George Graves wrote:
> 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?
Don't forget having to rebuild the sets and beef up the lighting as
that set will probably look like **** in HD.
I think maybe you should let the networks know all they need is a few
computers and Final Cut Pro to go to HD. I would think an editing
suite would have a lot of HD monitors and a switcher and effects
devices that could handle HD also, along with all the cabling required
between the control rooms and studio floor, etc.
Steve
|
