HDTV: Most people do not get it!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:
> curmudgeon wrote:
>
>>>> One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
>>
>>
>> viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
>> thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
>> with advertising. <<
>>
>> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
>> impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.
>>
>> It's also why local HD stations are on low power. They can't attract
>> nearly
>> enough ads to pay the power bill for the tranmitter....and that is NO
>> exaggeration.
>> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>>
>>
> Both sides of the argument are true but the real problem at the moment
> is that Nielsen is not counting digital households. Once they start
> counting advertisers at least have a tool to evaluate whether the
> demographics have value. At the moment every new HD household falls into
> a black hole. The broadcaster totally loses that customer for all
> intents and purposes which is to make money.
>
> Until they start counting the two arguments above are moot.
>
> Bob Miller
>

If the Nielsen did count households that have HDTV and if I were a
Nielsen household they would find that since I got my HDTV my viewing
habits have changed such that I watch programs that are in HD more often.

I recently wrote an email to NBC, ABC, and FOX letting them know that I
am unable to receive their channels in HD (because my cable company
doesn't carry them in HD and I am not in a metro area so that I am
unable to receive them over the air. I told them that because of this I
am watching more of CBS just because I get CBS in HD from my cable company.

The picture quality of HD is so superior that it has affected my viewing
habits. I have been told that the main reason my cable company doesn't
have all the major networks in HD is because the networks are asking the
cable companies to pay a lot of money. I told them that this strategy
may backfire as they may be loosing viewers by not having their channel
in HD. But if Nielsen doesn't distinguish households having HD then
they would not know that HD has an effect on viewership.

Oh, also, I have a brother-in-law who has an HDTV but didn't have HD
channels. When he visited me I showed him what HD channel looked like
and he did say "WOW!".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Phil Pease" <ppease5@mchsi.com> wrote

> If the Nielsen did count households that have HDTV and if I were a Nielsen
> household they would find that since I got my HDTV my viewing habits have
> changed such that I watch programs that are in HD more often.

Our viewing of non-HD stations has declined precipitously in the months
since we got an HDTV. This includes cable news stations such as CNN, Fox
News, etc. I suspect that this phenomenon has been recognized by TV and ad
agency execs and is probably one factor driving TV networks to add HD
programming. It is going to be very clear to any TV executive (and all of
them certainly have HD sets at home by now) that after you watch one
football game, for example, in HD, you are never going to be satisfied to
watch one in SD again.

mack
austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
> it. No pun intended.

"Reality TV" has gone a long way to killing HDTV content. These cheap
excuses for entertainment have swallowed up an enormous amount of
airtime on all channels that might have been HD content if not for the
"air it cheap" mentality.

 

[Blessed]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:53:25 GMT, "Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com>
wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
>> it. No pun intended.
>
>"Reality TV" has gone a long way to killing HDTV content. These cheap
>excuses for entertainment have swallowed up an enormous amount of
>airtime on all channels that might have been HD content if not for the
>"air it cheap" mentality.

Let's not forget infomercials airing on broadcast channels on weekend
afternoons.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:17:07 GMT, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>
>Now this is funny!! I enjoyed reading it very much so thanks for a
>great laugh.
>I love people with a sense of humor, it helps keep things in
>perspective.
>
>I have just one suggestion though. In the future you may want to
>change your name from born_yesterday before posting. It was a dead
>give away.
>
>Richard

Figures it would go right over your head.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
> viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
> thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
> with advertising. <<
>
> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!?

The Masters. Every commercial was in HD, at least for the last two
rounds.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life, Norm?
|
| Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:FVsbe.26583$AE6.8106@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> What I take from this post is the opinion that most people are stupid,
> ignorant or both. Hey, stop the presses! You are talking about the same
> people who never figured out how to set the clocks on their VCR's. It's
> not hard for me to imagine people being confused about digital TV, HDTV
> and so on -- or unable to tell what kind of TV picture they are watching.
>
> But it is hard for me to imagine someone going out and spending 2 or 3
> thousand dollars on an HDTV set and then not watching any HD on it because
> they don't want to pay a few extra bucks a month for an HD cable box or
> hook up a set of rabbit ears. I am doubtful about that happening very
> often.
>

I see it every day, in my area, Sarasota, Fl, the cost for a HD cable box is
$27 for digital and $5 for the HD box. That's not cheap. Then I've seen
the customer who had a HD box and had it hooked up to his tv with a RF
cable. He was paying for HD and not getting it! When I convinced him to
buy a set of cables and hooked it up for him he was floored at the
incredible picture he now had.

In my area we have 19 stations with 24 channels available with antenna.
This is the way I recommend at this time but most don't go for this as it
requires them to install an antenna.

 

[Randy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sounds like a matter of not reading the instruction manuals. In our
area the Comcast technician is required to install the cable box, and
my HDTV/DVR capable box came with the proper component cables. I do
not believe that it came with the optical cable to connect DD5.1 sound
to my receiver.
I always try and tell people that the sound is half the experience
with HDTV. If you are watching HDTV (or DVD's for that matter) and
have the sound coming from the TV speakers alone, you really should
consider at least getting DD5.1 or DTS sound system.

Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
may not be.

>I see it every day, in my area, Sarasota, Fl, the cost for a HD cable box is
>$27 for digital and $5 for the HD box. That's not cheap. Then I've seen
>the customer who had a HD box and had it hooked up to his tv with a RF
>cable. He was paying for HD and not getting it! When I convinced him to
>buy a set of cables and hooked it up for him he was floored at the
>incredible picture he now had.
>
>In my area we have 19 stations with 24 channels available with antenna.
>This is the way I recommend at this time but most don't go for this as it
>requires them to install an antenna.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:21:12 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:


>Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
>the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
>my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
>was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
>regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
>discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
>to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
>those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
>difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
>should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
>not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
>may not be.
>
One listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" in SACD should convince anyone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charlie9" <j@b.com> wrote in message
news:52gd71t226u0lujsb4ge8mkimvkdosr76m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:21:12 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
>>the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
>>my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
>>was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
>>regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
>>discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
>>to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
>>those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
>>difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
>>should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
>>not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
>>may not be.
>>
> One listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" in SACD should convince anyone.


I'll give a big w00t to seeing The Wall on INHD the other
night...wow...wow...and wow...

 

[george1234]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:51:53 -0700, born_yesterday wrote:


>You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.

I agree, the mpeg dvb video over cband on a coposite/svideo monitor is
fantastic

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:46:11 -0400, george1234 wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:51:53 -0700, born_yesterday wrote:
>
>
>>You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.
>
> I agree, the mpeg dvb video over cband on a coposite/svideo monitor is
> fantastic

NTSC can make a good picture but I still prefer a 1080i picture.

--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.