CNBC to Throw High-Def Switch in Fall

CNBC HD+ will offer about 50% more graphical information by taking advantage of the extra onscreen space and improved resolution of the widescreen HD picture

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/17/2007 12:01:00 AM

Financial news network CNBC will launch a high-definition service this fall in an innovative fashion: by grabbing its existing 4:3 picture, shifting it to the left, and filling the widescreen frame with a bevy of 3D graphics displaying the latest market metrics.

The new network, branded CNBC HD+, will initially be carried by DirecTV as part of its dramatic expansion of HD channels, though CNBC will be actively pitching it to cable operators as well.

With its novel production approach, it will be seeking to differentiate itself from the standard-def CNBC more on enhanced content than picture quality, though it will upconvert the 4:3 video to 1080-line-interlace (1080i) HD resolution. CNBC HD+ will offer about 50% more graphical information by taking advantage of the extra onscreen space and improved resolution of the widescreen HD picture, which allows the use of smaller graphic fonts.

“What we did was take a very nontraditional approach to HD,” says Steve Fastook, CNBC vice president of technical and commercial operations. “It would be relatively easy for me to replace all the cameras, make the studios all hi-def and be all happy. But it doesn't give viewers anything different than what's on CNBC [in the traditional world].”

CNBC HD+'s top ticker will feature five stock indices instead of the three in the standard-def, 4:3 network, while the scrolling stock ticker on the bottom can display three companies at once, instead of the current one in SD. More important, the right-hand side of the screen will now present a variety of dynamic content through 3D graphics, such as “Stocks to Watch,” price charts or earnings data, or lists of investment sectors such as treasuries, commodities and currencies.

“We're able to come up with much more in-depth stuff,” says Fastook. “We can drill down here even more deeply. So the investor will be able to sit there and watch this and get used to drawing their eye to the right panel.”

CNBC HD+ will also take streaming video from its Website, CNBC.com, and place it in a dedicated box in the lower right corner of the screen (the “+” in the new network's name is actually a tie-in to the Web subscription product CNBC Plus). Viewers who are interested in the Web video will be able to listen to the associated audio by simply pressing the SAP (Secondary Audio Program) button on their remote, as CNBC HD+ will transmit the Web audio as a secondary audio stream. The Web audio option should be a handy feature for investors trying to follow lengthy Federal Reserve briefings, Congressional hearings and the like.

All of CNBC's Business Day programs will be offered on CNBC HD+ including Squawk Box, Squawk on the Street, The Call, Power Lunch, Street Signs, Closing Bell w/ Maria Bartiromo and Kudlow & Company. Beginning next year, CNBC plans to produce its documentaries in high-definition. Those will be offered on CNBC HD+ in full-screen HD, says Fastook, with standard graphics bars running along the top and bottom of the screen.

CNBC started planning for the HD service about a year ago, before DirecTV formalized its HD expansion plans, as it recognized that a growing percentage of its viewers were adopting high-definition displays in their living rooms and offices and on the trading floor. Initially, the network thought about offering a center-cut 4:3 picture with graphic sidebars, but the limited space meant the graphics were too small to be of any value. That's when CNBC shifted its strategy to the left side of the screen.

“By sliding over, we really got a nice chunk of real estate to be able to put those indices and that in-depth data,” says Fastook.

CNBC HD+'s graphic-intensive production strategy is also cost-effective. Because the network isn't buying new HD cameras, upgrading sets for widescreen camera positions, or creating a dedicated HD control room, the HD launch only represents about a $3 million investment—less than many local stations have spent to launch HD newscasts.

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6478890.html

I suggested this a few years ago, for news and info channels. I'm not sure it's such a bad idea.

Comments?

Good for them. We don't really need to see CNBC programming in 16:9, and they've found a nice use for the extra screen space.

I know traditionalists seem to think that all HD should be 16:9, but there's really no point on programming with one person in the middle of the screen and tons of wasted space to either side. I'd be interested to see sports news programs take this approach.

Do I understand this correctly....the PQ will not be HD?

I love the idea of having more information on the screen, but I still want to see CNBC use HD equipment and improve the PQ.

Do I understand this correctly....the PQ will not be HD?Correct. The 4:3 images will be upconverted to HD, but that does not always mean a bad result. For an example of what a good upconversion looks like, see any number of FOX programs, including FOX Sunday News and the FOX NFL pre-game show. Many uninitiated HD viewers confuse these programs with native HDTV.

What is a question, is the graphics. If they are native HD, the overall result would be fine for most applications. I would strongly think in time CNBC will upgrade to full HD.

This has nothing to do with PQ, only with money.

The entire conversion costs CNBC about $3 million and, as the B&C story notes, most local TV stations pay more for that when they convert their news operation.

It may or may not end up being acceptable PQ. But is is very acceptable to the GE bean counters and their foolish NBC 2.0 cost-cutting strategy.

This bare bones and cheap approach is NOT the way to counter the challenge from Fox Business Channel.

I think they are on to something by not using the entire frame for talking heads, but in studio shots should still be in HD.

This could be a nice phase in. CNBC had several options when converting to HD, and this is definitely something their viewers will enjoy. (After all, don't most people watch this for stock info and analysis?)

I'm thinking this will buy them some time to convert news and studios over to HD. I'm curious as to how the final result will look.

Another option for CNBC would have simply been to crop the SD video to 16:9. The graphics on the current 4:3 setup do this almost perfectly.



Will this be part of Wednesday's launch or later on?

Swanni's latest call to arms:D:

Folks, when CNBC HD+ launches, don't watch it. Instead, send a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking for an investigation of how CNBC HD can call itself HD when it's not in HD.

We'll need the FTC to investigate because you know that CNBC won't investigate itself.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/cnbcfraud091707.htm

what a crock, they are using the additional space for graphics and tickers.

I wouldn't mind this so much if they didn't actually call it HD. If it was CNBC-ED, then I'd be ok with everything.

This channel is just going to mainly be seen on all those LCD/Plasma displays that are hanging in the halls of corporate buildings anyway. Its not really a big need to for true HD there, just needs to look better than the stretched SD that likely is in use now.

I wouldn't mind this so much if they didn't actually call it HD. If it was CNBC-ED, then I'd be ok with everything.

Exactly. But what they're doing is misleading on the surface. The channel will be called CNBC HD+ but there won't be any HD coming out of their NJ studios. Crazy!

CNBC is one of the lowest rated news-related channels when compared to other channels. I am totally against all the garbage network executives keep adding to their programs. If I want to watch the news, I don't want to be interrupted with all the moving tickers and banners and pop ups and any other obnoxious and intrusive distractions network executives dream up. Yes it's just an information channel, but, where does it end. We are seeing this crap infringing on many other network programs, even premium-pay channels like Showtime. I think Lewis Black hit the head on the nail in his monologue at the Emmys. Kudos to him for saying what he believes. I hope network executives hear the message. We don't want all this crap interfering with our enjoyment of the programming we are watching. The bigger question is...do network executives really care what we think or want?

In my opinion, this is a shame. Bloomberg runs its channel this way, and I always hated it. In fact, I refuse to watch it because its just too busy.

whats going on with MSNBC HD

We do EXACTLY the same thing with KSL WeatherPlus. We insert the NBC WeatherPlus (with local content included) on the left, and add a sponsored "Community Calendar" on the right.

BUT....we do it in 16:9 Standard-Definition (480i WS). It looks fine, and it doesn't hog bandwidth like an "HD" signal. Even the Digital Cable folks take the feed that way.

I am totally against all the garbage network executives keep adding to their programs.
...
...do network executives really care what we think or want?

To me the real question is why do the "news" channels present garbage instead of news.

We do EXACTLY the same thing with KSL WeatherPlus. We insert the NBC WeatherPlus (with local content included) on the left, and add a sponsored "Community Calendar" on the right.

BUT....we do it in 16:9 Standard-Definition (480i WS). It looks fine, and it doesn't hog bandwidth like an "HD" signal. Even the Digital Cable folks take the feed that way.

The difference is you don't call it HD.

the in-studio footage won't be HD but there's no denying that the final product will be 1080i video featuring native 1080i graphics and tickers. Remember we're talking about CNBC here, the BUSINESS news channel, as opposed to general news like MSNBC. All those tickers are convenient and have a purpose. Being in HD they can make the text smaller and still quite readable. If I am ever in the situation where I would need to watch CNBC, I would very much prefer to see the HD version.

If you read the description, the studio video is not the dominant material being displayed anyway. It will be a 4:3 image crammed into the left side of the screen with a ticker above, a large ticker below, and additional info on the right side of the screen. SD studio footage at this size will probably look very nice crammed into the small available space.

the in-studio footage won't be HD but there's no denying that the final product will be 1080i video featuring native 1080i graphics and tickers.

If the in-studio footage won't be HD, how the end product (the picture you see on your tv) going to be 1080i video? The guy said they will not have any hd cameras and he said it will be an upconvert from 480i. An upconverted 480i signal is not HD. That would be equal to saying that someone with a 480p upconverting dvd player is actually watching a HD picture when the user selects upconvert. They're not watching the same picture that you would get by watching a HD-DVD player or a Blu Ray dvd player.

They should call it CNBC Widescreen. Our PBS station shows Widescreen that is not HD and that is what they call it, Widescreen.

There are too many companies trying to cash in on the HD label. They are going to create a mess. HD will cease to have any meaning. Any companies that feel there is value in the high image quality of HD should get together and create a registered logo that can be used to identify content that meets a strict set of quality guidelines. I suspect the term HD can no longer be registered for this purpose. Something like RealHD, TrueHD, CertifiedHD, MaxHD, or other term with a logo would work.

Correct. The 4:3 images will be upconverted to HD, but that does not always mean a bad result. For an example of what a good upconversion looks like, see any number of FOX programs, including FOX Sunday News and the FOX NFL pre-game show. Many uninitiated HD viewers confuse these programs with native HDTV.

What is a question, is the graphics. If they are native HD, the overall result would be fine for most applications. I would strongly think in time CNBC will upgrade to full HD.

Wait. I'm not even an uninitiated HD viewer. Fox News Sunday is not HD?

I suggested this a few years ago, for news and info channels. I'm not sure it's such a bad idea.

Comments?

It will look like the Bloomberg Channel with better resolution.

It will look like the Bloomberg Channel with better resolution.

If it looks like Bloomberg I won't watch anymore no matter how nice Becky Quick looks.

It will look like the Bloomberg Channel with better resolution.

JDoe wrote exactly what I was thinking. I watch both CNBC and Bloomburg, I like the extra information Bloomburg provides though I like the personalities (like Maria) on CNBC better.

From the info I see in this thread, the graphics will not be in HD, but even if upconverted to 1080i they should be fine. Business channels don't have a lot of footballs flying across the screen.

I hope Dish gets the new and improved version when available. (I just re-upped with Dish.)

Regards,
Fitzie

ABC did the same thing during their election coverage - nothing new. Here's a link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=8843285&postcount=916) mentioning it. Did Swanni call for a Federal Trade Commission investigation of ABC?

By their logic, my local news has been in HDTV for years!
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb122/stephenkurtzke/4HD-1.jpg
And it even has black bars on the left and right to help keep you focused on the action.

At least the graphics will be HD.
(If they aren't, where exactly is that $3m going? :confused:)

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20070917220828/www.broadcastingcable.com/articles/images/BCST/library/SQUAWK_BOX_KERNAN.jpg

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6479282.html

From the info I see in this thread, the graphics will not be in HD
The graphics will be in HD. The only part that will be SD is the box on the left containing the talking head. All of the info graphics will be HD.

Yes that's what I've been trying to say. If you classify that "EVERY PIECE OF THE PICTURE HAS TO BE HD ALL THE TIME" to be considered HD, then nothing we watch on TV is really HD since the commercials are not, some replays in football games are not, many HD presentations are HD with some elements but have to upconvert other elements and that is exactly what is going on here. the graphics are HD AND NOT UPCONVERTED. It's just the talking head that is upconverted.

I can't understand how anyone would consider it not HD.

Yes that's what I've been trying to say. If you classify that "EVERY PIECE OF THE PICTURE HAS TO BE HD ALL THE TIME" to be considered HD, then nothing we watch on TV is really HD since the commercials are not, some replays in football games are not, many HD presentations are HD with some elements but have to upconvert other elements and that is exactly what is going on here. the graphics are HD AND NOT UPCONVERTED. It's just the talking head that is upconverted.

I can't understand how anyone would consider it not HD.

Dude, what you said above makes no sense. Who in their right mind thinks that a commercial is part of a show? No one! People on these boards nor normal people in society think that. As such no one says, "Hey, that commercial wasn't in HD so gosh darn it, that show isn't in HD". And replays in a game are part of the game, sure! But the product that people care and that we actual watch closely b/c that's where all the action takes place, is the actual gameplay which is in HD so who cares if the replays aren't. Say what you want the shows on CNBC HD+ are not going to be in HD. The graphics, ok but I'm still unsure about that b/c the article doesn't even mention the graphics being in HD. But the graphics aren't the show. The show is a bunch of talking heads. I don't see why we're still questioning this when it is stated as clear as day in the article straight from the guys mouth.

It's not HD. It is a upconvert from 480i. The source is not 1080i so at its core it's not HD. Ok! What about that don't you get? I don't understand how you can consider this HD b/c no one else in this thread does. People come to this forum to get information. If you're putting out bad info then who are they to believe? It's not HD bro so stop with your foolishness.

It sounds like many others have made up their minds already without actually having seen the results, but the idea is intriguing to me.

The talking head is just that, a talking head. How many people are fixated on the person talking vs. the information that is being displayed on the screen, or just listening to what is being said?

I think it's very closed-minded to think that every HD channel must be an exact duplication of the SD channel, just with HD cameras. There's a lot of screen real estate that can be used if the talking head is restricted to a 4:3 space, and if you've seen the Olympics or other well-produced sporting events, you know that the graphics in HD are tack-sharp and the resolution and extra screen real estate should allow them to do a good job of delivering on their goals.

That little screen capture on the linked article's page is too small to get a good feel for how things will be laid out. I'd like to see a full size version of that screen, but I'll bet the end result will be pretty nice.

There is content that doesn't need to be widescreen, just as some movies are 1.85:1 and some are 2.35:1. If they compose the primary content the way that's most appropriate, and then the "leftover" space allows for extra value, I think that's great!

Imagine other uses for this kind of layout, such as sporting events, where the scores or other stats could run down the side of the screen instead of scrolling horizontally over the content (this may or may not work with NASCAR, for example).

Would the opposition to this be as severe if the talking-head portion of the image were not upsampled, but just took up a 648 x 486 (Standard NTSC resolution) inset frame? It almost seems like people are getting bent out of shape because of the upsampling...

It sounds like many others have made up their minds already without actually having seen the results, but the idea is intriguing to me.

The talking head is just that, a talking head. How many people are fixated on the person talking vs. the information that is being displayed on the screen, or just listening to what is being said?

I think it's very closed-minded to think that every HD channel must be an exact duplication of the SD channel, just with HD cameras. There's a lot of screen real estate that can be used if the talking head is restricted to a 4:3 space, and if you've seen the Olympics or other well-produced sporting events, you know that the graphics in HD are tack-sharp and the resolution and extra screen real estate should allow them to do a good job of delivering on their goals.

That little screen capture on the linked article's page is too small to get a good feel for how things will be laid out. I'd like to see a full size version of that screen, but I'll bet the end result will be pretty nice.

There is content that doesn't need to be widescreen, just as some movies are 1.85:1 and some are 2.35:1. If they compose the primary content the way that's most appropriate, and then the "leftover" space allows for extra value, I think that's great!

Imagine other uses for this kind of layout, such as sporting events, where the scores or other stats could run down the side of the screen instead of scrolling horizontally over the content (this may or may not work with NASCAR, for example).

Would the opposition to this be as severe if the talking-head portion of the image were not upsampled, but just took up a 648 x 486 (Standard NTSC resolution) inset frame? It almost seems like people are getting bent out of shape because of the upsampling...

All well said. Just don't label your channel CNBC HD if ain't HD. Simple as that!

CNBC to Throw High-Def Switch in Fall
By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/17/2007 12:01:00 AM

“What we did was take a very nontraditional approach to HD,”

Yep - very "nontraditional". They're taking the "High Definition" out of "High Definition TV". Genius, what mavericks. :rolleyes:

It sounds like many others have made up their minds already without actually having seen the results, but the idea is intriguing to me.

That's because they are calling it an "HD" channel, but it isn't HD. What they're doing can be easily accomplished with a letterboxed SD feed on the SD channel. If they want to reformat the graphics, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that the video can't be HD. If it isn't, don't call it HD.

But the fact remains that it is different from the SD service and it's being delivered with HD technology. Maybe they should call it CNBC HD-Lite?

But the fact remains that it is different from the SD service and it's being delivered with HD technology. Maybe they should call it CNBC HD-Lite?

Just call it CNBC+.

That's because they are calling it an "HD" channel, but it isn't HD.
I really don't see how it's not HD. One box on the screen will contain SD video, and the rest of the screen will contain HD graphics.

CNBC Wide maybe. But their plans don't even come close to HD-Lite.

I really don't see how it's not HD. One box on the screen will contain SD video, and the rest of the screen will contain HD graphics.

Because "TV" is a video medium. HDTV presumes high definition video, not graphics. If Sci Fi renders their bug in 1080i and inserts it into their SD broadcast, would you consider it HD?

What CNBC is planning here could easily be accomplished with a 480p 16x9 feed using less than half the bandwidth their announced 1080i signal will use. If I were DirecTV, I'd be "HD-Lite-ing" the crap out of it.

Eventually it will be all graphics and no people, rendering (no pun intended) this controversy moot.;)

:) We're working our way back to the good ol' ticker tape.

Or maybe just a static screen that says "If you're in the market and don't have a computer, you're a fool. If you have a computer and you're looking for up-to-date business info on television, you're also a fool. Go to foxbusiness.com"

This channel is just going to mainly be seen on all those LCD/Plasma displays that are hanging in the halls of corporate buildings anyway. Its not really a big need to for true HD there, just needs to look better than the stretched SD that likely is in use now.

The irony is a lot of those displays hanging in corporate buildings are probably taking a basic cable feed (i.e., analog 4:3 SD only) or a composite video feed. I'll bet it's years before you see anything other than stretch-o-vision in public spaces. Look at all the hotels, restaurants and bars that have shiny new 16:9 displays but just put 4:3 stretched crap on them 24/7...

That's because EVERYONE knows how to run coax to multiple TVs. ;)

:) We're working our way back to the good ol' ticker tape.

Or maybe just a static screen that says "If you're in the market and don't have a computer, you're a fool. If you have a computer and you're looking for up-to-date business info on television, you're also a fool. Go to foxbusiness.com"

CNBC is better for some things than a computer. This new channel will potentially improve on those too. It's the best way I know of to listen to Fed releases, and get most of the 8:30am or 10am financial data.

The use of the SAP feature and secondary video sounds like it'll allow them to show complete congressional testimony. I like that.

I would hope they exhuast 100% of their ideas and budget on making the information presented more valuable before even thinking about buying HD cameras. Is there anyone who seriously uses this channel that disagrees with this statement?

I can't make it clear enough that I'm not interested in hearing the opinion of someone who is up in arms about the video resolution, or how much this will burden DirecTV's HD capacity. Those are non issues as far as I'm concerned.

What do people who watch CNBC during the day think about these improvements?

I can't make it clear enough that I'm not interested in hearing the opinion of someone who is up in arms about the video resolution,

Then you're in the wrong forum.

As far as the idea of increasing the graphics available at-a-glance, that's definitely a positive (yes, I watch CNBC during the day) - but like I said, if that was a priority, they could reformat their SD channel to acomplish the same thing.

It's not HD. It is a upconvert from 480i. The source is not 1080i so at its core it's not HD. Ok! What about that don't you get? I don't understand how you can consider this HD b/c no one else in this thread does. People come to this forum to get information. If you're putting out bad info then who are they to believe? It's not HD bro so stop with your foolishness.

The CORE of CNBC is the information provided in the tickers, NOT the studio footage. The CORE information provided is HD. The higher resolution of HD allows for smaller fonts to still show clearly on HDTVs giving more room for much more information displayed on the screen, something they can't do in SD due to blurring. This is a perfect unconventional application for HD. The picture they will be transmitting will be 1080i, the graphics will be 1080i native, not upconverted. The only upconverted bit will be the small studio footage window. The channel itself is real HD, with a small window of video that happens to be upconverted.

I'm NOT the only one saying it is HD and I'm NOT your "bro."

Because "TV" is a video medium. HDTV presumes high definition video, not graphics. If Sci Fi renders their bug in 1080i and inserts it into their SD broadcast, would you consider it HD?

You mean YOU presume HDTV represents High Definition video. CNBC is doing something interesting here with the technology and it's being shot down because it's untraditional.

As for the sci-fi thing, this is a lot more than a bug, it is actual CONTENT, and that IS all Sci-Fi HD is going to be for a while and I don't see anyone rallying the troops to the FTC over them calling the channel Sci-Fi HD.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6924/picture1ku9.png (http://imageshack.us)

Then you're in the wrong forum.

As far as the idea of increasing the graphics available at-a-glance, that's definitely a positive (yes, I watch CNBC during the day) - but like I said, if that was a priority, they could reformat their SD channel to acomplish the same thing.

I completely disagree. Last I looked, this was the programming forum, and I was the only one trying to discuss the value of the programming features.

I have a feeling 99% of the commentors here would turn on the channel once to see Becky Quick and never watch it again. That's why I didn't want their responses.

Please don't take my frustration to sound like it was directed at you. I just wish this forum would move past the HD in the year 2000 stage where there were two shows on a week, and every technical aspect had to be dissected and argued ad nauseum.

It's the HDTV Programming forum. There's a separate forum for non-HDTV. If you want to avoid discussion of high definition, video quality, etc. this isn't the correct forum.

You mean YOU presume HDTV represents High Definition video. CNBC is doing something interesting here with the technology and it's being shot down because it's untraditional.

No, high definition, by definition is high resolution video. Not just a 16:9 canvas to work on.


As for the sci-fi thing, this is a lot more than a bug, it is actual CONTENT, and that IS all Sci-Fi HD is going to be for a while and I don't see anyone rallying the troops to the FTC over them calling the channel Sci-Fi HD.

Nothing to rally about. SciFi is planning on distributing HD programming on their HD channel.

It's the HDTV Programming forum. There's a separate forum for non-HDTV. If you want to avoid discussion of high definition, video quality, etc. this isn't the correct forum.

And the graphics are in HD, and it's being passed as a 1080i signal, right?

The documentaries that are being produced in the future are going to be shown in HD.

Not under any circumstance can this channel be called SD.

The picture they will be transmitting will be 1080i, the graphics will be 1080i native, not upconverted. The only upconverted bit will be the small studio footage window. The channel itself is real HD, with a small window of video that happens to be upconverted.

Upconverting to 1080i is not HD. Carving out a third of the screen for SD within an HD frame is also not HD. The 1920x1080i and 1280x720p HDTV standards do not allow for 2/3rds to meet the pixel requirement and 1/3rd have their own pixel count standard.

In this case, we aren't talking about occasional SD programming. We're talking about their intent to provide 100% of their video in SD with HD graphics added. That is not HDTV.

And the graphics are in HD, and it's being passed as a 1080i signal, right?

The documentaries that are being produced in the future are going to be shown in HD.

Not under any circumstance can this channel be called SD.

And again I ask: If an SD channel added some HD bugs or graphics into the pillar bars - would you consider it an HD channel? If you would, then you have a different standard for HDTV.

But like I said - if you're in the HDTV Programming forum, you have to expect discussion of HD and PQ.

Upconverting to 1080i is not HD. Carving out a third of the screen for SD within an HD frame is also not HD. The 1920x1080i and 1280x720p HDTV standards do not allow for 2/3rds to meet the pixel requirement and 1/3rd have their own pixel count standard.

In this case, we aren't talking about occasional SD programming. We're talking about their intent to provide 100% of their video in SD with HD graphics added. That is not HDTV.

So would it be HD if they filled the screen with graphics and left the window featuring studio content at 720x480? if there's no scaling of the video window there's no upconversion going on. I know that's not what they are doing, but it's not like THE ENTIRE PICTURE BEING PROVIDED is 720x480 being scaled to the entire screen. There is actual full HD resolution content being displayed.

When HDNet shows highlights in picture in picture do they suddenly have to change their channel's name to "SDNet" or "EDNet" during those segments because the video portion of the content they are displaying does not meet 1920x1080?

I completely disagree. Last I looked, this was the programming forum, and I was the only one trying to discuss the value of the programming features.

I have a feeling 99% of the commentors here would turn on the channel once to see Becky Quick and never watch it again. That's why I didn't want their responses.

Please don't take my frustration to sound like it was directed at you. I just wish this forum would move past the HD in the year 2000 stage where there were two shows on a week, and every technical aspect had to be dissected and argued ad nauseum.

Once again, it doesn't matter when people would tune in or what value the programming has. They shouldn't label the channel as HD when it truly isn't a HD channel. The source, not the graphics, the source will not originate in a HD resolution (720p or 1080i) so it's not HD. Bottom line.

So would it be HD if they filled the screen with graphics and left the window featuring studio content at 720x480? if there's no scaling of the video window there's no upconversion going on. I know that's not what they are doing, but it's not like THE ENTIRE PICTURE BEING PROVIDED is 720x480 being scaled to the entire screen. There is actual full HD resolution content being displayed.

When HDNet shows highlights in picture in picture do they suddenly have to change their channel's name to "SDNet" or "EDNet" during those segments because the video portion of the content they are displaying does not meet 1920x1080?

Once again, upconverting a SD source will never, never, never make it an HD source. If you want, just go into the Blu Ray or HD DVD forum and tell them that your upconverting dvd player provides you with the same type of HD picture from you SD dvd that they get from their HD dvd.

You refuse to even acknowledge that a very good portion of the picture being displayed on the screen is a ticker which is being presented in HD resolution. it is not upconverted. the ticker is 100% 1920x1080 with a SD video overlay over the portion of the left side of the 1920x1080 area.

In no way is this similar to saying "stretching 720x480 to 1920x1080" is HD. Placing a 720x480 video overlay ON TOP OF A 1920X1080 BACKDROP WITH REAL HD GRAPHICS AND TEXT is however HD in my book. We disagree, and there is no way either side is going to be convinced otherwise.

It's just such a double-standard that CNBC is going to be getting more stick for not being HD than TBS or Sci-Fi is, since these channels are going to start out with a couple hours a week of real HD footage, while this channel is going to have ALMOST ALL of it's content in real HD with a tiny upconverted window.

You refuse to even acknowledge that a very good portion of the picture being displayed on the screen is a ticker which is being presented in HD resolution. it is not upconverted. the ticker is 100% 1920x1080 with a SD video overlay over the portion of the left side of the 1920x1080 area.

The "ticker" isn't what makes it a network or even a channel. What you are describing (crappy video that is inconsequential inserted into a bunch of graphics) sounds more like a website than a network.

It's just such a double-standard that CNBC is going to be getting more stick for not being HD than TBS or Sci-Fi is, since these channels are going to start out with a couple hours a week of real HD footage, while this channel is going to have ALMOST ALL of it's content in real HD with a tiny upconverted window.

TNT and Sci Fi will be airing almost all their original programming in HD - just like ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. It may only represent a few hours a week initially - but it will be in HD. Here we have a network saying they have no intention of upgrading to HD - they will simply be taking their SD channel and adding some graphics to it.

Of course, they will be getting heat for calling it an HD channel.

Here we have a network saying they have no intention of upgrading to HD
They are going to show their documentaries in HD. So there will be actual HD video content on the channel, probably just as much as TBS will have when it's starting out. Is that not enough?

That's up to others to decide - personally, I don't watch CNBC for the documentaries.

I'm looking forward to the new format - but I just don't consider it (the format described) as HD. Don't call it HD (or label it "HD" in the guide) and I won't have a problem with it assuming they make some effort to actually upgrade their bread & butter programming to HD some time in the near future.

As far as TBS is concerned, based on the statements already made - I expect them to receive plenty of complaints here at AVS - probably more so than CNBC.

Regardless of what you call it, they will proceed as planned and providers will pick it up and will add it to their HD count. Arguing about it here or debating whether it is or it isn't will have no impact on what they do or don't do. The trend seems to be that programmers will continue to do what they want regardless of what the viewers want or think. If we don't agree with them all we can do is speak with our dollars and drop their programming. Unfortunately, since it's in a package, it's either all or nothing and most people won't cancel. They have you right where they want you. The situation would be very different if subscribers had individual choice to pay or not pay for a specific HD channel.

Regardless of what you call it, they will proceed as planned and providers will pick it up and will add it to their HD count. Arguing about it here or debating whether it is or it isn't will have no impact on what they do or don't do. The trend seems to be that programmers will continue to do what they want regardless of what the viewers want or think. If we don't agree with them all we can do is speak with our dollars and drop their programming. Unfortunately, since it's in a package, it's either all or nothing and most people won't cancel. They have you right where they want you. The situation would be very different if subscribers had individual choice to pay or not pay for a specific HD channel.

Or we can complain about it here and hope to affect change. It would not be the first time that AVS Forum would have been heard and listened to regarding HD programming.

it would be the first time about something so stupid and petty.

Don't call it HD (or label it "HD" in the guide) and I won't have a problem with it assuming they make some effort to actually upgrade their bread & butter programming to HD some time in the near future.
As far as I'm concerned, their bread & butter programming will be HD when the channel launches. Who cares if the talking head is in HD? I just fail to see how CNBC is a better channel with a 16:9 HD full screen talking head, instead of a 4:3 SD talking head with useful information in HD filling up the rest of the space.

As far as I'm concerned, their bread & butter programming will be HD when the channel launches. Who cares if the talking head is in HD? I just fail to see how CNBC is a better channel with a 16:9 HD full screen talking head, instead of a 4:3 SD talking head with useful information in HD filling up the rest of the space.

I have mixed feelings about this, and would of course prefer full HD.

But as I've posted before on AVS, a properly framed SD picture in a small window on an HD screen can have the same relative amount of detail as 1920x1080. See this sample (http://www6.impacthosting.com/trbarry/Supremes_vs_VE.jpg) of a full sized dvd image pasted into an HD OTA broadcast. It actually has more relative detail per degree of visual field than the rest of the broadcast.

- Tom

See the first post. The image won't be that small. They are just shifting it to the left. It will be the same size it is now.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20070917220828/www.broadcastingcable.com/articles/images/BCST/library/SQUAWK_BOX_KERNAN.jpg

See the first post. The image won't be that small. They are just shifting it to the left. It will be the same size it is now.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20070917220828/www.broadcastingcable.com/articles/images/BCST/library/SQUAWK_BOX_KERNAN.jpg

Sure - but the ticker will be in HD ! :D

That's because they are calling it an "HD" channel, but it isn't HD. What they're doing can be easily accomplished with a letterboxed SD feed on the SD channel. If they want to reformat the graphics, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that the video can't be HD. If it isn't, don't call it HD.

Wrong. It is HD! Boy, everyone is upset and says this isn't an HD picture and act like it's false advertising. CPanther, this is one of the few times I've disagreed with you.

Everyone, this is a full HD picture transmitted at 1080i widescreen!! No false advertising. They are using that extra resolution in a good way. They are shrinking existing graphics and tickers because they can still be read at the higher resolution. They're saying that over twice the data is being displayed than on the the existing SD tickers.

Then in addition, they are using the wider screen to display additional data and graphics that aren't on the SD channel, and these new graphics are more detailed than possible than if they were viewed in SD.

They are NOT taking a full screen of composed graphics and video at 480i and upconverting the final product. This is a composited at 1080i signal.

None of these graphics changes would be possible on a 480p widescreen broadcast. What a great use of a true 1080i HD broadcast signal! Who cares that the talking head video portion of the HD feed is shot in 480i and upconverted to 1080i. You're just listening to them anyway. They could even shrink the talking head portion on the HD channel making room for more data graphics and still have the same detail in the video on our HD screens.

HDNet sport's broadcasts use the same theory. Zoom back further in 1080i to show more of the action (i.e- the quarterback AND the receivers in one shot), but zoomed back we don't see any more detail on players and jerseys than the zoomed in cameras on the SD sports broadcast channels, but it sure makes for better live viewing of the games.

Get over it. We need more HD innovation like this.

CPanther, you should get rid of the "Not!" in the thread title. It's false advertising and is getting everyone upset for nothing.

Wrong. It is HD! Boy, everyone is upset and says this isn't an HD picture and act like it's false advertising. CPanther, this is one of the few times I've disagreed with you.

Everyone, this is a full HD picture transmitted at 1080i widescreen!! No false advertising. They are using that extra resolution in a good way. They are shrinking existing graphics and tickers because they can still be read at the higher resolution. They're saying that over twice the data is being displayed than on the the existing SD tickers. ......................


CPanther, you should get rid of the "Not!" in the thread title. It's false advertising and is getting everyone upset for nothing.

It isn't a "Full HD picture transmitted at 1080i" - the majority of the composition is made up of SDTV upconverted. Looking at the screenshot above, it appears the non-video portion of the real estate is made up of an area the size of two pillars combined on the right side of the screen.

As long as we're talking about a "television network", it is fair criticism if the video is actually SD. People would be just as critical if their local CBS station utilized the pillar bars for HD news and weather graphics and kept the CBS primetime programming identical to the SD feed just upconverted. That would fairly generate a thread titled "CBS HD - NOT.

Well, since we have a difference of opinion as to what is or what isn't an HD channel, I think that providers, if they choose to carry it, should carry this channel as an ala-carte channel and let people who want it, subscribe to it. I could care less if it's added to my existing lineup, especially since future HD package pricing is unknown at this time.

In my opinion, this is a shame. Bloomberg runs its channel this way, and I always hated it. In fact, I refuse to watch it because its just too busy.
If I wanted to read the news, I'd buy a newspaper!

John

If I wanted to read the news, I'd buy a newspaper!

John

Or you could try that new Internet thing everybody is talking about. I switched to it some years ago and kinda like it. ;)

- Tom

Or you could try that new Internet thing everybody is talking about. I switched to it some years ago and kinda like it.
I don't know, I can't see that catching on.

Color TV programming? Are you kidding? Like, people will have to buy a whole new TV to get it.

Well, since we have a difference of opinion as to what is or what isn't an HD channel, I think that providers, if they choose to carry it, should carry this channel as an ala-carte channel and let people who want it, subscribe to it. I could care less if it's added to my existing lineup, especially since future HD package pricing is unknown at this time.

Once again we see a good reason for ala carte. Let viewers decide with their dollars what they consider HD what they consider fake HD.

None of these graphics changes would be possible on a 480p widescreen broadcast. What a great use of a true 1080i HD broadcast signal! Who cares that the talking head video portion of the HD feed is shot in 480i and upconverted to 1080i. You're just listening to them anyway. They could even shrink the talking head portion on the HD channel making room for more data graphics and still have the same detail in the video on our HD screens.


I agree 100%. I was looking forward to a CNBC-HD for one reason - improved resolution (and therefore readability from across the room) of the tickers and the graphics. When CNBC moved to their new production facility a few years back, the video image quality jumped noticeably. But at the same time, they color-coded the tickers (red/green) which made it difficult to read from the same distance I had been able to before. I fixed that with a bigger TV! :p

Also, looking at that sample image, which looks great!, they've done this very, very well. They removed the straight-line breaks between the video and the side graphics, which make it a much more pleasing setup than that ugly Bloomberg graphic arrangement.

Oh, and there's probably more room than "just the width of two pillars". At least in the sample, they've got the tickers (top and bottom) completely out of the video space. See that blank area below the headline and above the bottom ticker - that's where the ticker is on the SD feed...

I'm looking forward to it - and yes, they should call it HD... Can't do the same thing in SD...


Jeff

Once again we see a good reason for ala carte. Let viewers decide with their dollars what they consider HD what they consider fake HD.

I'd buy it if it was offered a la carte because it is a vast improvement over the 4:3 channel. Once Fox Business Channel comes out - if it is a real HD channel, I'd cancel CNBC and add FBC.

Ed's View - CNBC HD + No Cigar

By Ed Milbourn on November 12, 2007

Reams of paper have been devoted to writings by technical historians in argument as to the "inventor" of television. In truth, there was no single "inventor" of television such as recognized by seminal technical advances such as the light bulb, airplane and the telephone. Several individuals representing many generations of scientific discoveries and enabling technologies serially combined to give us the technical miracle we identify with "television." But there is one individual we can arguably identify as the "father" of the television system. That is John Logie Baird, an Englishman, who virtually single-handedly devised, built and, indeed, commercialized television in Britain. Indeed, his television developments comprised the adopted BBC television system from 1929 to 1934. Several thousand Baird "Televisors" (receivers) were built and sold, allowing British citizens to enjoy regular television programming before anybody else in the world!* The amazing aspect of the Baird system was that it utilized a mechanical scanning process that generated an image consisting of only 30 lines per frame (@ 12 ½ FPS) and was transmitted over a regular 5 KHz radio channel. (Accompanying audio was carried on a separate radio channel.) Compare that with today's HDTV, which is a 1080 line system requiring at least 16 MHz of bandwidth to drive the video system. How can that be? How can a 30 line system possibly produce anything remotely resembling a viable television image?

The answer lies in how the human brain processes images. The brain requires much less detail to perceive plausible images in motion than for static images. When the image is in motion, the brain uses small "snippets" of the signal from the eye to call-up memorized models of the image objects. Thus an image with necessary detail is "perceived." As the relative motion of the image decreases, the brain demands an increasing amount of detail. When the image is static, the brain goes into the full "study" mode, demanding maximum detail to fully and accurately comprehend the scene. Baird and his early TV program producers realized this human perception phenomenon and produced programs that were highly animated, such as dancing, and/or by using camera panning techniques. The result was the viewer perceived very plausible and entertaining motion images even at such a low definition as 30 lines.

The HD production qualities of the graphics portion of the CNBC HD+ are super. The producers take maximum advantage of the latest HD graphics equipment capabilities to more than satisfy the brain's demand for static image detail, and in a highly attractive format. The problem is that the "television" portion of the image (i.e. the live picture window) is in SD. In spite of the hyperactive on-screen talent who breathlessly treat each little financial nuance as a major disaster, the window image is virtually static. The resolution difference between the graphics detail and the live image window is too great. The total image format, comprised of about 60% high resolution graphics, forces the brain into the static mode, therefore causing the low resolution, almost static, talking heads to look like some kind of image fault. We would expect this effect when viewing small LD video windows on a computer monitor, but, please, not on a 61" HDTV display.

Legend says that John Logie Baird awarded himself with a fine cigar if he was particularly pleased with his day's work. I'm not so sure he would light-up viewing CNBC HD+. Close, but no stogie, Logie.

Ed

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/11/eds_view_-_cnbc_hd_no_cigar.php

The funny thing about this debate is that some widescreen SD has been considered by many on this forum to be "near HD" quality, but a shrunken 4:3 SD image in this thread is considered terrible. A big determining factor is the camera itself and how much detail there is in the higher SD frequencies. HD cameras do this quite well, but having not seen CNBC HD I don't know how well their SD cameras do. Anyone have a real cap?

The funny thing about this debate is that some widescreen SD has been considered by many on this forum to be "near HD" quality, but a shrunken 4:3 SD image in this thread is considered terrible. A big determining factor is the camera itself and how much detail there is in the higher SD frequencies. HD cameras do this quite well, but having not seen CNBC HD I don't know how well their SD cameras do. Anyone have a real cap?

I think the main issue here is that they are promoting this as HD. I think what they are doing is a great use of the 16x9 image, but they need to drop the HD part from the network branding. The networks that show SD widescreen for the most part have been very careful to not call it HD.

Calling it HD is an outright lie, and legal action could be taken because of false advertizing claims.
Anyway, broadcast 480i upconverted to 1080i is an abomination.

Calling it HD is an outright lie, and legal action could be taken because of false advertizing claims.
Anyway, broadcast 480i upconverted to 1080i is an abomination.
Technically they are putting out a 1080i signal, so one would have a hard time with a case for false advertising.

This debate will just go around and around forever until CNBC upgrades to HD cameras. Some people are outraged by the "HD" designation, and some people (myself included) have no problem with it.

So is 720P material shot in HD DVC Pro really HD? That format is 960x1280. That's about the same resolution as the shrunken 720x483.

Calling it HD is an outright lie, and legal action could be taken because of false advertizing claims.
Anyway, broadcast 480i upconverted to 1080i is an abomination.

so sue them! i get it at the end of the month, i only follow two stocks but i'm anticipating it

Any updates as to when CNBC is going to start doing actual HD production?
The NJ studios look to be HD-ready, while the NYSE shots look like they're done with very old cameras.

I was disappointed to see the new "House of Cards (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719)" documentary was not shot in HD.

This debate will just go around and around forever until CNBC upgrades to HD cameras.

Any updates as to when CNBC is going to start doing actual HD production? -SJKurtzke


On Monday I posted the February 12 article quote:
CNBC has already transitioned to P2 HD acquisition, shooting news with the HPX2000 camcorder from Panasonic Broadcast President John Baisley, at a press conference.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1120909

That camera is capable of 1080/59.94i, 1080/50i, 1080/29.97p, 1080/25p, 1080/23.98p, 720/59.94p, 720/50p, 720/29.97p, 720/25p 720/23.98p, 480/30i, 576/25i
as 10-bit 4:2:2 images
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=103537&surfModel=AJ-HPX2000

My guess is even though the Panasonic guy says P2 HD acquisition already CNBC may still shoot 16:9 widescreen standard definition until they need to shoot 1080/59.94i, high definition in the field. CNBC falling under the NBC Network umbrella they would most likely shoot 1080/59.94i as NBC Network news does with leased Sony HDCAM F-900Rs (while awaiting P2 HDcameras) in NYC.
see:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13362553#post13362553

CNBC Cruising Into High Def

CNBC's first original production in High Definition, "Cruise Inc: Big Money On The High Seas," premieres tonight at 9pmET.

The special looks at the $30 billion cruise industry — from the safety of the ship to economic considerations. Peter Greenberg hosts the program.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/cnbc_cruising_into_high_def_112153.asp

CNBC Original, "CRUISE INC: BIG MONEY ON THE HIGH SEAS" will Premiere on March 24th (ALL TIMES ARE ET)

A CNBC Original, "CRUISE INC: BIG MONEY ON THE HIGH SEAS" will premiere on Tuesday, March 24th at 9PM/10PM/1AM. The documentary will repeat on Sunday, March 29th at 10PM.

"CRUISE INC: BIG MONEY ON THE HIGH SEAS"

CNBC takes you on the ultimate getaway with an exclusive look inside the $30 billion dollar cruise industry. Correspondent Peter Greenberg spends seven days aboard the Norwegian Pearl, one of the newest in Norwegian Cruise Line's fleet. The 14-story floating city is a destination of its own. It has a full-service medical center, a state of the art surveillance system, and offers passengers every opportunity to spend on anything from sushi-making to BINGO, even Botox!

But, big ships cost big money, and one misstep, whether it be bad weather, a late departure or even running short on beer, can mean the difference between profits and loss.

Cruising is the fastest growing segment of travel, but can Norwegian, the third largest player in the industry, navigate the rough seas of a slumping economy and tough competition to stay afloat?

Spend a week in the Caribbean with CNBC. "Cruise Inc: Big Money on the High Seas", CNBC's first High-Definition documentary, premieres Tuesday, March 24 at 9p/10p/1a ET.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29839651

I caught a few minutes of it as I was flipping through, because I was surprised to see something in true HD on CNBC.

CNBC Original, "CRUISE INC: BIG MONEY ON THE HIGH SEAS"

The documentary will repeat on Sunday, March 29th at 10PM



There are 3 sections on HULU .
1st section runs 5 minutes and 22 seconds.
Available online now here free via HULU:
part 1
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cnbc-originals-cnbc-originals-cruise-inc-big-money-on-the-high-seas/825661835

part2
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cnbc-originals-cnbc-originals-cruise-inc-big-money-on-the-high-seas/565897449

part3
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cnbc-originals-cnbc-originals-cruise-inc-big-money-on-the-high-seas/3652924173

The Hulu clips are standard definition widescreen.


They are now shooting on-location in HD with this being their FIRST docu. aired in HD. It also probably had the longest time to edit.
In in February TV Technology magazine mentioned CNBC got the full size Panasonic HPX-2000 HD cameras (2/3 inch CCDs). Most of the handheld footage looks to me like smaller cameras (with available light).
The sitdown interview with the chef on the 3rd video about food is a two-camera interview with good lighting and both cameras appear to match.

What's the deal with this channel? "Mad Money" is on at 11pm. According to the guide, it is tagged as "HD", but it is 4:3. Also, the graphics appear to be "floating" too far from the bottom of the screen. A quick check of the analog CNBC shows that there is a top and bottom of screen ticker and bug missing on CNBC HD. Earlier in the day CNBC HD looked like a barker channel on steroids with ADHD. Now its a clean screen. :confused:

The "Banking of Geithner" town hall special was in HD which was unexpected. This actually makes sense; the day-to-day coverage doesn't really need to be HD or 16:9, but original programming and specials like this should that run without the tickers and charting.

Is tonight's illegal gambling special in HD? I don't have the HD channel so I can't check, but at the beginning it said "CNBC Originals in HD". Just curious.

Is tonight's illegal gambling special in HD? I don't have the HD channel so I can't check, but at the beginning it said "CNBC Originals in HD". Just curious.
Yep, it's HD.

Looks like a new font on the text scroll this morning. Haven't had my coffee yet, but it might be all new graphics.

Looks like CNBC overhauled their entire graphics package. Seems refreshing to me. What's the + feed look like?

Looks like CNBC overhauled their entire graphics package. Seems refreshing to me. What's the + feed look like?

The general layout is the same, just with the different fonts and colors.

I agree - it is refreshing. The blue text crawl isn't nearly as "harsh" now.

Newscaststudio.com has caps of the new graphics, plus analysis. Apparently CNBC Europe got the new graphics package as well.

http://www.newscaststudio.com/blog/2010/03/01/cnbc-debuts-new-graphics/

Looks thematically similar to the MSNBC package from the pictures.

too bad they didn't upgrade the main screen to hd
still looks very soft

too bad they didn't upgrade the main screen to hd
still looks very soft

Yep, it's definitely not HD.

just got added to my local cable co and it still isn't HD. 4 years later.

Every once in a while, they have some doc on at night that is HD. And the Olympics were on there, so it's not zero percent!

An interesting critique of CNBC HD+ from Inside Cable News. Given what's stated below, the fact that CNBC rolled out all new graphics about a year ago, and the fact that CNBC just completed rolling out all new sets for all of its studio programming, it seems likely that CNBC could, if it wanted to, begin broadcasting a substantial portion of its programming slate in HD tomorrow.

Here's hoping the new Comcast owners get this fixed.

In Depth: How CNBC has Blown its HD Advantage (http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/in-depth-how-cnbc-has-blown-its-hd-advantage/)

When Bloomberg launched its HD feed a few weeks ago, I wondered whether it was just a graphical change or the video was all HD. Since the rollout has been limited so far – DirecTV hasn’t flipped Bloomberg HD yet and given how long it took to flip MSNBC HD (a year after it started) it will probably be a while – I didn’t know the answer until today. Today I saw a screengrab and the picture is definitely HD.

This leaves one cable news network carried widely in the US that hasn’t gone to full HD. Just one. CNBC. Al Jazeera isn’t carried widely here. Neither is BBC World News. Neither is CNNI but my understanding is CNNI isn’t HD yet either. HLN is HD now but isn’t widely distributed in HD yet.

CNBC was the second network in the US to offer an HD broadcast behind CNN (though CNN’s full rollout to pure HD was excruciatingly long and occurred in stages over a timespan of years). But CNBC’s sole change in HD was graphical in nature. It added an HD wing. It did nothing with the video.

Over the succeeding years, CNBC has stood and watched as it got passed by as FBN launched in full HD, FNC went full HD, MSNBC went full HD, HLN started down the HD road, and now Bloomberg US is in full HD. CNBC is the only remaining US based cable news network not to embrace full HD. And it was the second to launch an HD feed?

This got me to wondering “Why has CNBC stagnated on rolling out full HD?”

Could it be because it didn’t have the facilities to handle HD (Control rooms, etc..)? Well it does. CNBC’s Englewood Cliffs HQ serves as the Master Control backup for MSNBC and NBC Nightly News and it’s hot swappable. If they can control HD for those broadcasts, they can do it for their own.

Is it because CNBC hasn’t made the capital investments in swapping out the old SD cameras for HD versions? According to my sources, they have. Though it’s not clear that they have done it for all their sets. Remember, Englewood Cliffs is huge and has several studios dedicated for specific shows. You can’t just move those HD cameras around. They have to have enough cameras to cover all those sets.

The more digging I did the more puzzling this became. CNBC apparently has the proper infrastructure to handle an HD switchover and yet it has refused to do so. CNBC Europe’s London set is also fully HD capable but hasn’t been switched on. I don’t know the HD status of CNBC Asia’s studios.

One area that may be an issue is the graphics for the shows. CNBC’s wing and crawl may be HD but are all the graphics for all the shows…the splash screens, the animations, etc…now re-rendered for HD display? That would be a costly endeavor but the network has had years to work on this so the cost could have been spread out during that time by doing it in stages to make it more palatable.

CNBC hasn’t commented publicly on the HD subject. Privately however, I’ve heard stories from a couple of sources that the network has no plans to go HD in the foreseeable future. Worse, some of the reasons I’ve heard for that decision are pretty weak. I’ve heard that while the network has HD capability in Englewood Cliffs it has no HD control over remote feeds and trading floors. Well FBN manages just fine. It has full HD cameras on the floor of the NYSE and it has no qualms about showing the odd SD video feed from a remote location. Is CNBC admitting it won’t do what FBN can? All the networks that are currently HD air SD feeds on occasion and seem to have no problem with doing so. And those SD feeds are getting lesser and lesser all the time as more studios and remotes switch over to HD.

This isn’t 2007 with HD just starting to achieve penetration in the market. It’s 2011 and HD is well entrenched. The HD landscape has changed since CNBC first went HD and the network has not kept up. It stood pat. It’s now lagging well behind everyone else even though it apparently has the infrastructure capability to make the switch. This is inexcusable. It’s the stuff jokes are made for. It reflects badly upon CNBC and the network should move with all deliberate haste to launch full HD broadcasts as soon as possible. CNBC is no longer an HD leader. It’s now a straggler.

Funny, I've never even noticed the lack of full HD on CNBC, it's all about the content for me, I've tried Bloomberg and Fox Business, but neither one held any interest to me. I could watch CNBC all day long and I like the graphical interface and just don't think I'd enjoy it so immensely more if all of it was HD.

funny, i've never even noticed the lack of full hd on cnbc, it's all about the content for me, i've tried bloomberg and fox business, but neither one held any interest to me. I could watch cnbc all day long and i like the graphical interface and just don't think i'd enjoy it so immensely more if all of it was hd.

+1

I personally find the crisp graphics of the HD overlay really accent how blurry the 4:3 picture is, and that makes the whole thing hard to watch.

Plus, the video window is framed for 14:9, a la the old ESPNEWS and MSNBC.

I get CNBC in HD, but I TiVo and watch the SD version. There is zero point to their existing HD feed. It's just a distracting video overlay off to the right side. I prefer the SD feed, because the constantly changing graphics in the HD feed are very annoying to me.

If they went to "true" HD, they would need to dump the overlay and actually show us higher quality (more-or-less full screen) images. Simply improving the quality of the video window, while retaining the annoying graphics overlay, would be worthless to me.

I quite like CNBC's documentaries; all the ones I've watched so far are native HD.

Losing CNBC HD would be a tragedy simply because it would mean losing the "CNBC Originals" documentary line in native HD.

This entry was posted on July 25, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Tonight CNBC carried President Obama’s address to the nation in HD. Then it was back to crummy upconverted SD again. Get with the program CNBC. You’ve shown you can broadcast in HD so hurry up and flip the HD switch on your business programming.

http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/cnbcs-hd-teasing/

there is a 1680x1050pixel JPEG screengrab at the link.

only a minor ticker tape on the bottom. finally...