What a waste of HD!

[MickeS]

I was just watching Mike & Mike on ESPNHD. Damn, what a waste of bandwidth that is. Not that the show is bad, just that it seems ridiculous to me to broadcast in HD a show that is essentially just filmed radio.

Actually, the same goes for pretty much all cable news - I can easily watch 99% of it with the TV off (which I do), and just listening to the sound through the receiver. I hope they don't go HD for the foreseeable future, until every channel that might actually be useful in HD is converted. :)

[pmyers]

I'll take everything in HD please....doesn't mean I'll watch it though ;)

[Bob_Newhart]

I'll take everything in HD please....doesn't mean I'll watch it though ;)

Amen brother

[Sirius Black]

I don't even understand why the local news media is going HD. There are some newscasters and commentators who should not be in HD.

[MickeS]

Considering how cable companies have to compress channels and put them on SDV in order to be able to carry more HD, it just seems like a complete waste to see stuff like this in HD.

[MickeS]

I don't even understand why the local news media is going HD. There are some newscasters and commentators who should not be in HD.

Ha, no kidding. :D One guy in the local newscast in HD always looked unshaven - he looked OK in SD though, someone needs to tell him. :)

[pmyers]

I don't even understand why the local news media is going HD. There are some newscasters and commentators who should not be in HD.

I've heard that HD has totally changed the way TV does makeup.....they know "airbrush" makeup on instead of the old powders and stuff. Of course that could just be urban legend....

[JimSpence]

HD is the future, learn to live with it. :)

I do agree that not everything needs to be in HD, 16:9 SD should be good enough.

[pmyers]

Considering how cable companies have to compress channels and put them on SDV in order to be able to carry more HD, it just seems like a complete waste to see stuff like this in HD.

ahh....I'm not familiar with cable limitations as I have DirectTv but I can see your point if it's taking the space that a "good" show could use.

[Jebberwocky!]

I've heard that HD has totally changed the way TV does makeup.....they know "airbrush" makeup on instead of the old powders and stuff. Of course that could just be urban legend....

and I read where they have to do way more then just the face like in the old days.

I know I would not look too good in HD ;)

[gchance]

This is the same argument I had early on when CD's first came out. They were releasing standup comedy on CD, and I was like what? Standup comedy? It's a guy talking and an audience laughing, you don't need digital for that! You don't need high fidelity to hear a guy talk!

Yeah. It's a new technology that EVERYTHING needs to convert to in order to gain mass acceptance. Crap shows need to be HD just as well as good ones do.

Greg

[dorian]

I think ESPN is stuck in that place no one likes to be. There is no sense in them switching betweeen HD and SD based on content. Switching between two technologies gets expensive.

Personally, I think its a waste of camera technology to televise a sport talk radio show. But with ESPN, you get what you get. (Don't get me started on how they've ruined MNF)

[opus472]

If everything is broadcast in HD, those 160G drives are gonna fill up awfully fast...

[jamesbobo]

50 years ago (dang, I feel old) they were saying the same thing about color.

[MickeS]

50 years ago (dang, I feel old) they were saying the same thing about color.

And they were right! :)

[MacThor]

Here's a true waste of HD.....today on HDNet Movies, they were showing an old Black & White movie in 4:3 aspect ratio. What's the point of putting that on HDNM? HD Movies are the whole purpose of the channel! There are plenty of non-HD channels for classic non-HD movies.

[Sadara]

I don't even understand why the local news media is going HD. There are some newscasters and commentators who should not be in HD.

Amen brother!! We have a local anchor that has a very wrinkled face and the couple of times they've broadcast in HD, she looks absolutely frightful. I think it's why they don't broadcast in HD regularly.

[gchance]

Ever hear the term "a face for radio"?

Greg

[vman41]

Amen brother!! We have a local anchor that has a very wrinkled face and the couple of times they've broadcast in HD, she looks absolutely frightful. I think it's why they don't broadcast in HD regularly.

They aren't wrinkles, they are credibility lines.

In HD, the talent has to be more careful about dandruff.

[DevdogAZ]

Here's a true waste of HD.....today on HDNet Movies, they were showing an old Black & White movie in 4:3 aspect ratio. What's the point of putting that on HDNM? HD Movies are the whole purpose of the channel! There are plenty of non-HD channels for classic non-HD movies.
Just because it was B&W and 4:3 doesn't mean it wasn't HD. Assuming the movie was filmed on film (a pretty good assumption), it could easily be converted to HD resolution and the sidebars were simply part of the picture.

[TonyD79]

Yeah, ESPN should shut down its HD signal when Mike and Mike are on. Right.

How is this a "waste?" It is not as if the HD signal only exists for a talking heads show. It is on 24/7. Even when Mike and Mike were not in HD, the CHANNEL was till in HD. The bandwidth is still being used. Do you think that TV stations turn off the color when they show a black and white show?

As for the comment about the classic movie on HDNet...that is too ignorant in so many ways.

[EVizzle]

Casablanca looks as amazing in comparison to the extra features as anything else I have seen. Give me your HDNet and I will give you TBS-HD, which shows television shot in 4:3SD and stretched so ubsurdly that the previously unwatchable shows are now unwatchable and sickly.

[dianebrat]

ahhh, but nothing beats History HD where they take 16:9 content and double squeeze it vertically. ;)

Diane

[HoldenBanky]

I think they should throw everything they can up there in HD. Directv can always launch another satellite. :)

[bdlucas]

This is the same argument I had early on when CD's first came out. They were releasing standup comedy on CD, and I was like what? Standup comedy? It's a guy talking and an audience laughing, you don't need digital for that! You don't need high fidelity to hear a guy talk!

50 years ago (dang, I feel old) they were saying the same thing about color.

Not really comparable. Neither CDs nor color were at the expense of something else. But HD channels require more bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited, so every HD channel displaces 5-6 SD channels, or requires that their bandwidth (and thus quality) must be reduced.

That said, there is so much junk on SD that I think HD local news has more value than the 5-6 least valuable SD channels combined. :)

[Hunter Green]

They were at the cost of something else, but it was mostly at production, not distribution or the consumer. And certainly less.

[MacThor]

Just because it was B&W and 4:3 doesn't mean it wasn't HD. Assuming the movie was filmed on film (a pretty good assumption), it could easily be converted to HD resolution and the sidebars were simply part of the picture.

I suppose, but are people really tuning in to HDNetMV for 4:3 B&W movies?

[MickeS]

Yeah, ESPN should shut down its HD signal when Mike and Mike are on. Right.

How is this a "waste?" It is not as if the HD signal only exists for a talking heads show. It is on 24/7. Even when Mike and Mike were not in HD, the CHANNEL was till in HD. The bandwidth is still being used. Do you think that TV stations turn off the color when they show a black and white show?

Well, yeah, I was being slightly hyperbolic, but like I said, to me it's a waste to even have a show like this on TV - it's just filmed radio. And seeing it on HD seems even more ridiculous.

[gchance]

I suppose, but are people really tuning in to HDNetMV for 4:3 B&W movies?

I am if the 4:3 movie is higher resolution than the DVD that I own, and the Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet. You're assuming that just because it's 4:3 it's bad.

Greg

[BriGuy20]

I've heard old (4:3) TV shows not filmed on 35mm won't benefit from HD. Since most movies are filmed on 35mm (up to 70mm for some epics), there's plenty of detail to be unearthed from a good HD print.

Now go watch Lawrence of Arabia on your iPod.

[jeff125va]

As a viewer, I think everything should be in HD. Why not have the best possible picture to look at regardless of what you're watching?

That being said, if I were on the other side of the camera, and had to allocate limited HD production resources, I'd agree that something like this would be low priority, if I had to choose some things to be in HD and some to be in SD. Which seems to be the case when you consider shows that definitely SHOULD be in HD, e.g. Survivor, are not.

[BriGuy20]

As a viewer, I think everything should be in HD. Why not have the best possible picture to look at regardless of what you're watching?

That being said, if I were on the other side of the camera, and had to allocate limited HD production resources, I'd agree that something like this would be low priority, if I had to choose some things to be in HD and some to be in SD. Which seems to be the case when you consider shows that definitely SHOULD be in HD, e.g. Survivor, are not.

Mark Burnett did an interview saying that the primary reason it's not in HD was the exorbitant costs involved in flying HD equipment to the sparse island that they film it on in the given year. Add to that the required HD editing facilities and it might be a couple of years or more before you see someone get double-crossed on a desert island/lose an immunity challenge in HD.

[pmyers]

Mark Burnett did an interview saying that the primary reason it's not in HD was the exorbitant costs involved in flying HD equipment to the sparse island that they film it on in the given year. Add to that the required HD editing facilities and it might be a couple of years or more before you see someone get double-crossed on a desert island/lose an immunity challenge in HD.

He also mentioned the reliability of HD filming equipment which I bet is more of a concern than cost.

[MacThor]

Now go watch Lawrence of Arabia on your iPod.

Now that is a movie I'll tune into HDNMV for.

[Sirius Black]

Mark Burnett did an interview saying that the primary reason it's not in HD was the exorbitant costs involved in flying HD equipment to the sparse island that they film it on in the given year. Add to that the required HD editing facilities and it might be a couple of years or more before you see someone get double-crossed on a desert island/lose an immunity challenge in HD.

If you shoot on video and not film, anyone with final cut pro knowledge can do a great job editing HD content.

[Bob_Newhart]

Now go watch Lawrence of Arabia on your iPod.

Now that is a movie I'll tune into HDNMV for.
Just watched it last weekend. Awesome.

[Tburt]

Coming soon, Home Shopping Network HD! :eek:

[MickeS]

Coming soon, Home Shopping Network HD! :eek:

I htink QVC is already in HD. I know they announced a HD channel a while ago.

That makes a lot more sense to me than filmed radio in HD. When you show products like jewelry and clothes, HD makes a big difference.

[cheesesteak]

There's no such thing as a waste of HD.