[xsrsmithx]

CBSHD showed previews of the new Fall Survivor in Thailand and it was in letterbox. Does this mean it just might be shot in HD? We can only hope. This would be great.


Steve

 

[hpierce]

Unless CBS or the production company can somehow affordably rent HD video cameras, editing equipment, and other stuff from a southeast asian company, it is highly unlikely. Survivor is extremely cheap to produce, and I would think CBS would want to keep it that way. there is no way that they have it in their budget to ship all of the HD equipment from the states over to thailand.

 

[Dan Burgess]

After the first Survivor, there was speculation here that Survivor: Australia would be in HD. It wasn't.


After the second Survivor, there was speculation here that Survivor: Africa would be in HD. It wasn't.


After the third Survivor, there was speculation here that Survivor: Marquesas would be in HD. It wasn't.


Now that the fourth Survivor is over, here comes the question in this topic. I wonder what the answer will be?

 

[Steve13]

It would be nice, but since it would involve tying up HD equipment for over a month at one location, it probably means the odds are low.

 

[DP1]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Burgess Now that the fourth Survivor is over, here comes the question in this topic. I wonder what the answer will be?

I dont think it will be in HD until Survivor 92. It's slated to be set in a State Park in Omaha (after the 91st there was no exotic places left), so the logistics will finally owe to HD.

 

[PVR]

Unlike shows done on sets where they can have a couple

of HD cameras, Survivor has to have a big crew of

camera people following all the contestants around

all day long and then they do a very big editing job.


I am sure CBS could afford to do it if they want.

 

[Dean Roddey]

If they'd do a Thailand Brothels version of Survivor, I'd watch it. Otherwise, even being in HD wouldn't get me to contribute to the futher degredation of our civilization by watching a so called reality show.

 

[hpierce]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dean Roddey If they'd do a Thailand Brothels version of Survivor, I'd watch it. Otherwise, even being in HD wouldn't get me to contribute to the futher degredation of our civilization by watching a so called reality show.

CBS may call it Reality, but no one thinks that. It is a far more entertaining show than most other shows on tv, and if you think Survivor is furthering the degredation of civilization then you are mistaken. There are far worse scripted shows on television.

 

[R11]

What goes on is real. The fact that they have "recreated" a few scenes over the years to make them more camera friendly/entertaining shouldn't take away from that.


ron

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

and if you think Survivor is furthering the degredation of civilization then you are mistaken. There are far worse scripted shows on television

So, as long as someone else steals more than me, I'm not a thief?

 

[Jerry G]

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. You folks are arguing about the content of a show that has never and probably never will be in HD. Is that correct?

 

[kromkamp]

Wasnt there an Eco-Challenge filmed in HD? Not only does it have the same logistical challenges of filming in HD, but its the same production company and it makes far less money than Survivor does.


I'm not saying Survivor will be in HD or even predicting that it probably will, but I dont think the logistics are much of a deciding factor.


Andy K.

 

[Dean Roddey]

The Echo-Challenge seemed like an event with its heart a lot closer to being in the right place. One of those events was part of the demo loop on DirecTV back in the day.

 

[videoholic]

Production costs should not be an issue. Hell Friends costs of 7 million dollars per episode for a half an hour.


This is about a 40 day shoot give or take a week or so for extra pickup shots and beauty. The HD camera gear isn't that much more than the Beta equipment they are using now. Tape cost is the HUGE difference. And we are talking about a tremendous amount of tape shot. Tapes I think are about 5 times more expensive. Mucho expensive.


But to say that they can't afford it is ridiculous. Can they justify it? Maybe not.


Do you guys really want to see all those nasty soars and crap in HD?

 

[satpro]

If HDnet can take HD cameras to the Middle East to do news reports there is no reason CBS can't use HD cameras for Survivor 5!

 

[David McRoy]

I find the fact that every bit of video that I have seen so far from Survivor: Thailand has been letterboxed to be extremely fascinating.

 

[YardleyBill]

Aren't most CBS shows not FILMED in HD, and then converted?


Why wouldn't that work with Survivor?

 

[David McRoy]

CBS shows that are shot on film are transfered from film to an HD video format for air in HD.


CBS shows that are shot in standard-definition video are upconverted to 1080i for air. Tha's what they've been doing with Survivor all along. What's desired is that Survivor be shot in HD video rather than SD video so that upconversion is unnecessary and its video quality would be dramatically better than it is now.


Now, if you meant to state that most CBS shows are "now" filmed then transfered to HD...shooting a show like Survivor on film would be prohibitively expensive. Shooting it in HD video wouldn't be so unreasonable an expectation.

 

[Glenn_L]

Quote:

Originally posted by David McRoy I find the fact that every bit of video that I have seen so far from Survivor: Thailand has been letterboxed to be extremely fascinating.

I had my hopes up a few seasons ago when all the previews of Survivor: Africa were in widescreen, maybe this time?

 

[R11]

Quote:

Do you guys really want to see all those nasty soars and crap in HD?

Well, that is part of the morbid appeal and one of the reasons people watch it . More important at least in my mind is the scenery footage though. It is a very visual kind of show in all aspects. I think from an HDTV perspective it would be the ideal type of programming. They call it a reality show. What better way to drive that home than to actually make it look real by presenting it in HD? But, as was already mentioned, it's really all a matter of justification at this point in time.


ron