Enough off the wall HD...

[GadgetRick]

I was watching a program the other night. I don't remember what it was or where the people were, it's not really that important. The reason I'm posting is this. Why is it they can get HD cameras in the middle of the friggin' jungle or underwater or on the side of the mountain but we still can't get more, "mainstream," HD programming? I mean, ESPN is showing what, 20 hours a month? The networks show how much a month? I was just sitting there watching some show which was taking place in the middle of nowhere somewhere and I was wondering why there isn't really more HD programming.

Check out Discovery HD, it's always off the wall stuff. Rush, it's ALL off the wall. But then again, it's what that channel is all about. But what about the other channels like your locals and the like?

Now, I'm more thinking out loud than anything. It's not necessarily a complaint, rather, it's more of an observation. Anyone else notice the same stuff?

Just curious.

The Rickster

 

[squicken]

The biggest cost of doing network programming is talent costs, not production costs. The whole Friends cast makes 6 million an episode. Same with the Sopranos. For sports, its the carriage deal. Didn't Fox and CBS spend more than $1 billion to do the NFL? DHDT, Rave, and Rush have 0 talent or carriage costs. In fact, if it wasn't in HD, the programming would be wothless, imo. Fox, CBS, ESPN, and ABC should together be doing about 40% of NFL games in HD this year, so sports is going to get it reved up soon. Where I live, I only have 1 HD station, and the rest probably won't be for another 5 years.

 

[vurbano]

I was watching a program the other night. I don't remember what it was or where the people were, it's not really that important. The reason I'm posting is this. Why is it they can get HD cameras in the middle of the friggin' jungle or underwater or on the side of the mountain but we still can't get more, "mainstream," HD programming? I mean, ESPN is showing what, 20 hours a month? The networks show how much a month? I was just sitting there watching some show which was taking place in the middle of nowhere somewhere and I was wondering why there isn't really more HD programming.

Check out Discovery HD, it's always off the wall stuff. Rush, it's ALL off the wall. But then again, it's what that channel is all about. But what about the other channels like your locals and the like?

Now, I'm more thinking out loud than anything. It's not necessarily a complaint, rather, it's more of an observation. Anyone else notice the same stuff?

Just curious.

The Rickster

the amount of HD sports on ESPNHD is as pathetic as the amount on ABC. Both owned by the same company. Both using the "o we cant rent enough 720p trucks" excuse! Pathetic!!!!!

see any HD sports on ABC this weekend?

 

[GadgetRick]

Talent...

I understand what you're saying about talent but I'm talking about the crap they put on primetime TV. I don't watch any of that garbage anyway. I'm talking about just general programming such as sports and the lower-cost shows. I mean, I was watching something on DHD the other night. They were in Thailand or some exotic locale like that. They had HD cameras there. Why can't they use them for other things. If it were so expensive I can't believe they'd be able to shoot those shows in HD since they don't have a lot of money for those types of shows.

And, although I understand the argument on renting trucks for sports, I still don't buy it as a valid excuse. It's not like we woke up yesterday and had HD all of a sudden. This has been in the works for years. Ok, it's the old, "Well, when more HD sets are sold..." argument but it's just annoying.

Anyway, I didn't really post to start a discussion about the technical reasons so much (unless there's a valid excuse). I just wanted to make an observation. I actually kind of laughed out loud when I thought about it and explained it to my wife.

The Rickster

 

[DarrellP]

Discovery produces their own stuff.