# If it's "so popular", then why?



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

If Hannah Montana is supposed to be *so popular* and if it's supposedly the #1 show on Disney, then riddle me this Batman, why ain't it in HD? Go look for yourself...Channel 172.

All I can say to that troll citing the popularity of Hannah Montana made Disney HD more important to add instead of SpeedHD, I guess you are wrong.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

davethestalker said:


> If Hannah Montana is supposed to be *so popular* and if it's supposedly the #1 show on Disney, then riddle me this Batman, why ain't it in HD? Go look for yourself...Channel 172.


Perhaps Disney feels the demographic market for Hannah Montana is significantly younger than that of the mainstream HD user.


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

Why would 10-14 year old teenage girls care about HD?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'll bet you see a lot of Disney shows go HD in their next season...


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

The reason why this is such a hot button issue is because many people around here were trying to justify not adding SpeedHD because of the popularity of shows like Miley's. They spouted demographics and blah blah and Spongebob this and Drake -$- Josh that. When it turns out, these most popular (and supposedly most in demand) shows are not even in HD.

Enjoy your crow.

Meanwhile, those of us that know for a fact we are missing HD content on channels like Speed are thus far getting shafted. I bring up again, Charlie has a vested interest in getting Speed up to it's full potential. He sponsors a race team (Roush Racing). I've never seen HannaH, Drake, nor Josh ever using a Dish DVR on their shows.


----------



## cdub998 (Aug 16, 2006)

That is suprising. Heck My daughter loves mickey mouse clubhouse and its in HD.


----------



## Kman68 (Jan 24, 2008)

SPEED HD and Disney HD are like comparing horse meat to applesauce. FOX, the parent company of SPEED, is suing E*. ABC, the parent company of Disney (and ESPN, ABC Family, Hallmark,...) is not suing E*. If you want SPEED HD in the next couple of years, switch to D*, VOOM is no longer an excuse to stay with E*.

As a matter of fact, the only reason for staying with E* is the DVR. Without VOOM, the DVR is pretty much worthless IMHO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

davethestalker said:


> If Hannah Montana is supposed to be *so popular* and if it's supposedly the #1 show on Disney, then riddle me this Batman, why ain't it in HD?


You may have answered your own question. IF Hannah Montana in SD is the #1 show on Disney... why would it be motivated to go HD? Could it be more #1 than already being #1?

IF it were #2 or #3 then it might be motivated to go HD for increased viewership perhaps... but if it is already #1 while in SD, that equals little motivation to change.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Kman68 said:


> As a matter of fact, the only reason for staying with E* is the DVR. Without VOOM, the DVR is pretty much worthless IMHO.


That's a good enough reason for me. From what I hear, the 622/722 is the best DVR out there. It beats the FiOS offering by a country mile. If it was any good, I'd switch in a heartbeat since I already have them for phone and Internet. And I don't even want to think about Comcast customer service.

-Chris


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

HDMe said:


> You may have answered your own question. IF Hannah Montana in SD is the #1 show on Disney... why would it be motivated to go HD? Could it be more #1 than already being #1?
> 
> IF it were #2 or #3 then it might be motivated to go HD for increased viewership perhaps... but if it is already #1 while in SD, that equals little motivation to change.


That's really a stretch is it not? I've never heard of separate ratings for a program's HD or SD presentation.

As I said before, some people around here used the popularity of particular shows as a more urgent reason to add their HD channel and not another. Once we finally got the uber popular channel's HD presentation, it turns out those shows are not even in HD. This proved there was no urgency to add the HD version of that channel.

It ticks me off that some people tried to use this as a platform to rag on NASCAR. In the end, it turns out they are full fo crap.

There will be coming a time when all programming will be in HD and SD will be non-existent.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

davethestalker said:


> That's really a stretch is it not? I've never heard of separate ratings for a program's HD or SD presentation.
> 
> As I said before, some people around here used the popularity of particular shows as a more urgent reason to add their HD channel and not another. Once we finally got the uber popular channel's HD presentation, it turns out those shows are not even in HD. This proved there was no urgency to add the HD version of that channel.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying I like it... I'm just saying, from a business perspective... if you are #1 what would motivate you to change what you are doing?

If they have a #1 rated show (I don't know if it is, just going with the flow here for example purposes)... and that show already isn't in HD... then why would they spend more money to make it in HD unless they felt they were in danger of dropping from the #1 spot?

Likening this to sports... if you are beating a team by 10 points, why would you change what you are doing unless the other team starts coming back on you? As long as you are in the lead, you keep doing what got you in the lead until it stops working.

The highest rated shows are rated highly because people are watching them more than other shows... and if you already have more people watching your show in SD, there's no reason to move to HD unless you have reason to think either you are going to lose viewers OR you could significantly gain viewers by making the move.

As for your last point... I doubt there will ever be a time when SD is non-existent. There are still lots of black & white programming that people like to watch AND every once in a while a new movie is actually shot in black & white for effect. Similarly there should be lots of good SD that stays around and there may be desire to shoot in SD for effect at some point.


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

I should have been more specific about the last portion of my reply. I agree that the old technology SD format won't vanish, we can't go back in time and reshoot that content. But, I believe there won't be any SD channels at some point in time.

As for your other comments, then why do we have HD at all? It's not to pick up viewers. It is the next step in the progression of television technology. It just flat out looks and sounds better. THAT is why everything is gradually moving to HD. Why remaster old movies and albums? Because, current technology is able to make those things "better"; not to make them more popular.

Evidently, it does not cost that much more to shoot in HD. There are local news networks across the country that are shooting in HD. And Disney can't "afford" to go HD with HannaH?

It still does not change the thinking that there is no urgency to add an HD channel if there is no HD content in that channel's primary content. Give us the channels first that actually have desirable HD content which encompasses the overall purpose of that channel.

What was the big hurry to give us Cartoon Network HD? Every so often, I flip over to it and the content is "zoomed" to fill the screen. I'm guessing shows like ATHF and Squidbillies will be in HD. Those shows are in widescreen now. We'll find out this Sunday if they are in HD or not. Family Guy was in Stretch-O-Vision the other night!

What was the hurry to give us TWC in HD? I have not seen HD content yet. I don't think the CSR has been pounded with phone calls saying "we are missing segments on TWC in HD, so hurry up and add it".


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

davethestalker said:


> As for your other comments, then why do we have HD at all? It's not to pick up viewers.


Keep in mind, for instance, that the OTA digital mandate is just for digital and not for HD... IF there was such a strong desire to go HD across the board, then I suspect the mandate would have been for the OTA stations to go HD as well. Many, perhaps even most, of them are... but the fact that the mandate is only for digital and not for HD is telling in that it indicates not everyone wanted to go HD just yet.

Generally speaking HD does look and sound better... but the only reason to upgrade to HD is if you get something for it. If a channel, network, or individual program wouldn't gain more viewers by going HD and wouldn't lose any viewers by staying SD... then where is the motivation to go HD? You and I might want HD, but even we have our limits on what we want to pay for it.. hence the unending discussions about how much Dish (or whomever) charges vs the number of channels we are getting in HD. We don't just want to pay any price for it... and in turn that factors into decisions of channels and producers to go HD. When it affects their bottom line, or at least when they perceive it, that's when it becomes imperative.



davethestalker said:


> Evidently, it does not cost that much more to shoot in HD.


This is a matter of perspective. The camera equipment for HD costs considerably more than traditional non-digital cameras. Film is the most expensive and highest quality... then digital HD... then standard videotape being the lowest. Some TV shows in the olden days just didn't have the budget to shoot on film, so they went with videotape never figuring it would matter.

Cost is also a tradeoff... Film cameras are cheaper BUT you have to buy film, and you can't reuse film... and that can add up. HD cameras use videotape to store the digital recording, so there is reuse possibility and the media itself is much cheaper... SO if you are needing to buy new cameras, it makes sense to buy HD ones that will pay for themselves down the road... but if you have perfectly functioning existing equipment, it may not make sense to junk your old stuff and buy HD, especially if you don't have the budget for it.

Then there is the transmission side of things... Pretty much a complete overhaul of transmission, storage, and uplink equipment to handle HD vs SD. It doesn't come cheap.

Think of the consumer too... Are consumers just throwing their SD TVs in the trash to run and buy HD? Or are many only jumping to HDTV when their old SD set breaks and they have to replace it anyway? If consumers have been slow to adopt HDTVs at that price point, it should be no surprise that the studios and networks are similarly slow to invest themselves.



davethestalker said:


> There are local news networks across the country that are shooting in HD. And Disney can't "afford" to go HD with HannaH?


I think you're missing my main point here. Would Hannah Montana be more popular in HD than it is now? Are people threatening to stop watching if it doesn't go HD? It isn't a manner of affording. I can afford to buy a brand new BMW... but I already own a good car that is running fine. What would motivate me to trash a car I've already paid for that runs fine and gets good mileage just to drive a shiny new BMW? Unless I have money to throw away, it doesn't matter if I can afford it... my money is best spent elsewhere most likely unless the BMW would somehow significantly enhance my driving experience beyond what I have now.



davethestalker said:


> What was the big hurry to give us Cartoon Network HD? Every so often, I flip over to it and the content is "zoomed" to fill the screen. I'm guessing shows like ATHF and Squidbillies will be in HD. Those shows are in widescreen now. We'll find out this Sunday if they are in HD or not. Family Guy was in Stretch-O-Vision the other night!


Unfortunately, you'll be disappointed on this front. Based on conversations with DirecTV folks who already had Cartoon Network... they are still stretching the letterboxed content, which makes it look really stretchy! So shows like ATHF that have already been made with widescreen in mind this season, are basically going to have that effort go to waste as Cartoon Network just blindly is stretching everything.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

davethestalker said:


> As for your other comments, then why do we have HD at all? It's not to pick up viewers. It is the next step in the progression of television technology. It just flat out looks and sounds better.


I think it is to pick up viewers right now.

Market timing is everything. IMHO the HD market identity battle is on _right now_, not in 2010 when most cable systems will have most every channel with programming in HD.

People are buying their first HD TV's, and while many are watching cable SD thinking its HD, some will look around the advertising for more HD channels with even a few HD programs.

In terms of providers DirecTV got a big head start. Dish's "Leader" marketing was, in fact, true which is why we had Voom. But the "Leader" advertising was premature, before anyone but techies really had any idea what it was all about.

The big push to HD will be in 2009 unless the economy implodes. Both DirecTV and Dish will likely have a case to make against alot of lagging cable systems. And the channels will start insisting all new programming be produced in HD and alot of old programming be upgraded to HD. It will be interesting.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

The younger generation could care less about HD.
I have five kids and they
do not watch anything in HD. Disney HD is not a replacement for the Voom 
audience. It doe not create more value for viewers.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Most people put the old TV in the kids room when they get a new HDTV. As for speed it is a niche channel that is owned by fox I would not look for it before the lawsuit is settled. Althought I imagine it is less of niche channel that fishing channel althought that would be funny if that fishing channel had more veiwers than speed.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

davethestalker said:


> Evidently, it does not cost that much more to shoot in HD. There are local news networks across the country that are shooting in HD. And Disney can't "afford" to go HD with HannaH?


When you're a network, and you own $200,000,000 worth of camera, storage, editing, and broadcasting equipment that's all SD, and replacing that paid-for equipment with HD-equivalent will cost you $500,000,000, then, yes, it's expensive to shoot in HD.

Granted, that money IS being spent, but it can't be spent all at once.

Local stations were FORCED to spend the money several years ago as the FCC forced them to start broadcasting digitally (and why buy digital SD equipment that would soon need to be replaced, when you could buy HD equipment?).

Many networks only STARTED their conversion process at the end of last year. The networks that are heavily HD already have been working for 2-3 years to get ready, and they STILL have issues and STILL show lots of SD.

The reason most Fox-owned networks aren't HD is because they intentionally delayed converting most of their channels until 2nd or 3rd generation HD equipment was available. They knew they'd get better equipment for less money if they waited, so they did. Sure, that puts them behind, and many channels, even Fox News, isn't HD yet, but they feel they'll be better off in the long run.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Just a few quotes on the popualrity of fishing:

Today, WFN is available in more than 20 million households through North American cable, satellite, and telecommunications distributors. 

Fishing's popularity can be explained by the numbers. WFN president Mark Rubinstein calls it the 50-50 rule. Fifty million North Americans fish, a larger number than golfers and tennis players combined; and it's a $50-billion industry.

You have professionals earning prize money in seven figures not dissimilar to NASCAR or golf or tennis,” he said.


----------



## MarkoC (Apr 5, 2004)

HDMe said:


> As for your last point... I doubt there will ever be a time when SD is non-existent. There are still lots of black & white programming that people like to watch AND every once in a while a new movie is actually shot in black & white for effect.


Just because something is shot in black & white doesn't mean it won't look better in HD than SD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MarkoC said:


> Just because something is shot in black & white doesn't mean it won't look better in HD than SD.


I never said it wouldn't... but the statement was that one day there would be no SD... to which I was saying there will be lots of "legacy" SD that does not benefit from upconvert, some that does, and every now and then someone will shoot something intentionally in SD for effect.

Something like Grindhouse, for instance, that was filmed but had "damage" applied as a special effect to the footage to simulate the look and feel of an old worn out movie. Also, something like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre that was filmed to look like it was a documentary of something real rather than trying for a high quality feel to it... such a movie shot in HD wouldn't evoke the same horror, and in the future a similar-themed movie might be better shot in SD to intentionally have a gritty/real look to it.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Another example: The Shield is shot in HD, but some scenes are shot on 16mm film, handheld, specifically to give the feel of a documentary/reality show. So they, at times, use HD video, 35mm film, and 16mm film for different scenes in the show.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

I don't believe that there was any mandate to force local stations to broadcast anything in HD, they just have to convert to Digital TV before Feb 2009.

Local news is highly competitive. That is where local stations make the most amount of their money because they get 100% of the ad revenues. You generally see most of the same stories on all of your local news stations so they are constantly trying to make sure they have the upper hand on their competition to attract every last viewer they can and they figure that it is worth the expense to attract the viewers who would be more likely to tune into an HD newscast. Once one station goes to HD, the others will be scrambling to keep up if they believe that station is getting more viewers.

:backtotopDisney isn't in this situation with this program and doesn't believe that HD would attract more viewers so they aren't going to invest the $$$ to shoot in HD (yes, they are penny pinchers just like every other media conglomerate). Besides, it might highlight that Hannah gets pimples like every other teen.


----------

