How much do stations save by not broadcasting HD?

Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.


The fist incentive that comes to my feeble mind is the budgeted expense
of the HD cameras necessary for shooting a program. Not all programs
are shot with HD cameras.

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

NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

At most stations I would suppose it would be in six figures of capital
investment. There is little to no difference in ongoing operating
expenses in operating in HD as opposed to SD.

Stations have been covering some pretty major expenses in converting
their *transmitters* (and antennas) for digital, so especially in this
economy there isn't much $$ for HD gear.

It's fairly simple (inexpensive) to wire a station to pass through HD
prime-time material from their network. A simple switch and upconverter
will do it.

Running syndicated programming (Oprah, Wheel of Fortune, etc.) in HD
requires a LOT more HD-compatible equipment. The main control board
must be updated to support HD; you need HD satellite receivers to
download the programming; you need a HD-compatible disk recorder. (with
a LOT more storage space)

Originating local news in HD also requires upgrading the production
control board; studio cameras; field cameras; editing gear; graphics;
and again, a HD-compatible disk recorder with adequate storage space.

Many syndicated programs are *not available* in HD. (especially reruns
of older programs which were produced in standard definition in the
first place)

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

At most stations I would suppose it would be in six figures of capital
investment. There is little to no difference in ongoing operating
expenses in operating in HD as opposed to SD.

It's fairly simple (inexpensive) to wire a station to pass through HD
prime-time material from their network. A simple switch and upconverter
will do it.

Running syndicated programming (Oprah, Wheel of Fortune, etc.) in HD
requires a LOT more HD-compatible equipment. The main control board
must be updated to support HD; you need HD satellite receivers to
download the programmi

Likewise for originating local news in HD.

Many syndicated programs are *not available* in HD. (especially reruns
of older programs which were produced in standard definition in the
first place)

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

If a station has a separate HD transmitter, then they save the cost of
an engineer.

For franchised shows there may also be a cost difference between HD and SD.

On Mar 9, 10:49*am, RickMerrill
wrote:
NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast
in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features
in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

If a station has a separate HD transmitter, then they save the cost
of
an engineer.

For franchised shows there may also be a cost difference between HD
and SD.

What exactly do you mean 'separate HD transmitter' and 'save the cost
of an engineer' ? Stations are reqired to go digital. That means a
second transmitter as you cannot run analog and digital in the same
unit. Seems to me more hardware would need more engineers.

I thought Doug laid it out pretty well as to what is involved.

G²

RickMerrill wrote:
NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

If a station has a separate HD transmitter, then they save the cost of
an engineer.


It has been many, many years since most transmitter locations required
an on-site engineer. I don't know about your location but locally all
stations control their transmitters remotely. And the same engineers do
the maintenance on the HD and SD transmitters.
--
Bill R.


e-mail address disguised to reduce spam

RickMerrill wrote:
NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

If a station has a separate HD transmitter, then they save the cost of
an engineer.

Any full-license station that doesn't have a separate digital
transmitter will be going out of business in June when their analog
license is canceled by the FCC.

(which I suppose *would* cut costs dramatically, but it'll cut revenues
to zero...)

To the best of my recollection, only one station has chosen to surrender
its license and not convert to digital. (a VERY small educational
station at a high school in Arkansas)

As Bill R says, the same engineer is responsible for both the analog and
digital transmitters - and is NOT required to monitor the transmitter
continuously. There are computer systems for that. Even if the FCC did
require the transmitter to be attended (which they haven't for over 30
years) the *same* engineer could attend both the analog and digital
transmitters.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

sorry-spammers wrote:
RickMerrill wrote:
NightWing wrote:
Just wondering if there a big finacial incentive to not broadcast in
HD? Most seem to broacast thier prime time feeds & major features in
HD, but quickly drop back to SD for off hours & lesser shows.

If a station has a separate HD transmitter, then they save the cost of
an engineer.

Any full-license station that doesn't have a separate digital
transmitter will be going out of business in June when their analog
license is canceled by the FCC.

(which I suppose *would* cut costs dramatically, but it'll cut revenues
to zero...)

To the best of my recollection, only one station has chosen to surrender
its license and not convert to digital. (a VERY small educational
station at a high school in Arkansas)


bUt but .. Low Power stations are not required to convert. I'm sure a
school station would be LP.


As Bill R says, the same engineer is responsible for both the analog and
digital transmitters - and is NOT required to monitor the transmitter
continuously. There are computer systems for that. Even if the FCC did
require the transmitter to be attended (which they haven't for over 30
years) the *same* engineer could attend both the analog and digital
transmitters.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

Ah, there's that 30yrs again!
;-)

RickMerrill wrote:
To the best of my recollection, only one station has chosen to
surrender its license and not convert to digital. (a VERY small
educational station at a high school in Arkansas)

bUt but .. Low Power stations are not required to convert. I'm sure a
school station would be LP.

Nope, this station held a full license. (KLEP in Newark, Arkansas.)

LP stations will be required to convert eventually. The FCC just hasn't
set a date yet.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66