# NBC's Zucker: "Who Needs HDTV?"



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*NBC Universal's chief executive not concerned that a
third of NBC's primetime shows won't be in high-def.*

By Phillip Swann, President, TVPredictions

Washington, D.C. - October 26, 2006 -- NBC says it's dropping most scripted programs from
the network's 8 p.m. time slot next season, replacing them with reality and game shows.

The unscripted fare, which is cheaper to produce, will not be broadcast in High-Definition TV.
However, NBC Universal TV CEO Jeff Zucker says that's no big deal.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Zucker was asked if high-def viewers might be less
interested in watching non-HD programming. "It's hard to say if viewers will be less interested
in unscripted programming that's not in HD when the rest of the programming is in HD," Zucker
tells the newspaper. "I think it's a fair question, but I'm not overly concerned about it..."

More @ *TVPredictions*.com


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I looked and looked, but nowhere did I see him say anything like "Who needs HDTV?"

I think the title is a gross exaggeration of his comments.


----------



## PetSounds66 (Sep 5, 2006)

If the studio is equipped with HD equipment, I can think of no other reason to broadcast in hi-def other than the fact that the "Average Joe" on the shows might look a little too imperfect in HD on a 60" plasma.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I need to add, I think the original title on TVPredictions is misleading, not Nick's title.
Nick, I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.


----------



## Mark L (Oct 23, 2006)

No wonder they're #4 among the networks. They have these stupid game shows and reality shows. I can't wait until 2009..... unless they push that date back too :nono:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Commentary By Joseph Whip 
HD Observer

_Editor's Note: Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal TV, said this week that he's not "overly concerned"
that the network will air fewer shows in High-Definition TV. HD Observer Joseph Whip says the network
exec should be very concerned. _

Washington, D.C. (October 27, 2006) -- "Reading Jeff Zucker's comments concerning
HD on NBC did not surprise me a bit. It has never seemed that NBC has ever gotten
the fact that HDTV is the future.

Other than the Tonight Show, they were slow to adopt HD. Even after they adopted it,
they chose to ruin it with a weather subchannel making their HD sports programming
difficult to watch. Now this.

Mr. Zucker does not seem to understand that HD is the future, not SD."
...

More @ *TVPredictions*.com


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

logan2575 said:


> I can't wait until 2009..... unless they push that date back too :nono:


2009 is the cutoff for analog OTA... there is nothing requiring HD, just digital... so stations and networks that are resisting now, will continue to resist then.

I actually understand this NBC guy's position... If they are going to film "reality" shows to save money and theoretically increase profit with even a smaller audience... then keeping costs down by not using HD equipment just makes sense.

What I don't understand is why these "reality" shows are so popular! The viewing public should speak up by watching the high-quality scripted dramas, comedies, and so forth... then the network will invest more in that type of programming. The fact that people will watch "reality" shows instead of whatever is on the other channel is just fuel for the fire that says that is the way to make money.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I record 10 shows weekly from CBS HD while Kidnapped is the only show on NBC I watch and that will most likely be gone after all 13 episodes are aired, or probably before. NBC programming generally sucks, I don’t like their Sunday Night Football coverage and the lack of DD5.1 is just wrong. Keep riding that Baldy Mandel train NBC, I’ll be watching my crime and legal dramas on CBS.


----------



## Mark L (Oct 23, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I record 10 shows weekly from CBS HD while Kidnapped is the only show on NBC I watch and that will most likely be gone after all 13 episodes are aired, or probably before. NBC programming generally sucks, I don't like their Sunday Night Football coverage and the lack of DD5.1 is just wrong. Keep riding that Baldy Mandel train NBC, I'll be watching my crime and legal dramas on CBS.


Couldn't agree more. Although 'Las Vegas' is still my favorite show on TV. NBC put on Friday nights to die, so I guess this will be the last show I'll watch on their network.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

When I worked for NBC, the standing joke was that the initials stood for "Nothing But Comedians". Now, I guess it will stand for "Nothing But Crap". :lol: The wizards at GE just don't get it. Ever since the RCA buyout, NBC has slowly gone downhill.
Last night's telecast of the Cowboys/Panthers game was plagued by network "Technical difficulties" (in addition to the abysmal 4th quarter performance by the Panthers  ).
To their credit, NBC does have a few good prime time shows. Apparently, "Heroes" is a big hit -- I haven't watched it as yet. On Tuesday, they have the "Law & Order" shows, Wednesday has "30 Rock", Thursday has "My Name is Earl" and "The Office" (and the soon to be departed "ER"), Friday has "Las Vegas" and "Law & Order", and Saturday has the aforementioned "Kidnapped". All of these are scripted shows and all are in HD. However, I watch none of them. When it comes to the major networks, CBS gets the most viewing time in our household. The power on channel on our cable boxes is set to WBT-HD, the Charlotte CBS HD outlet.


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

Since the NBC affiliate here is not carried by D* on HD (due to Lin) we pretty much only watch Sunday Night Football and Friday Night Lights on NBC, we don't even watch the local news on the NBC station anymore and we did since I moved here 3.5 years ago.

It is easy to understand why "reality" shows are popular with the networks since they are dirt cheap for them compared to "real" programming but I have yet to understand why that crap is popular with viewers.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I liked the previous cheap programming, game shows, much better.

As maligned as they were, game shows look like classic theatre compared with some of the new stuff.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

I generally do not watch TV unless it is in HD. I was an early adopter of HD and this February, it will be three years that my 61" NEC plasma has been hooked up. In the past three years, I stopped watching the news on TV because it was not in HD. Used to watch CBS evening news every night, but no more. Just starting watching ABC local news out of Philadelphia on a nightly basis because it is in HD. I used to watch golf all the time on TV. Will not watch golf unless it is in HD. I will not watch NFL football unless in HD. I am an Eagles fan but all of the pre season games on local ABC out of Philadelphia are in SD. Cannot watch it. Turned it on
this summer and in less than 60 seconds turned it off. When Leno was in HD, I
stopped watching Letterman until Letterman was in HD. 

If NBC does not have HD programming, I will not be watching in NBC. Many of my friends are the same way. If it is not HD, we are not watching that show. Do not
care what it is. I have my DVR set to record about 15 shows. Every one is in HD.
Will not record any shows in SD.

I am getting about 30 channels in HD from Dish, 24 HD channels from my cable
company and 14 channels in HD (New York and Phila) from my OTA antenna.
All the other channels are basically useless.


----------



## hdfan01 (Feb 1, 2006)

Don't you wonder why the HD conversion has so much resistance? I can remember black and white TV and how fast color became available. ( In comparison):nono2:


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Hound said:


> I generally do not watch TV unless it is in HD. I was an early adopter of HD and this February, it will be three years that my 61" NEC plasma has been hooked up. In the past three years, I stopped watching the news on TV because it was not in HD. Used to watch CBS evening news every night, but no more. Just starting watching ABC local news out of Philadelphia on a nightly basis because it is in HD. I used to watch golf all the time on TV. Will not watch golf unless it is in HD. I will not watch NFL football unless in HD. I am an Eagles fan but all of the pre season games on local ABC out of Philadelphia are in SD. Cannot watch it. Turned it on
> this summer and in less than 60 seconds turned it off. When Leno was in HD, I
> stopped watching Letterman until Letterman was in HD.
> 
> ...


I am in agreement. Its HD or nothing for me most of the time. Finally a local station will show their news in HD. I will watch it exclusively now. i think they are underestimating the HD market. I really do not know anyone who doesn't have and HD set any more.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

HDMe said:


> 2009 is the cutoff for analog OTA... there is nothing requiring HD, just digital... so stations and networks that are resisting now, will continue to resist then.
> 
> I actually understand this NBC guy's position... If they are going to film "reality" shows to save money and theoretically increase profit with even a smaller audience... then keeping costs down by not using HD equipment just makes sense.
> 
> What I don't understand is why these "reality" shows are so popular! The viewing public should speak up by watching the high-quality scripted dramas, comedies, and so forth... then the network will invest more in that type of programming. The fact that people will watch "reality" shows instead of whatever is on the other channel is just fuel for the fire that says that is the way to make money.


I don't get the extra cost associated with HD. You can buy cheap handheld HD cameras now. Anything would be better than SD. They might complain about those cameras not being "professional" but everything looks better in HD, no matter how expensive the camera.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Color TV (RCA standard - which owned NBC) was introduced in the very early 50s. The FCC adopted the RCA standard about '56. The networks did not go 100% color in PRIME TIME until '65 (CBS, NBC) and 66 (ABC). And it wasn't until '70 or so that all new programming was in color. I know our family didn't have a color TV until '67.

This conversion did NOT require that every piece of equipment in a studio and transmitters be replaced before it worked. Just the cameras wont do it. You need an HD swtiched, routers, EVERYTHING in the studio has to be replaced. 

It also did NOT require every viewer on the planet to change every receiver or buy a new piece of equipment. The old B&W TV was good enough to get the new programming. You couldn't get color but you could see the new program.

The slow adoption process has to do with the fact that quite a few of us are waiting for their present equipment to die before spending kilo-bucks on new equipment. Had the FCC mandated ATSC tuners on TV sets in 1997 or 1998 tather than waiting a DECADE for the inevitable, things could have been different. The difference between HD and SD is not the percieved by the general public to be the same quantum leap as B&W to color.

And BTW, most average Joes out there CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE between HD and regular TV. This is witnessed by the fact that near 75% of those with HDTVs don't have them hooked up correctly to watch HD programming! So as a programmer, why spend the money on something most people don't get yet?

See ya
Tony


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

TNGTony said:


> This is witnessed by the fact that near 75% of those with HDTVs don't have them hooked up correctly to watch HD programming!
> See ya
> Tony


I can vouch for that. I have had to explain to and help people set up their HDTVs when I went to their house and see that they have it in 480i stretch mode, thinking it is HD. And still others who have HDTVs and don't even receive any HD signal (no OTA or HD box) and think that because the TV is HDTV it somehow magically makes all their stuff HD. That is sad.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

> The viewing public should speak up by watching the high-quality scripted dramas, comedies, and so forth.


I would if there were any . . .


----------



## apco25 (Oct 2, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> I would if there were any . . .


There is one... Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

I do not know one person who does not get HD on their HDTV. Everybody I know
has it hooked up correctly. Most people will not spend that kind of money and then
not get HD. You have to be blind if you do not see the difference between an HD picture and SD. If a show is not in HD, I am not watching it and neither
are many of my friends. CBS' decision to air only 3 NFL games per week in HD is not
very smart. Many subscribers will simply not watch, including me.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

"I don't get the extra cost associated with HD. You can buy cheap handheld HD cameras now. Anything would be better than SD. They might complain about those cameras not being "professional" but everything looks better in HD, no matter how expensive the camera."

I'm not defending the stations--just providing info--but even if the whole studio was just a camera running into a transmitter, you'd be talking big bucks. 

All the switching equipment and recording equipment must be upgraded to pass the additional bandwidth, and it must be done with professional equipment that will stand up to use 24/7.

Then the new transmitter will cost a few hundred thousand. 

I agree with you guys on the importance of HD from the educated consumer's point of view--I have spent a couple of hours on the phone with D* over the last month to be authorized for NY HD locals, since my locals are SD only--but it is a big step for a station.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

paulman182 said:


> "I don't get the extra cost associated with HD. You can buy cheap handheld HD cameras now. Anything would be better than SD. They might complain about those cameras not being "professional" but everything looks better in HD, no matter how expensive the camera."
> 
> I'm not defending the stations--just providing info--but even if the whole studio was just a camera running into a transmitter, you'd be talking big bucks.
> 
> ...


What I am saying is the already are broadcasting a digital signal and HD programs, so how much more difficult is it to just record it in HD. Just lazy and don't think enough people care.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> What I am saying is the already are broadcasting a digital signal and HD programs, so how much more difficult is it to just record it in HD. Just lazy and don't think enough people care.


Ok, now I see, and I agree with you!


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The extra cost has to do with the media which is MUCH more expensive and the equipment that can be repurposed. As I said, it's not just the cameras that have to be HD, it's EVERYTHING from the cameras to the transmitter and everything in between.

As to the person who doesn't know anyone who doesn't have HD sets hooked up incorrectly and can't imagine people spending that kind of money and then hook things up incorrectly, I would invite you to evesdrop on conversations at your local retail TV store. I would also invite you to make friends with those that are not technophines. To me it is unbelievable, but true. Most people couldn't care less as long as it looks okay.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ebaltz said:


> What I am saying is the already are broadcasting a digital signal and HD programs, so how much more difficult is it to just record it in HD. Just lazy and don't think enough people care.


'Course this wouldn't apply to live sporting events... since recording them in HD for later broadcast still wouldn't solve the problem most folks want to see in live HD.

Not picking on you personally here... but I love folks that wonder why the network can't upgrade all their stuff to HD but those same folks are often the ones wondering why they have to pay $199 or so to get an HD receiver from their satellite company


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

apco25 said:


> There is one... Battlestar Galactica.


Agree! Was skeptical about it, remembering the previous versions. But after reading about it in a few previews I watched the premiere this season, and I am now hooked!


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

TNGTony said:


> The extra cost has to do with the media which is MUCH more expensive and the equipment that can be repurposed. As I said, it's not just the cameras that have to be HD, it's EVERYTHING from the cameras to the transmitter and everything in between.
> 
> As to the person who doesn't know anyone who doesn't have HD sets hooked up incorrectly and can't imagine people spending that kind of money and then hook things up incorrectly, I would invite you to evesdrop on conversations at your local retail TV store. I would also invite you to make friends with those that are not technophines. To me it is unbelievable, but true. Most people couldn't care less as long as it looks okay.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. When I worked on color construction at NBC, it involved a total replacement of ALL video equipment in the station. New film and slide cameras, new master control equipment, new studio control panels new sync generators, camera control units, cameras and pedestals -- even lighting control panels and studio lights. The only stuff we didn't replace was audio gear. Our station was NBC O&O, but it wa still a costly endeavor. For stations to originate programming in HD, they'd have to do the same kind of equipment replacement.

Aside to those who think you could use amateur HD cameras (actually, *camcorders*, I sincerely doubt they'd meet broadcast standards and they would not be satisfactory for live TV..


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Pro-sumer level HD DV cameras are good to 480i broadcast standard and that is about it.

See ya
Tony


----------



## wakajawaka (Sep 27, 2006)

TNGTony said:


> And BTW, most average Joes out there CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE between HD and regular TV. This is witnessed by the fact that near 75% of those with HDTVs don't have them hooked up correctly to watch HD programming! So as a programmer, why spend the money on something most people don't get yet?


What? Are they blind!

Even my wife who doesn't give a hoot about any of the audio/video technology noticed the improvement with an emphatic "wow! that looks really good". She is not really into sports, but in HD she will sit and watch for a while because "It feels like you are right on the field"

I guess I find it hard to believe even average joes can't see the difference.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

TNGTony said:


> Pro-sumer level HD DV cameras are good to 480i broadcast standard and that is about it.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Maybe, but my HD video camera produces better images on my TV than is broadcast from any HD station and certainly better than the SD stuff. Networks and stations that switch over will actually attrack viewers with money to buy the products that advertisers sell.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

To Tony TNG,

I know personally about 30 families with HDTVs. None of the families are technophiles. I am the only technophile that I know. But all their HDTVs are set up
correctly. My observations are based on fact. Not speculation or eavesdropping of
conversations at retailers. Most people are not technophiles. It makes sense that
people shopping for their first HDTV know nothing about HDTV or 480i, 480P, 720P,
1080i, 1080P, HDMI and component cables. 

Three years ago, I knew nothing about HD and sounded just as stupid as a non technophile when I asked questions at a retailer about HD. I bought my first HD set in November 2003. It was a Panasonic 22 inch. I had the cable company come out and install a HD box. The very next day, I called the cable company and canceled HD. Told them
to take the box away, I did not want to pay for it. The cable company only had
three channels, CBS, FOX and ABC. But then I found this forum, started doing
some research and was remodeling my family room. So three months later, February 24, 2004, I splurged and bought a 61 inch NEC Plasma. Called the cable company back and said, I wanted to try HD again. This time, I stuck with it.
The cable company now had about six channels by February 2004. In April 2004, I had an OTA antenna installed on my roof and wow, all of sudden I was getting over 20 digital channels crystal clear. In August 2004, I signed up with Dish and got the Dish HD package. I then purchased a Sony HDD500 OTA recorder for
recording ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, WB, UPN and PBS shows off of my antenna. I always thought that I would eventually cancel cable and stick with Dish. However,
cable kept adding HD channels not available on DISH that I watched (regional
sports networks YES-HD and SNY-HD, INHD, INHD2, New York PBS). Right now
I get 24 HD channels on cable, NBC NY, ABC NY, CBS NY, FOX NY, CW NY, PBS NY,
PBS NJ, HBO, MAX, TMC, SHO, STARZ, TNT, INHD, INHD2, Discovery, HDNET, Wealth,
ESPN, YES, SNY, NFL, HDNMV and Universal. Plus I have Dish Platinum with 30
channels. What Dish gives me over cable is Food, HGTV, National Georgraphic, Voom and ESPN2. Right now, if I had to choose a service between DISH and cable, I would choose cable because of YES, SNY and INHD. 

Verizon is going to be offering tv service in my neigborhood in the next couple of months. Verizon national HD lineup includes TNT, ESPN, ESPN 2, NFL, HDNET,
HDNMV, Universal, Discovery, Wealth, National Geographic, MTV, HBO, Cinemax,
SHO, STARZ and TMC. Verizon also offers all local channels in HD, ABC, CBS,
NBC, FOX, CW, MY and PBS. Verizon has the rights to offer YES and SNY HD. It is
rumored that Verizon is going to be offering the RSN's this month in HD. (it is also
rumored that Dish will be offering some RSN'sin HD). Comcast has publicly announcedthat it is negotiating with Verizon to offer Comcast Sportsnet Phildadelphia HD. I qualify for CSN because I am in the Phila DMA and Phillies television territory. I also qualify for YES and SNY because of MLB contiguous county TV rules and I am in the New Jersey Nets (YES) television territory. In my county, both Cablevision and Comcast offer five RSN's, CSN, YES, SNY, MSG and FSNNY. Cablevision provides four RSN's in HD, Comcast provides five RSN's in HD. My point is where I live everybody has their HDTV's hooked up correctly. There is a lot of programming.

I currently have two HD providers plus OTA. Once Verizon becomes available,
I will have a choice of four HD providers, Dish, Directv, local cable (Patriot Media)
and Verizon. The offerings by each company are becoming very competitive.
I will no longer need two providers and I plan on dropping one. Directv already
offers YES and SNY in HD. Friends of mine have Directv because of the HD RSN's and HD NFL package. If Verizon begins providing CSN HD, YES HD and SNY HD,
I will most likely drop my two current services and sign up with Verizon.

My point to Zucker is if it is not in HD, a lot of families are not tuning in.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Nope. They HOPE to attract more viewers, but that in and of itself is not what will attract Suzi Homemaker who is still statistically the #1 person the advertisers want. The "woman of the house" is still king of the advertising universe since women are the ones who make most of the buying decisions.

Can people see a diffecence between HD and standard TV? Yes. Most can. However is it really important to them? When asked, they say it is. But when presented with isolated programs and then asked afterwards if that was an HD or SD program, less than 40% anwered correctly. I wish I had the study in front of me. It was in a media publication I read at work. I was floored by that number. The sample was 200 people who WORK IN THE INDUSTRY. (Techies, producers, videographers--no secretaries to the station VP or building janitors)

One last point about people's perceptions and understanding of the technology. When I was selling TV sets (along with other electronics) from 1982-1986, and I, as plaid-jacket-wearing-sheister salesman, would ask the customer if they had any questions about the TV they were looking at (the TV was on and there was a current program playing on it at the time), what do you think one of the most asked questions was?

You won't believe me but it's true...

After: Is it on sale?
after the variation of, "yeah, yeah but what is MY price"

About one third of the customers I dealt with would ask....

*IS IT A COLOR TV?*

They were looking at the TV showing them a color picture, but they would ask ME if it was a color TV! Yes I sold my share of B&W TVs at the time too.

Now... imagine the difference between B&W and Color. The difference is stiking! How could anyone not notice.

To many, the difference between SD and HD is noticable. It's nice. They say they want it, but in reality, most cannot tell the difference when they hook it up incorrectly. And even more just do not care in the end. All they want is to see the picture.

To be clear, I am not commenting on the value, quality or necessity of HD. I am not commenting on the intelligence of people who see or do not see the difference. I deffinitely see a difference (so I say ) I am merely stating the reality of the market place and why HD just isn't that important to most consumers. They SAY it is, but it isn't.

See ya
Tony


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Hound said:


> To Tony TNG,
> 
> I know personally about 30 families with HDTVs. None of the families are technophiles. I am the only technophile that I know. But all their HDTVs are set up correctly..


Congratulations. You are the exception. Really you are. My comments are based on media publications and advertiser feed-back.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Also keep in mind... those of us with HD TVs are still VERY much in the minority of households in the US... so until we get closer to 50% of the US with HD TV in the home, the network cannot attract more viewers by producing more HD since there are not more viewers already!

Yes, it is a chicken or the egg... but when the average consumer still doesn't want to spend several hundred dollars on an HD receiver OR $1500+ on an HD TV... how can the network be expected to spend the big buck on converting everything to HD when their expense is much higher?


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

It is a matter of variable expense to the networks. Spend less money, viewership
declines and advertising revenue declines. If you spend more money, ratings increase and advertising revenue increases. The percentage of US HD households has nothing to do with it. Both HD and SD households watch HD programming.
When non HD programming is presented, many HD households do not watch that may otherwise watch. For example, I no longer watch CBS evening news or golf
tournaments because not in HD. IF in HD, I would watch. Non HD households will
watch anyway.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

ebaltz said:


> Maybe, but my HD video camera produces better images on my TV than is broadcast from any HD station and certainly better than the SD stuff. Networks and stations that switch over will actually attrack viewers with money to buy the products that advertisers sell.


I'm curious to know just what make and model of HD camera you have. I've checked the specs for Sony camcorders retailing for up to $3500 and none have 2 megapixel image sensors, which would be required for true 1080i HD. Canon does have a true 1080i HD camcorder (the model HV10, which has a 2.7 megapixel CMOS sensor.

I'm comewhat confused about HD camcorders: many will cite 3 CCD 1.67 megapixel image sensors (no doubt, 1 each for R,G,B). How can they get true 1080i images from that?  It must be magic. Perhaps one of the current day pros can educate me!


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Cholly said:


> I'm curious to know just what make and model of HD camera you have. I've checked the specs for Sony camcorders retailing for up to $3500 and none have 2 megapixel image sensors, which would be required for true 1080i HD. Canon does have a true 1080i HD camcorder (the model HV10, which has a 2.7 megapixel CMOS sensor.
> 
> I'm comewhat confused about HD camcorders: many will cite 3 CCD 1.67 megapixel image sensors (no doubt, 1 each for R,G,B). How can they get true 1080i images from that?  It must be magic. Perhaps one of the current day pros can educate me!


The most recent HD cameras from Sony have:

Imaging Device: 1/3" 2100K Gross Pixels ClearVID™ CMOS Sensor
Pixel Gross: 2100K

That is from the spec from a UX1 and SR1


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hound said:


> It is a matter of variable expense to the networks. Spend less money, viewership
> declines and advertising revenue declines. If you spend more money, ratings increase and advertising revenue increases. The percentage of US HD households has nothing to do with it. Both HD and SD households watch HD programming.
> When non HD programming is presented, many HD households do not watch that may otherwise watch. For example, I no longer watch CBS evening news or golf
> tournaments because not in HD. IF in HD, I would watch. Non HD households will
> watch anyway.


An SD viewer may watch HD programming... but they are not watching it in HD... so it doesn't matter if it is in HD or not!

There are programs like Conan O'Brien which is presented in HD for the HD channel, and letterboxed SD on the SD channel... then there are programs that are presented in 4:3 on the SD channel. To a viewer who only has an old 4:3 SD TV set, it makes little difference whether or not the programming is in HD.

I like my HD... and want more... but I understand there is an adoption curve where the networks have put a lot of money into HD for a very small return thus far... and I understand they want to see more people buy HD TVs before they go further and convert more programming to HD.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

HDME,

You are missing the point. If a network produces something in HD, both SD and HD
viewers are watching. If a network produces something in SD only. Many HD households do not tune in. Forget about the HD or SD channels or 4:3. The audience is much smaller and the overall ratings are lower for SD programs. Also the demographics for SD only programs are less affluent consumers. This translates into lower advertising revenue. So by saving production costs, the
networks could be losing more money.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hound,

You are missing my earlier point.... HD viewers are very much the minority. There just aren't that many of us to where if we all turned off our TVs and refused to watch SD, the network really wouldn't notice our loss at this point!

There is an overwhelming majority of SD-only households in the US such that until HDTV has more penetration into the market, the "they are losing viewers" argument just doesn't wash as it is only a very small portion of the viewers they will lose.

Like I said... I do watch HD more than SD... and I want more... but I realize this is going to take a few years more to get more HD TVs out there before the networks will have a situation to be of concern.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

HDMe said:


> Hound,
> 
> You are missing my earlier point.... HD viewers are very much the minority. There just aren't that many of us to where if we all turned off our TVs and refused to watch SD, the network really wouldn't notice our loss at this point!
> 
> ...


I think the numbers are turning. Where do you get your facts on how much in the minority HD viewers are. Total # of TV's sold? That doesn't work, because I have 3 TVs, but only one is HD. But I only watch the HD one, or at least 99% of the time. So in my house the ratio is 33%, the minority, however the viewing time is 99%. The only person I know that doesn't have an HDTV is my 75 year old mom. So that ratio is probably 99.5% have HD.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

HDME,

You have to be kidding me of course. There are about 25 million HDTV homes in the
US and it is growing by leaps and bounds. The entire market is about 100 to 110 million homes. So HDTV penetration may be as high as 25 percent. The HDTV homes are generally more affluent then the SD homes. The HDTV homes are the market place many advertisers are trying to reach. Gone are the days of two years ago when you would read on this forum that HD subscribers first go to the HD channels and see what is on and then they
go to the SD channels. Many HD subscribers never go to the SD channels now.
The SD channels are useless to many subscribers. Any new scripted network show
that is not in HD is going to fail. It will be off the air after a few episodes. If NBC is
going to introduce new reality shows in SD, the audience is much smaller and less
affluent than the audience for shows produced in HD.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Hound said:


> HDME,
> 
> You have to be kidding me of course. There are about 25 million HDTV homes in the
> US and it is growing by leaps and bounds. The entire market is about 100 to 110 million homes. So HDTV penetration may be as high as 25 percent. The HDTV homes are generally more affluent then the SD homes. The HDTV homes are the market place many advertisers are trying to reach. Gone are the days of two years ago when you would read on this forum that HD subscribers first go to the HD channels and see what is on and then they
> ...


Exactly and expected to be around 65% by the end of next year. And like you said, the point is, if something is in SD, I won't watch it. Networks who think HDTV viewers will still watch their SD shows are going to be in for a big letdown. If I were an advertiser (and I work for a marketing agency) I would make sure I was advertising during HD shows or on HD networks (if I would do TV advertising at all). WHo are you going to market a Hummer or Mercedes too? Some poor slob who can't even afford an HDTV, or to Joe Uppercrust who owns 3 flat panel plasmas?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Even if you estimate as high as 25%... that's still only 1/4 of the market... and while I don't have numbers in front of me, 25% would surprise me at this point.

Bottom line, however, is that no matter how much you or I watch HD and want more... there simply isn't enough of us yet to make a difference. Yes, the numbers are climbing... and I figure in a few more years we might be in a better position.

Also, for the record, I would rather watch a good SD show than a bad HD one. I don't care for the "reality" shows at all, and I don't know why those get so high of ratings... but when shows like Survivor are pulling in the big numbers week after week, that also tells me that there aren't an overwhelming majority of folks out there who want quality HD scripted shows.

Sadly


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

All too many programmers go for the numbers by targeting the lowest common
denominator -- that is where the masses reside, intellectually speaking, that is.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

We newly added HD a couple of months ago.
I would say 90% of the viewing in my household is still SD. I personally am responsible for 75% of the HD viewing.
My wife agrees that HD looks incredible and sees the difference easily. So does my daughter. We love to watch the HD travel programs together.

But most of their favorite shows are not in HD, or at least not on a channel that D* carries in HD. So 90% of the viewing in my household is still SD.

Some of us are quality-driven, and some of us are content-driven. And I think there are a lot more content-driven people.
As far as penetration of HD TV sets is concerned, with the prices dropping as they are, just wait till after this Christmas...


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Let's put it this way....
Networks CANNOT convince the advertisers or the advertising agencies to produce all their commercials in HD. The Adverstisers do not see the advantage in converting.  Since many commercials are shot on film, the conversion would be much easier. But they just wont do it for a variety of reasons beside cost.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Tony,

Advertising in HD vs SD is apples and oranges to the basic question of how many
of the 25 million HDTV homes are actually tuning in to new SD programming.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Just to muddy the waters -- remember the TV Broadcast terminology. 
Analog television that we all know, although it is commonly referred to as SDTV, is properly called NTSC or 525i. 
Digital television in the USA is commonly called ATSC . There are 18 TV formats defined under the ATSC standard. Those currently used in the USA are as follows:
SDTV is 480i digital, not analog, and has an 4:3 aspect ratio. (By definition, SD =480/24p,480/30p,480/60p or 480/30i in 4:3 format)
EDTV is 480p digital, with 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio (The standard includes 480/24p,480/30p,480/60p or 480/30i in 4:3 and 16:9 format)
HD is 720p or 1080i digital and aspect ratio is 16:9. (The ATSC standard includes 180/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/30i, 720/24p, 720/30p and 720/60p -- all in 16:9 format).

That being said, new TV's on the market 27" diagonal and larger having integrated tuners are required to have ATSC (digital) tuners. They may be anything from SD to HD sets. (Then, too, there are EDTV and HDTV monitors, which lack tuners).
A lot of people , not knowing what they are getting, purchase EDTV receivers (many lowr cost plasmas, for example), thinking they are HDTV receivers. The picture quality certainly is better than standard TV -- actually, it's DVD quality.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

I think might show my point. Here is a list of the season's top shows, and the format they are in. Notice something?

1 GREY'S ANATOMY *HDTV*
2 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES *HDTV*
3 CSI *HDTV*
4 DANCING WITH THE STARS *HDTV*
5 CSI: MIAMI *HDTV*
6 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS *HDTV*
7 CSI: NY *HDTV*
7 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL *HDTV*
9 CRIMINAL MINDS *HDTV*
10 LOST *HDTV*
11 TWO AND A HALF MEN *HDTV*
12 WITHOUT A TRACE *HDTV*
13 HOUSE *HDTV*
14 UGLY BETTY *HDTV*
15 COLD CASE *HDTV*
15 DEAL OR NO DEAL *SD*
17 60 MINUTES *SD?*
17 LAW AND ORDER:SVU *HDTV*
17 SURVIVOR: COOK ISLANDS *SD*
20 NCIS *HDTV*

And of sydicated shows at least 3 of the top 4 are now in HD.


----------



## robert koerner (Aug 20, 2005)

It could be that the investment to set up HD broadcast is considered a fixed cost. The cost to operate the set up is "variable?" But, since bcast stations tend to bcast a fixed amount of time, variable starts to look like a fixed cost.

One can look at the cost to bcast over fixed time of SD vrs HD, excluding the fixed cost.

It could be that bcast stations look at the additional cost of gaining the additional revenue they gain by switching to HD (marginal cost and marginal revenue), but the FCC seems to have a say in how things will be broadcasted.

Since I don't have an HDTV, and I don't watch any "live" bcasts, I'm gathering info about recording the local OTA HDTV, and converting it to DVD quality.

Looks as if it will be less expensive than setting up a HD sat recording system, which wouldn't provide local stations.

These sure are interesting times!

I'm still waiting for the time when I can just down load whatever "show" I'm interested in. But, it sorta looks like the USA internet is too "third-world" to free us from having to snag RF signals.

Bob

PS: downloading software, and free downloaded updates still AMAZE me!


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Cholly,

My first flat panel TV purchased in November 2003 was EDTV 480P (840 x 480). I 
thought it was HDTV. I did not know the difference. Then in February 2004, I purchased a true HDTV 1080i (1365 x 780). Before I purchased the second TV, I did research on the internet including this forum and understood what HDTV was.
In December 2004, I bought a third flat panel replacing the the first TV with an HDTV 1080i, because I wanted a true HDTV picture. I did not like the EDTV picture.

My experience as an early adopter of HDTV is that the first 12 to 18 months, I
was still watching SD 480i programming. But after 18 months, about August 2005,
I stopped watching SD programming altogether. 

So what Paulman182 says is true. SD is still watched for a new adopter of HDTV.
Especially if you have kids. I have five kids and I know their habits. Disney channel and cartoon network is not HD. The Simpsons are not HD. The kids really do not care if the Simpsons are in HD. However, after 3 years of HD, my 14 year old
son orders Movies on Demand from the cable company only in HD!!!

The issue here is new network prime time programming (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC).
If this programming is not in HD, a very significant more affluent portion of the
audience is not tuning in. CBS decided only to do three NFL games a week in
HD. I would not watch any of those SD games. I am an Eagles fan and the 
Eagles pre season games were in SD on ABC local out of Philadelphia. The picture
was horrible to an HD observer and I have not watched one preseason game for
two years. If an Eagles regular season game comes up in SD, I am not watching.
Has not happened yet this year (most of the games are on FOX).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Keep in mind too... for the NFL fan, for instance... if you want Sunday Night Football then you watch it no matter what. Not like you can flip over to watch another primetime game at that time... so NFL fans are going to watch no matter what.

Me, I'll watch HD over SD in that case... but I'd watch SD over nothing at all if I didn't have an HD set... So, how many viewers would the Sunday Night game lose if it weren't in HD? No one knows for sure... but I bet it wouldn't be a major hit, since the NFL is the #1 sport in the US.

Some of my favorite shows I watch now are on SciFi which is not HD... and I watch them because I like them. I don't watch Survivor, and wouldn't even if it were in super-HD so real that you could touch the people on the screen and smell the sweat. Sorry, just not interested in that program.

Faced with the choice of a good HD show vs a good SD show? I watch the HD show live, and record the SD show to watch later... I will always make that choice between two good programs.

As far as the top ranked programs and being in HD... I'm sure that is pure coincidence. You'd have to take away the opportunity to watch CSI in HD for everyone and see how many people still watch to really know.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

I'm going to give up on this thread because it is like arguing religion. There are business decisions in place that I tried to explain. But my explanationas are refuted with what turns out to be irrelevant information and personal views.

Look, I understand that those with the latest and greatest TVs on the market (and actually have them hooked up to get HD which is a small percentage) cannot comprehend how the great unwashed do not care about the HD/SD battle.

Yes, the top rated TV shows are HD however many of the longer running series were top rated before they went to HD. Top-rated is not the effect of being HD, it is the effect of being a quality production. HD is the effect of a quality production.

Eventually, as the techology gets cheaper, I'm certain that everything will be HD, but just like for the color transition, it will take time.

BTW, my bedroom TV just died, so I will be buying my first HD set within the next week or so. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

HDME and TNGTony,

Again you guys are missing the point. Once an HD subscriber like me gets so used
to HD, after almost three years, and has plenty of HD content available, I stop
watching new SD programming and find other usefull things to do with my life
instead of watching TV.

I am an NFL fan and like sunday night football. So I record desperate housewives,
brothers and sisters and whatever HBO has on sunday night in HD (nothing 
currently). But if the NFL was not on in HD on sunday night, I would no longer
tune in to the NFL. Just like I have not watched an Eagles pre season game for
two years now. Will not start watching the pre season games until they are in
HD.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Aha! Another HD snob, er, _connoisseur!_


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

No hound... you are missing MY point. YOU ARE AN EXCEPTION. Statistically, you DO NOT COUNT! This is not my feeling, this is the networks' view. That view will change with time, but that is that! Once you get that point whether you agree or not, life will be much easier!

I am done with the thread

See ya
Tony


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Exactly... I agree with Hound in some ways... in that I choose HD over SD in many cases... However, I am still part of the minority of HD viewers out there... so none of us make that big of a difference to the networks yet.... we are the first of eventually many... but until we approach 50% of the market, we just aren't that important.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Tony,

I am just like anyone else who has had HD for 33 months. You have not had HD
and you are offering your opinion based on speculation. I am just stating the facts.
Just like the 30 families or so that I know with HD and have HD hooked up correctly. I am not extrapolating that because someone did not have HD hooked up right, so 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 out of every 10 HD owners do not have it hooked up correctly. If you have never had HD, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The top rated tv shows being top rated before HD has nothing to do with this issue. When the top rated shows were not in HD, no one had HD. The issue today
is whether new programming in SD will be watched by subscribers who have
become accustomed to watching in HD. And I am telling you from my experience
and the experience of many people that I know with HD, new programming in SD is
not going to be watched by many HD families. You have no experience watching HD and no basis to give an opinion.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

:::sigh:::

It's as if I never typed anything.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"There are none so blind that will not see."_ :nono:


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Yesterday morning I played golf with three other guys. Yesterday afternoon, I came home had some time to myself in the afternoon tuned in to the Tour
championship on ABC for about sixty seconds and then for two hours I watched
from my Sony HDD 500 OTA recordings of this past week's CSI, Prison Break and ER in high definition.

I am a very avid golfer. In prior years, I would have been glued to the Tour
championship with or without Tiger and Phil. But since ABC did not have it in high
definition, I was catching up on other network shows in high definition.

A fact of HDTV life is that after a subscriber has had HD for 33 months, the subscriber probably is not going to watch new SD network programming whether
it is CBS evening news, Sixty minutes, NFL pre season football, reality shows
or golf tournaments. And I am not the exception. None of my golf partners tuned
in to the Tour championship yesterday either, because it was not in high definition.
We are the audience that ABC is looking for. But we are no longer there. 

So when Mr. Zucker and his compadres at NBC are deciding on new prime time
network programming, if the programming is SD only, they are starting off with a
reduced potential audience. That is a fact. Not HD snobbery or extrapolation of
the number of HD owners who do not have their sets working correctly.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

presses rewind button...

Stop.

Play...

No hound... you are missing MY point. YOU ARE AN EXCEPTION. Statistically, you DO NOT COUNT! This is not my feeling, this is the networks' view. That view will change with time, but that is that! Once you get that point whether you agree or not, life will be much easier!

I am done with the thread

See ya
Tony


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Absolutely... I agree with Hound AND Tony.

I share Hound's viewing habits in regards to HD vs SD for most things... BUT I also am with Tony in recognizing that I am in the small minority of HD homes making such a decision.

As such... if all the HD owners turned off TVs and stopped watching... the networks would still make lots of money without us.

In a few years when there are more of us... it will be a different ballgame.

To use the sports analogy...

We are like the undefeated Boise St. football team. We are good and people like us... but we will NOT be in the championship game even if we are the last undefeated team in the country!


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Tony,

My point: A phenomenon of HD is that I am no longer becoming
a statistical nothing, there are more and more people like me, and for
certain SD network broadcasts, such as the Tour championship on ABC.
Part of the core audience has disappeared. Now you say that statistically
people like me are immaterial. I am saying that the number of people like
me are growing and growing rapidly and can no longer be ignored by the
networks. By next October when new programming is debuting, the number of
people like me is going to increase very rapidly.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

This is from an article in the Pittsburg Tribune that was posted by Darkman.

"I have neighbors who won't watch anything that isn't HD, although that seems a bit extreme."

Tony and I disagree on this, but my personal experience is that this is becoming more common. More and more every day. And the networks have to take this into
consideration in planning new programming.

Here is the link from Darkman's Post:

( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_477758.html )


----------



## MikeR7 (Jun 17, 2006)

Tony - A person does not like to be told they do not count, statistically or otherwise. It can be true in reality, but to be told, bluntly, well, no one likes that. So I am not surprised at the reaction. My emotions are with Hound, but my praticality tells me you are probably right. 

Good luck getting your new HDTV. I had been watching HD on my 21" Gateway monitor, but bought and received a Olevia 937H. I would recommend the Olevia brand to anyone after watching it for 3 days. One specific online marketer has it for a terrific price under $900 right now and it is the highest selling set on their list right now.


----------

