-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
13WHAM TV readies for HD news
- Thread starter Mark Giardina
- Start date
Channel 13 has been hawking the hell out of the fact they broadcast in HD. That's nice if you own an HD TV. However there are plenty of people, including yours truly, who can't afford to, or refuse to trade in their regular TV sets for an expensive HD TV.
Maybe I am in the minority, but all I am interested in when I turn on the news is to hear what's going on in the community. I could care less what color eyes the anchors have, or if I can see the pours on the faces of the reporters.
Maybe I am in the minority, but all I am interested in when I turn on the news is to hear what's going on in the community. I could care less what color eyes the anchors have, or if I can see the pours on the faces of the reporters.
I give the ownership of WHAM-TV a lot of credit for making the investment into local HD. In this world of corporate ownership and thinking, this move goes against the grain. The question had to brought up at headquarters of: How will this make us more money? I don't think it will. 13 is already the # 1 station in the market so it won't really give them better ratings or revenue. All the stations will eventually have to make the move and spend the money. WHAM-TV chose to do it first, maybe as a salute to the Rochester community, which is usually ahead of other markets when it comes to appreciation of high tech. WHAM-TV is,also, the only station is town to take advantage of a subchannel, with anything watchable.
The Voice of Reason said:
Gee, I figured you'd be among the first to go to an energy-friendly LCD over the power hungry CRT. Expensive? Not so much anymore, and what's money compared to the health of the planet?
And the pores on the faces of reporters are simply a bonus.
therealjm12 said:
Don't be so sure that this isn't a cost-saving move. Every station I know of that replaced their studio cameras with HD went from floor pedestals to remote-controlled jib mounts. That allowed them to cut the number of camera people to either zero or one. The remote rigs can be pre-set so all you need to do is hit a "next" button after you've remotely selected the shots you want in a series. You recover the cost of the cameras in a year by cutting staff. The switchers that are being replaced are often 20+ years old, and, again, computer-programmable to reduce the amount of staff necessary. Automation systems are doing to TV what they've done to radio. Most newscasts now require a production staff of 3 - and only 2 in a pinch. Not too long ago, 6-8 person staffs were common.
Voice--You are the minority. People that own HD sets (many) want HD programming...otherwise, what's the point. Local news stations who have made the switch have seen sizeable increases in viewership. And you can't put enough emphasis on being first in the market to do so...many viewers will tune in, and became loyal for life.
The Voice of Reason said:
Rochwatcher said:
HD has reached critical mass.
From a Phoenix point of view, being one of the first 20 or so in the country to go HD saved KPNX from sooner ratings issues (but they eventually came a-knocking when NBC faltered).
Every station I know of that replaced their studio cameras with HD went from floor pedestals to remote-controlled jib mounts. That allowed them to cut the number of camera people to either zero or one.
I checked with the Teamsters today -13's union. No one have lost their jobs. In fact, they have hired an additional full time person.
I checked with the Teamsters today -13's union. No one have lost their jobs. In fact, they have hired an additional full time person.
therealjm12 said:
Actually, I'm sure there will be at least a handful of local advertisers who would be willing to pay more than they do now, for the privilege of having spots aired in HD during local broadcasts. Mostly the bigger spenders like car dealers and such. I would also wonder if agencies pay more on national buys for HD. Even if they don't pay much more, any extra dollar WHAM can get is a dollar they take away from the competition.
Even for production of local spots, WHAM has a definite advantage if they're the only shop that can shoot and air HD commercials. Has corporate provided for production crews to be trained properly in the nuances of shooting in HD? Obviously, make sure the important stuff stays within the 4:3 safe area for non-HD viewers, but there's gotta be more to shooting HD than just that alone.
I'm surprised stations still running in SD aren't using HD's widescreen capabilities to put more information on the screen. For example, instead of "bars" on both sides of the picture, move the program video all the way to one side... so you have one wider bar on the other side. Use half of the space to keep doppler radar up all the time, and use the rest to scroll through stuff like stocks, sports scores, headlines, etc. Sure, it's not true HD, but at least make use of all that extra real estate on the screen.
BobRoss said:
For many stations that is technically impossible because either a lack of an HD GFX system or the cable and satellite companies center cutting the HD feed (MSNBC HD's launch originally included something similar, but it was gone within several months. Cablecos likely took the HD feed and center cut it, and since the main picture was far to the left, the screen was oddly cut.)
I should note that some Fox affiliates may be able to do this now because of Fox Sports now fitting all its productions into 16:9 and using Active Format Descriptors. Cox now letterboxes all programming from my local Fox (it took them a bit of time to do that after Fox Sports made that switch).
I think we're still a long way from advertisers refusing to buy on non-HD stations. Maybe I'll be proved wrong.
Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable in Rochester appears to be on the verge of local HD: they now have the capability to do local HD ad inserts on national channels (though the only ones I've seen in HD so far have been TWC house promos), and the Rochester system just added a bunch of new HD channels today, including "YNNHD" on 1009 and "TWC Sports HD" on 1026. So far, YNN HD isn't really HD - just the SD feed with 16:9 sidebars. I expect that will change at some point pretty soon, though.
Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable in Rochester appears to be on the verge of local HD: they now have the capability to do local HD ad inserts on national channels (though the only ones I've seen in HD so far have been TWC house promos), and the Rochester system just added a bunch of new HD channels today, including "YNNHD" on 1009 and "TWC Sports HD" on 1026. So far, YNN HD isn't really HD - just the SD feed with 16:9 sidebars. I expect that will change at some point pretty soon, though.
Scott Fybush said:
We've had YNNHD for awhile in Syracuse, though I know our YNN is different from your YNN. But same thing: it's just regular YNN with sidebars.
One thing that gets me: NY1 in HD looks like some kind of cheap upconversion of regular NY1. I know it's not as simple as that, but their pictures and graphics just don't look like "true" HD to me.
TWCNY recently added several new HD channels including MTV, VH1, Comedy Central... and probably a few others I haven't discovered yet. Oddly, no formal announcement included in recent bills to brag about the new additions as they've done in the past, so I just happened to find them by chance while scrolling through the channel guide.
- Status