Like many of you out there, I am underwhelmed with the amount of HD programming avaliable and even more frustrated by the amount of the HD content which is avaliable but with heavy compression or less than full resolution.

I am wondering if maybe it is simply an issue of networks seeing no reason to spring for HD, when they can make just as much money on SD programing. After all, everyone can watch SD, but although HDTV's are selling well, fewer than expected have an HD set and the needed satellite/cable for network HD.

What brought up my curiosity was that I recently spoke with a cohost of a certain program on a certain network which runs an SD and an HD channel. I asked him if there was any chance the show would be moving to HD.

He told me that they had wanted to for a while, and that the producers of this program had filmed the previous season in HD, but it has not been put out in full quality. The reason is that the network backed away. As he put it "They want more shows... not more HD shows." It seems silly though, when the program has HDTV cameras and has been filming in HD, to not even bother editing the full resolution footage and putting it out on the High Def channel. Especially given that the HD channel has rather repetitive and limited content.

I am wondering if this is common with other programmers and whether things are getting better or worse????

To answer one small part of your question - nearly all of the prime-time network programming IS already broadcast in HD. Many times when someone makes a similiar comment they are referring to a specific show and like to make sweeping generalizations about the "lack" of HD programming. What are you looking for?
Things are obviously getting better as far as quantity of HD programming, although the trick is getting the providers to be more generous with what they have available rather than the networks providing more content.

uh? I can only name a few non HD shows, I think you are missing something.

What networks?
If you are referring to the over-the-air networks, the majority of what they offer now is HD.

What all networks want is to make money. If they thought HD was the way, you'd see more than what we get now.

In general, HD costs money. In rare cases, it can be break even or profitable.

Well, when you see the high number of shows that are cancelled by Christmas eadh year, you have to wonder if the networks are really trying to make money. Maybe fewer shows of higher quality would do better.

Sorry. I should have said "Cable networks." What I meant was the premium content. I have no interest in most OTA tv, anyway.

Which cable networks? Many of them will be HD by years end including USA, Sci-Fi and FX.

Much of the shows you see on cable are allready produced in HD, they just don't have a way of getting them to you in HD.

Yet.

uh? I can only name a few non HD shows, I think you are missing something.


Yeah, I was just thinking how much HD content is actually out there. Pretty much all network primetime shows are, some soap opras, news shows, and of course sports.

The only big show I can think of that isn't HD is survivor, and I guess the Amazing Race.

Sorry. I should have said "Cable networks." What I meant was the premium content. I have no interest in most OTA tv, anyway.


All of the top quality HBO and showtime original programming is in HD :)

Much of the shows you see on cable are allready produced in HD, they just don't have a way of getting them to you in HD.

Yet.

Indeed. In that sense, HD can be more profitable in the long run because studios believe that HD content will prove more durable in the future. And with HD syndication, HD-DVD and Blu Ray, and HD downloads, HD content will get a level up in the future when most people have HDTVs and can easily receive HD feeds.

If people scoff at letterbox content now on 4:3 TVs, it only stands to reason that the people of an HDTV-laden future will scoff at pillarbox content.

I think this is a lot like asking "is color profitable"? At some point not far into the future HD is just part of everyone's base expectations. The real question becomes "is this channel profitable" given its overall cost structure, one aspect of which is HD production.

I am doubtful that HD will have any long-run effect on how much consumers are willing to pay for TV. Folks will not say "oh $100 is ok for expanded basic because it's HD now".

I think that, anyone who is producing anything in HDTV right now, is doing it with foresight to the future syndication and HD-DVD sales potential.

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?A show that switched to color was "The Adventures of Superman".

From the book "Superman on Television" by Michael Bifulco:

"Color was the major change to the 1954 and subsequent production seasons of The Adventures of Superman, although the television viewers would not know about it until years later."

I am wondering if maybe it is simply an issue of networks seeing no reason to spring for HD, when they can make just as much money on SD programing. After all, everyone can watch SD, but although HDTV's are selling well, fewer than expected have an HD set and the needed satellite/cable for network HD.

I am wondering if this is common with other programmers and whether things are getting better or worse????


Stop wondering and start thinking. I don't understand it, even commercials now are being shot in HD more and more, so what are you talking about? I live in the Washington DC area and we will get ACC basketball tournament in HD this year. When they asked the station why they wouldn't do the regular season in HD, the answer simply put is MONEY.

We, as viewers, are not paying extra for the HD channels (only exception being VOOM from DishNetwork but they don't have SD feeds so you are pay for the channels not HD). We pay more for the HD set top box or receiver. If you get HBO, for instance, you will get HBO HD at no extra cost. And that is excatly what broadcasters know.

Even though viewers like the HD content more, they will not stop watching a program just because it is not HD (Survivors and Amazing Race), and certainly they will not start watching one just because it is HD. I personally can't stand Las Vegas on NBC and never watched any of the HD shows on MyNetwork.

Even though viewers like the HD content more, they will not stop watching a program just because it is not HD (Survivors and Amazing Race), and certainly they will not start watching one just because it is HD.
I even watch commercials when they are in HD.

I don't buy the economic argument against upgrading to HD. It's incredibly shortsighted and illogical. The networks could also save money by cheaping out on other production values - actors could wear off-the-rack WalMart clothes, drive beater cars, they could hire only unknown union scale writers and actors, have fewer characters, etc. etc. There's a good reason why they don't.

Just think about it, they are even remastering old shows loike star trek, I love lucy, the equalizer, etc.

Even syndicated shwos like Wheel of Fortune and Jeaopardy are in HD now.

I still don't get your question, I see the exact oposite happening.

The networks could also save money by cheaping out on other production values - actors could wear off-the-rack WalMart clothes, drive beater cars, they could hire only unknown union scale writers and actors, have fewer characters, etc. etc.

Sounds like reality TV. No actors, no writers, no wardrobe, no props, no special effects, no musical score, just a couple video cameras pointed at some losers.

Sounds like reality TV. No actors, no writers, no wardrobe, no props, no special effects, no musical score, just a couple video cameras pointed at some losers.
When I replied earlier I was trying to think of an analogy, and I almost wrote:

What if record companies decided not to release high quality audio recordings and went low-bit instead?

And then I realized oops they already do, they call it iTunes. :(

I think there is an argument to be made that the big OTA networks missed the boat on promoting HD. While their audience share was eroding year after year to cable they had a compelling ace up their sleeve. For at least two years now most Prime time shows have been in HD. Now it seems that most of the major cable networks will be switching to HD by the end of the year and the big OTA networks have lost their chance to brand the audience.

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?
Gunsmoke, maybe?

A lot of Disney stuff that was being made for TV was being filmed in color in anticipation of color TV, as well.

I even watch commercials when they are in HD.

I don't buy the economic argument against upgrading to HD. It's incredibly shortsighted and illogical. The networks could also save money by cheaping out on other production values - actors could wear off-the-rack WalMart clothes, drive beater cars, they could hire only unknown union scale writers and actors, have fewer characters, etc. etc. There's a good reason why they don't.

Well, good for you. I have at least 3 friends that don't even want to upgrade to HDTV sets for different reasons (money for one and hating the new technology for the other two). My aunt also prefers watching the SD feed on regular TV set rather than the HD one, it is not like she never watches on HD, but to her it is all about the show itself.

That is just the people I know, what about all the grandpas and grandmas that don't even know what is HD, can't tell the difference, and don't even care. I got VOOM for a couple of months and once you get that you realize it is not about QUANTITY but QUALITY. They have a channel that showed no-name cartoons in HD, I couldn't get myself to watch it.

It sure does make sense for stations to talk about money when it comes to HD. If every single household ONLY had HD sets, then your argument would make sense. Why pay more when the sponsors are not paying more for showing commercials in HD? That is what the executive of Raycon-Lincoln Sports (MyNetwork in DC area) said.

Now, don't get me wrong. Do I want more HD programing? you bet ya, I want EVERYTHING on TV, DVD, VOD, and PPV to be in HD, but it is just not feasible at this point.

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?

it was Hopalong Cassidy (William Boyd), and he was wise enough to own all his theatrical releases, too.

Walt

The problem isn't with the networks and cable stations, it's with providers. When these signals leave their place of origin they are pristine but the content providers grind them down into pixelated, macroblocked crap. The other evil little thing they do ( Cable companies anyway. ) is that they offer different channels to different areas. Some of their markets are showered with attention while others are provided with practically nothing, and they go ahead and charge those getting next to nothing the same amount they charge the others. It's been made painfully clear to me that TWC doesn't give a rat's ass about the quality of their HD service in my area. We get only a handful of HD channels and those we do get are rate-shaped into oblivion. We don't even get typical TWC channels like Discovery HD Theatre. When INHD2 went off the air they didn't replace it with anything, nor did they even give the other channels more bandwidth. It's amazing to me that despite having only as many HD channels as I can count on my fingers that they rate-shape them. You'd think that if they aren't going to offer many at least they could provide the scant few that they do at full bandwidth. They've given new meaning to feet-dragging when it comes to improving their lineup. But my area is a small one and their feeling seems to be that if I want good HD service that I can move to a big city, wait another 10 years, or go screw myself.:(

To put into perspective the way TWC views my area their Roadrunner broadband internet connection is a 5 mb download connection everywhere else and they also offer an optional premium 8 mb connection. Here Roadrunner is a 768 kb download and 128 kb upload bandwidth connection. LMMAO! And how much do you think they charge us for it? That's right, the same thing. Heh heh, being a white male I've never had to deal with discrimination before but TWC is giving me a crash course.

Could it be that HD reaches a better demo for advertiesers?
If you think about it, at least in the early days, HD was for early adopters that would spend thousands of dollars on an exploratory technology that didn't have much penetration. If they're willing to do that, then think of the other crap we can make them buy.

As stated over and over, there is not enough satellite bandwidth available in C-Band to move all these channels to HD at this time - and NBC is the only national platform stupid enough to do Ku Band.

Combine that with lack of bandwidth on cable right now - as well as Satellite - and there is no need to uplink a HD Channel if no one is watching.

Outside of Fios, how many have access to The Movie Network in HD?

Even Cinemax in HD has very limited distribution.

Why spend the money to uplink it if the MSOs do not have the bandwidth to clear it....no matter how it was shot.

If one wonders why networks are interested in HD now, it's even more amazing to know they were involved over 25 years ago - long before there was a practical method to broadcast it. Back then they probably didn't think it was going to take this long to become mainstream.

Well, thats because everyone was ramping up for analog HDTV - which had the brakes put on as digital became practical in the mid to late 80s.

I was speaking more of an HD network that still chooses to do SD production, so the bandwidth "problem" didn't really apply.

But besides. I remember pundits wondering where the internet bandwidth was going to come from as people moved up to 56k modems and even (gasp!) 128k ISDN. Somehow it all worked out.

Better codecs can double the effective bandwidth. Cable companies could drop their analog service down to the OTA stations only - if grandma wants more channels she needs to get an STB. Satellites will continue to be launched.

I don't buy the economic argument against upgrading to HD. It's incredibly shortsighted and illogical. The networks could also save money by cheaping out on other production values - actors could wear off-the-rack WalMart clothes, drive beater cars, they could hire only unknown union scale writers and actors, have fewer characters, etc. etc. There's a good reason why they don't.You may not buy it, but it's economic reality. Expenditures on equipment is not the top budget priority. Besides the economics, changing all facilities to HD at the same time has the disadvantage of being locked into the present level of equipment. Gradually replacing facilities allows a cycle of buying the latest technology as it becomes available.

The networks are not the sole decider on whether a show is HD, it's also the decision of the producer. I know of one summer show last year that was shot in one network's HD studio but it was the producer who decided that it was shot in SD.

The change to HD is progressing much the same way color did forty years ago. In two years I think SD production will be minimal. There's talk that Survivor may be HD by the next season.

I know of one summer show last year that was shot in one network's HD studio but it was the producer who decided that it was shot in SD.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I wonder if his initials are M.B.

Satellites will continue to be launched.

You want to tell us where those new C Band Distribution satellites are planning to go - because even the FCC doesn't know and apparently you do :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=TVOD]
The change to HD is progressing much the same way color did forty years ago. In two years I think SD production will be minimal.


I certainly agree, these things just take time to happen and in my opinion it is certainly the wave of the future.

You want to tell us where those new C Band Distribution satellites are planning to go - because even the FCC doesn't know and apparently you do :rolleyes:
No I guess you're right - mankind has reached its peak and there will never be more satellite bandwidth. Damn. :rolleyes:

No I guess you're right - mankind has reached its peak and there will never be more satellite bandwidth. Damn. :rolleyes:
You know that's not what was being said. What was being said was that right now there isn't enough bandwidth for everything to go HD, and there won't be for the forseeable future.

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?
I think this is your answer:

Sept. 12, 1959 "Bonanza," TV's first full-hour Western color film series began.

Color began in 1953. NBC converted early on so parent company RCA had programming to sell their new color TVs. ABC followed. CBS went color, then went back to B&W and then back to color. I guess they were a little sore because the color wheel TVs never sold. Back to the future with DLPs :D

No I guess you're right - mankind has reached its peak and there will never be more satellite bandwidth. Damn. :rolleyes:

You know that's not what was being said. What was being said was that right now there isn't enough bandwidth for everything to go HD, and there won't be for the forseeable future.

Actually, that is what I did say - but you must understand that Steve is obviously clueless to the realities of the situation - which was demonstrated by his response and not answering the question.

C Band Satellites require 2 degree spacing. You can only put 2 HD Channels on a transponder (Unless you go HD-LITE which isnt going to happen in HD Distribution).

Steve can go here : http://www.lyngsat.com/america.html

And tell us how many oribital positions for C Band with 2 degree spacing are not occupied from say 85W to 140W which is about what would be needed to cover the USA.

Even using his fingers, he will have most left over when it comes to available positions.

There is literally no vacancy for C Band right now as it is on current birds.

He is also obviously clueless that Canada and Mexico also hold the oribital positions for a number of slots - as we are not the only County in the northern part of this hemisphere and these positions were worked out by International Treaties many years ago. They will need these positions for their own HDTV expansion.

So there are not enough oribital positions for new C Band Satellites this year, next year, 10 years from now or 20 years from now for everything to go to HD as it stands now.

Developing different delivery methods are a must - and fiber is clearly a possibility - but that has a huge cost as well and is not even close to cost effective right now for this - and that's not going to happen at all this decade on any large scale.

I suppose you could also throw away every 3.8 and 4.5 Meter C Band Dish in Mexico, the USA and Canada and for a 7.6 - 10 Meter Dish and go with 1 degree spacing - but that won't happen any time in the next 10 years either - especially if you realize how much 30+ foot satellite dishes cost.

So, yes, I am saying that there is not enough satellite bandwidth to distribute HD if every channel decided it wanted to be HD by 2009. In fact, there isnt enough bandwidth for even 25% of them to be HD.

Now if the cable companies would go a la carte and kill of 75% of the channels, that only a handful watch, we'd be in a much better situation - but still not in the clear.

So again, as I said before Steve made his smart ass remark:

You want to tell us where those new C Band Distribution satellites are planning to go - because even the FCC doesn't know and apparently you do :rolleyes:

Do any of you watch TV during the mid -afternoon? Well I do and I have 18 HD channels and do you know how many of them were actually showing HD material? The answer 4!!!. Thats right only 4 of those stations had an HD broadcast going . Maybe this is what the OP was referring too when he started this thread. If so then he has a valid point and that old adage about timing being everything, could apply here.

Do any of you watch TV during the mid -afternoon? Well I do and I have 18 HD channels and do you know how many of them were actually showing HD material? The answer 4!!!. Thats right only 4 of those stations had an HD broadcast going . Maybe this is what the OP was referring too when he started this thread. If so then he has a valid point and that old adage about timing being everything, could apply here.


Well, the OP said he was referring to Premium Cable Channels - not OTA Channels.

So you have 18 Premium HD Channels and only 4 were showing HD Material?

I don't think so which is why you didn't list the channels. :rolleyes:

Well, the OP said he was referring to Premium Cable Channels - not OTA Channels.

So you have 18 Premium HD Channels and only 4 were showing HD Material?

I don't think so which is why you didn't list the channels. :rolleyes:

Ok I'm making it up :rolleyes:

I was talkin about all the HD channels I have at my disposal. No matter how you look at it whether their premium channels or not that is not a good percentage.

If you want to know which ones had a HD broadcast they were

HBOHD
DiscHD
MHD
INHD

The following HD Channels did not

PBS
CBS
ABC
NBC
ABC-NH Affiliate
WSBK-DT
FOX
ESPN
ESPN2
NESN
NGHD
TNTHD
UniversalHD

Sorry I forgot INHD2 is no longer available so there were 17 channels, I was off by 1. So does this make it any clearer for you now the point I was trying to make.

Ok I'm making it up :rolleyes:

I was talkin about all the HD channels I have at my disposal. No matter how you look at it whether their premium channels or not that is not a good percentage.

If you want to know which ones had a HD broadcast they were

HBOHD
DiscHD
MHD
INHD

The following HD Channels did not

PBS
CBS
ABC
NBC
ABC-NH Affiliate
WSBK-DT
FOX
ESPN
ESPN2
NESN
NGHD
TNTHD
UniversalHD

Sorry I forgot INHD2 is no longer available so there were 17 channels, I was off by 1. So does this make it any clearer for you now the point I was trying to make.

So first you attempt to explain what the OP meant - and now you openly change to your specs what the OP meant :rolleyes:

OK Karnak.

NGHD and Universal HD had HD programming as well, which makes one wonder if you know for sure that ESPN, ESPN2 and TNTHD (and even OTA PBS-HD) did not have HD programming on it.

I think that, anyone who is producing anything in HDTV right now, is doing it with foresight to the future syndication and HD-DVD sales potential.

What show (I think it was an old western) was it, where the star/producer filmed everything in color, even though TV was all still B&W?

The Cisco Kid, which along with the aforementioned Adventures of Superman and Hopalong Cassidy were ZIV productions.

...
you must understand that Steve is obviously clueless
...
Even using his fingers,
...
He is also obviously clueless that
...
So again, as I said before Steve made his smart ass remark:
...
Thanks for keeping the discussion on a cerebral level.

As I stated before, it sure sounds like you think that there will never be significantly more HD in the future due to bandwidth constraints. You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. I understand it's not distribution, but Dish now carries six HD channels per transponder (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=794591) where before it was only two. DirecTV is promising a whole lot more HD channels in the near future, somehow finding a way to deliver them. C Band is what is used now, it doesn't mean that's it forever.

I don't think you're clueless or a smart ass, but I do think you might be a little lacking in social skills.

So first you attempt to explain what the OP meant - and now you openly change to your specs what the OP meant :rolleyes:

OK Karnak.

NGHD and Universal HD had HD programming as well, which makes one wonder if you know for sure that ESPN, ESPN2 and TNTHD (and even OTA PBS-HD) did not have HD programming on it.

Your kidding me right! Do this for yourself. Instead of taking my word for it or not, try watching the channels I listed above at say 1:50 in the afternoon and get back to me. My take is you don't have some of those channels and to question me only makes yourself look silly. Anyone in the Boston-Comcast market can validate what I just stated, the only channel that I caught between programs was PBS so granted that could have been added to the HD broadcast list to make it 5 channels but at that particular moment they were not. I will not count TNT stetch-o-vision as HD sorry. Oh and I forgot to add The CW who also were not showing HD material so it is 18 channels after all. So I guess I don't have to be Karnak to predict the present, just myself.

The Cisco Kid, which along with the aforementioned Adventures of Superman and Hopalong Cassidy were ZIV productions.

I left out The Lone Ranger, another ZIV production.

Thanks for keeping the discussion on a cerebral level.

As I stated before, it sure sounds like you think that there will never be significantly more HD in the future due to bandwidth constraints. You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. I understand it's not distribution, but Dish now carries six HD channels per transponder (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=794591) where before it was only two. DirecTV is promising a whole lot more HD channels in the near future, somehow finding a way to deliver them. C Band is what is used now, it doesn't mean that's it forever.

I don't think you're clueless or a smart ass, but I do think you might be a little lacking in social skills.
We're not talking about direct to consumer distribution here. We're talking network feeds. Those take waaayyyy more bandwidth than the crap we get at home. That's why you can only fit the two streams per transponder. A network stream is usually at least double even the best home distributed stream.

The following HD Channels did not

PBS
CBS
ABC
NBC
ABC-NH Affiliate
WSBK-DT
FOX
ESPN
ESPN2
NESN
NGHD
TNTHD
UniversalHD

Except for the commercials Universal HD always has HD programming. It may be of questionable quality but it is HD.

We're not talking about direct to consumer distribution here. We're talking network feeds. Those take waaayyyy more bandwidth than the crap we get at home. That's why you can only fit the two streams per transponder. A network stream is usually at least double even the best home distributed stream.
And that's why I said "I understand it's not distribution, but...". It's an example of something very close to Moore's Law, which has been predicted to hit a dead end every year for the last 25 or so, but keeps rolling along. Why should we believe that HDTV has hit a dead end because C Band satellite space is limited?

Is DirecTV totally blowing smoke about the channels they plan to add?

And that's why I said "I understand it's not distribution, but...".
Which made it a flawed arguement and irrelevent to why more networks aren't going HD.

My argument is that it's ridiculous to think that the growth of HD broadcasting is going to grind to a halt anytime soon. Call it whatever you like.

You and HDTVFanatic are obviously the experts, not me. Is the distribution bandwidth we have today all we will ever have forever and ever?

My argument is that it's ridiculous to think that the growth of HD broadcasting is going to grind to a halt anytime soon. Call it whatever you like.

You and HDTVFanatic are obviously the experts, not me. Is the distribution bandwidth we have today all we will ever have forever and ever?

Of course not. However, we're quickly approaching the point where only higher bandwidth replacement satellites and better compression technologies will provide the free space for all this additional programming. Launching more satellites is not a long-term solution to the problem.

Of course, even greater bandwidth is is an issue as there are still only so many transmission frequencies available. New technology, similar to that used by DBS companies for spotbeaming LIL, will help. It's only a band-aid, though. In the end, the lack of orbital locations is a major hurdle to overcome.

So how is DirecTV going to pull off their promised expansion this year?

So how is DirecTV going to pull off their promised expansion this year?
Because they have licenses for the spots they are sending birds to. In addition, some of the new birds were/are replacements older, less efficient ones that will ride tandom as backup units.

I guess it's true, I really am clueless. You said I was making a flawed argument, talking about network distribution vs consumer distribution, but it seems like you're talking about the consumer end as well.

I know DirecTV is launching new satellites for their distribution to consumers, but how are all the new HD networks listed below going to get their feeds to DirecTV if there is no more bandwidth available for that?

HDTV Notebook
NBCU, Turner, CNN to Launch HD Networks
CNN HD to debut in September
By James Hibberd Television Week January 9, 2007

USA Network, Sci Fi Channel, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN and other channels are readying to launch simulcast high-definition networks by the end of the year.

CNN announced plans to launch an HD network in September at its opening session at the Television Critics Association's semiannual press tour, while an NBC Universal spokesperson confirmed the company will launch a "suite of HD networks." NBCU would not set an exact time table. A Turner spokesperson also confirmed HD networks for TBS and Cartoon Network.

The news comes a day after DirecTV's announcement at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that it has HD carriage agreements with 60 cable networks. DirecTV cited USA, Sci Fi, FX, CNN, Cartoon Network, TBS and several other channels among the brands with agreements. The satellite provider plans to launch 100 HD channels by the end of the year as part of its strategy to expand its HD offerings.

Though all major cable networks are eventually expected to have HD simulcasts, none of the networks DirecTV cited had previously announced plans to launch HD networks.

CNN announced its plans Tuesday morning at its panel. Spokespeople for NBC Universal and Turner confirmed plans to launch their HD networks shortly after. A spokesman for Fox Cable Networks Group representing FX had not yet returned a call.

The confirmations represent the largest number of networks to commit to HD upgrades all at once. DirecTV's launching of two new satellites in 2007, combined with the satellite service's push for more HD content, has been a tipping point for a host of major networks previously biding their time before taking the plunge to HD.

The moves will dramatically expand the number of HD viewing options for consumers, who have long griped about the scarcity of HD content.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11336

I guess it's true, I really am clueless. You said I was making a flawed argument, talking about network distribution vs consumer distribution, but it seems like you're talking about the consumer end as well.

I know DirecTV is launching new satellites for their distribution to consumers, but how are all the new HD networks listed below going to get their feeds to DirecTV if there is no more bandwidth available for that?
First come first serve. Why do you think networks like ESPN launched their HD channels so quickly? They understood the need to stake a claim in the satellite spectrum - both for their transmission, as well as in the bandwidth of the channel providers. The upcoming networks like SciFi, USA and such will be able to find the space to provide their channel to the various providers - whether the providers have the bandwidth to relay it is another issue.

However, by the time it gets down to some of the smaller networks going HD a few years from now, they could potentially find themselves frozen out. Turner Classic Movies, for example, keeps putting off the switchover - perhaps to their peril. They may very well have to resort to alternative means to send out an HD signal, such as fiber (which would be extrememly expensive in comparison). Then, once they get the channel out there, they may find many channel providers unwilling to add the channel due to their own bandwidth limitations.

BTW: I brought up consumer distribution because you mentioned DirecTV.

Your kidding me right! Do this for yourself. Instead of taking my word for it or not, try watching the channels I listed above at say 1:50 in the afternoon and get back to me. My take is you don't have some of those channels and to question me only makes yourself look silly.
As others have already pointed out, UniversalHD is always HD. If you see Northern Exposure in the 4:3 OAR in Univ-HD, that is indeed HD. National Geographic HD is mostly HD from what I have seen, although I expect they do some widescreen SD upconverts. TNT-HD, as we all know, is very hit or miss on HD.

But we are quibbling over 4 out of 18 or 5 or 6 out of 18 channels in real HD. Weekday afternoons are all but HD free zones on the broadcast networks, except for 1 afternoon soap on CBS. OTOH, I recall turning on the TV the Sunday afternoon before last and being impressed that there were sports events on all of the big four broadcast networks in HD. IIRC, it was motorsports on Fox, NHL on NBC, golf on CBS, and basketball on ABC. Four different sports; all in HD. I have had a HD TV for over 2 years and this counts as measurable progress. Sure I would like to see all network programming on the commercial broadcast networks to be HD, but we are still a few years from that happening.

If you want to increase the percentage of HD on your channel line-up, get Comcast (I assume this is your cable provider) to add HDNet & HDNet-Movies, get TNT-HD to show all movies in HD, and add more of the newer HD channels. Someday we will get to the point where we will turn on the TV and be able to say: "100 HD channels and nothing that I want to watch. And they say there is no progress!" :D

I guess it's true, I really am clueless.



You posted something we both agree on.


You said I was making a flawed argument, talking about network distribution vs consumer distribution, but it seems like you're talking about the consumer end as well.



Ku band is not good for distributing programming. It goes out in bad weather. Look up Rain Fade.

Or search for all the horror posts of NBC HD which is the only OTA network to try and use Ku for distribution - something that has comeback to haunt them.

The signal kept dropping out over 2 weeks during the November sweeps in 2005 and the opening weekend of the 2006 Olympics come to mind.


I know DirecTV is launching new satellites for their distribution to consumers, but how are all the new HD networks listed below going to get their feeds to DirecTV if there is no more bandwidth available for that?

Directv is using Ka band which is even MORE Skiddish than Ku band. A good fog can kill Ka band reception.

As for E* and D* putting 6 channels on a transponder, as noted its a Ku or Ka transponder - and second your TV nor your cable box can show MPEG4 material. It has to be converted to MPEG2 for your TV to display and you loose quality in that conversion. If TV's will ever show MPEG4 natively, it won't happen for this decade.

The cable boxes cannot convert the MPEG4 to MPEG2 so your TV can see them - and again, EVERY cable box in the USA would have to be replaced again. And those these boxes probably exist somewhere in the world, they would take 5+ years to roll out in the USA.

How is CNN going HD? Go through the charts and see how many transponders CNN already is on. They will just move some backup transponder space to HD. As they have been around for so long, they have that ability. Most don't.

How is NBCU going to do it? Simple! We have seen this coming for months now as the bitrates for Universal HD was cut yet again about 3 months ago.

They will just drop the bitrate on 131W Transponder 24 even more.

There is a reason why the same titles on Universal HD that had a bitrate over 11Mbps a year ago now have a bitrate in the 7s and 8s.

CLEARLY, more bandwidth will be needed. It's just not here today.

As others have already pointed out, UniversalHD is always HD. If you see Northern Exposure in the 4:3 OAR in Univ-HD, that is indeed HD. National Geographic HD is mostly HD from what I have seen, although I expect they do some widescreen SD upconverts. TNT-HD, as we all know, is very hit or miss on HD.

But we are quibbling over 4 out of 18 or 5 or 6 out of 18 channels in real HD.

No, not at all - as he started his No HD in afternoon by stating what the OP meant.

The OP said specifically PREMIUM CHANNEL - HE DOESNT WATCH OTA TV.

So of the 18, 10 were so called Premiums.

Even if ESPN and ESPN2 were not in HD (something that we don't know giving his track record of calling UHD non-HD) and TNT-HD was stretched, thats still 70%....not 4 out 18.

Wow you are charming aren't you?
... your TV nor your cable box can show MPEG4 material. It has to be converted to MPEG2 for your TV to display and you loose quality in that conversion. If TV's will ever show MPEG4 natively, it won't happen for this decade.

The cable boxes cannot convert the MPEG4 to MPEG2 so your TV can see them - and again, EVERY cable box in the USA would have to be replaced again. And those these boxes probably exist somewhere in the world, they would take 5+ years to roll out in the USA.
Now that's clueless. :D

IMO, this entire thread is clueless.

To start with, the OP obviously gave it the wrong headline and hasn't bothered to edit it.

Given what he says he watches, and the disdain he has for the 150 hours of prime-time HD programs many people enjoy, (and many more hours of easily-accessible cable networks) I'd say his mistake was simple: not doing his homework but still purchasing an HD receiver in the first place.

(By the way, if the OP can even confuse Ken H, Lord help the rest of us.)

I think the OP raised a valid point, and whenever it comes up (often) there are always a crew of SD apologists who spring into action. HD cameras are too fragile for Survivor, Amazing Race has too many locations, nobody cares about Deal Or No Deal, there aren't enough post houses, there's not enough satellite bandwidth, etc etc.

I think it primarily boils down to shortsightedness and cheapness on the part of producers and networks. When a show is produced in an HD studio with HD gear and sent out via an HD network in SD, you really have to question the motives and foresight of the powers that be.

I think it primarily boils down to shortsightedness and cheapness on the part of producers and networks.I think you have little understanding of how the television business works.

Ask Endemol how HD helped their reality competition on ABC last summer compared to their Deal or No Deal on NBC in SD. I don't think they have alot of motivation for HD in the foreseeable future.

I think the OP raised a valid point, and whenever it comes up (often) there are always a crew of SD apologists who spring into action. HD cameras are too fragile for Survivor, Amazing Race has too many locations, nobody cares about Deal Or No Deal, there aren't enough post houses, there's not enough satellite bandwidth, etc etc.

I think it primarily boils down to shortsightedness and cheapness on the part of producers and networks. When a show is produced in an HD studio with HD gear and sent out via an HD network in SD, you really have to question the motives and foresight of the powers that be.

If you are so friggen brilliant and you want to be make 8 digits in income this year, why don't you tell us all how to get all this bandwidth NOW - this year.

The cable companies would easily pay that if it could be done.

A Ku transponder on E*'s 119W is being leased for the going Ku rate of $150,000 a month - and C Band space is sky high compared to that.

Program Providers would love to hear it. They could save millions and you would be rich.

So please, Mr. Genius, who doesn't believe the "excuses" tell us how you can do what no one else has been able to accomplish? :rolleyes:

PS - and god forbid you'd ever realize its lighting that is the issue with HD on remote locations - not cameras at this point. If the Superbowl in the rain this year didn't teach you anything about PQ, nothing ever will.

No, not at all - as he started his No HD in afternoon by stating what the OP meant.

The OP said specifically PREMIUM CHANNEL - HE DOESNT WATCH OTA TV.

So of the 18, 10 were so called Premiums.

Even if ESPN and ESPN2 were not in HD (something that we don't know giving his track record of calling UHD non-HD) and TNT-HD was stretched, thats still 70%....not 4 out 18.

70% of the HD channels in mid-afternoon have no HD on them so what is it you can't comprehend. Even if UHD was HD and thats questionable that makes 6 out of 18 and you are saying that is something we should be happy about? In relation to the OP I had originally stated that if he had turned on the TV in the afternoon he might have a valid point or question. So what is your argument? Since you question my track record maybe if it came from Ken H who I know has Comcast and can verify most of those stations will you believe him. Again sorry this is so confusing for you but all the above is fact so just deal with it instead of trying to belittle people who disagree with your point of view.

Ken H, it's quite astute of you to guess that I have never worked in the television industry.

TVOD, you are confirming my belief that a desire to save incremental costs by putting out a "good enough" product is the primary motivator for SD production on an HD network. This has historically worked well for mature industries until they were vanquished by quicker, nimbler, more foresighted competitors who included technical innovations and product quality as design goals.

HDTVFanatic, what can I say.

To all of you, seriously, why the hostility?

And one more: Why was Rockstar:SuperNova shown in SD? Bonus points for not mentioning bandwidth problems.

70% of the HD channels in mid-afternoon have no HD on them so what is it you can't comprehend. Even if UHD was HD and thats questionable that makes 6 out of 18 and you are saying that is something we should be happy about? In relation to the OP I had originally stated that if he had turned on the TV in the afternoon he might have a valid point or question. So what is your argument? Since you question my track record maybe if it came from Ken H who I know has Comcast and can verify most of those stations will you believe him. Again sorry this is so confusing for you but all the above is fact so just deal with it instead of trying to belittle people who disagree with your point of view.

And what percentage of the TV-viewing public is available in mid-afternoon?

On top of that, what percentage of the most desireable 18-49 demo is available?

If you look carefully at the options (especially on the premium cable networks) you will see what in what esteem the networks hold those viewers. And it obviously isn't much.

And why should those premium networks spend an extra dollar buying shows in HD which no one will be watching? Their dollars are far better spent on big-ticket items which will draw in viewers by the millions, not the tens of thousands.

And what percentage of the TV-viewing public is available in mid-afternoon?

On top of that, what percentage of the most desireable 18-49 demo is available?

If you look carefully at the options (especially on the premium cable networks) you will see what in what esteem the networks hold those viewers. And it obviously isn't much.

And why should those premium networks spend an extra dollar buying shows in HD which no one will be watching? Their dollars are far better spent on big-ticket items which will draw in viewers by the millions, not the tens of thousands.

Again I will try to make this as simple as possible. In relation to the Title of this thread and the OP's corresponding post, I said if he turned his TV on in mid-afternoon he might have a point or valid arguement due to the lack of HD programming during this time period. The fact that for myself on one recent afternoon there were only 5 or 6 channels out of the 18 that I currently subscribe too that was actually showing HD was being used as a point of reference of my response to his question. There is NO argument that this is not the case, nowhere am I comparing it to primetime where most everything is in HD and of course has a much higher viewership. This is the only point I was trying to make but others want to twist it around and use their own perspective in trying to discredit my argument when there is NOTHING to discredit! I am really baffled by the response here. :confused:

Thanks for the condescension, Lodef. I truly appreciate things being made simple. But since you mentioned it, I'll not again that this thread, as the OP him or herself noted, is innacurate.

It is also true there is very little HD programming at 3 AM. So I am wondering is why you would expect networks to pay extra to show their HD product in a time period when there are (relatively) few viewers. Or apparently be surprised or upset that they don't.

I am sorry you -- or the OP -- only had five or six HD choices in mid afternoon. But in most cases networks sign contracts with production companies giving them a certain number of showings of a program or movie for their money. Thus they want to expose it to the most possible people when they do show it. That is why so often during daytime you find the Class B or C movies -- or owned programs -- available on premium channels.

It would be silly for providers to burn up their high quality HD product when so few people are available to watch it. Stockholders would not be happy.

That is why most major sports events aren't played in the daytime. Why movie theaters -- certainly in smaller cities -- don't open until dinner time. Why you can't get a top-flight meal at many first class restuarants at 3 PM.

So the answer is simple: the potential audience -- at least for the moment -- just isn't worth the investment it takes to burn off HD programming by every premium channel in mid afternoon.

(And the answer to the question asked in the title of the post is a) yes, because HD programs attract viewers advertisers want to reach and because in the future HD programs will do better in syndication and DVD sales and b) in most cases, no, not yet.

Thanks for the condescension, Lodef. I truly appreciate things being made simple. But since you mentioned it, I'll not again that this thread, as the OP him or herself noted, is innacurate.

It is also true there is very little HD programming at 3 AM. So I am wondering is why you would expect networks to pay extra to show their HD product in a time period when there are (relatively) few viewers. Or apparently be surprised or upset that they don't.

I am sorry you -- or the OP -- only had five or six HD choices in mid afternoon. But in most cases networks sign contracts with production companies giving them a certain number of showings of a program or movie for their money. Thus they want to expose it to the most possible people when they do show it. That is why so often during daytime you find the Class B or C movies -- or owned programs -- available on premium channels.

It would be silly for providers to burn up their high quality HD product when so few people are available to watch it. Stockholders would not be happy.

That is why most major sports events aren't played in the daytime. Why movie theaters -- certainly in smaller cities -- don't open until dinner time. Why you can't get a top-flight meal at many first class restuarants at 3 PM.

So the answer is simple: the potential audience -- at least for the moment -- just isn't worth the investment it takes to burn off HD programming by every premium channel in mid afternoon.

(And the answer to the question asked in the title of the post is a) yes, because HD programs attract viewers advertisers want to reach and because in the future HD programs will do better in syndication and DVD sales and b) in most cases, no, not yet.

I give up! point loss. All I was trying to do is figure out what perception led the OP to conclude he had to ask this question in the first place and I responded that maybe he tuned in during the mid-afternoon when there is a lack of HD instead of prime-time when it is the opposite. I myself was not looking for these answers so I guess that was my mistake in not clarifying that. If I offended anyone I'm sorry. Time to move on.

70% of the HD channels in mid-afternoon have no HD on them so what is it you can't comprehend. Even if UHD was HD and thats questionable that makes 6 out of 18 and you are saying that is something we should be happy about?

Again, the OP said What I meant was the premium content. I have no interest in most OTA tv, anyway.

Try reading before posting....but no, you decided to tell us what the OP meant:

Do any of you watch TV during the mid -afternoon? Well I do and I have 18 HD channels and do you know how many of them were actually showing HD material? The answer 4!!!. Thats right only 4 of those stations had an HD broadcast going . Maybe this is what the OP was referring too when he started this thread. If so then he has a valid point and that old adage about timing being everything, could apply here.

So we asked you for the 18 Premium Content Channels - and then you started really sinking - first you only had 17 total - and only 10 were Premium Content.

Then you start telling us that UHD does SD Programming and started going down for the third time.

The facts are thats are 70% OR MORE of the Premiums had HD on when you watched them. You chose to include all OTA channels, didn't know how many channels you actually had - and also claims that stations that only show HD Programming weren't.

What's so hard to understand about that? It's clear from your statements that you can't tell HD anyway - so its hard to say that the it was as low as 70% of the Premium Content Channels as it easily could have been higher based on your track record.

The thread's OP set the paremeters for the topic - not you - even though you attempted your best to say the OP meant something he did not.

No problem Lodef--sometimes we all jump the gun a little. I am probably more guilty than you.

If I offended, please acccept my apology.

Again, the OP said

Try reading before posting....but no, you decided to tell us what the OP meant:



So we asked you for the 18 Premium Content Channels - and then you started really sinking - first you only had 17 total - and only 10 were Premium Content.

Then you start telling us that UHD does SD Programming and started going down for the third time.

The facts are thats are 70% OR MORE of the Premiums had HD on when you watched them. You chose to include all OTA channels, didn't know how many channels you actually had - and also claims that stations that only show HD Programming weren't.

What's so hard to understand about that? It's clear from your statements that you can't tell HD anyway - so its hard to say that the it was as low as 70% of the Premium Content Channels as it easily could have been higher based on your track record.

The thread's OP set the paremeters for the topic - not you - even though you attempted your best to say the OP meant something he did not.

LOL! yep your right.

No problem Lodef--sometimes we all jump the gun a little. I am probably more guilty than you.

If I offended, please acccept my apology.

Feelings are mutual fredfa, Thanks.

To all of you, seriously, why the hostility?I have no hostitlity regarding this matter.

Having said that, I often wonder why members that post here are so reluctant to try and understand what they are told by those in the television industry, about how it works and why things are the way they are.

I have no hostitlity regarding this matter.

Having said that, I often wonder why members that post here are so reluctant to try and understand what they are told by those in the television industry, about how it works and why things are the way they are.
Ok not hostile, how about passive aggressive? Excuse me for not bowing down to industry insiders' opinions at all times.

Please tell me which part I fail to understand. There is enough bandwidth in the universe for new HD networks, there is infrastructure in place for at least all network primetime shows to be produced and shown in HD, what there is lacking is a commitment on the part of producers and network execs. You don't have to be an industry expert to see that. TVOD confirmed it - there are other higher budget priorities. That's reality. I think it's a dumb decision. Just my outsider opinion.

I even watch commercials when they are in HD.

I used to watch HD shows that I didn't particularly care for just because it looked better than SD shows.

Excuse me, but I need to go watch the Dish Network HD screen test now.

I used to watch HD shows that I didn't particularly care for just because it looked better than SD shows.

That lasted about two weeks for me. After I had seen the same air tour of Chicago, Washington and Boston about 40 times and the 90's Sony demo programs of the mountains and oceans and rain forrests, I went back to content. If it is in HD, I watch it. If it is SD, I watch it. A good book is better than some bad HD program.

That lasted about two weeks for me. After I had seen the same air tour of Chicago, Washington and Boston about 40 times and the 90's Sony demo programs of the mountains and oceans and rain forrests, I went back to content. If it is in HD, I watch it. If it is SD, I watch it. A good book is better than some bad HD program.

True for me too, but not completely. Before HD I had mostly given up on TV except for news. Then for awhile I'd watch anything in HD. Now I'll only watch shows I like, HD or not. But there are very few shows I like good enough to watch in SD.

For instance in Gainesville there is no NBC HD. There are two shows I like on NBC, Heroes and Medium. I like Heroes enough I'll often watch it live, even in analog and seeing the commercials, though in a smaller window in the background of my PC/projector. I also like Medium but not as much so I would usually wait a day or so and download a better (but still not HD) quality one from the net somewhere. And some weeks I don't bother with Medium at all, even though I probably would if it was HD here. I never bother to record it myself in analog.

- Tom

While I no longer watch many shows in HD just because they are in HD (with the exception of maybe those on Discovery-HD), what is clear is that I watch much more TV now than I did pre-HD. I would guesstimate that my overall TV viewing has gone up at least 25% since I purchased my first HD set 4 years ago.

SD programming has to be extraordinary to gain my interest (Prime Suspect comes to mind). Sporting events in particular hold almost no interest for me if they are in SD unless it is the few teams I follow closely. Same with movie channels in SD.

I would agree I watch more TV now than I did pre-HD, but most of my view is not HD though.

I used to watch HD shows that I didn't particularly care for just because it looked better than SD shows.


I did that for a couple weeks myself. I still do to some extent. If I'm in the mood to watch some college basketball and there are a few games going on between teams I don't have a rooting interest in, I'll watch the game that is in HD. Same for all sports.

This thread really got me thinking about my viewing habits. I only watch a fraction of the amount of TV I used to. I guess I feel like everybody I talk to, lots of channels but nothing but junk. Here are the shows we watch:

Survivor
The Amazing Race
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
This Old House Hour
Antique Roadshow
New Yankee Workshop

I believe that is 0 for HD shows. There are some shows I like to catch that are in HD, basically just sports and Nova, which I believe isn't HD, just upconverted. So I do get some use out of ESPNHD and ESPN2HD but that's pretty much it for the premium channels. I think after my Comcast promo rate expires I'll drop down to their lifeline package.