On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:19:48 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote
(in article <ReCdnTFX_45oNbHVnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> 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.
>
> All the shows I cited were from the big NETWORKS George. NBC in
> particular.
>
> You make it sound like I mentioned shows from the Fi****ng channel, or
> something like that.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> The cameras are nothing. It's the re-doing of the entire editing
> suite that is the big deal.
What editing suite? All one needs is a few computers and software such as
Final Cut Pro. These are trivialities for a TV production budget. What, do
you think that they still do analog editing? or that the finished product
need to be stored on tape?
> The first Google link I found has Mark Burnett, producer of "Survivor"
> and "The Apprentice", citing COST as the major factor in why they are
> not going HD:
>
>
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/mark-burnett-reveals-survivor-china-wont-
ha
> ve-an-exile-island-5555.php
>
> "..."If CBS wants me to do it, I'll say yes," Burnett, citing the
> "cost of upgrading the production" as his main issue with an HDTV
> switch, told re****ters on Thursday, according to Television Week. "
>
>
>>> "Deal or No Deal" and "The Price is Right". Both game shows, one in
>>> "prime time", and still shot in SD.
>>
>> OK, so?
>
> You said SD was better for reality as it was "grittier", but Deal or
> No Deal's main gimmick are their 20 or so fa****on models holding the
> cases. A sure candidate for HDTV.
I said that the producers might think that the "grittier" look of SD was
more
apropos to their programming. I didn't say that it was the only reason.
Cost
might be a factor on a studio project, but its well known that programs
like
"Survivor" are shot with pro-sumer grade equipment from Cannon. And this
stuff is cheap, even in HD. If Burnett is that cheap, he must be a real
penny
pincher.
|
