Posted on 10/26/2006 7:20:25 PM PDT by Snickering Hound
NBC says it's dropping most scripted programs from the network's 8 p.m. time slot next season, replacing them with reality and game shows.
The unscripted fare, which is cheaper to produce, will not be broadcast in High-Definition TV. However, NBC Universal TV CEO Jeff Zucker says that's no big deal.
In an interview with The Washington Post, published today at washingtonpost.com, Zucker was asked if high-def viewers might be less interested in watching non-HD programming.
"It's hard to say if viewers will be less interested in unscripted programming that's not in HD when the rest of the programming is in HD," Zucker tells the newspaper. "I think it's a fair question, but I'm not overly concerned about it at this point."
While the HDTV audience is growing, some network executives have occasionally remarked that it's still too small to have an impact on network schedules and ratings. HDTVs are now in approximately 25 million U.S. homes, but slightly fewer than 10 million actually have the HD tuners necessary to watch high-def signals.
Zucker's NBC decided in 2004 not to air a separate HDTV channel for the Summer Olympics because it said the audience was too small. After being roundly criticized in the press and Internet message boards, NBC reversed that decision for its coverage of the 2006 Winter Olympics.
The network's decision to restrict the 8 p.m. hour to unscripted shows, such as Deal or No Deal, is part of an overall effort to cut $750 million from its annual operating budget. Scripted programs, such as dramas and sitcoms, are more expensive to air due to actor salaries and higher production costs.
Producing a show in high-def also requires more expense, perhaps as much as 20 percent, according to some reports.
To NBC's credit, the network recently completed a $3.5 million renovation of The Today Show's studio and production facilities so it could air in HD.
Final note: After Zucker said last week that unscripted programs would not be scheduled in the 8 p.m. time slot, a NBC spokesman clarified his remarks, saying some comedies could still make the cut.
wait til u see it. don't watch much, but it is quite sharp. maybe a little too sharp sometimes.
And besides, there are so few of them watching.
And besides, there's so few of us around, anyway.
< }B^)
Direct TV HDTV tuner (no subscription just antenna - 100
19 inch LCD computer monitor - 150
Plugged in standard antenna on house free
_____
Really sharp small HDTV for the basement 300
Over 20 digital channels including a 24 hour local weather channel.
Another option 720x1280 projector at best buy for $899 with above $100 tuner and $100 screen. Thats a 120 inch HDTV for $1100.
Where do some get the idea that HDTV reception starts with a $2,000 - $3,000 television set?
I have a 4 year old 47" rear projection HD Ready (Panasonic) that I paid about $900 for. I get all the HD channels available + my cable computer modem and pay around $65/month.
I also bought a cheap ($550) 27" LCD for my bedroom wall that receives the same great signals.
HD is not only affordable, but it is GREAT.
1) Cost. Why pay $3,000 for a tv set when you can get a great standard tv for $300?
False. HD sets do not cost $3000. I bought an HD set over a year ago for $600. You can't compare a 50" plasma flat screen HDTV to a 27" CRT SDTV.
2) Conversion. All the old standard programming you have on VHS and DVD will not look any better in high def than they did on standard and may even be distorted in the new 16:9 format.
False. Anamorphic DVDs are optimized for the 16:9 format. "Full screen" DVDs are a waste of money. Additionally, a 480p, anamorphic widescreen DVDs play very well on most HDTVs, when played on most progressive DVD players built in the last three to four years. The TVs include scale converters to upscale the image, and do so quite well. I recently viewed a 60" Sony 1080p SXRD TV displaying Black Hawkdown from a cheap, portable DVD player at a Sony Style store. Granted, it did not look as good as the BluRay Disk content in the next room, but it looked far superior to anything presented on an SDTV.
As for VHS, all I can say is, that's so 80s.
I have decades' worth of sporting events in low def 4:3 standard format that are either unplayable or look like crap on a high def tv.
Fair point. And if that is what you spend most of your time watching, so be it. However, I have moved some VHS content over to DVD, and the HDTV handles it better than if it came from the tape directly.
Additionally, a lot of programming isn't worth watching in high def. Are talk shows or news shows any better when you can see people's age spots and warts more clearly?
That depends. I was in a Magnolia AV store last night and saw a horrible site: Keith Richards in HD! However, I thought American Idol looked much better in HD.
I'll go to HD kicking and screaming when the government makes me do it but, until then, I'm happy with the quality of what I'm watching now even if it is inferior to the high def picture. Other than for sports programming, I don't even care to see the difference.
Try watching something like CSI, 24, or Law and Order in HD. Solidly produced drama, filmed by directors who know how to use HD, definately looks better.
Two thousand for an HDTV? You gotta be kidding. Try $300-$500 for something around the same size. And if you have cable, for an extra $5-$8 bucks a month you can upgrade your normal cable set top box to one that decodes HD signals. Wah-lah - instant HDTV for not much more than legacy analog TV.
Technology moves fast. HD hardware and signal access has come WAY down in price over the past 2 to 3 years.
My parents just got HDTV. I, poor starving parent of two kids in college, have to wait a couple of years. Football is completely awesome in HD! You can actually see the blades of grass on the turf. What kicks it over is that you see quite a bit more of the field in HD. You can see plays develop better - not quite as good as being at the game, but still impressive. I just invited myself over this weekend...
Of Larry King. Larry King's giant monster nose on a 60 inch screen 5 feet away.
No thanks.
The original mandate was that all OTA (Over The Air) broadcasters had to broadcast a digital signal (not necessarily HD - SD or ED is good enough) by 2007 or so. Last I heard that had been extended to 2009 due to a few lagards and many filed extensions.
The mandate was purely with respect to OTA though - not cable. To my knowledge, all major cable carriers have been broadcasting digital signals for some years now because digital channels use less bandwidth, and less bandwidth per channel means more channels can be crammed on the same coax to your set top box, which means they can charge you more money for all those extra channels.
The mandate for conversion to digital broadcasts was so that the FCC could recover the RF spectrum that has been used by inefficient analog TV broadcasts all these years. In this wireless age we live in, spectrum is in HIGH demand for telecom companies, new wireless devices, defense applications, etc. Leasing spectrum is a big potential money making opportunity for the gov. It doesn't make sense to waste huge amounts of limited spectrum on old, bandwidth-inefficient analog TV broadcast signals when digital ones are much more efficient. Hence the mandate (plus the potential revenue :). It's just dragging out.
"Two thousand for an HDTV? You gotta be kidding. Try $300-$500 for something around the same size. And if you have cable, for an extra $5-$8 bucks a month you can upgrade your normal cable set top box to one that decodes HD signals. Wah-lah - instant HDTV for not much more than legacy analog TV."
Well... Let's see if that is true. To get an HDTV with the same height as my 27" regular TV, I will need something around 40". That's well over $1000. Then, I have to replace my DVR with an HD capable DVR. I'll probably have to abandon the sattelite dish and get stuck with the lousy, local cable company which doesn't offer much HDTV programming. Voila! $2000 to replace my existing system and the vast majority of programming isn't HDTV.
I'll wait a few years.
$3000?
next year, 42" HD plasmas (name brand) will be under $1000.
No snow, no ghosting and no flipping is good enough for me.
Who watches NBC these days, anyway? We watch programs on cBS, ABC or FOX, two shows on NBC is all... ER and Vegas. NBC did themselves in with programming that was constantly trying to program the people watching the shows.... ABC came close last season with Madam President (or whatever it was called).
You have obviously never really seen a true HD picture. Comparing a 17 inch $200 set and picture to $2000 big screen HD picture and set is like saying that there is no difference between looking out a dirty window and opening the window. I have both a 26 inch SDTV and a 47 inch HDTV hooked up to DTV and there is no comparison between the picture quality and sound.
Hey don't knock Wink. His "Deck of Cards" is one of my all time favorite recordings.
Of course if you like the old low res 4:3 analog sets, that's your preference. To each his own.
Hiro!
Football is completely awesome in HD!
BUMP!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.