HDTV ownership up, but not much HD content viewing

UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough to be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a show, if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really interested in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5 minutes into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

--
Who is Obama's Favorite Citizen? You could be...
http://tinyurl.com/ObamasFav

Jer wrote:
UCLAN wrote:
KHudson wrote:

Having a high definition television (HDTV) in your home doesn't
necessarily equate to using it for true HD content, at least according
to a new study from research firm In-Stat. They concluded there's a
significant gap between HDTV ownership and actual HD content viewing.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41197/113/

From the article:

"In the US, there are more than 39 million households with an
installed HDTV set," said Mike Paxton, an In-Stat analyst. "However,
only 22 million of those are HDTV households, meaning that 17 million
U.S. households with an installed HDTV set are watching [regular
non-HD programming]."

It *doesn't* say how it arrived at those numbers. I'm curious about
how they
determined that "...only 22 million of those are HDTV households..."

?? How?


Likely from service metrics for the number of folks that are billed for
HD service.


Isn't television still free?
Does one have to pay for channels received from an OTA antenna?

"Kimba W Lion" wrote in message
...
UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough to be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a show,
if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really interested
in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5 minutes
into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

I have to disagree with you on this point. Poor quality picture and sound
are a distraction that draws me out of the programming and makes me aware
I'm watching a device. Sure you can learn to live by the freeway or in a
flight path but I'd rather be someplace quiet. I'm not thinking "hey this
looks great" when I get into a show in HD, it helps me to forget to think
about how it looks! When technology disappears because it's transparent one
has the best experience.

Charles Tomaras wrote:

"Kimba W Lion" wrote in message
...
UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough
to be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a
show, if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really
interested in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5
minutes into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

I have to disagree with you on this point. Poor quality picture and
sound are a distraction that draws me out of the programming and makes
me aware I'm watching a device. Sure you can learn to live by the
freeway or in a flight path but I'd rather be someplace quiet. I'm not
thinking "hey this looks great" when I get into a show in HD, it helps
me to forget to think about how it looks! When technology disappears
because it's transparent one has the best experience.

Your argument reminds me of when I was an audiophile. An audiophile
wasn't capable of enjoying music on anything but a "high-end" system;
same distraction rationale. But he would even listen to the most inane
music as long as it was from a small label with the correct engineering
aesthetic.

Whereas, a real music lover would listen on any kind of playback system
as long as the music moved him.

Also, unless you're watching live people, it's all poor-quality devices.
In five years somebody will sneer at 1080p as a "distraction" compared
to the next new thing.

Let me know when the programs are written in high def.

GP

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:16:44 -0500, Kimba W Lion
wrote:

UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough to be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a show, if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really interested in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5 minutes into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".


You have a really odd way of looking at TV.
Thumper

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:39:34 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"
wrote:


"Kimba W Lion" wrote in message
.. .
UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough to be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a show,
if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really interested
in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5 minutes
into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

I have to disagree with you on this point. Poor quality picture and sound
are a distraction that draws me out of the programming and makes me aware
I'm watching a device. Sure you can learn to live by the freeway or in a
flight path but I'd rather be someplace quiet. I'm not thinking "hey this
looks great" when I get into a show in HD, it helps me to forget to think
about how it looks! When technology disappears because it's transparent one
has the best experience.


It's really nuts to argue that one shouldn't wish to see the best
picture possible in a medium such as teleVISION. One could watch tv
with one eye closed but there's no doubt that we see better with both
eyes and it would look a lot better.
People make choices as to what to spend their money on but if money
was no object and all tv equipment and programming was free, everyone
would have HD service.
Thumper

jack ak wrote:
Jer wrote:
UCLAN wrote:
KHudson wrote:

Having a high definition television (HDTV) in your home doesn't
necessarily equate to using it for true HD content, at least according
to a new study from research firm In-Stat. They concluded there's a
significant gap between HDTV ownership and actual HD content viewing.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41197/113/

From the article:

"In the US, there are more than 39 million households with an
installed HDTV set," said Mike Paxton, an In-Stat analyst. "However,
only 22 million of those are HDTV households, meaning that 17 million
U.S. households with an installed HDTV set are watching [regular
non-HD programming]."

It *doesn't* say how it arrived at those numbers. I'm curious about
how they
determined that "...only 22 million of those are HDTV households..."

?? How?


Likely from service metrics for the number of folks that are billed
for HD service.


Isn't television still free?
Does one have to pay for channels received from an OTA antenna?



I was thinking of non-OTA HD services using washed billing data from
service providers. For OTA, maybe Nielsen has something to offer.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:

From the article:

"In the US, there are more than 39 million households with an
installed HDTV set," said Mike Paxton, an In-Stat analyst. "However,
only 22 million of those are HDTV households, meaning that 17 million
U.S. households with an installed HDTV set are watching [regular
non-HD programming]."

It *doesn't* say how it arrived at those numbers. I'm curious about
how they
determined that "...only 22 million of those are HDTV households..."

?? How?

Likely from service metrics for the number of folks that are billed for
HD service.

Neither OTA or most cable systems require HD "service" for HD reception.
Only DirecTV, DISH, and a few telecom services require it.

So, how do they know that OTA or Clear QAM reception is not being utilized?

Kimba W Lion wrote:

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a show, if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really interested in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5 minutes into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

Riiight...

So why not a B&W set instead of a color TV?

"Grump" wrote in message
...
Charles Tomaras wrote:

"Kimba W Lion" wrote in message
...
UCLAN wrote:

Why do you have a SD DVR?

Because the HD satellite channel packages are not interesting enough to
be
worth upgrading to them, so I have SD service.

Besides, HD doesn't add that much to a program. Five minutes into a
show, if
you're still noticing 'hey, wow, this is HD", you're not really
interested in
the show itself, so why bother watching it. The same is true if 5
minutes into
it you're still saying, "ugh, this is SD".

I have to disagree with you on this point. Poor quality picture and sound
are a distraction that draws me out of the programming and makes me aware
I'm watching a device. Sure you can learn to live by the freeway or in
a flight path but I'd rather be someplace quiet. I'm not thinking "hey
this looks great" when I get into a show in HD, it helps me to forget to
think about how it looks! When technology disappears because it's
transparent one has the best experience.

Your argument reminds me of when I was an audiophile. An audiophile
wasn't capable of enjoying music on anything but a "high-end" system;
same distraction rationale. But he would even listen to the most inane
music as long as it was from a small label with the correct engineering
aesthetic.

Whereas, a real music lover would listen on any kind of playback system
as long as the music moved him.

Also, unless you're watching live people, it's all poor-quality devices.
In five years somebody will sneer at 1080p as a "distraction" compared
to the next new thing.

Let me know when the programs are written in high def.

GP

Nope, you are missing the point completely. I'll watch a black and white TV
with a coat hanger if that's all that is available and I feel like watching
TV. Truly high end video is well beyond what we can achieve in our homes
given the sources we have available. I work in the business of film and
video and I know the guys who argue about 4k transfers and various cameras
ad naseum. I'm just saying that a nice 16x9 HD presentation compared with
the same presentation in an SD letterboxed 4:3 window is a big difference
that calls attention to itself. I'm not looking to marvel at presentation
over content, but I will ALWAYS pick the HD presentation of the same
material over an SD presentation. Truth be told I'd prefer to watch SD on an
SD Television because it generally looks better to me than when processed
for HD. In fact I stuck it out with my Pioneer 1009W 59" 16x9 standard def
television for the last decade feeding it anamorphic SD from HD tuners
because I didn't feel there was enough HD material available to justify the
upgrade. About the only time I'll watch crap for the eye candy is to show a
nice HD image to someone when demoing my television.

And not to belabor the point of high definition, but there is actually more
information there to see. A huge flock of birds shot on film or HD,
presented in HD, shows you quite a bit more realism (and individual birds)
than the same picture in standard definition. The depth of the crowd on the
Washington Mall during last weeks inauguration viewed in HD was a good
argument for the added value of more resolution. It's not all about acting
or writing. There's the art of cinematography as well and while the writer
may not give a hoot if you watch their movie on a crappy TV, the
cinematographer's art might speak a little truer on a good set with a good
source. I'm all for impressionist painters but sometimes I like a little
realism as well.

If you really don't care about how it looks you might as well just buy the
book or take advantage of the exceptional deals on used VHS tapes at your
local pawn shop.

It seems that some of you folks get off just as much by saying the picture
quality isn't important as the eye candy folks get off by watching nothing
but 1080P and denigrating anything of lower resolution. "Why when I was a
kid we didn't have television and we liked it!" "We used to watch 35mm
slides lit by candle light because we couldn't afford electricity and we
like it!" I think we need a bit of balance here. I've got my computer to
watch You Tube, my bedroom set for general information and making me
tired....but when I sit down to my big new plasma for concentrated
entertainment and enlightenment I would prefer to view the highest
resolution programming that is "worth" viewing whenever possible. It's not
like I'm watching 10 hours of television a day. I make use of my HD DVR to
record good looking things that interest me and use my time and image to
their fullest with the TV leisure time I have. With a DVR and a reasonable
number of programming sources it's not like I'm stuck watching schlock
merely because it's the only HD thing on at any given time. I have some
favorite films I purchased on VHS, then Laserdisc, then DVD...and I'll
probably pony up again and buy it on Blue Ray and whatever comes next.
Doesn't mean I don't like a good story...I just like that story presented as
nicely as is possible. We're not talking about oxygen free cables or other
such audio/videophile lunacies that aren't all that quantifiable to anyone
but the golden few. HD looks better than SD on the same material to just
about anyone who looks at it...it's not in my head!