On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:16:52 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
(in article <EcudnZ786ezISLbVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:48:21 -0700, Sandman wrote
>> (in article <mr-7D2D9E.08482114052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>>> In article
>>> <637fcd65-1c97-42b2-b349-d4179d0e7b17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> gaintion@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>
>>>> HDTV certainly is the buzzword at the moment, and if you havenšt
heard
>>>> it yet, where have you been?
>>> Only if "for the moment" is "five years ago".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My satellite TV service just added about 20 new HDTV channels on Monday
>> even
>> though some (like "The Weather Channel") are kind of silly. HD is not
>> taking
>> as long as color to catch-on here in the States (like I thought it
would).
>> Color broadcasting was introduced here in the USA in 1954 and it took
until
>> 1966 for all the major networks to go 100% color for their prime-time
>> programming. That's 12 years after color broadcasting started. The
>> networks
>> had all gone HD for their prime time fare after about 5 years from the
>> start
>> in 1999.
>
> There are still a lot of network TV shows that are not HD in prime
> time - in particular reality shows (to name just one, NBCs "The
> Apprentice"). And a couple of years ago (past the "5 years from the
> start in 1999") there were a LOT more shows in SD.
>
> Steve
No clue? What a champion of the obvious. Of course there are still some
news
and "reality" shows in SD, but just about all series: sitcoms and dramas
are
in HD as are almost all s****ts. There are exceptions to everything. With
the
so-called reality and news shows (like "60 Minutes"), its a conscious
choice
by the producers. I think that they believe that the SD stuff has a
"grittier" aspect to it and a more news-reel like look. Certainly, the
producers of programs like "Survivor" could afford to replace the
pro-sumer
level cameras they now use with HD versions of same. They just don't want
to.
|
