The definition of an HD channel?
by Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Sep 21st 2007 at 10:43AM
This has become the year of new HD channels and while we can't get enough HD, Mark Cuban brings up a good point on his blog. There are lots of new HD channels, but not so much actual HD. Of course this is nothing new, even the earliest so-called HD channels showed mostly SD material, and even today most HD network show as much SD as HD. There are of course a few 24x7 HD networks, but most of them are inundated with reruns. This persistent problem seems to be getting worse as we'll soon have one HD network that isn't HD at all, and others that don't plan to do much HD in their first year. Don't get us wrong we're not complaining, but we think now might be a good time for the industry to come up with a definition of an HD channel.
Filed under: Industry, New content
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Randy @ Sep 21st 2007 11:36AM
HD Capable Channel ... ugh!
roger_huston @ Sep 21st 2007 11:48AM
Come on, you are complaining - just a little bit.
Guess some people need to put their toe in the water before jumping in, but as we all know HD TV's are just starting to go main stream. Most of the new TV's sold today are HD so the public is jumping on board.
Like any free market, stations will have to see that they are losing customers to those stations that broadcast in HD format. You hear that you Nielson people? If you have an HD TV, only watch HD shows. It will show people that we want more!
- Roger
Galley @ Sep 21st 2007 12:23PM
I currently have DirecTV's cheapest package, the Family Pack. I added HD ACcess which gives me HD locals and all of the current HD channels. None of the SD channels are in my channel list.
fd @ Sep 21st 2007 2:17PM
True. You have to have consumers before you the stations on board.
But, nonetheless, I'm back on SD till this whole quagmire of over-compression, very few true HD channels & programs, etc is sorted out. I'm not paying $$$ month after month to get a couple HD stations and programs I actually like. When you have an HD box and 1080/720 HDTV and the HD programming is full of artifacts etc (and SD scales up fine on your tv, producing a better picture for that channel!) then that's sub standard quality I simply don't want to pay for.
CharlieX @ Sep 21st 2007 1:54PM
There's a critical point where the need to upgrade all your broadcast equipment to HD outweighs the advantage of broadcasting SD material on a HD line. It's not a simple or cheap endeavor to go all HD - and frankly a lot of broadcasters and advertisers don't see the immediate $$ impact. Just 1 D5 or HDCAM VTR is going to set you back at least $60k, and upwards of $80 for a better deck.
and what the hell difference does Judge Judy in 1080 vs NTSC really make? anyone who watches something like that, let's be honest, doesn't know the difference. These are the same people who stretch out their SD channels so it fits the whole screen. Gag.
CharlieX @ Sep 21st 2007 1:56PM
...oh. yeah, and my point being. At this juncture why not just upconvert your SD and broadcast it HD? Most of the higher end shows and networks will make sure their gems are full HD, the rest is just crap that crowds the airwaves.
Mr. B @ Sep 21st 2007 5:01PM
HDTV is the only fundamental upgrade in television since color was introduced, which took about 15 years to be fully realized. Considering the immense amount of work required for the HD upgrade, there's no good reason for anyone to be whining about the current pace of progress.
Frustrated Consumer @ Sep 21st 2007 8:25PM
Of course there's plenty of 'good reason' to complain.
When color came around, the studios rushed to produce their big shows in color to steal viewership. It was the consumers who sat around and said 'why do I need a color tv when my b&w works fine?'
Now, it's the opposite. Consumers want HD and the providers don't way to pay to produce it.
Fine, as a consumer I'll go out and buy a nice high quality SD TV while they make up their mind....Oh wait, I can't do that....they're all HD now!
The Pepto Pimp @ Oct 2nd 2007 10:26AM
Uuuuuuum, "HDTV is the only fundamental upgrade in television since color was introduced..."
What about Stereo Audio? Or Surround Audio? After all, studies by the IEEE have shown that a significant portion of emotional content is conveyed through the use of audio.
I'll go ahead and give this one to you though, since you probably meant the only fundamental "video" upgrade. And besides, you make a good point about the 15 year transition. That transition took place in a time where instant gratification wasn't battling gluttony for the top spot in the USA.
zargon @ Sep 21st 2007 3:01PM
Actually, aren't these channels broadcasting their stuff in ED?
SD = 480i
ED = 480p (and 540p for those Willey manufactures that had to use it)
HD = 720p, 1080i and 1080p
The government is forcing the move to digital broadcasts, but not HD. HD is just icing on the cake, these broadcasts have to at least get digital which means 480p (ED) or above.
Peter @ Sep 21st 2007 4:03PM
zargon - The problem is that accoding to your definition, upconverting SD to 1080 makes it "HD". It might technically be HD, but it still looks like crappy upconverted SD. Half the time it's not even full frame.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to call something HD, I expect it to be shot, edited and delivered in full HD. Every step along the way needs to be HD.
Once you've done that, you can easily letterbox or crop it and downconvert if you need SD.
gt @ Sep 22nd 2007 3:46PM
count me as confused about hd. i've had fios hd for a week now and i'm filling up my dvr with stuff like survivor from cbshd when it is really sd, even though the guide says it is hd since it is on an hd channel. so my dvr is full of sd shows recorded in hd thus filling up my dvr much faster than if i just recorded the sd version. now, it isnt widescreen, so from that i know it isnt hd. but, it looks nicer than the sd channel version. is this semi-hd that i've heard about?
needless to say, i'm not impressed with the amount of hd out there. some concerts on mtvhd, some silence of the lambs in hd, some Paula Deen in hd, yawn
JeffDM @ Sep 24th 2007 1:17AM
I'm sorry, but if it's just upconverted and or cropped, save the bandwidth. Don't call it HD and let my set-top box upconvert it. As mentioned above, it's a poor excuse, and it just fills up PVRs, wastes bandwidth and so on.
Maybe HD content should be determined by the weakest link in the chain. I don't call DVDs HD simply because I can play it through an Oppo. If the video was recorded, edited or delivered in SD/ED then don't scale it and pretend it's HD.
I don't think the "chicken & egg" connundrum applies, you'll ruin your market and show that people don't want HD because people won't pay extra for upscaled SD video, nor would they make any effort to switch to an HD channel if it isn't really.