format. [[William F. Schreiber]], who was director of the Advanced Television Research Program at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] from 1983 until his retirement in 1990, thought that the continued advocacy of interlaced equipment originated from consumer electronics companies that were trying to get back the substantial investments they made in the interlaced technology.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/hist_politics_dtv.pdf|title=The history and politics of DTV|page=13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030322131735/http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/hist_politics_dtv.pdf|archive-date=22 March 2003|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Digital television transition]] started in the late 2000s. All governments across the world set the deadline for analog shutdown by the 2010s. Initially, the adoption rate was low, as the first digital tuner-equipped television sets were costly. However, as the price of digital-capable television sets dropped, more and more households started converting to digital television sets. The transition is expected to be completed worldwide by the mid to late 2010s.