On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:49:11 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
(in article <JL2dna0NQegK6rHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> 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.
>
> George, you said "prime time". Not "series".
>
> I quote:
>
> "The networks had all gone HD for their prime time fare after about 5
> years from the start in 1999."
Did I say that t ALL prime time shows had gone HD? Why, no, I don't
believe I
did. What I said was that all NETWORKS had gone HD for prime time.
> SD is cheaper to shoot and edit. HD would look better for any of
> these reality shows. The guy who produces Survivor, The Apprentice,
> etc, is known for being cheap and not wanting to spend the bucks for
> HD production.
>
> You actually are trying to defend their use of SD because it is more
> appropriate to the content? Laughable.
I doubt seriously that money is the issue here. THAT'S what's laughable.
If
you have proof of this assertion, by all means post it. I'll gladly admit
that I'm guessing, but I cannot believe that the price of a couple of
pro-sumer HD cameras is the reason the shows are SD. Also, I've done HD
editing. Its exactly like SD editing except that the rendering takes a bit
longer. Again, it cost no more.
> "Deal or No Deal" and "The Price is Right". Both game shows, one in
> "prime time", and still shot in SD.
OK, so?
|
