Like kids at a high school dance, broadcasters and product manufacturers are still waiting to see who, if anyone, will be first out on the floor when it comes to high-definition widescreen tv.

No one will say it with certainty, but some say high-definition television in the widescreen, cinema-style 16:9 ratio will be the biggest development since color tv. And others shrug.

Depending whether you’re talking to a buyer or a seller of the idea, you may hear that broadcasters are lagging behind in adopting a new, innovative system, or you may hear that product manufacturers are pushing a new technology destined to go nowhere.

Bruce McKay, director of planning and policy for cbc English television, follows the technology like many other broadcasters, but just to see where it’s headed. ‘Four years ago, we felt that this would be in our face very quickly,’ explains McKay. ‘Now the most interesting thing is how fast the whole thing has slowed down.’

Phil Dinan, operations manager at Citytv, agrees that a shift in technology isn’t high on broadcasters’ priority lists right now. ‘We believe the technology probably is coming, but we’re waiting for North America to make up its mind about which way it’s going to go. Once we see which way Japan is going and what impact that has on Europe, then maybe somebody will decide.’

As you’d expect, manufacturers would like to believe the hd widescreen format will be a big player in the future of television. John Quanz, marketing manager, broadcast products for Sony Canada, believes the current ntsc broadcasting system will be replaced with an advanced system capable of sending a range of signals – from full high-definition right down to today’s ntsc standard.

Based on recent papers from the Grand Alliance, the group developing the standard for the fcc in the u.s., Quanz projects transmission could be possible as soon as 1998 and he thinks it’s a realistic time frame.

‘There will be two or three years during which broadcasters will be given time to sign on for channel space. Then there’ll be a certain period of time given for them to make use of it.’

From there, he suggests it will take 15 years of simultaneous transmission until ntsc transmissions will be phased out altogether. Fifteen years is about the life span of the modern tv.

Although broadcasters aren’t frantically preparing for the switch right now, there are a few production areas currently finding applications for widescreen hd. Quanz cites Anheiser Busch in the u.s. as using the format to produce ads and director George Lucas screens in hd 16:9. cbc’s Side Effects is shooting in 16:9 although they’re posting in conventional 4:3.

The recent Montreal World Film Festival featured a film on the widescreen that was actually shot on video and captured in full-blown hd 16:9 on digital Betacam. Cyberteens in Love was recorded digitally throughout the entire filming process and the scan had to be doubled for film and the big screen.

Although the technology is out there, and finding somewhat of a niche in special documentaries and the occasional commercial, it doesn’t yet have a real medium in which to thrive. ‘In video we’re just getting into using widescreen hd for some unique applications,’ says Quanz.

hd 16:9 technology has come a long way since its inception. It was the late ’80s when the first Canadian miniseries was shot in hd widescreen. Chasing Rainbows was a joint effort between Sony and cbc to experiment with the new technology. Back then, the biggest problem was lighting for the tube camera, a problem now long solved with the advent of ccd cameras.

cbc’s Bruce McKay felt the project ‘did them some perceived good at the time.’ As a broadcaster, the cbc decided it wasn’t their role to be testing the waters of new technology. They backed off and have been watching with everybody else as widescreen hd has slowed its infiltration into the industry.

There are varying opinions about why the climate cooled to the format, but Gordon Stephen, product manager at Panasonic, attributes it to u.s. political shifts.

‘There was a very different political climate in Washington a few years ago. There was a push to reshape the entertainment industry and expand. Americans wanted to become predominate with a new technology.

‘Since Clinton, the philosophy has changed. With the acquisitions and mergers going on in the u.s. and the number of specialty channels, I think they’re starting to rationalize the cost of rebuilding the whole industry. I don’t know how many zeros there’s going to be, but you’ve got 250 million Americans, (and) a tv and vcr at least in almost every home,’ says Stephen.

Now there are signs the slowdown may be turning around. There are a few new factors that may be poised to bring the technology back into the spotlight.

On the consumer front, the recent explosion in the home theater market has created a growing demand for a more cinema-like feel to home television. As well, if direct-to-home can follow through on the high-quality picture it promises, hd may be a means for terrestrial broadcasters to woo consumers with their own high quality.

There’s also the element of timing. If it’s going to happen, now would be an opportune time for North America to replace ntsc because capabilities exist to make the new system completely digital. This has been an ongoing problem for Japan and Europe, which made their first forays into widescreen broadcasting years ago. As analog systems, the capabilities are limited and both regions are currently working to convert to digital.

At the bottom of the argument, the fact is North Americans are still viewing color tv through a makeshift system of r-y’s and b-y’s modified to be compatible with 1950s black-and-white transmissions. No one disagrees that it’s time for an upgrade to move into the digital age. The question is, to what?

So broadcasters continue to wait for someone to make a move. They have a lot at stake. ‘For some time after implementation, broadcasters will be faced with a burden,’ says Quanz.

‘They would have to provide a 4:3 version over standard transmission and a widescreen version over advanced television transmission, and that’s a troubling thought. Until the standard is set, they’re going to stay where they are. There’s certainly enough pressure on them right now to provide the service level they need to stay profitable without worrying about the new infrastructure and double transmission.’

Broadcasters would also be saddled with the costs of replacing all their analog equipment. Unless ways are found to implement the new technology phase by phase, which the whole industry hopes there will be, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of technology would be immediately rendered useless.

Broadcasters are also asking whether or not people really want to watch tv in the widescreen format. David Hunter from ctv’s operations department has some concerns about widescreens in the home. ‘Demonstrations have shown that widescreen is pleasurable to the eye, but it becomes tiring to watch after awhile.’

Hunter feels audiences have been socialized to associate the widescreen with dramas. Watching Lloyd Robertson deliver the news in the wider ratio might not be as popular. ‘This might cause `real tv’ such as news and sports to lose some of their credibility,’ explains Hunter.

But by far, the biggest consumer question mark for manufacturers and broadcasters is whether or not the home viewer will cough up the cash.

Stephen has some doubts as to whether consumers can or would part with their money immediately. ‘svhs was a much stronger format than vhs, but the consumers weren’t ready to spend the money on svhs equipment. If the consumer isn’t willing to spend 30% to 40% more on svhs now, are they going to be willing to pay two or three times the current price for hdtv? Unless everybody’s with it, the question is, can you support it?’

Stephen says a Panasonic home hd widescreen set in North America, which would be built based on models in use in Japan, could cost as much as us$6,000.

However, as Quanz points out, the technology is bound to become cheaper. ‘It will be the standard eventually. Most viewers like the picture, they like the wider aspect ratio, they like the clarity of the image, especially when it’s high definition. When this becomes $400 or $500, then they’ll buy. It’s like with cd and vhs. It’ll come down in cost.’

Despite the predictions and speculation, in this era of breakneck technological advances and the explosion of mega-entertainment companies in the u.s. and worldwide, no one’s betting the bank on anything yet. Until the fcc gives a go, it’s waiting all around. All that can be said for certain is this kind of change would see an amazing amount of money changing hands.

Says Stephen: ‘To replace every vcr, every camera, every monitor, every transmitter, just in the tv networks in Canada and the u.s. alone, it’s almost too big to talk about. Let alone the fact that there’s however many million television sets out there. You’d be talking about pulling apart the industry and putting it back together.’

with files from mary ellen armstrong. gerald churcher is a second-year media writing student at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto.