I have written about this before and I'll say it again. I hope people pay attention. You've all heard February 2009 as the date that all TV will be in digital and if you rely on an antenna you will lose your signal if you don't have a digital TV.
Here's the deal:
The exact date is February 17, 2009.
Here's the truth:
That date is not the first day of digital-only TV. That is the last day that a TV station can broadcast in analog. That's a big difference.
Some TV stations (two in my TV area in Maine alone) have already cut off their analog signal so if you rely on an antenna and don't have a digital conversion box or a digital TV, you can no longer receive their signals. Any station who applies to the FCC for an early cut-off of analog will be approved.
The next big date to remember is November 15, 2008. That's the date when stations can legally turn off all analog transmission (and therefore digital only) without any further requests in writing to the FCC. The FCC doesn't want every station in America pulling the plug on analog and firing up digital on the same day.
Once you get by that date, then you can worry about 2/17/09. That is the drop dead date when all high powered TV stations must shut off their analog signal and must broadcast only in digital.
I hope that has cleared it up for anyone who still might no understand the dates and what is happening. Let me know if you have any questions. If you need a converter box, get one, and get it early.
Take care
Showing posts with label Misinformation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misinformation. Show all posts
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
The HD bait and switch
Have you noticed that some high definition television programs look better than others? I have. I always thought that the difference in HD quality was the result of the quality of the camera being used or the types of lenses and filtering used to produce special effects. For example, some TV shows want to look like they were produced in the 70's with that more grainy effect, or maybe they want black and white. Further, one show I can think of, "CSI: Miami", tends to have a yellowish glow through the whole show which produces a certain "look and feel" to the program. Some of these make an HD program look lesser in quality and some don't.
Well, come to find out the differences in HD quality are a result of the camera but not in the way I thought. For whatever reason, I assumed that all 16:9 aspect ratio television was high definition. It is not. Manufacturers like Sony make, and TV producers use, professional grade 16:9 standard definition cameras. I did not know that.
This explains why on Channel 5 out of Boston (WCVB), which is the first station in the region to go High Definition for its local news, has such a grainy looking picture when they show field produced pieces, whether live or on tape. It's quite jarring to see such a clear picture of the studio and then the anchor cuts to a journalist live at some "happening". The aspect ratio is correct, meaning nothing looks squished, or cut off, but the quality of the picture goes to hell. I never could quite figure it out until I read an article today on the "Broadcasting and Cable" web site.
There was an entire article there on all of the different cameras, definitions, and aspect ratios. The article talked about the different networks and what kinds of cameras they use and what they intend to use in the future. In an earlier post I wrote about ABC going to HD for its evening newscast, but the best they will be able to do for field pieces, even if they use 16:9, will be standard definition.
So don't be surprised when you are watching an HD program, or an HD network, and the picture isn't so hot. It's not you, and it's not your HDTV, it's the quality image being sent to you.
Well, come to find out the differences in HD quality are a result of the camera but not in the way I thought. For whatever reason, I assumed that all 16:9 aspect ratio television was high definition. It is not. Manufacturers like Sony make, and TV producers use, professional grade 16:9 standard definition cameras. I did not know that.
This explains why on Channel 5 out of Boston (WCVB), which is the first station in the region to go High Definition for its local news, has such a grainy looking picture when they show field produced pieces, whether live or on tape. It's quite jarring to see such a clear picture of the studio and then the anchor cuts to a journalist live at some "happening". The aspect ratio is correct, meaning nothing looks squished, or cut off, but the quality of the picture goes to hell. I never could quite figure it out until I read an article today on the "Broadcasting and Cable" web site.
There was an entire article there on all of the different cameras, definitions, and aspect ratios. The article talked about the different networks and what kinds of cameras they use and what they intend to use in the future. In an earlier post I wrote about ABC going to HD for its evening newscast, but the best they will be able to do for field pieces, even if they use 16:9, will be standard definition.
So don't be surprised when you are watching an HD program, or an HD network, and the picture isn't so hot. It's not you, and it's not your HDTV, it's the quality image being sent to you.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
When is HDTV not really HDTV?
To be honest with you there is a lot of "high definition" programming out there that is not high definition. I'll give you a few examples:
On both TNT-HD and TBS-HD pretty much all programs are advertised (by that I mean in the on-screen program guide provided by your cable company if you have a cable box) as high definition. It show up in the description as a logo. The letters "HDTV" inside a little black box. The same is true if you check Internet-based TV guides like "Zap2It" or "TitanTV". They say that programs on these stations are in HD, but they are not.
So programming like reruns of "Friends" and "Sex and the City", or movies like "Deep Impact" are not broadcast in High Definition. These networks simply stretch the picture to fit the screen. The picture looks stretched, I mean, you can tell something is off, and the picture is no clearer or crisper than you would see it on a regular analog, standard definition TV. Obviously you can't broadcast programming in HD that was never produced in HD, but don't list it in programming guides as High Definition when it is not.
The TNT-HD web site addresses the issue by admitting they do broadcast non-HD programs and stretch the picture; and they also say they are "sorry for the inconvenience".
There are also plenty of other culprits out there in the land of HD networks. For example, FoodNetwork-HD, Science Channel-HD, Discovery-HD, and a bunch of others, broadcast programming that has been stretched, poked, prodded or god knows what else to make the picture fit the screen hoping nobody will notice that the HD Networks, for which you pay extra for to you cable company, are not giving you what you paid for. One of the worst offenders is the Science Channel HD. Usually, when you watch analog TV on a High Definition TV, there are black bars, called "pillars" on the left and right side of the screen. What the Science Channel HD does is make those pillars much smaller hoping you won't notice that the picture doesn't fit the screen. Essentially they simply re-record the program and zoom in on it when they do it so the outcome is a larger version of the original that "almost fits the screen". You can tell something is up because when there are graphics on the very bottom or top of the screen, they are cut off. If these programs have subtitles, or even credits, you can't read them in their entirety because they have slid off the screen somehow.
Listen, I know that we are in the midst of the big transition to digital, and High Definition, being a subset of digital, is also in its infancy. However, High Definition has been around for several years now. At least as far back as 2003, 2004 or even farther back, TV shows have been produced in High Definition. So if these so called "HD" networks can't find enough programming to fill the schedule, why launch an HD version of your network? I'll tell you why, for the money.
The sad part is that people are paying for high definition TV that they are not getting, and these cable HD networks are gambling on the fact that the public won't notice. Just because the picture fills up the screen on your new big screen TV doesn't mean it is in high definition.
Here are some interesting statistics I saw on the "Broadcast Engineering" and "Leichtman Research" web sites:
On both TNT-HD and TBS-HD pretty much all programs are advertised (by that I mean in the on-screen program guide provided by your cable company if you have a cable box) as high definition. It show up in the description as a logo. The letters "HDTV" inside a little black box. The same is true if you check Internet-based TV guides like "Zap2It" or "TitanTV". They say that programs on these stations are in HD, but they are not.
So programming like reruns of "Friends" and "Sex and the City", or movies like "Deep Impact" are not broadcast in High Definition. These networks simply stretch the picture to fit the screen. The picture looks stretched, I mean, you can tell something is off, and the picture is no clearer or crisper than you would see it on a regular analog, standard definition TV. Obviously you can't broadcast programming in HD that was never produced in HD, but don't list it in programming guides as High Definition when it is not.
The TNT-HD web site addresses the issue by admitting they do broadcast non-HD programs and stretch the picture; and they also say they are "sorry for the inconvenience".
There are also plenty of other culprits out there in the land of HD networks. For example, FoodNetwork-HD, Science Channel-HD, Discovery-HD, and a bunch of others, broadcast programming that has been stretched, poked, prodded or god knows what else to make the picture fit the screen hoping nobody will notice that the HD Networks, for which you pay extra for to you cable company, are not giving you what you paid for. One of the worst offenders is the Science Channel HD. Usually, when you watch analog TV on a High Definition TV, there are black bars, called "pillars" on the left and right side of the screen. What the Science Channel HD does is make those pillars much smaller hoping you won't notice that the picture doesn't fit the screen. Essentially they simply re-record the program and zoom in on it when they do it so the outcome is a larger version of the original that "almost fits the screen". You can tell something is up because when there are graphics on the very bottom or top of the screen, they are cut off. If these programs have subtitles, or even credits, you can't read them in their entirety because they have slid off the screen somehow.
Listen, I know that we are in the midst of the big transition to digital, and High Definition, being a subset of digital, is also in its infancy. However, High Definition has been around for several years now. At least as far back as 2003, 2004 or even farther back, TV shows have been produced in High Definition. So if these so called "HD" networks can't find enough programming to fill the schedule, why launch an HD version of your network? I'll tell you why, for the money.
The sad part is that people are paying for high definition TV that they are not getting, and these cable HD networks are gambling on the fact that the public won't notice. Just because the picture fills up the screen on your new big screen TV doesn't mean it is in high definition.
Here are some interesting statistics I saw on the "Broadcast Engineering" and "Leichtman Research" web sites:
- More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not. (So who's fault is it that people think they are watching High Definition when in fact they are not?)
- Forty percent of HDTV owners and more than 20 percent of all adults believe that their household currently has a High Definition DVD player, which is much larger than the total number of HD DVD players sold to date. (You can't watch a high definition DVD on a regular DVD player, well, you can watch it but it won't be in HD. You need a special player called either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. This is the same fight that went on in the 80's when VHS went up against Beta. VHS won. And so did Blu-Ray. So if you don't have a Blu-Ray DVD player, or in rare cases an HD-DVD player, then you are not watching DVDs in high definition. However, if you have a X-Box or PlayStation, you can actually use those as high definition DVD players so don't go out and buy a new Blu-Ray DVD player if you have one of these gaming sets.)
So there you have it. HDTV is not always what it appears to be. Viewer may think they are watching HDTV when indeed they may not be. The honest truth is that if have watched HDTV you can recognize it in about a Milli-second when channel surfing. It is that good and that noticeable. I can only conclude that viewers who think they are watching HDTV think this simply because they are told it is HDTV. Don't be fooled and don't pay anybody money for high definition until you understand how it works and what you are getting for you money.
You can still, and always will be able to, get FREE HIGH DEFINITION programming if you have an HDTV tuner by purchasing an antenna. If you do this, like I did, you can view all of the major broadcast networks' programming (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, CW, and MyN) in high definition for free. You won't receive cable-only high definition networks like the ones I mentioned earlier, but those networks are not providing enough HD programming to compensate you for what cable companies will charge you to get it.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
"Doppler HD" is a ploy - There is nothing HD about it
Maybe not everywhere, but here in Maine the term "Doppler HD", as used by one local television station, is nothing but a ploy.
Doppler HD refers to a television stations weather system being able to produce and transmit their weather data to the viewer in brilliant High Definition quality.
Well, if this local affiliate doesn’t have the equipment to produce or transmit the local news in high definition, why would it be any different for the weather segment?
The answer is: It isn't.
I have sources in the industry who have told me that the term "Doppler HD" as it is used at Channel 13, WGME, in Portland, Maine, is nothing but a ploy. They reserved the name -- the "brand" so to speak -- so that some day, when they are actually able to broadcast the local news and weather in high definition, they will be ready, with their pet name for their product. (It’s just a brand name. You know, like how all the TV stations have pet names like “Accu-weather” or “Weather-Plus”)
I certainly understand the idea, but I think it is sad. Not one station in my local TV market (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn -- which, by the way, is rated by size as somewhere between 75 and 100 in the country depending on the day) has any ability to produce and/or transmit their own HD programming. In fact not one station in this state or any other Northern New England state can do it either. I don’t know for sure but as far as I can tell, only a few Boston channels produce their own HD programming. WGME apparently finds it important to "copyright" the name "Doppler HD" for our television market as quickly as possible so somebody else can’t use it. Yes, it is such an attention grabber, such a unique take on weather forecasting in High Definition that they felt the need to copyright it. It’s the same idea as when you were a kid and you had to “call it”. “I call shotgun”, I would say as we piled into the station wagon.
In terms of the weather forecasting itself, I've seen the spots on WGME referring to Doppler HD saying things like "the viewers will be amazed" and "it's like nothing you've ever seen before". Well, that is not necessary true. It looks exactly like what I saw before. It looks exactly like the weather forecast and news I saw last week, last month, and last year. Nothing has changed. So maybe the "tease" spot should say "you won't even notice the new and exciting Doppler HD because we haven't changed anything”.
It is understandable that local television stations, who are dropping their analog signal, are trying to find their way in the new digital TV realm. Television is all about revenue which is based on ratings. Advertisers pay more to air commercials during programming that has a higher viewership. In my dealings with the local affiliates, they don't seem to get it. Those of us with High Definition TVs are craving HD programming. I am lucky enough to live in Southern Maine near the New Hampshire border. My cable channel lineup includes all of the Portland, Maine networks affiliates AND all of the Boston network affiliates. Both the ABC and NBC affiliates in Boston can and do broadcast their local news (including the weather) in High Definition. Maine can only sit back and dream that maybe, someday, hopefully, they will be able to do this. As an HD-phile, I tend to watch the Boston stations rather than the Maine stations simply because they are in High Definition. So what the local Maine affiliates don't seem to understand is that whoever gets the HD technology first will win. The winner will have more viewers, which converts to higher ratings, which in turn, converts to more revenue from advertisers.
So that's the lay of the land. All we are left with here in Maine is one television station in Portland who has reserved a name with the word "High Definition" in the title. There is nothing in high definition during the local news but each and every day, the viewers keep looking at the WGME broadcast thinking "Gee, I'm not sure why I spent money on an HD TV, it looks like the same quality as it did before".
Jeers to WGME for coining the term "Doppler HD". I don't have a problem with what they did; they should just be honest about it.
Hmm. TV stations being honest with the public? I've pushed it too far haven't I?
So the bottom line here is: Don't hold your breath. If you have high definition capabilities at your house, don't wait; don't pull your chair up to within inches of the screen trying to determine if something different is going on. Don't worry yourself thinking something is wrong with your eyes or your glass because they said it was in HD but you just don't see it. It's not there.
And finally, speaking of pulling your chair up closer to the TV, inn Maine, if you want high definition, big screen capabilities in your house, do exactly that.
Doppler HD refers to a television stations weather system being able to produce and transmit their weather data to the viewer in brilliant High Definition quality.
Well, if this local affiliate doesn’t have the equipment to produce or transmit the local news in high definition, why would it be any different for the weather segment?
The answer is: It isn't.
I have sources in the industry who have told me that the term "Doppler HD" as it is used at Channel 13, WGME, in Portland, Maine, is nothing but a ploy. They reserved the name -- the "brand" so to speak -- so that some day, when they are actually able to broadcast the local news and weather in high definition, they will be ready, with their pet name for their product. (It’s just a brand name. You know, like how all the TV stations have pet names like “Accu-weather” or “Weather-Plus”)
I certainly understand the idea, but I think it is sad. Not one station in my local TV market (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn -- which, by the way, is rated by size as somewhere between 75 and 100 in the country depending on the day) has any ability to produce and/or transmit their own HD programming. In fact not one station in this state or any other Northern New England state can do it either. I don’t know for sure but as far as I can tell, only a few Boston channels produce their own HD programming. WGME apparently finds it important to "copyright" the name "Doppler HD" for our television market as quickly as possible so somebody else can’t use it. Yes, it is such an attention grabber, such a unique take on weather forecasting in High Definition that they felt the need to copyright it. It’s the same idea as when you were a kid and you had to “call it”. “I call shotgun”, I would say as we piled into the station wagon.
In terms of the weather forecasting itself, I've seen the spots on WGME referring to Doppler HD saying things like "the viewers will be amazed" and "it's like nothing you've ever seen before". Well, that is not necessary true. It looks exactly like what I saw before. It looks exactly like the weather forecast and news I saw last week, last month, and last year. Nothing has changed. So maybe the "tease" spot should say "you won't even notice the new and exciting Doppler HD because we haven't changed anything”.
It is understandable that local television stations, who are dropping their analog signal, are trying to find their way in the new digital TV realm. Television is all about revenue which is based on ratings. Advertisers pay more to air commercials during programming that has a higher viewership. In my dealings with the local affiliates, they don't seem to get it. Those of us with High Definition TVs are craving HD programming. I am lucky enough to live in Southern Maine near the New Hampshire border. My cable channel lineup includes all of the Portland, Maine networks affiliates AND all of the Boston network affiliates. Both the ABC and NBC affiliates in Boston can and do broadcast their local news (including the weather) in High Definition. Maine can only sit back and dream that maybe, someday, hopefully, they will be able to do this. As an HD-phile, I tend to watch the Boston stations rather than the Maine stations simply because they are in High Definition. So what the local Maine affiliates don't seem to understand is that whoever gets the HD technology first will win. The winner will have more viewers, which converts to higher ratings, which in turn, converts to more revenue from advertisers.
So that's the lay of the land. All we are left with here in Maine is one television station in Portland who has reserved a name with the word "High Definition" in the title. There is nothing in high definition during the local news but each and every day, the viewers keep looking at the WGME broadcast thinking "Gee, I'm not sure why I spent money on an HD TV, it looks like the same quality as it did before".
Jeers to WGME for coining the term "Doppler HD". I don't have a problem with what they did; they should just be honest about it.
Hmm. TV stations being honest with the public? I've pushed it too far haven't I?
So the bottom line here is: Don't hold your breath. If you have high definition capabilities at your house, don't wait; don't pull your chair up to within inches of the screen trying to determine if something different is going on. Don't worry yourself thinking something is wrong with your eyes or your glass because they said it was in HD but you just don't see it. It's not there.
And finally, speaking of pulling your chair up closer to the TV, inn Maine, if you want high definition, big screen capabilities in your house, do exactly that.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Businessweek writer misses the mark on Digital TV
If you want to read the article to which I am referring, click on the link above.
Here's a guy who wrote an article for Business Week. An actual reporter, or journalist, I don't know. But his "summary" of the whole digital revolution was that converter boxes were quaint, but since smaller digital TVs are ONLY $600 or so, wasting your time on a converter box wasn't worth your time and effort.
Well, let me tell you something. Six hundred dollars is a lot of money to a lot of people. And simply buying a digital TV, without subscribing to cable or satellite (more monthly bills), won't get you any better reception than a converter box.
The author, Stephen H. Wildstrom, is an elitist, a snob, and has totally missed the point of what is really going on with the conversion to digital TV. He talks about his old "rabbit ears" TV set as being one that is only used on his morning jog on his treadmill where he was "putting up with" imperfect TV reception and hadn't given it much thought. The author also knows little to nothing about digital TV itself.
There are people in rural areas who can't afford a digital TV and/or cable TV. And they don't have a treadmill either. They have one TV, with one set of rabbit ears, and that's it.
Hell, I don't live in a rural area in Maine but I can't afford it all of the equipment and services needed. But we're all supposed to lay out $600 for a new TV and pay the cable company what, $50, $60, $100 a month. If Mr. Wildstrom is willing to set up a trust fund of his own money, I'd be happy to see that those who can't afford a new TV and a new cable bill, get some assistance.
This guy must be a republican.
Please visit Mr. Wildstrom and let him know your thoughts.
I wrote to him with my concerns and asked that he spend some time writing about the other side of the digital conversion; the side that people can't afford and can't see because they don't get the signal.
UPDATE - Here is Mr. Wildstroms's reply and my response to that.
I don't know folks, you be the judge. Maybe I'm wrong about this; maybe I pushed it too far. But for those of you out there who are being forced to convert to digital TV with an antenna and can't seem to get any channels, I would think you understand where I am coming from. Nobody is reporting on this issue or doing anything about it.
Here's a guy who wrote an article for Business Week. An actual reporter, or journalist, I don't know. But his "summary" of the whole digital revolution was that converter boxes were quaint, but since smaller digital TVs are ONLY $600 or so, wasting your time on a converter box wasn't worth your time and effort.
Well, let me tell you something. Six hundred dollars is a lot of money to a lot of people. And simply buying a digital TV, without subscribing to cable or satellite (more monthly bills), won't get you any better reception than a converter box.
The author, Stephen H. Wildstrom, is an elitist, a snob, and has totally missed the point of what is really going on with the conversion to digital TV. He talks about his old "rabbit ears" TV set as being one that is only used on his morning jog on his treadmill where he was "putting up with" imperfect TV reception and hadn't given it much thought. The author also knows little to nothing about digital TV itself.
There are people in rural areas who can't afford a digital TV and/or cable TV. And they don't have a treadmill either. They have one TV, with one set of rabbit ears, and that's it.
Hell, I don't live in a rural area in Maine but I can't afford it all of the equipment and services needed. But we're all supposed to lay out $600 for a new TV and pay the cable company what, $50, $60, $100 a month. If Mr. Wildstrom is willing to set up a trust fund of his own money, I'd be happy to see that those who can't afford a new TV and a new cable bill, get some assistance.
This guy must be a republican.
Please visit Mr. Wildstrom and let him know your thoughts.
I wrote to him with my concerns and asked that he spend some time writing about the other side of the digital conversion; the side that people can't afford and can't see because they don't get the signal.
UPDATE - Here is Mr. Wildstroms's reply and my response to that.
"I didn’t deal with the question of whether the digital transition is a
good idea in large part because it’s just too late. Congress mandated the
transition in 1996 and at this point it is irrevocable.. The government has
actually gone ahead and sold the analog spectrum that broadcast stations will be
surrendering next year, so there’s no going back. Rural TV has been
problematic since the birth of television. It was the problem of poor rural
reception and the need to build a really tall “community” antenna that gave
birth to cable TV in the first place."
My response:
That is an interesting way to stand by the value of your story. The
translation seems to be "it's the government's fault and I can't do anything
about it". My challenge to you was to report on the other side of the
issue. It's not too late and if there are enough squeaky wheels, maybe one
of them will get the grease. Rural TV reception is not a life or death
issue; but it is a story worthy of telling. I had composed a lengthy email
that I later decided wasn't worth sending. You obviously have different
opinions that I, and I know that I can't change another person's point of view
with one conversation. Your piece on digital converter boxes was fluff,
created only to use up space and had no real merit. It is disappointing
when people try to act like journalists but don't really want to look at more
than one side of a story. I am assuming you got paid for that
article. Good for you."
I don't know folks, you be the judge. Maybe I'm wrong about this; maybe I pushed it too far. But for those of you out there who are being forced to convert to digital TV with an antenna and can't seem to get any channels, I would think you understand where I am coming from. Nobody is reporting on this issue or doing anything about it.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Suzanne Goucher urges consumers to buy a High Definition TV, Why?
I saw Suzanne Goucher, President and CEO of the Maine Association of Broadcasters, on WCSH 6 during the 6:00pm newscast on Sunday, February 17.
She said the while there are ways that consumers can buy just a digital TV or get a converter box and keep their analog TV, the best choice really is to go out an buy an HDTV because the prices were so reasonable now, and the resolution was so good on a High Def TV, you can "see the little hairs on Tom Brady's adorable little chin".
You're kidding me, right? This is what the president of the Maine Association of Broadcasters uses as a reasonable argument for purchasing a high definition television. High Definition is a subset of digital television. HDTV is in a wide-screen (16:9 ratio as opposed to 4:3) format, and has much better sound quality.
The reality is that yes, HDTVs are cheaper than they were. But the investment to the consumer is still several hundred dollars. The "affordable" HDTVs that you can get at Wal-Mart are inferior in quality; for example at my local Wal-Mart I could not find ONE HDTV that could handle resolutions higher than 720p. Most broadcast networks are providing programming in 1080i.
Further, with the possible exception of PBS in Maine, not one local broadcaster can record HDTV programs from their respective networks and play them back in HDTV.
Let me state it more clearly. A network like ABC sends a feed of a high definition broadcast, live, up to a satellite, at which time, the local station (in our case WMTW) can send that same feed out to the public. They can't record it and play it back later, if they don't send it out in HD format them, they never will. That doesn't even mean that they have to, they have the option to.
Also, not one Maine television station has the ability to broadcast its own local news in High Definition. Now keep in mind that the "rule" is that as of 2/17/09, the FCC has mandated that all broadcast television must be in Digital format. Digital format is a clearer, crisper format than the old analog style TV but just because something is in Digital does not mean it is in High Definition. The rule does not apply to cable channels (or satellite channels if you have something like Dish network or Direct TV). Only broadcast television. That means ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MyNetowk, and the CW.
While I agree that if you are going to buy a new TV you should buy an HDTV. But don't buy one thinking that now, or even as of 2/17/09, every TV broadcast will be in high definition. The TV broadcasting industry is simply changing from analog to digital. You TV will either be OK, or not, depending on how you get your signal; either via cable, satellite, or over the air.
High Definition is the next logical thing you need to think about. However, other than the national morning new shows (Today Show, GMA), one soap opera, SOME prime time network shows between 8pm and 11pm, The Tonight Show, Letterman, and Conan, that's it. The broadcast network and all other programming coming from your local TV stations is NOT in high definition. So if you like watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, you're out of luck. The local TV station will stretch the picture out, or you can do it yourself with your shiny new HDTV, but Raymond was never produced in HD and will never be in HD.
There are several cable stations that are supposedly in HD. Many of them have the same problem I describe above in that most of the shows aren't produced in HD so they obviously can't show them in HD; they can just stretch out the picture to fit the 16:9 ration of your HDTV. Some of these same channels do have real High Definition programming.
So there is a lot of misinformation out there. You need to be careful and ask some questions before you buy anything else you will be very disappointed.
In my humble opinion Suzanne Goucher should be spending her time convincing the local Maine television stations to invest in high definition equipment so they can broadcast their local programming in HD, to invest in equipment that will allow them to play back network television shows that were originally in HD, in HD at a later time, and all of the other things they need to do in order to be considered up to date with current technology. This seems like a better use of time than convincing consumers to spend money to see Tom Brady's scruff, only to find out they may never see it.
You're kidding me, right? This is what the president of the Maine Association of Broadcasters uses as a reasonable argument for purchasing a high definition television. High Definition is a subset of digital television. HDTV is in a wide-screen (16:9 ratio as opposed to 4:3) format, and has much better sound quality.
The reality is that yes, HDTVs are cheaper than they were. But the investment to the consumer is still several hundred dollars. The "affordable" HDTVs that you can get at Wal-Mart are inferior in quality; for example at my local Wal-Mart I could not find ONE HDTV that could handle resolutions higher than 720p. Most broadcast networks are providing programming in 1080i.
Further, with the possible exception of PBS in Maine, not one local broadcaster can record HDTV programs from their respective networks and play them back in HDTV.
Let me state it more clearly. A network like ABC sends a feed of a high definition broadcast, live, up to a satellite, at which time, the local station (in our case WMTW) can send that same feed out to the public. They can't record it and play it back later, if they don't send it out in HD format them, they never will. That doesn't even mean that they have to, they have the option to.
Also, not one Maine television station has the ability to broadcast its own local news in High Definition. Now keep in mind that the "rule" is that as of 2/17/09, the FCC has mandated that all broadcast television must be in Digital format. Digital format is a clearer, crisper format than the old analog style TV but just because something is in Digital does not mean it is in High Definition. The rule does not apply to cable channels (or satellite channels if you have something like Dish network or Direct TV). Only broadcast television. That means ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MyNetowk, and the CW.
While I agree that if you are going to buy a new TV you should buy an HDTV. But don't buy one thinking that now, or even as of 2/17/09, every TV broadcast will be in high definition. The TV broadcasting industry is simply changing from analog to digital. You TV will either be OK, or not, depending on how you get your signal; either via cable, satellite, or over the air.
High Definition is the next logical thing you need to think about. However, other than the national morning new shows (Today Show, GMA), one soap opera, SOME prime time network shows between 8pm and 11pm, The Tonight Show, Letterman, and Conan, that's it. The broadcast network and all other programming coming from your local TV stations is NOT in high definition. So if you like watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, you're out of luck. The local TV station will stretch the picture out, or you can do it yourself with your shiny new HDTV, but Raymond was never produced in HD and will never be in HD.
There are several cable stations that are supposedly in HD. Many of them have the same problem I describe above in that most of the shows aren't produced in HD so they obviously can't show them in HD; they can just stretch out the picture to fit the 16:9 ration of your HDTV. Some of these same channels do have real High Definition programming.
So there is a lot of misinformation out there. You need to be careful and ask some questions before you buy anything else you will be very disappointed.
In my humble opinion Suzanne Goucher should be spending her time convincing the local Maine television stations to invest in high definition equipment so they can broadcast their local programming in HD, to invest in equipment that will allow them to play back network television shows that were originally in HD, in HD at a later time, and all of the other things they need to do in order to be considered up to date with current technology. This seems like a better use of time than convincing consumers to spend money to see Tom Brady's scruff, only to find out they may never see it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Response from QVC (Dave King) regarding misstatement about High Def
I received a wonderful email today from Dave King, one of the hosts of QVC, and I must apologize to him as I referred to him as Dan King - sorry Dave !!
Here's an excerpt from Dave's Letter
First of all, let me say that I thoroughly appreciate your taking the timeto write.
While I don't have a web site like you do, I do share your passion forkeeping the public informed about the upcoming transition to digitalbroadcasting on February 17, 2009. Your email prompted me to review the presentation you referred to, and you are correct - I misspoke,substituting the term "high def" for digital at the tail end of thepresentation. Rest assured, it won't happen again.
It is "rule number 1" at QVC to never mislead our viewers, so I will make sure that the Host Team, and our guests, are completely informed regardingthis issue. "
Many thanks to Dave for his email and I will take Dave at his word. I believe he will be diligent about getting the information out to his fellow co-hosts and the public correctly.
Kudos to QVC and Dave King for taking the time to respond to a consumer complain out of the blue.
Here's an excerpt from Dave's Letter
First of all, let me say that I thoroughly appreciate your taking the timeto write.
While I don't have a web site like you do, I do share your passion forkeeping the public informed about the upcoming transition to digitalbroadcasting on February 17, 2009. Your email prompted me to review the presentation you referred to, and you are correct - I misspoke,substituting the term "high def" for digital at the tail end of thepresentation. Rest assured, it won't happen again.
It is "rule number 1" at QVC to never mislead our viewers, so I will make sure that the Host Team, and our guests, are completely informed regardingthis issue. "
Many thanks to Dave for his email and I will take Dave at his word. I believe he will be diligent about getting the information out to his fellow co-hosts and the public correctly.
Kudos to QVC and Dave King for taking the time to respond to a consumer complain out of the blue.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
QVC may be misleading viewers on High Definition
I find it hard to believe that QVC and its staff does not understand the subtle nuances of Digital TV and High Definition TV. Below is a letter I wrote to the show host regarding a JVC LCD HDTV. I chatted online with a customer service representative before I sent this email. I was trying to get a general email address that I could write to so that I could have proof that I sent the email. I really do not like email systems on web sites where you can send them an email through some sort of user interface, but you never know what address you are sending your email to and you can't copy yourself in. If I could just do a straight "send" from my own email account, then I would have the proper audit trail. I suspect that QVC and others all operate behind this curtain for a reason. So here's the email sent at 3:10 AM, January 15, 2008.
To: d_king@qvc.com,
date: Jan 15, 2008 3:10 AM
subject: High Definition Television
mailed-by gmail.com
Dave, I am writing to your as I could not find an email address for the management at QVC
At about 2:40 AM on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008, I was watching a demo for the JVC 42 inch HDTV. You stated to the viewers that they should purchase this product because as of February 2009, all programming will be in High Definition.
I don't know if it was intentional or no, but that statement is a blatant lie. I do apologize for the strong language but could not think of another word that applies. As of February 17, 2009, all high-powered over-the-air broadcast television must be in digital format.
I will explain further. First there is a big difference between digital TV (DTV - which is what is being regulated by the FCC) and High Definition TV (HDTV). HDTV is not mandated by the FCC only that the broadcast be in digital format. Further, the rule only applies to high powered over-the-air television. Cable-only, or satellite-only programming is NOT included in the mandatory conversion to digital. You need DTV to get HDTV but you don't need HDTV to be have DTV.
I am the creator/owner of a web site which deals with high definition and digital TV issues. I need to point out the this type of information is typical of the type of information that the public hears and then visits sites like mine to have it all explained. Since QVC itself is converting the HD this spring, I am sure that QVC is fully aware of the FCC rules surrounding digital TV, HDTV, and broadcast versus cable TV. I find it irresponsible of QVC to make sure your hosts are not aware of the differences. It would also be irresponsible if QVC was well aware of the differences relating to the conversion to digital TV and is intentionally misinforming the public so that they will buy more product.
This may sound trivial to some but it really is not. The public is already confused enough about HDTV, DTV and this "conversion" to Digital that they have started to hear about. Especially when so many our there are now saying things like "you might even need a new TV because yours won't work". There is so much bad information out there that I believe it is the responsible of anyone associated with the broadcasting industry to be well aware of this issues. There is a wealth of good information out there starting the the FCC web site itself. I am a lay person who has no affiliation with television broadcasting or television products. I am just a consumer who has done A LOT of research and home work to figure this whole thing out. So I would assume that people in the inudstry would have access to better information than I.
I would really appreciate a response from you or the QVC management to address this issue. I will be including the correspondence on my blog as I have promised my regular visitors that I would keep up with all of these issues as they arise so that they can be as informed as I am.
I do thank you for your time.
To: d_king@qvc.com,
date: Jan 15, 2008 3:10 AM
subject: High Definition Television
mailed-by gmail.com
Dave, I am writing to your as I could not find an email address for the management at QVC
At about 2:40 AM on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008, I was watching a demo for the JVC 42 inch HDTV. You stated to the viewers that they should purchase this product because as of February 2009, all programming will be in High Definition.
I don't know if it was intentional or no, but that statement is a blatant lie. I do apologize for the strong language but could not think of another word that applies. As of February 17, 2009, all high-powered over-the-air broadcast television must be in digital format.
I will explain further. First there is a big difference between digital TV (DTV - which is what is being regulated by the FCC) and High Definition TV (HDTV). HDTV is not mandated by the FCC only that the broadcast be in digital format. Further, the rule only applies to high powered over-the-air television. Cable-only, or satellite-only programming is NOT included in the mandatory conversion to digital. You need DTV to get HDTV but you don't need HDTV to be have DTV.
I am the creator/owner of a web site which deals with high definition and digital TV issues. I need to point out the this type of information is typical of the type of information that the public hears and then visits sites like mine to have it all explained. Since QVC itself is converting the HD this spring, I am sure that QVC is fully aware of the FCC rules surrounding digital TV, HDTV, and broadcast versus cable TV. I find it irresponsible of QVC to make sure your hosts are not aware of the differences. It would also be irresponsible if QVC was well aware of the differences relating to the conversion to digital TV and is intentionally misinforming the public so that they will buy more product.
This may sound trivial to some but it really is not. The public is already confused enough about HDTV, DTV and this "conversion" to Digital that they have started to hear about. Especially when so many our there are now saying things like "you might even need a new TV because yours won't work". There is so much bad information out there that I believe it is the responsible of anyone associated with the broadcasting industry to be well aware of this issues. There is a wealth of good information out there starting the the FCC web site itself. I am a lay person who has no affiliation with television broadcasting or television products. I am just a consumer who has done A LOT of research and home work to figure this whole thing out. So I would assume that people in the inudstry would have access to better information than I.
I would really appreciate a response from you or the QVC management to address this issue. I will be including the correspondence on my blog as I have promised my regular visitors that I would keep up with all of these issues as they arise so that they can be as informed as I am.
I do thank you for your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)