Is hi def overrated

Alan wrote:
In article kimbawlion writes:
wrote:

There will be more and more high def programming (except for talking
head shows involving women who feel that high def shows off their ugly
facial skin too much, so they have the pictures softened intentionally)
as time goes on and more people are able to view it.
Maryland Public TV has discontinued high-def programming so that they can
broadcast two SD subchannels. I expect this practice to be even more
common among commercial broadcasters since 3, 4, or even 5 revenue streams
are far more seductive than one prestige HD channel.


However, paying for the extra program streams (which do not come free)
is a notable problem. When one discovers that they have divided their
commercial revenue stream across three channels, but tripled their program
cost, they are likely to switch back to a single channel.

It's not just the programming costs that increase. The cost of sales and
local commercial production also increases. At the same time are more
commercial slots available so the value of each slot decreases (law of
supply and demand, after all).

In order for this to work there has to be pent up demand for TV
commercial time at a lower price point that is sufficient to increase
volumes of sales to make up for all of the increases in costs. That may
be true in some markets which are already under served. Advertisers at
those price points will probably just move their money from radio to TV.
I don't think that advertising budgets will increase.

Stations may be able to get some paid infomercial style programs and
shopping channels, but that kind of programming can get saturated in a
market very quickly.

Public TV stations do not have the same economics that commercial
stations do.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kimba W. Lion wrote:
wrote:

There will be more and more high def programming (except for talking
head shows involving women who feel that high def shows off their ugly
facial skin too much, so they have the pictures softened intentionally)
as time goes on and more people are able to view it.

Maryland Public TV has discontinued high-def programming so that they can
broadcast two SD subchannels. I expect this practice to be even more
common among commercial broadcasters since 3, 4, or even 5 revenue streams
are far more seductive than one prestige HD channel.

We are seeing the same from KPBS in San
Diego. They used to simulcast their OTA
program and subchannel "Create" a
home-hobbiest feed. They also have two other
sub-channels with no material.

They now carry the PBS feed (time delayed
from their OTA offering) and a Spanish
language educational channel. Not exactly
fond of my subscription and tax dollars going
to support the continuation and support of a
foreign language.

--
pete

Hey Doc,
It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is no
comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope you
enjoy your new TV.
Robert
"Doc" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 23, 3:07 pm, "Reggie White"
wrote:
I Recently purchased a 46 samsung HD LCD,
I've heard so much about how great hi def is.
And to tell you I am very disappointed.



I have yet to see a Hi-Def picture I've really liked. They have an
initial impact because they're different, there's a certain forced
vividness to them but I haven't seen one that didn't show motion
artifacts - i.e. anything with fine detail takes on this "swarm of
bees" look whenever it moves and then the image reassembles itself
when still - I find it extremely annoying.

I've seen direct HD, Blu-Ray, it all looks about the same to me, which
is to say not as watchable as a good picture on a CRT tv. At Best Buy
there was one with some loop of a closeup of a watch mechanism that
was supposed to show how brilliant and detailed the picture is. Yeah,
there's a sort of amped up shininess to it but after a couple of
minutes I mostly noticed the defects in the image - grain in the
image, pixellation, motion artifacts, the outer perimeter of the image
was outright blurry.

No thanks.

Robert wrote:
Hey Doc,
It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is
no comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope
you enjoy your new TV.
Robert
"Doc" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 23, 3:07 pm, "Reggie White"
wrote:
I Recently purchased a 46 samsung HD LCD,
snip...


Yeah. That is likely true. My neighbors invited me out for a quick
dinner on Saturday evening and after we came back they came inside to
look at my new Sharp AQUOS 42" in the family room. They had been telling
me that they had seen "big TV" at someone else's place and didn't think
it was nearly so good as their little standard-def CRT set. Well, after
I gave them the 10-cent tour, with special emphasis on the OTA HD
football games, they seemed impressed. On Sunday, at around noon, I got
a call from them at Circuit City asking exactly what sort of set I had
and if it was 1080i and a few other things. I suspect that they will be
having their new set installed before Wednesday...

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

Robert wrote:
Hey Doc,
It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is
no comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope
you enjoy your new TV.
Robert
"Doc" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 23, 3:07 pm, "Reggie White"
wrote:
I Recently purchased a 46 samsung HD LCD,
I've heard so much about how great hi def is.
And to tell you I am very disappointed.



I have yet to see a Hi-Def picture I've really liked. They have an
initial impact because they're different, there's a certain forced
vividness to them but I haven't seen one that didn't show motion
artifacts - i.e. anything with fine detail takes on this "swarm of
bees" look whenever it moves and then the image reassembles itself
when still - I find it extremely annoying.

I've seen direct HD, Blu-Ray, it all looks about the same to me, which
is to say not as watchable as a good picture on a CRT tv. At Best Buy
there was one with some loop of a closeup of a watch mechanism that
was supposed to show how brilliant and detailed the picture is. Yeah,
there's a sort of amped up shininess to it but after a couple of
minutes I mostly noticed the defects in the image - grain in the
image, pixellation, motion artifacts, the outer perimeter of the image
was outright blurry.

No thanks.



I agree with Robert on this.

I think that while HD remains a work in
progress most of the manufacturers have made
giant leaps in the last 24 months.

Football, Soccer and PBS's /Nature/ deliver
so much visual content in HD that it's hard
to say, "No."

Choosing a set's visual effect by looking at
a continous loop of HD content in the store
isn't a good approach. It's far better to
choose based on your viewing actual
broadcasts of the content you value most.

If you are a football fan and can't stand
motion artifacts there's a set for you out
there. Either spend a bundle of bucks for a
set that has a very fast display and enough
computing power to avoid artifact production
or buy a lower priced set that effectively
hides the artifacts. (Sort of like buying a
car with a soft suspension that hides the
pot-holes).

That "perfect" set is probably 5 or 10 years
away. And, it's doubtful that broadcasters
will ever have a perfect chain of equipment
to do image capture, processing and delivery
without some rough spots.

If you wait for "perfection," you'll be
missing a lot of great content.

JM2¢W

--
pj

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:33:26 -0700, pete wrote:

That "perfect" set is probably 5 or 10 years
away. And, it's doubtful that broadcasters
will ever have a perfect chain of equipment
to do image capture, processing and delivery

Exactly...the perfect set could be here today...but when the
broadcasters upgrade, you might see some improvement of the quality.
Gotta remember that I love Lucy and Laugh In....was just regular old
TV. The perfect set will only remind you how bad broadcasting has
been for fifty years.

On Sep 24, 2:15 am, "Robert" wrote:
It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is no
comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope you
enjoy your new TV.

The real test for HDTV are local commercials. They should remain in
the old 4:3 format. If they are 16:9, then your TV is squatting the
picture and you do not have HD.

On Sep 24, 2:15 am, "Robert" wrote:

It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is no
comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope you
enjoy your new TV.

Yup. The test for HD is watching local commercials. They should be in
the old 4:3 format. If they are 16:9 then your TV is squatting the
image, and not displaying HD. Almost every bar/restaurant I've been in
doesn't realize their picture is worth crap.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 24, 2:15 am, "Robert" wrote:
It sound to me as though you haven't connected and HD input to your new
TV. That means that 60% of what your looking at on your TV wasn't in the
original content. It has been up converted in order to fill your screen.
Once you connect an antenna, scan for digital channels and view, for the
first time a real HD picture, you will be forever a fan of HD. There is
no
comparison....it's like putting on glasses for the first time. I hope you
enjoy your new TV.

The real test for HDTV are local commercials. They should remain in
the old 4:3 format. If they are 16:9, then your TV is squatting the
picture and you do not have HD.

===============================
Not true!
In Seattle, some local ads are HD 16:9.
============================

On Oct 18, 3:33 pm, "Richard C." wrote:
wrote in message

The real test for HDTV are local commercials. They should remain in
the old 4:3 format. If they are 16:9, then your TV is squatting the
picture and you do not have HD.

===============================
Not true!
In Seattle, some local ads are HD 16:9.
============================

I started noticing that for some ESPN and TNT HD ads too. It's usually
is a widescreen stretching of an ad. But whenever there is a moment
that utilizes the old 4:3 aspect ratio, it is immediately apparent
whether it exists within the 16:9 boundary.