# ESPN removes HD branding



## mcrutland (Dec 29, 2004)

Has anyone noticed that ESPN has removed the HD branding from its channels? This is most noticeable with the logo in the bottom corner. Looks like HD is on its way to being the norm.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, with way more than half the US households incapable of viewing HD yet, I would say the removal of the HD bug is a tad premature. Mebbe it's HD that's on the way out. :lol: 

Seems the NBC tag "In Living Color" was around for a long, long time.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Nick said:


> *Well, with way more than half the US households incapable of viewing HD yet,* I would say the removal of the HD bug is a tad premature. Mebbe it's HD that's on the way out. :lol:
> 
> Seems the NBC tag "In Living Color" was around for a long, long time.


That statement seems a little outdated.

Article from the Washington Business Journal (May, 2010) states 2/3 of US Households own at least 1 HDTV



> Two-thirds of U.S. households now own a high-definition television, and more Americans plan to buy one in the coming months, according to a report from the Consumer Electronics Association.
> The Arlington-based group says video products continue to be the top consumer electronics device U.S. consumers own, with 65 percent of U.S. homes now owning at least one HDTV set, up 13 percent from a year ago. Consumers are also buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now has 1.8 high-definition televisions, up from 1.5 percent a year ago.
> 
> Read more: HDTV penetration reaches 65% | Washington Business Journal


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> Article from the Washington Business Journal (May, 2010) states 2/3 of US Households own at least 1 HDTV


But watching analog cable on it doesn't count. :lol:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Having an HD capable set does not mean you receive HD service, or that you receive it from all of your chosen sources.

I get it from discs and I get some OTA, but none via Dish. Not willing to change the box and pay the associated DVR and other fees.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *Nick*
> Well, with way more than half the US households incapable of viewing HD yet, I would say the removal of the HD bug is a tad premature.





fluffybear said:


> That statement seems a little outdated.
> 
> Article from the Washington Business Journal (May, 2010) states 2/3 of US Households own at least 1 HDTV


For the majority of US households, _owning_ an HD-capable tv and _receiving_ HD programming are two different things. You certainly must have been aware of that when you posted.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Nick said:


> For the majority of US households, _owning_ an HD-capable tv and _receiving_ HD programming are two different things. You certainly must have been aware of that when you posted.


 I find it very hard to believe that the majority of households in the USA are *incapable* of receiving HD programming. If we really want to split hairs almost every household in the US is fully capable of receiving HD programming thanks to satellite. I may be willing to accept that the majority of US households choose not subscribe to HD services (I know quite a few people who subscribe to cable and/or satellite but are quite content with SD) but by no means does that mean they are *incapable* of receiving it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not sure how they tabulate that 2/3 households number anyway... IF they get it by adding up the HDTV sales and then dividing by the number of households... then it could be misleading.

We know some people have multiple HDTVs...so that could skew the average to make it appear that more homes have them.

Just like how the average family has 2.5 kids... and since .5 kids is impossible... it means there are 4 kid families and 0 kid families... and 3 kid families and 1 kid families... so you can't say that most people have kids... it could be that people who have kids typically have more...

Same with HDTV... people who buy one are already more apt to buy another.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not sure how they tabulate that 2/3 households number anyway... IF they get it by adding up the HDTV sales and then dividing by the number of households... then it could be misleading.
> 
> We know some people have multiple HDTVs...so that could skew the average to make it appear that more homes have them.


Normally, I would agree with you but one must assume their numbers are correct based on the following quote:



> with 65 percent of U.S. homes now owning at least one HDTV set, up 13 percent from a year ago. Consumers are also buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now has 1.8 high-definition televisions, up from 1.5 percent a year ago.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Maybe it's a prelude to just simulcasting the HD feed letterboxed on the SD feed.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Maybe it's a prelude to just simulcasting the HD feed letterboxed on the SD feed.


ESPN may stop providing an SD feed and leave it to the distributors to convert the HD to SD. This would save ESPN the cost of satellite distribution of the SD feed and simplify their graphics systems. It will also open up the whole HD screen. No more jamming everything in the SD box.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Nick said:


> Well, with way more than half the US households incapable of viewing HD yet, I would say the removal of the HD bug is a tad premature. Mebbe it's HD that's on the way out. :lol:
> 
> Seems the NBC tag "In Living Color" was around for a long, long time.


I was just a kid at the time so I don't really trust my time judgement, but I was thinking the same thing. However adoption of tech is a lot faster now, look how much faster DVD reached complete market penetration vs VHS


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fluffybear said:


> Normally, I would agree with you but one must assume their numbers are correct based on the following quote:


Quote:
_with 65 percent of U.S. homes now owning at least one HDTV set, up 13 percent from a year ago. Consumers are also buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now has *1.8 high-definition televisions, up from 1.5 percent a year ago*._

Ouch! That quote doesn't give me confidence based on mixing numbers with percentages. Such an increase, from 1.5 sets to 1.8 sets average is a 20% increase.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> ESPN may stop providing an SD feed and leave it to the distributors to convert the HD to SD. This would save ESPN the cost of satellite distribution of the SD feed and simplify their graphics systems. It will also open up the whole HD screen. No more jamming everything in the SD box.


Ooooo, I like that. Set the graphics for the 16:9 picture and be done with it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

fluffybear said:


> Normally, I would agree with you but one must assume their numbers are correct based on the following quote:
> 
> 
> > with 65 percent of U.S. homes now owning at least one HDTV set, up 13 percent from a year ago. Consumers are also buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now has 1.8 high-definition televisions, up from 1.5 percent a year ago.


That sounds, to me, like they still could have based one conclusion on the other.

The only way to get the 1.8 HDTV per household number would be to divide the total by households... so it isn't clear if they concluded the 65% from that or an independent calculation.

Not saying I doubt your interpretation... but I know some studies have misrepresented themselves at times to push a particular point.

The increase from 1.5 to 1.8 could also be indicative of more people buying a 2nd HDTV than new customers buying a new HDTV.

I have no doubts, though, that HDTV is increasing with time... I just don't know if I believe the 65% number. That seems quite high given the state of our economy...


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That sounds, to me, like they still could have based one conclusion on the other.
> 
> The only way to get the 1.8 HDTV per household number would be to divide the total by households... so it isn't clear if they concluded the 65% from that or an independent calculation./QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

People replacing old TV's do not have much choice than to get an HD set. I can not remember the last time I saw a non HD TV set in a store.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

lwilli201 said:


> People replacing old TV's do not have much choice than to get an HD set. I can not remember the last time I saw a non HD TV set in a store.


True...

But I have a set in my bedroom that is a 32" SDTV from 1995.

My HDTV in my main room died and had to be replaced... but the older bedroom TV is still ticking.

I suspect there are lots of people in a similar boat... having a good old TV that is still running strong.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

I'm sure there were people who owned B&W sets, particularly as second and third and so on sets well into the 70s and even the early 80s. But the point is that all networks were showing 100% of their content in color by the mid to late 60s. All that was in B&W by then was reruns. 

Similarly today everything on the major networks is in HD. Not only the OTA networks, but the top 20 to 40 "cable" channels as well. 

So "ESPN & ESPN HD" is, and should, go the way of "NBC, In Living Color". 

Now, lets talk about HD Net. Pretty much a channel designed to show off HD, back when there was little HD content. Now say there was a "Color Net" in 1960. How long before that becomes stupid?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> True...
> 
> But I have a set in my bedroom that is a 32" SDTV from 1995.
> 
> ...


There are still a lot of people using CRTs with converter boxes too. Some by choice since they prefer CRTs, others by economics. It was a lot easier to buy a converter box with a coupon for $50 than to spend $500 or more for a new TV. They'll stay with that until it dies. By then, newer sets may be more affordable for those on fixed incomes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SamC said:


> I'm sure there were people who owned B&W sets, particularly as second and third and so on sets well into the 70s and even the early 80s. But the point is that all networks were showing 100% of their content in color by the mid to late 60s. All that was in B&W by then was reruns.


That's not entirely the point... Today's OTA broadcasts (even being digital) still result in a compatible output that works for a B&W tv. Analog broadcast was directly receivable by a B&W tv with no converter needed.

This was just a few years ago... So, yeah color was adopted long ago as a standard and most broadcasts were color... but they never removed the capability for a B&W tv to receive the signal.



SamC said:


> Now, lets talk about HD Net. Pretty much a channel designed to show off HD, back when there was little HD content. Now say there was a "Color Net" in 1960. How long before that becomes stupid?


I don't know... ABC stands for "American Broadcast Company"... and it was founded in the USA... so at what point does calling it "American" get old? It has always been American.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This was just a few years ago... So, yeah color was adopted long ago as a standard and most broadcasts were color... but they never removed the capability for a B&W tv to receive the signal.


Stewart, you must be a mind reader. This was a question I was going to ask.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Interesting - ESPN is dropping the HD branding? 

On the other hand, I'm kind of growing weary of seeing BBC America programming on DirecTV with the BBC America HD logo on the shows and promos, yet the channel is not carried in HD by DirecTV. Just a constant reminder the HD version is available to DirecTV if they wanted to carry it as HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> Seems the NBC tag "In Living Color" was around for a long, long time.


NBC was using it last year ... I have not noticed it this year (I try to watch the shows, not the commercial break filler).



Stewart Vernon said:


> That's not entirely the point... Today's OTA broadcasts (even being digital) still result in a compatible output that works for a B&W tv. Analog broadcast was directly receivable by a B&W tv with no converter needed.
> 
> This was just a few years ago... So, yeah color was adopted long ago as a standard and most broadcasts were color... but they never removed the capability for a B&W tv to receive the signal.


One could buy an FM converter for their car's AM tuner if they wanted one. It didn't make the AM radio receive FM ... it was simply a rebroadcast, similar to the CECBs.

Keeping NTSC compatible with B&W TVs held back the technology. NTSC suffered for the rest of its life from that decision ... but it did make transition easier for home viewers. Adding UHF to VHF converters was required for some older sets ... but that came from having the new band, not from the addition of color. (Remember when TVs had two dials? One for VHF with a "U" position and a second dial for UHF? Remember when TVs had one dial and no UHF? We've come a long way.)


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Yes, I remember all those. Some, not me, might ask "what's a dial?"


----------



## VDP07 (Feb 22, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Having an HD capable set does not mean you receive HD service, or that you receive it from all of your chosen sources.
> 
> I get it from discs and I get some OTA, but none via Dish. * Not willing to change the box and pay the associated DVR and other fees*.


If you are an "A" or a "B" rated customer the usual receiver upgrade fees have been reduced to $0 on all but the 922. I beleive even the $15 "Tech visit" fee is being waived for "A" rated customers now. As far as monthly fees go, there is zero differance between hd and non-hd receivers. If you currently have non-dvr SD receivers, you could upgrade them to HD non-dvr's and your monthly bill would not change.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Keeping NTSC compatible with B&W TVs held back the technology. NTSC suffered for the rest of its life from that decision ... but it did make transition easier for home viewers. Adding UHF to VHF converters was required for some older sets ... but that came from having the new band, not from the addition of color. (Remember when TVs had two dials? One for VHF with a "U" position and a second dial for UHF? Remember when TVs had one dial and no UHF? We've come a long way.)


My first TV as a kid just had the one dial... I forget where it stopped... channel 14 maybe? Had to get new TVs when UHF stations were on board in the area where we lived!

Sometimes the tuner would get funky too, and you had to turn the dial around a few times to "clean" it out before you could stay on a channel.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ii used to own a UHF converter. Lived 25 miles from first UHF station in Milwaukee, and had to put a 4 bay UHF antenna on a 40' tower to get it.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Must be because they were ashamed to keep pretending that 720p was anywhere CLOSE to the resolution of 1080i and they were terrified of a lawsuit if they kept up the charade.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> Must be because they were ashamed to keep pretending that 720p was anywhere CLOSE to the resolution of 1080i and they were terrified of a lawsuit if they kept up the charade.


I've seen 720p sources that blew the pants off a 1080i source, and vice versa. Yes, I prefer the latter, but you really think there's a huge difference if both are presented as cleanly as possible?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Nick said:


> Well, with way more than half the US households incapable of viewing HD yet, I would say the removal of the HD bug is a tad premature. Mebbe it's HD that's on the way out. :lol:
> 
> Seems the NBC tag "In Living Color" was around for a long, long time.


Or they could add SD to their non-HD


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know... ABC stands for "American Broadcast Company"... and it was founded in the USA... so at what point does calling it "American" get old? It has always been American.


Not _always_ -- it was originally NBC's secondary network, usually referred to as "the Blue network" (the main network was "Red," although in practice, the two were shortened to "NBC" and "Blue"). Eventually, the government decided one company couldn't own two full over-the-air networks, and it made NBC sell off the Blue network, which the new owner renamed ABC.

That sale was in 1943, a few years before television began in earnest.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

trainman said:


> Not _always_ -- it was originally NBC's secondary network, usually referred to as "the Blue network" (the main network was "Red," although in practice, the two were shortened to "NBC" and "Blue"). Eventually, the government decided one company couldn't own two full over-the-air networks, and it made NBC sell off the Blue network, which the new owner renamed ABC.
> 
> That sale was in 1943, a few years before television began in earnest.


Actually, I was referring to it having always been an American company... not necessarily that it was always the same American company 

My point was that if all things old (like HD) became redundant... then we have more redundancy to get rid of than just removing the HD moniker from ESPN.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RE the branding- is not the crawl a bit smaller and neater? (I don't have any sports saved to compare to). 
Certainly when ESPN broadcasts an SD picture on an HD band, their side panelling makes it pretty clear.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know... ABC stands for "American Broadcast Company"... and it was founded in the USA... so at what point does calling it "American" get old? It has always been American.


Actually, "ABC" stood for "Americian Broadcasting Company" and it has not really been a "company" since Cap Cities bought it in the 80s.

Anyway, not the name, the theme.

Every "cable" channel has a theme, although some are quite scitzo about theirs. ESPN is "sports". BBCA is "stuff from England". TCM is "old movies". Lifetime is "stuff for women". Etc, etc, etc.

Now, HDNet's theme is "stuff in HD". Good idea when the only people who had HD were early adopters and there was little HD material on genreal channels. Just as "IN 3D" is a good channel idea today.

Now, today, or maybe 5 years from now, when EVERYTHING is in HD, how smart is a channel where the whole theme is "its stuff in HD"?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

SamC said:


> Every "cable" channel has a theme, although some are quite scitzo about theirs.


Had. Had themes. Not so much any more. Most have drifted away from whatever their theme was.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

mcrutland said:


> Has anyone noticed that ESPN has removed the HD branding from its channels? This is most noticeable with the logo in the bottom corner. Looks like HD is on its way to being the norm.


HD has 5 to 9 years before being the norm. There are still millions of SD sets out there.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> NBC was using it last year ... I have not noticed it this year (I try to watch the shows, not the commercial break filler).


NBC is using "More Colorful" with a rainbow on the screen followed by the peacock.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > NBC was using it last year ... I have not noticed it this year (I try to watch the shows, not the commercial break filler).
> ...


That is what I was remembering.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I"D rather they keep the branding and drop the crawl line at the bottom!!!!!!


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

NBC will be calling itself Comcastic soon anyway...


----------



## johnner1999 (Aug 30, 2003)

Correct a couple weeks ago the SD feeds were 'letterboxed' which allows espn to transmit one primary feed in HD and the switch at your cable/dbs company sends out either a hd or sd output.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RasputinAXP said:


> NBC will be calling itself Comcastic soon anyway...


What, and do away with the multi-million buck switcheroo to Xfinity??


----------



## Attitude2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

Seems to be all the Disney networks. Abc Family even pushed the logo into the 4:3 safe area.


----------



## mcrutland (Dec 29, 2004)

Looks like the HD branding is back for the ESPN networks. I like it this way.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Guess their lawyers figured they could maintain the scam a while longer.

"Daddy, why are the stands full of fuzzy pastel balloons?"

"Those are supposed to be people, Billy, see, this game's on ESPN and they refuse to pay for real HD."

"But we paid extra to get a 1920 by 1080 TV!"

"That's right, Billy. But ESPN will only let use a few of those pixels."

"So how can they call it HD???"

"Good question, Billy! But even some uninformed folks in forums call it HD."

"They must need glasses!"


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maruuk said:


> "Good question, Billy! But even some uninformed folks in forums call it HD."


No ... they understand the standards that define HD and accept them instead of running a personal crusade against anything that doesn't meet ONE of the many formats that are acceptable as "HD".


----------

