# Weather Channel HD Update



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

The Weather Channel will officially launch in HD on Monday (June 2) but I noticed some testing going on yesterday afternoon.

Anyway, they have a nifty little site up.

www.weather.com/studio <-- The Studio of the Future!!!


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

On a side note... People complain all the time about the lack of HD content on the new HD channels, but never take into consideration how much time and money it takes to make the switch. If you look at the slideshow for *Studio of the Future* you will see a perfect example of what is going on at local news stations and national networks across the nation. Full HD is coming, but it will take time. We're still very early in the game and most viewers haven't even made the switch yet.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ajc68 said:


> On a side note... People complain all the time about the lack of HD content on the new HD channels, but never take into consideration how much time and money it takes to make the switch. If you look at the slideshow for *Studio of the Future* you will see a perfect example of what is going on at local news stations and national networks across the nation. Full HD is coming, but it will take time. We're still very early in the game and most viewers haven't even made the switch yet.


Actually, I completely understand the costs of going HD, and have posted as such many times since a lot of folks think money grows on trees and do not seem to understand that it will take time for things to go HD.

That said, however, it is irresponsible for a company to launch a channel and brand it as an HD channel without being able to put HD content on it!

It costs Ford a lot to make a car... but when I pay for a Ford I expect to actually get a Ford... not a Yugo with a sticky note attached that says "Ford coming soon"!


----------



## ICBM99 (Apr 4, 2007)

"Ford coming soon" lol

But really how long have we/they known that they were going to have to switch to digital transmission? With The Weather Channel, it looks like they were going to build a new studio and decided to wait to switch to HD/Digital, until the building was done.

I'm sure my "local" TV stations don't have a ton of capitol to make the switch, thats why they were all given advanced notice, plus the deadline got moved back.

I'm just happy to see more HD.


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

HDMe said:


> Actually, I completely understand the costs of going HD, and have posted as such many times since a lot of folks think money grows on trees and do not seem to understand that it will take time for things to go HD.
> 
> That said, however, it is irresponsible for a company to launch a channel and brand it as an HD channel without being able to put HD content on it!
> 
> It costs Ford a lot to make a car... but when I pay for a Ford I expect to actually get a Ford... not a Yugo with a sticky note attached that says "Ford coming soon"!


We're not buying a car here, we're moving into a new realm of television. I have to respectably disagree with you on this one. IMHO, every step towards HD is a positive one (outside of stretch-o-vision). It's the carrier's responsibility to choose between the available HD channels they think its customers want. They know very well what percentage of shows on a given network will be HD now, and what its projected growth will be in the months and years to come, when they enter into an agreement.

I wish all stations were HD right now, even if they don't have the content to fill it just yet. The SD programming, as long as it's not stretched, looks so much better and it allows networks the time to grow into the new format naturally. In my book, some HD is better than no HD. And all the early HD stations have been growing their content and will continue to do so. But if you wait too long to put your HD feed out there, like Fox News did, you're going to be left behind in the arms race.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Actually, I completely understand the costs of going HD, and have posted as such many times since a lot of folks think money grows on trees and do not seem to understand that it will take time for things to go HD.
> 
> That said, however, it is irresponsible for a company to launch a channel and brand it as an HD channel without being able to put HD content on it!
> 
> It costs Ford a lot to make a car... but when I pay for a Ford I expect to actually get a Ford... not a Yugo with a sticky note attached that says "Ford coming soon"!


HDMe, I just love your anaolgies!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ICBM99 said:


> But really how long have we/they known that they were going to have to switch to digital transmission? With The Weather Channel, it looks like they were going to build a new studio and decided to wait to switch to HD/Digital, until the building was done.


It is a lot easier to switch to a new setup than upgrade the old without interruption.

I've noticed the new "Weather on the Eights" (Satellite fed, not DISH Interactive) on the new HD channel since it was first activated. What I miss on the HD feed is the crawl. You get the SD sans crawl upconverted most of the time.

With a Monday launch it should start looking better. Then DISH can work on a Weather Channel interactive that works with the HD station.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ajc68 said:


> We're not buying a car here, we're moving into a new realm of television. I have to respectably disagree with you on this one. IMHO, every step towards HD is a positive one (outside of stretch-o-vision). It's the carrier's responsibility to choose between the available HD channels they think its customers want. They know very well what percentage of shows on a given network will be HD now, and what its projected growth will be in the months and years to come, when they enter into an agreement.
> 
> I wish all stations were HD right now, even if they don't have the content to fill it just yet. The SD programming, as long as it's not stretched, looks so much better and it allows networks the time to grow into the new format naturally. In my book, some HD is better than no HD. And all the early HD stations have been growing their content and will continue to do so. But if you wait too long to put your HD feed out there, like Fox News did, you're going to be left behind in the arms race.


This would all be fine IF customers didn't have to pay extra to get HD. If we all got HD "for free" along with our normal subscriptions then we'd have no reason to complain... but when the HD packages we pay for cost extra, I think it is reasonable to expect that we actually get HD in the package.

Lots of folks were up in arms over downrezzing and starved bitrates... but the next step appears to just launch channels that aren't even HD at all to begin with...

The argument that "SD on an HD channels looks better" might be valid, BUT we could have pristine SD today if the current SD channels weren't bitrate starved and downconverted from their original resolution. IF a company like Dish, for example, were to up resolution and bitrate on existing SD channels then there would be no difference between a channel like WFN in HD or SD since no HD content is airing there... and for a channel like SciFiHD, most of the time the result would be the same except for the odd hour or two where actual HD is on the HD channel.

I really hate to see people happy to finally be getting full-res SD on an "HD" channel when this is something we could have had years ago on our current SD channels before HD was a gleam in anyone's eye.

IF we truly want pristine SD... then that is what we should be fighting for... not watered down HD. If I get an HD channel, even a downconverted/bitstarved one, I want it to at least start out from the source as HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul Secic said:


> HDMe, I just love your anaolgies!


Thanks  I am actually proud of this one!


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

With the new WeatherHD, it would be really awesome if Dish could use the new "Weather on the 8's" in the interactive screen. ...like they have the ability to view the regional radar in the interactive weather now--except the new version would be the HD resoluiton and also animated. Technically, I'm thinking if there were some way they could capture it as a video loop and make it a 5 second "video-on-demand"... (Hey Dish engineers, are you listening? Let me throw in a little Psychology technique: I bet you CAN'T do it!)


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

HDMe said:


> This would all be fine IF customers didn't have to pay extra to get HD. If we all got HD "for free" along with our normal subscriptions then we'd have no reason to complain... but when the HD packages we pay for cost extra, I think it is reasonable to expect that we actually get HD in the package.


We'll let's be honest here... D* grabbed what national HD it could when D10 went live so they could claim they were the leader in HD. Had some better HD options been available at the time, I'm sure there would have been a different pecking order. But we pay $10 for standard HD regardless, so I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ajc68 said:


> We'll let's be honest here... D* grabbed what national HD it could when D10 went live so they could claim they were the leader in HD. Had some better HD options been available at the time, I'm sure there would have been a different pecking order. But we pay $10 for standard HD regardless, so I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.


I agree, DirecTV applied some pressure and forced the hand of some channels to launch "HD" before they were actually ready.

I'm not personally losing sleep over it... but I think it is perfectly valid to complain that we have "HD" channels that aren't showing much (some nothing at all) HD on them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The same problem happened with bleeding edge HD TV purchasers ... nice new $1,000-$3,000 TV set with practically no HD content to watch. Not even HDDVD or BluRay. It was a big investment with practically no return.

DirecTV added the bleeding edge channels ... several that appeared months before HD finally appeared, several that still have no HD on those channels. But the channels look good in a list. Now that HD TVs have hit the $1,000 and less price range there are more people looking for HD to fill their screens.

DISH's "no HD channel" WFN (an OK channel if it were uplinked as an SD channel to replace The Water Channel's content) seems to be the only no-HD channel. The rest are at least some HD ... and most of DISH's channels are heavy HD channels.

TWC HD is a mix ... It was added way too early for DirecTV and "before it was HD" on DISH. But there is HD there and TWC is working on getting more. With a countdown clock ticking for Monday I'm happy that it is there and not one of the channels that _may_ be added later in the week/month/year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> The same problem happened with bleeding edge HD TV purchasers ... nice new $1,000-$3,000 TV set with practically no HD content to watch. Not even HDDVD or BluRay. It was a big investment with practically no return.


I'm with you here, except that the purchase of an HDTV doesn't come with a guarantee that there will be any HD channels to watch... whereas purchase of an HD suite of channels pretty much promises HD content, right? 



James Long said:


> DISH's "no HD channel" WFN (an OK channel if it were uplinked as an SD channel to replace The Water Channel's content) seems to be the only no-HD channel. The rest are at least some HD ... and most of DISH's channels are heavy HD channels.


Yeah, now that TBS is stepping up more... WFN is the only no-HD HD channel I believe. While fishing is of no interest to me, I wouldn't bash the channel on its content... but its certainly worth bashing as a no-HD HD channel.

But even some of the "mainstream" channels are disappointing. SciFiHD isn't showing much in HD right now... and sometimes UniversalHD has a show (Firefly comes to mind) in HD but then SciFiHD will air the same episode within days not in HD and these are both Universal/NBC networks. Some channels really aren't helping themselves out by the choices they are making and not even airing content in HD that we know they own in HD and have rights to air.



James Long said:


> TWC HD is a mix ... It was added way too early for DirecTV and "before it was HD" on DISH. But there is HD there and TWC is working on getting more. With a countdown clock ticking for Monday I'm happy that it is there and not one of the channels that _may_ be added later in the week/month/year.


I'm OK to some extent with growing into things... but I hate to see this trend developing where "HD" channels are launching now without much HD and people are so happy that their SD looks better... when we could have had nice SD all along really. Personally, I could be OK with a channel going HD if they at least had a primetime block 8-11pm say of actual HD every night... but many channels aren't even doing that, and it's a shame.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Even with CNN HD's hours of missing HD (such as Larry King Live) I believe they are doing the best they can with the studios they have and are working on upgrading all of their studios. It is a big operation to go 100% HD. The biggest reason I'm willing to give CNN HD a pass on not being 100% HD in the "prime viewing hours" is that they are at least _producing_ their channel in HD 24/7. It isn't like most channels that upconvert when they upconvert and do HD when they have HD. There is a 24/7 effort.

When TWC "goes HD" on Monday I believe we will see another 24/7 effort. Hopefully that includes the crawl that SD viewers have become accustomed to. One thing for sure ... upgrading their one and only studio is much easier than upgrading multiple studios around the country ... so I _expect_ less holes in their HD carriage.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> When TWC "goes HD" on Monday I believe we will see another 24/7 effort. Hopefully that includes the crawl that SD viewers have become accustomed to. One thing for sure ... upgrading their one and only studio is much easier than upgrading multiple studios around the country ... so I _expect_ less holes in their HD carriage.


Yeah, that's part of it too... I now have two local stations (WRAL and WTVD) that have HD newsrooms... so their local news and weather is in HD. WTVD just started recently, but WRAL has been at it for years... so a channel like TWC that doesn't have an HD main newsroom when local stations with much smaller audiences have been able to do it... just makes for a glaring example of why they shouldn't have an "HD" channel until they have the capability to at least do their newsroom stuff.

On the flip side... WRAL is CBS and WTVD is ABC... Our local NBC doesn't do HD news yet, but NBC Network is HD while ABC and CBS national news are not. Makes for a weird dynamic.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I'm with you here, except that the purchase of an HDTV doesn't come with a guarantee that there will be any HD channels to watch... whereas purchase of an HD suite of channels pretty much promises HD content, right?


Actually, I have never seen anything promising HD Content. I know it's splitting hairs, but HD content is a separate issue from a channel being capable of broadcasting HD. I would rather have an HD channel with minimal (even zero) content (understanding this will change over time) than to have channels out there with a ton of HD content, but I can't get the channel in HD. It's chicken and egg. I need the Chicken (HD Channel) first in the hope it will produce eggs (HD Content).


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

With all the extra screen space on there new HD channel they could do some weather on the 8s all the time, just show the regional radars and temps on the side kind of like how CBNC HD uses there side space.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bhenge said:


> I would rather have an HD channel with minimal (even zero) content (understanding this will change over time) than to have channels out there with a ton of HD content, but I can't get the channel in HD.


But what channel is there with a ton of HD that you can't get that channel in HD? IF they would add *that* channel I believe we all would agree it is a good addition!

The problem is... with limited bandwidth at this point... every WFN no-HD channel added and every SciFi semi-HD channel added takes a spot that could have been taken by a 24/7 HD channel... Right now there aren't many of those, unfortunately... and that will likely continue IF channels continue to see semi and no-HD channels picked up, where would be the incentive to go HD if people are already clamoring for you in "HD"?

In other words... when people are already lining up around the corner for your band's performance, why would you consider getting music lessons?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Some of the "new studio preview" clips TWC has been showing really wet the appetite. This new studio is going to make the SD version look better too. No more green screen/blue screen magic. Video walls rule.

It is like they are bringing weather reporting out of the 80's technology bubble and presenting it with 21st century technology.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

HDMe said:


> But what channel is there with a ton of HD that you can't get that channel in HD? IF they would add *that* channel I believe we all would agree it is a good addition!
> 
> The problem is... with limited bandwidth at this point... every WFN no-HD channel added and every SciFi semi-HD channel added takes a spot that could have been taken by a 24/7 HD channel... Right now there aren't many of those, unfortunately... and that will likely continue IF channels continue to see semi and no-HD channels picked up, where would be the incentive to go HD if people are already clamoring for you in "HD"?
> 
> In other words... when people are already lining up around the corner for your band's performance, why would you consider getting music lessons?


I love all your analogies!!! :hurah:

TWC is a good example of the point I am trying to make. We already have the channel and now that they are expanding HD content we get it day one and don't have to wait forever to get the channel itself. Having the HD moniker is a marketing ploy by the channels to show they are 'on board' with the new technology. The desire to have that HD logo is greater (and I would bet cheaper) than the desire to produce HD content. TWC probably spent a small fortune to convert their studio to HD.. in addition to the costs to produce the channel itself. Now, when TWC gives us all this additional content in HD, if we didn't already have the HD channel... this forum would scream.

Just like when color TV's came out and there was less than 5% color programming, people had to wait for the color content to catch up with the technology. Producing HD content is expensive, but is growing more and more each month. I want my HD channels in place to take advantage. I honestly don't believe the mentality is "Hey... we gave them an HD channel, let's not produce HD content." If I look back on the amount of HD content I had two years ago and compared it to what I have today... well, it's no comparison. I expect to say the same thing two years from now.

Later neighbor (lunch?)

Bill


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bhenge said:


> TWC is a good example of the point I am trying to make.


TNT and TBS are good examples of my point  Last year people screamed for TBSHD because of the baseball playoffs... then when that was done, no more HD. People complained about the stretching on that channel but TBS responded saying they were giving customers what customers had asked for... and they had supposedly asked if customers preferred SD or stretched upconvert... so there's an example of a channel in no real hurry to increase their HD content because they are convinced consumers like what they are getting.



bhenge said:


> Just like when color TV's came out and there was less than 5% color programming, people had to wait for the color content to catch up with the technology.


Unfortunately we can't draw a parallel there. Buying a color TV and only watching B&W is like buying an HDTV and only watching SD... but today we are paying for HD channels and in many cases not receiving HD programming. There was no cable/satellite pay service to compare to back during the b&w to color transition, so there were not people paying for a monthly color programming service but only being fed B&W for their money.

I remember people quoting someone from NBC last year saying they were planning to cut back their HD. I'm pretty sure they have re-thought that since then... but if any network has a popular channel or show in SD, then until customers start leaving for other options they really aren't under any pressure to go to HD.

Again, to me, IF we were receiving HD channels for free as part of our normal pricing then I would say we don't have a leg to stand on for complaints about lack of HD content... but as long as we are paying extra for HD, we should be getting HD.

For more fun analogies  Imagine paying $15 for the HBO suite of channels, but HBO started running commercial interrupted and censored movies on those channels. Would you still pay extra for HBO?

Would anyone with DirecTV sign up for the NFL Sunday Ticket if they could watch all the games for free as part of their normal channel subscriptions? OR turning it around, if you pay $200+ for NFL Sunday Ticket to watch all the games, but some games were not shown wouldn't that be worth complaining?

That's my thing here... We are paying extra for the HD tiers of channels, beyond our normal subscriptions... so I think it is reasonable to expect these channels to have more HD than many of them do. Some are spectacular, some are very poor... but many seem to be middle of the road... and personally, I expect more when they sell the channel as a separate thing. When I'm mostly getting the exact same stuff as I'm getting from the SD channel I already pay for, it makes it harder to justify paying extra for the non-HD duplication.


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

Watched a little of Weather Channel HD this morning. The new set looks really good. The video wall is impressive looking. The news desk looks nice, but I think the production crew will have to clean the top of that clear acrylic pretty often to keep fingerprints and other gunk from showing up on camera.

For now, the shot framing and graphics seem composed with 4:3 safe action in mind. Many other stations broadcasting in HD also keep a lot of content stuck in the center of the screen for 4:3 compatibility. Maybe after the Feb 2009 changeover we'll see shot compositions get more oriented to the 16:9 format.


----------



## bhenge (Mar 2, 2005)

HDMe said:


> For more fun analogies  Imagine paying $15 for the HBO suite of channels, but HBO started running commercial interrupted and censored movies on those channels. Would you still pay extra for HBO?
> 
> Would anyone with DirecTV sign up for the NFL Sunday Ticket if they could watch all the games for free as part of their normal channel subscriptions? OR turning it around, if you pay $200+ for NFL Sunday Ticket to watch all the games, but some games were not shown wouldn't that be worth complaining?
> 
> That's my thing here...


Well, I agree with the expectation of your arguments. We 'expect' to get HD content when we get an HD channel... seems logical right? Well we both know that is not what happens... In both of your examples, HBO and NFL Sunday ticket are both advertised to deliver what they deliver... in other words... they advertise their content (above just advertising the channel itself) so you should get that content if you pay for it. I can't find any advertisement that advertises a guarantee of any percentage of HD content on any HD channel. VOOM did, but that is another issue since it is no longer a viable option. Nearly every HD channel out there has some percentage of non-HD content... we wish all had 24/7 HD content... that wish is still a long way away from being a reality. My hat is off to TWC for spending the money and getting more HD content on the air..... I wish all the HD channels could do that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bhenge said:


> Well, I agree with the expectation of your arguments. We 'expect' to get HD content when we get an HD channel... seems logical right? Well we both know that is not what happens... In both of your examples, HBO and NFL Sunday ticket are both advertised to deliver what they deliver... in other words... they advertise their content (above just advertising the channel itself) so you should get that content if you pay for it. I can't find any advertisement that advertises a guarantee of any percentage of HD content on any HD channel. VOOM did, but that is another issue since it is no longer a viable option. Nearly every HD channel out there has some percentage of non-HD content... we wish all had 24/7 HD content... that wish is still a long way away from being a reality. My hat is off to TWC for spending the money and getting more HD content on the air..... I wish all the HD channels could do that.


It is true that technically most of the HD channels do not advertise any particular amount of "guaranteed" HD... but putting "HD" in their channel name serves as some sort of commentary. In the retail world, such things could be called "bait & switch" where the advertised product is meant to mislead you to get you into the store for something else... So the new GooberHD channel says "HD" to get you to pay for it, but when you watch you find no HD inside...

Meanwhile, I don't disagree with your general idea that channels can grow into HD content over time. I just become concerned when I remember we've had TNTHD for years and they still stretch a lot of things instead of airing in original aspect + they don't always get HD masters of things even when HD masters exist... and the more consumers are willing to accept this, I fear it gives new channels more reason to say "the public has spoken" and they can delay things.

IF a channel legitimately is working to improve, then kudos to them... and it will show (I haven't checked out TWC today but it sounds like I need to take a look at the new stuff).


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

Some of the visitors here are old enough to remember the slow transition was from black and white TV broadcasting to full color. Color TVs have been around at least since the 1960s. Everything didn't switch all over to color completely at once. The change took a lot of time. Growing up during the 1970s I remember this well. Lots of TV shows and especially local programming was in black and white for a long time. The transition wasn't complete until the late 1970s.

Likewise, there's still going to be a lot of SD 4:3 stuff being shown for years to come on HD broadcast and cable channels. 16:9 HD is still a fairly new thing. Not enough content has been produced for it to have just any HD channel showing HD all the time.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Bobby H said:


> Some of the visitors here are old enough to remember the slow transition was from black and white TV broadcasting to full color. Color TVs have been around at least since the 1960s. Everything didn't switch all over to color completely at once. The change took a lot of time. Growing up during the 1970s I remember this well. Lots of TV shows and especially local programming was in black and white for a long time. The transition wasn't complete until the late 1970s.
> 
> Likewise, there's still going to be a lot of SD 4:3 stuff being shown for years to come on HD broadcast and cable channels. 16:9 HD is still a fairly new thing. Not enough content has been produced for it to have just any HD channel showing HD all the time.


I remember it well. And after 9 months with HD, I find myself very comfortable watching good SD programming rather than crap in HD. I'd prefer good programming in HD, but "good" is my opinion so I'm getting more patient.:sure:


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

What am I missing?

I watched it last night and the news cast where still SD, said HD on the pillar bars. Thought the studio went HD yesterday? Flipped to it a couple of times and never saw any HD studio shots.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

Back on topic...I watched The Weather Channel and it was not in HD, but had sidebars with [HD] on them. Is that there way of telling me it's in HD?


----------



## CopyChief (Jan 17, 2005)

I watched a little last night, and it seemed to go back and forth a bit. Some was in true, full-screen HD. Mostly against the green screen/maps. But the studio shots were still pillarboxed. A few promos or location shots, featuring TWC folks, were HD as well. 

Especially the map shots look almost hyperreal. There's something strange about it. It's so clear. If they go full-time HD, TWC would be a great channel to show off an HDTV. The content is not always compelling, but wow... the picture and the graphics and everything are amazing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They had a bad day ... there were a couple of hours in the evening when the pillar boxes covered HD content. When they eventually turned off the bars there was HD underneath!

Odd. They may be going to SD to work out bugs ... but it is odd to have that new wizbang studio and not use it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Murphy's Law.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

Noticed tonight TWC was in full HD. I am very very impressed.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

I do not like what they did with the HD feed. So much screen space that they do not use it. At times you still see the sides of there weather map screens. I know they can do full screen as they do show it at times.

Also when there are TORNADOS like tonight, they should show real time radars on the side. 

They are wasting HD I think, they can do better.

Also there Titan HD radar is not very sharp as it is NOT blue screened.


Everyone should email the Weather channel with there comments as I doubt they are reading this.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

scottchez said:


> I do not like what they did with the HD feed. So much screen space that they do not use it. At times you still see the sides of there weather map screens. I know they can do full screen as they do show it at times.
> 
> Also when there are TORNADOS like tonight, they should show real time radars on the side.
> 
> ...


"Their".


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

I watched the start of the "Abrams & Bettis" show late yesterday afternoon. I think Stephanie Abrams is pretty easy on the eyes. At the top of the show she said they would be in that old studio for another 2 weeks before moving everything into the new studio. My guess is they must still be doing some testing and adjustment on the live HD broadcasts.

The morning show "Your Weather Today" and the prime time segment of "Evening Edition" are both live HD. I don't know how many other segments are being broadcast in HD. Some pre-recorded programs are being presented in HD.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

darn it, everytime I turn to the TWC I it is pillar bar


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Jeff_DML said:


> darn it, everytime I turn to the TWC I it is pillar bar


We must be watching at the same time. I got all excited by the recent posts in this thread about more HD this week on TWC, but have yet to actually see any when I tune there.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

I finally caught some HD studio stuff last night. Wall map looks pretty good but dont like the frame around it. Also like people said the cameras are shot with 4:3 in mind, had a camera sitting in the 16:9 part in one shot. My dad is a big TWC so he should love the new HD once they get everything running, too bad his cable co doesnt carry it:lol:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jeff_DML said:


> What am I missing?
> 
> I watched it last night and the news cast where still SD, said HD on the pillar bars. Thought the studio went HD yesterday? Flipped to it a couple of times and never saw any HD studio shots.


My ABC statilon uses pillars during local news. The news film have pillars and studio shots are full screen. Why is that?


----------

