# I know this has been said before but Dish HD content leaves a bit to be desired?



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

First off I love my 622! Best receiver Dish has ever made IMHO. I support Dish 100% in trying to keep costs down and while I do not like paying $299 to "rent" something I understand why this is so.

My beef as of late is with the content on Dish HD. I used to watch a ton of Discovery HD and as of late it seems that SD and HD Discovery often show different content and the content I watch is usually on SD! Yes I know that Dish does not control the content but for the past few weeks I have been trying to find things to watch on HD so I can justify in my mind the extra $20 a month.

So doing what others have: (channels I watch)

Rave: Is very nice but repeats-repeats-repeats!
Monster Channel: With all the horror movies you would think they could show a few "good" ones LOL
Universal: Getting better
TNTHD: Like their shows but how about "real" HD?

A few of the other channels I watch from time to time. The Equador Channel can be nice but much of the content is uninteresting to me.

Is it me or are 75% of the movies shown on Dish HD one or two star movies? The times they show a "good" movie can be often counted on the fingers of one hand.

I love old classics. Why not show "good" movies in HD instead of the crap they mostly show? Contracts? Do the SD channels have a lock on all the good movies?

Am I being overly crititcal? At this point I wish dish would allow me to take that $20 and put it toward some movie packages. 

In closing.... when HD is good.... it's "really" good but most of the time there is very little to watch and with HD sucking up so much DVR space I'm not inclined to tape stuff in HD unless I'm very sure it is worth the space 

It just seems like HD should be showcasing the best of the best in movies and other programming and (as I said before) while there is some "really" good stuff, the filler is just that... filler!

Lack of content? No way! You can take 50+ years of movies and show them in HD in a quality (35mm is still pretty darn good) few have ever seen - even better than DVD but where are these movies? My guess is that they do not want to pay to show the better movies... or they cannot because of contracts.

Either way I'll end this here and hope this improves. I admit maybe I'm being a bit critical so let me know if I'm nuts 

Thanks

-JB


----------



## nazz (May 4, 2006)

I'm sure contracts is a very big part of it. The big movies are going to be on HBO, Showtime, etc depending on what agreements the studios have with who.

I personally enjoy seeing the B movies on Monsters HD and HDNET looking so glorious in HD. It's a nice change from the premium channel fair.

Hopefully you'll get a little more of what you're looking for with the addition of Starz HD. They really need to add the other premium movie channel HD's as well.

I'm still fresh from D* so I'm feeling like my selections are way better than ever right now. That feeling probably fades with time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think you said most of it correctly... Lots of repeat, not always compelling content, AND Dish doesn't control the content.

Unfortunately, almost everything you said (except for obvious HD quality of course) applies to many SD channels as well. I see lots of repeats and lots of low-grade movies on the premium channels during the free previews and other channels as well.

USA never shows (or almost never shows) repeats of Dead Zone episodes so folks that miss them are out of luck unless they buy DVDs. SciFi sometimes shows Battlestar Galactica repeats but not in its normal timeslot so who knows how to find it if you missed a show?

The repeating and low-grade movies are not unique to the HD channels... but I'm with you on wishing for some more variety every now and then.


----------



## David-A (Feb 21, 2006)

Fortunately, my girlfriend and I like a lot of the independent and foreign movies on the Dish HD channels. At least 50% of our viewing consists of 3 to 4 star Dish HD-Lite movies. As nazz stated above, this is a lot better than what is available on D* in HD. In another year or two I expect most of our movie viewing will come from higher quality HD-DVD and Blu-Ray rentals. By then Dish will have more HD channels but my guess is the video quality (resolution and MPEG artifacts) will still be significantly lower than High-Def DVD’s.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

I agree with the above complaints about the lack of good programming on HD channels. My other beef is with the slim to often none when it comes to HD PPV options. I'd LOVE to see King Kong in HD, or several other movies that are currently on SD PPV. 

Is it that much of a problem negotiating to broadcast movies in HD?


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Thanks for the response.

My thoughts were not which is the better HD company as I think Dish is.

I was more interested in the huge library of quality movies and shows that "can" be broadcast in HD but are not. For example: AMC shows classic movies than I'm sure many people would love to see these "type" of movies shown in HD.

I question why we do not get some older but better movies being shown. I do not mean to rant but now that we have a good number of HD channels I would have expected better. I'm sure there are reasons but do we really need Kung Fu movies in HD or Cartoons or Video game clips?

Sure all our tastes differ and what I like or dislike others dislike or like but we have the bandwidth and aside from a few nice movies on HDNET it often seems like the same ole crap 

A few things I have noticed:

1. Monster Channel: What it it with showing sequels but "never" the original. They even have marathons that "start" with part 2 then show 3, 4 and 5 etc... but never the first movie ROTFL!

2. Discovery HD and Discovery SD: I want to watch Mythbusters and some of the other orginal shows in HD. Sure I love some of the quality stuff their HD has but instead of endless repeats maybe show some of the new stuff in HD?

I'm sure we all could rattle off a few dozen fav movies. I'm not talking about recent stuff that I expect to be only on the Pay HD (HBO/Showtime etc..) but classics that we see on free TV. Why not show this stuff? I'd love to see some of these movies in HD. Since the only time most of us have seen these movies in HD is at the theater most of us have never seen these movies that were in theaters before our time. Buying/renting them on DVD is one way but HD is even better than DVD (well real HD is LOL)

Guess I'm beating a dead horse 

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

liferules said:


> I agree with the above complaints about the lack of good programming on HD channels. My other beef is with the slim to often none when it comes to HD PPV options. I'd LOVE to see King Kong in HD, or several other movies that are currently on SD PPV.
> 
> Is it that much of a problem negotiating to broadcast movies in HD?


Agree 1000%!!!

If they are going to charge me $4 or $5 for a darn movie at least they can do is to show it in HD. I'm not a big fan of PPV as I just use my free rental coupon from BB online and see the show in the same or better quality as SD but they might get a few rentals out of me if they showed "the good stuff" on the HDPPV channel and not 6 months after it's been out on DVD 

-JB


----------



## David-A (Feb 21, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> I was more interested in the huge library of quality movies and shows that "can" be broadcast in HD but are not. For example: AMC shows classic movies than I'm sure many people would love to see these "type" of movies shown in HD.


I can think of several possible issues. 
Many people are not into older movies. They would rather watch a bad recent movie than a good older movie. I think this is true because there are far fewer of the old Classics shown even in SD than recent poorly-reviewed movies. This is also true of most of the people (mostly men) I work with (a medical engineering company) who would much rather watch a recent action movie, no matter how bad it is, than an old movie.
Movies made prior to the 50's are formatted 4:3. I suspect a lot of people with recent 16:9 HD displays prefer widescreen movies.
Some of the existing older masters aren't up to HD quality. There have been a couple Dish HD older 4:3 movies whose video quality was so poor I can't imagine there was any advantage in showing them in HD. Many older films would need to be remastered which is expensive.
Having said that, I would be very happy to see more good quality older films in HD.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

I was watching a Kurdish foreign movie on World Cinema HD (or whatever is the name of the channel) the other day. Of course, I didn't understand a single word, but it was so gripping and I was so glued till like 1:30 AM!!

And yesterday night, it was a great program about comet collision on Discover HD which I had never watched before. Not sure if it was a repeat.

Listen, first of all a lot of contents have nothing to do with "DISH HD" as has already been said. Secondly, those who're complaining are either looking in the same place over and over, or need to open up a bit more for variety. If you're complaining, maybe you need to watch the umpteen repeats of informecials on the SD channels, or simply stick to an HD-DVD player with no DISH. The problems in general are nothing specific to DISH HD, but due to the explosion of 1000s of channels with not enough "new/breaking material" to show on all of them.

I'm hoping with National Geographic HD, there will be more variety added to the content. Although, only a small portion is expected to be in HD.

If you're complaining about repeats on these HD channels, try watching the 2 InHD channels with Comcast. It's beyond ridiculous. Nobody comes close to DISH right now in terms of HD variety.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> Sure all our tastes differ and what I like or dislike others dislike or like but we have the bandwidth and aside from a few nice movies on HDNET it often seems like the same ole crap


This brings up another thing that I keep wondering about. HDNet has picked up a few syndicated shows in HD, most are cancelled programs like Odyssey 5, Dead Like Me, Joan of Arcadia to name a few... but they do have HD Smallville. This is cool.

I know there is a LOT of HD available for syndication, but nobody is buying it and I don't know exactly why. Take my local WB for instance. They have been HD for a couple of years now, and the new Smallville is always in HD along with Gilmore Girls and other WB programs. HOWEVER, when they show syndicated reruns at nights or weekends they always show the SD versions.

I have to think there would be an audience (like HDNet is tapping) for syndicated HD. Everybody Loves Raymond is popular, but I don't watch my SD reruns because I know the show started being HD widescreen around season 4 or so, so I wait for the DVDs to come out.

I even live in a market with WRAL, the first OTA HD in the country... they do their local news in HD and create some original documentaries in HD... but again, no syndicated reruns of HD even when I know such exists.

I keep hoping the light bulb will go off and stations that are doing HD now will start doing HD syndicated programs. As you've said, there is a LOT of HD out there available to be shown.



jrb531 said:


> Monster Channel: What it it with showing sequels but "never" the original. They even have marathons that "start" with part 2 then show 3, 4 and 5 etc... but never the first movie ROTFL!


I hear you. I notice this a lot, especially during Friday 13th or Halloween marathons. They skip movies and show the ones they do have out of order. Now I have these on DVD so I usually only watch for the novelty of it... but for folks that want a sit-down marathon, showing them in order would be a big event!

In some cases, I think movie studios are the culprit. Halloween, for instance... last I knew there were two different movie studios that each owned rights to some of the movies. This has been preventing a nice boxed collector's set from coming out because each studio wants to do its own thing.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> This brings up another thing that I keep wondering about. HDNet has picked up a few syndicated shows in HD, most are cancelled programs like Odyssey 5, Dead Like Me, Joan of Arcadia to name a few... but they do have HD Smallville. This is cool.
> 
> I know there is a LOT of HD available for syndication, but nobody is buying it and I don't know exactly why. Take my local WB for instance. They have been HD for a couple of years now, and the new Smallville is always in HD along with Gilmore Girls and other WB programs. HOWEVER, when they show syndicated reruns at nights or weekends they always show the SD versions.
> 
> ...


The reason that the station is showing the reruns in SD is that is the only way that they are A. receiving it, B. Only way they can record it. In most cases they will be getting the show at a different time off a different satellite service than the CW network (WB's new name). Also the price of an HD recorder (D5) is at or above $50k. Most stations have not invested in equipment this expensive. Most are going to go server base as the station that I work does. The problem w/HD on a server is that it takes roughly 4 times as much space to hold HD over SD programming. The station that I work for runs an SD stream for progrmming as well as a pass thru for the national HD programming. Most commercial stations run HD during primetime and insert SD spots during the time alloted to them by the network.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Take my local WB for instance. They have been HD for a couple of years now, and the new Smallville is always in HD along with Gilmore Girls and other WB programs. HOWEVER, when they show syndicated reruns at nights or weekends they always show the SD versions.


My WB does that even when they delay the new episodes for baseball :nono2:  . Thank goodness for superstations, even if they're not in HD. I don't recall what it would take to get superstations in HD or even if it's allowed under the rule that allows them to continue to be available.


----------



## Wicker 54 (May 7, 2006)

Can everyone say RERUNS !!


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

David-A said:


> I can think of several possible issues.
> Many people are not into older movies. They would rather watch a bad recent movie than a good older movie. I think this is true because there are far fewer of the old Classics shown even in SD than recent poorly-reviewed movies. This is also true of most of the people (mostly men) I work with (a medical engineering company) who would much rather watch a recent action movie, no matter how bad it is, than an old movie.
> Movies made prior to the 50's are formatted 4:3. I suspect a lot of people with recent 16:9 HD displays prefer widescreen movies.
> Some of the existing older masters aren't up to HD quality. There have been a couple Dish HD older 4:3 movies whose video quality was so poor I can't imagine there was any advantage in showing them in HD. Many older films would need to be remastered which is expensive.
> Having said that, I would be very happy to see more good quality older films in HD.


I know that many people refuse to watch something unless it's in color. I understand that maybe the HD market is not all hog wild over older movies in HD but there has to be more people interested in watching 3-4 star classics from the all time greats over Kung-fu, Ugly fashion channel (smiles), HD cartoons and HD video games etc...

Maybe I'm out of touch *smiles*

IMHO they prob just do not want to pay for the HD rights and what they do show they get on the cheap.

-JB


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> The reason that the station is showing the reruns in SD is that is the only way that they are A. receiving it, B. Only way they can record it. In most cases they will be getting the show at a different time off a different satellite service than the CW network (WB's new name). Also the price of an HD recorder (D5) is at or above $50k. Most stations have not invested in equipment this expensive. Most are going to go server base as the station that I work does. The problem w/HD on a server is that it takes roughly 4 times as much space to hold HD over SD programming. The station that I work for runs an SD stream for progrmming as well as a pass thru for the national HD programming. Most commercial stations run HD during primetime and insert SD spots during the time alloted to them by the network.


I understand all that... but I don't understand why more stations aren't looking at it anyway. Thing is, they are already investing a lot to go digital and then a bunch more to go HD... so why not spring a little more and have the capability to get HD syndicated shows for their rerun spots.

Think about it this way... with HD starting to catch on a bit now, and folks clearly willing to watch almost anything if it is in HD... stations that convert early to HD syndicated reruns will have a captive audience, which should allow them to charge more for the advertising during those timeslots. I suspect there are ways to make the additional required equipment pay for itself pretty quickly for the stations that jump into the fray early.

Also worth considering... WRAL recently invested in HD camera equipment for their helicopter! The only time that stuff gets aired is during their newscasts... so if they can recoup the investment for an HD copter-cam, surely some in-house digital equipment to store HD syndicated shows for airing couldn't be that hard to justify!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> I know that many people refuse to watch something unless it's in color. I understand that maybe the HD market is not all hog wild over older movies in HD but there has to be more people interested in watching 3-4 star classics from the all time greats over Kung-fu, Ugly fashion channel (smiles), HD cartoons and HD video games etc...
> 
> Maybe I'm out of touch *smiles*


I like good movies, whether they be color or not. There have been recent quality B&W movies too like Sin City or going back a bit to Schindler's List or the Elephant Man. Some current moviemakers use B&W for emphasis and effect or to create a mood.

And good old movies are good movies whether they be color or not. I know there are some jaded folk who are biased against old stuff... but if you are out of touch then I'm there with you!


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I understand all that... but I don't understand why more stations aren't looking at it anyway. Thing is, they are already investing a lot to go digital and then a bunch more to go HD... so why not spring a little more and have the capability to get HD syndicated shows for their rerun spots.
> 
> Think about it this way... with HD starting to catch on a bit now, and folks clearly willing to watch almost anything if it is in HD... stations that convert early to HD syndicated reruns will have a captive audience, which should allow them to charge more for the advertising during those timeslots. I suspect there are ways to make the additional required equipment pay for itself pretty quickly for the stations that jump into the fray early.
> 
> Also worth considering... WRAL recently invested in HD camera equipment for their helicopter! The only time that stuff gets aired is during their newscasts... so if they can recoup the investment for an HD copter-cam, surely some in-house digital equipment to store HD syndicated shows for airing couldn't be that hard to justify!


The major problem is there isn't an HD syndicator that they can use. The HD material is not be refeed to stations it is just SD versions. It will happen but sometime but don't know how soon. Oh by the way an HD camera is much cheaper than an HD recorder. We were talking about one the other day and the camera was only $10k. Where as the equipment to record it was over $50k.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> The major problem is there isn't an HD syndicator that they can use. The HD material is not be refeed to stations it is just SD versions. It will happen but sometime but don't know how soon. Oh by the way an HD camera is much cheaper than an HD recorder. We were talking about one the other day and the camera was only $10k. Where as the equipment to record it was over $50k.


Maybe you didn't read my first post? HDNet is getting HD syndicated programming! They have Joan of Arc, Dead Like Me, Odyssey 5, and many other cancelled shows from various networks. They also have Smallville.

There clearly are HD shows available for syndication, but it seems HDNet is the only channel trying to get the programming... which was the gyst of my post, why don't other channels who have already invested a bunch in HD invest a little more and be early on the HD syndication train the HDNet has started.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Maybe you didn't read my first post? HDNet is getting HD syndicated programming! They have Joan of Arc, Dead Like Me, Odyssey 5, and many other cancelled shows from various networks. They also have Smallville.
> 
> There clearly are HD shows available for syndication, but it seems HDNet is the only channel trying to get the programming... which was the gyst of my post, why don't other channels who have already invested a bunch in HD invest a little more and be early on the HD syndication train the HDNet has started.


The HD versions are being sent to them directly from the studios. They are not being distributed thru syndicators yet. That is the problem plus the syndicators have not started HD distribution at this time. I would think that w/in a year there will be some HD syndication. At this point then you will start seeing the HD versions on your local HD providers.


----------



## compubit (Jun 8, 2004)

It's all what's available, and how can it be fed to (and stored by) the local stations.

I recall seeing recently that Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! will be offered in HD in the Fall of 2006 - as well SD. 

Since Sony owns WoF & J!, and also makes video hardware... They may be rolling out storage hardware to stations running WoF & J!... (Note: this is purely speculation - I don't work for a TV station nor Sony nor anywhere in the broadcasting industry - I did 16+ years ago when in college, but that was PBS - we were ecstatic when we got a frame sync and didn't have to go to black when we changed satellites during live programming...)

Jim


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

compubit said:


> It's all what's available, and how can it be fed to (and stored by) the local stations.
> 
> I recall seeing recently that Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! will be offered in HD in the Fall of 2006 - as well SD.
> 
> ...


It is what is available and when it is offered. One thing though Sony don't offer anything for free. If they were to "give" some kind of equipment it would come along with a major commitment.
I work for PBS now and things are a little better now. In fact in just a few months there won't be "feeds" per se. We will be doing file transfer, We will request a file from a PBS server and it will be downloaded to our server.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

I happen to be enjoying the fantastic James Bond marathon on Film Fest HD (currently showing "For Your Eyes Only") in glorious HD, just as I'm reviewing the complaints in this thread. 

Seriously, I feel that you find the content less than desirable, simply because you aren't interested in that many things, or are just aren't looking at the right time. After comparing the Comcast HD content with DISH HD, variety on DISH HD blows everything else out of the water.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> The HD versions are being sent to them directly from the studios. They are not being distributed thru syndicators yet. That is the problem plus the syndicators have not started HD distribution at this time. I would think that w/in a year there will be some HD syndication. At this point then you will start seeing the HD versions on your local HD providers.


So where is HDNet getting its syndicated HD like Smallville from? And why can't other stations get similar programming in a similar way?

Oh, I also keep forgetting... Many times on TNTHD the show Law & Order is in HD... so that's another program that is available in HD syndication and being picked up & aired.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> So where is HDNet getting its syndicated HD like Smallville from? And why can't other stations get similar programming in a similar way?
> 
> Oh, I also keep forgetting... Many times on TNTHD the show Law & Order is in HD... so that's another program that is available in HD syndication and being picked up & aired.


There are 3 ways to receive the shows direct from the studios that produced them.
1 an HD tape (D5 or DVCpro HD ), 2. Via Net over high speed line (like T1's), or 3. Fiber. The later two can use file transfer systems. Why can't the other stations get them mostly boils down to money and contracts.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

You know I can understand older SD stations maybe not having the $$$ to add whatever equipment is needed but for crying out loud... these "are" HD stations!

They specialize in HD and should have what is needed.

-JB


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

jrb531 said:


> You know I can understand older SD stations maybe not having the $$$ to add whatever equipment is needed but for crying out loud... these "are" HD stations!
> 
> They specialize in HD and should have what is needed.
> 
> -JB


This goes back to mamagement of stations. Does the management think it iw worth the investment for the return on the $$. In present days there are very few stations that are not owned by a Broadcast group. "The good of the whole outweighs the good of the one" ( using a quote from Spock). These station groups are run for profit and right now for everyone 1 HDTV person there are going to be 9 non HD. So as the numbers start shifting so will the priority.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Most HD stations can barely put their legal ID on the screen once an hour and upconvert SD programming to fill the holes in the network HD schedules. Some stations are better than that and can actually produce HD but most can't.

Many stations are tied into their network's HD receiver which cannot be used for other HD sources. It would be great if every station had a HD receiver that could pick up any format from any network - but to do that at network quality it takes a complicated piece of equipment.

Local stations are getting there --- but until the extra HD receivers, graphic generators, switchers and local playback machines are in place there isn't a huge market for HD syndication - except national HD networks that can reach a few million customers easily and get paid per home for those they reach.

(Another item holding back HD local stations - money - viewership is growing but they need cash to pay for all that equipment.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Which still gets me back to my original thought... I live in Raleigh, with WRAL the first HD broadcaster in the US... they have their own HD newsroom for local news, they have many mobile HD cameras they take around and record original HD programming, and they just invested in an HD camera for the WRAL helicopter!

So I can't figure out why this channel at least doesn't have the capability to get HD syndicated programming... and I can't see why they don't have the money for the royalties because they had the money for an HD camera for the helicopter and I daresay that doesn't make them any money back like having HD syndicated programming outside of primetime would do, since they could raise advertising rates if they prove more people watching during those times.

Not complaining here, just thinking out loud and not able to resolve this to my satisfaction. I know why many channels can't afford to do it... but I can't figure out why this channel in particular can't afford it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WLS 7 Chicago is bragging about being the first in their market to have a HD chopper. HD production and syndication is coming - the more stations that go full out HD the more likely that syndicators will find a way.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Which still gets me back to my original thought... I live in Raleigh, with WRAL the first HD broadcaster in the US... they have their own HD newsroom for local news, they have many mobile HD cameras they take around and record original HD programming, and they just invested in an HD camera for the WRAL helicopter!
> 
> So I can't figure out why this channel at least doesn't have the capability to get HD syndicated programming... and I can't see why they don't have the money for the royalties because they had the money for an HD camera for the helicopter and I daresay that doesn't make them any money back like having HD syndicated programming outside of primetime would do, since they could raise advertising rates if they prove more people watching during those times.
> 
> Not complaining here, just thinking out loud and not able to resolve this to my satisfaction. I know why many channels can't afford to do it... but I can't figure out why this channel in particular can't afford it.


Then maybe it is time that you asked Capitol Broadcasting corp. Since they own WRAL and 4 other TV stations, 2 FM's, & North Carolina News Net. My guess is that they look at the investment on an HD camera for Raleigh will have better return than HD reruns. It pays back for all of their stations and news net. The local syndication for WRAL is gonna be less cost effective for them. It comes back to profit margin.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> Then maybe it is time that you asked Capitol Broadcasting corp. Since they own WRAL and 4 other TV stations, 2 FM's, & North Carolina News Net. My guess is that they look at the investment on an HD camera for Raleigh will have better return than HD reruns. It pays back for all of their stations and news net. The local syndication for WRAL is gonna be less cost effective for them. It comes back to profit margin.


Clearly any real answer would have to come from WRAL... so you're absolutely correct there.

But there can't be any obvious profit in an HD chopper cam can there? I mean, the only time any HD chopper cam stuff will air is during the news... and there are only a few hours a day of news... and they don't charge as much for air time there as they do for other timeslots.

There has to be more profit opportunity in making other timeslots HD where they can.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Clearly any real answer would have to come from WRAL... so you're absolutely correct there.
> 
> But there can't be any obvious profit in an HD chopper cam can there? I mean, the only time any HD chopper cam stuff will air is during the news... and there are only a few hours a day of news... and they don't charge as much for air time there as they do for other timeslots.
> 
> There has to be more profit opportunity in making other timeslots HD where they can.


Actually the way I understand it, News is THE primary profit maker for local stations... it is the only timeslot where ALL the ad revenue goes directly back to the station. the Majority of primetime ad revenue goes back to the networks, and I am sure a good portion of syndicated network programming does as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> But there can't be any obvious profit in an HD chopper cam can there?


It is a tool that can also improve the SD coverage of the station. Plus doing a digital zoom later (to get a better closeup than the camera operator could at the time of the flight) will still give you a great quality picture instead of blobs.

One place where HD makes the most difference is outdoors. With a chopper camera stations can overfly high school football games and catch a play or two to accent their sports coverage - or provide the quickest response to a fire or natural disaster. Cameras on the scene a lot quicker than a van can drive. One of our local station uses their chopper to follow tornado paths on the day after to better show the impact in a way that a ground shot just can't. Put that in HD and it is even better.

I'd be tempted to put HD in a chopper BEFORE putting in a HD studio cam.


----------

