Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:23:58 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Oh yes, it could be. There just isn't that much HD content out there yet,
>and the equipment to produce it isn't cheap. I don't think that most local
>TV stations have the budget to replace all of their cameras and editing
>equipment overnight, just to make a few million of us early adopters happy.
>Look at all of the "reality" shows on the various networks None, to my
>knowledge, is shot in HD. Know why? Because HD is expensive, and the
>networks love the reality shows because they are extremely inexpensive to
>produce. Why make them more expensive, and less competitive, by shooting
>them in HD until a large enough audience demands it?
Anyone know the current figures for HDTV owners?
Everyone kept saying this was the year and Ive seen lots of clearance
sales on the non-widescreen models and big discounts on the larger
sets too finally. They must have been a big increase in HDTV owners.
Even a cheapskate like me bought one though its not widescreen after
seeing lots of non-widescreens going for $400-500.
Id like to know how close we are getting to the point it does start to
make it commercially urgent for everyone to jump on the bandwagon.
It does seem like theres been a lot more actvity - at least I see more
posts about various specialized channels. The thing that bugs me is
the fact you cant get all the network channels , PBS etc in HDTV
format as a standard thing on cable nationwide.
That argument about the costs with no extra revenue Ive heard since
the beginning but what about the huge problem of cable siphoning off
viewers from the networks? Wouldnt HDTV at least be some sort of
carrot to differentiate them from cable in general - besides the
specialized HD programming of course like sports only, movies . Sure
it depends once again on a large enough pool of viewers but youd think
they would be trying to jump on this to retain viewership.
Facebook
Twitter