HDTV proliferation

Jeff Kilgroe · December 27th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

No, of course not. My contention is that the demand for SD-only acquisition and equipment could drop off rapidly in the next few years, and I wouldn't want to get stuck with a $50K SD camera once that happens. If you can make money with such an item and don't care about the resale value that's fine, but I wouldn't buy something like that today unless I had a project which was definitely going to pay for owning it in the short term. I understand B&H has already started refusing some of the more popular SD cameras (e.g. DSR-250) for listing on their used equipment pages, and if that's true that's just one sign of the shape of things to come.

That's exactly what is happening now... I can't say if that's true about B&H, but it's obvious that the demand for SD-Only equipment will sharply drop over the next couple years. For myself, I know I won't buy any gear from here on out (starting with the HVX) unless it is capable of HD and while my final delivery may still be SD (primarily DVD for the foreseeable future), I doubt I will do any SD acquisition from here on out as well.

Quote:

Where I live it's rare that I go to a customer's house and they *don't* already own an HDTV. That tells me where the future of acquisition is headed, and not sometime in the far-distant future.

Same here. While I've seen a lot of market reports and sales figures that show standard SD TV sets still lead the way in sales, most people I know who have a 40" or larger TV have already gone to HD or will do so as soon as their current TV gets upgraded in the next year or two. The reality of the market is that 19" to 27" TV sets in the < $300 range dominate in terms of volume sales. As soon as digital and/or HDTV compliant sets penetrate that market, then everyone will be buying HD. And we should see the market shift that way in (my semi-educated guess here) about 2 years.

But HD is where it's at for now and into the near future (until something better comes along). Or at least it's where it's at for production. Anyone not taking advantage of HD production capabilities is just cutting their own throat, even if they still only deliver on VHS and DVD.

Mike Morrell · December 27th, 2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

Sorry, the content is not close to there... less than 3% of all broadcast minutes in most markets is in HD... if it increases by that same amount every 6 months we are still 8+ years away from HD content being more prevalent than SD content.

This figure is quite misleading because of all of the inexpensive syndication reruns that dominate the hours when no one is watching. Much of the syndicated programming will be in SD for decades. But almost 100% of the network scripted programming and a large percentage of network and cable sports is airing in HD now in prime time. The 3% figure is bogus because it counts all broadcast channels and times equally. What is the HD broadcast market share based on households watching a program (in SD or HD) that is being broadcast in HD? While I may be ahead of the curve with no less than 4 HDTV's in my home, at least 75% of the programming I watch on TV, broadcast and cable, is in HDTV ( I do not watch reality TV). If you have a set and a source, you can certainly achieve far more than 3% of your viewing hours in HD. The 2005 fall season marked a real turning point for HDTV network broadcasts. Even late night shows like Letterman and Conan are now on in HD.

My local news station is going to HD in February, as are several other local markets. I know that a lot of locals are buying the JVC HDV camcorder and I suspect that many will be purchasing the Canon and HVX-200 as well. The cost of acquisition and editing a digital camera like the HVX with a hard-drive is very tempting for a local broadcaster. Once we start seeing local station originated content such as news in HD, I don't think it will be long before the same stations start requiring some sort of HD for other new programs.

Sure, there will be plenty of new SD programming to be produced for some time. But to think that there is not going to be a proliferation of small HD productions starting up in 2006 - 2007 is naive.

Barry Green · December 27th, 2005, 05:52 PM

Production and adoption are two very different things though. Production is moving rapidly to mostly-HD origination, for longevity purposes if nothing else.

Yes, the majority of prime-time non-reality programming is originated in HD. But who's watching it in HD? Besides me & Mike, that is? About 7% of US households have HDTVs in them. Of those that have HDTVs, at least half have no connection to any sort of HD service (meaning an external OTA antenna, or HD cable service, or DirecTV HDTV). Less than half who have access are actually paying the costs to get the HD service.

VOOM went out of business because they couldn't get subscribers.

And even when customers pay for the service, how many channels do they get? In LV on Cox Cable, there are about 246 channels. I think six are HD.

I won't watch anything in SD if there's an HD broadcast of it, that's for darn sure. And I'm moving to all-HD origination this year. But I still think it's gonna be a long, long time before HD makes serious inroads into a large percentage of US households.

My bellweather right now, for knowing when HD is starting to make a dent in the # of viewers, is going to be when I see the first commercial airing in HD. Right now every commercial on every HD broadcast I see is up-rezzed SD. Which is funny, because most of the decent-budget commercials I've worked on have all been shot on HD; but advertisers apparently aren't finding the additional HD post costs worth it in order to finish the spots on HD.

The day advertisers start to find it worthwhile to actually deliver an HD master of their commercials for HD broadcast is the day that I'm going to start believing that HD programming is actually reaching a significant percentage of US households. The Consumer Electronics Association and the manufacturers can release all the pie-in-the-sky stats they want, but it's the advertisers who know who their market really is. When they start finishing commercials in HD and broadcasting them in HD, that's when you'll know HD penetration has become a market force to be reckoned with.

Ash Greyson · December 27th, 2005, 06:11 PM

Mike, you proved my point... yes those numbers I posted are a bit skewed but SOMEONE IS PRODUCING ALL THAT SD CONTENT! How many hours in the day of paid programming, infomercials, etc. are there? TONS and it makes no sense for them to go to HD, even as source. The major networks only make up a FRACTION of the broadcast hours in a day.

ash =o)

Ash Greyson · December 27th, 2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Where I live it's rare that I go to a customer's house and they *don't* already own an HDTV. That tells me where the future of acquisition is headed, and not sometime in the far-distant future.

This is where your argument falls apart... you are obviously not coming from an average Joe perspective. Even the highest estimates have HDTV penetration at around 15% right now. That is great for you, you are doing work for very high end customers but dont use your experience as the benchmark for the world.

An average HDTV costs over $1600 right now which for many people is out of reach. By the end of 2010, the projected average cost is still well over $1000. Convincing people that they should replace their $300 TV with an $1100 TV is not easy and for most, not plausible.

I think it is great that you and others are producing content for the 15% of the people after the high end format but dont forget about the other 85% of people...

ash =o)

Mike Morrell · December 27th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Green

My bellweather right now, for knowing when HD is starting to make a dent in the # of viewers, is going to be when I see the first commercial airing in HD. Right now every commercial on every HD broadcast I see is up-rezzed SD. Which is funny, because most of the decent-budget commercials I've worked on have all been shot on HD; but advertisers apparently aren't finding the additional HD post costs worth it in order to finish the spots on HD.

The day advertisers start to find it worthwhile to actually deliver an HD master of their commercials for HD broadcast is the day that I'm going to start believing that HD programming is actually reaching a significant percentage of US households. The Consumer Electronics Association and the manufacturers can release all the pie-in-the-sky stats they want, but it's the advertisers who know who their market really is. When they start finishing commercials in HD and broadcasting them in HD, that's when you'll know HD penetration has become a market force to be reckoned with.

I have already seen a few HDTV true HD commercials on broadcast TV. The first one that I saw was, I think, 3 years ago when ABC did its first superbowl. They broadcasted that game with two sets of cameras (mostly) and two directors and (presumably) two trucks. Anyway, there was a movie trailer that they showed in HD, and I'm sure that it was not simply up-ressed. Not only was it widescreen, but it had a full DD5.1 soundtrack and I remember that it really looked killer. Since then, I have seen a handful of HD commercials, mostly on premium event broadcasts like the superbowl. But your (Barry's) point is well taken. There is not been any proliferation of HD commercials shown on TV yet and this says to me that it is not necessary for advertisers to increase sales.

It is interesting to hear that commercials are being shot in HD now and not being broadcast that way. One aspect of this that I'd be curious in learning about is if these HD commercials are shot with purely a 4x3 perspective. The biggest little secret about HDTV programming now is that it is all geared (except theatrical programming) to the SD aspect ratio. While football is great in HD, when the QB drops back to throw a pass, he is always kept in the 4x3 frame instead of keeping him at the edge of the 16x9 frame and allowing the HD viewer to see more of what is going on upfield. The same is true for scripted programming. Often what we see on the right and left side of the scene are simply nicely lit sets that do not add to the story. Worse yet, sometimes we see half of a person that is not involved the dialog on the side.

So yes, HDTV still has a LONG way to go to become what many of us think it will be. And again yes, infomercials and other low budget and late night programming will probably be shot and edited and broadcast in SD for quite some time to come. And there will be many savvy producers who take advantage of this work and wait to upgrade to HD. In reality, I'm sure that I could wait until 2007 to take the plunge in my business. But with the HVX priced where it is and being like a mini-varicam HD, why wouldn't I start switching over in the next several months. For me, it is HD-DVD or Blue-Ray that I will be watching the most to see how they take off. If they are slow to adopt, I can securely wait to go HD regardless of how many homes are watching HD. But if I were in the broadcast production business, I would be taking what Barry said about commercials being shot now in HD and the proliferation of HDTV's and prime time programming as a sign that you should be prepared to move to HD quickly.

Toke Lahti · December 27th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I think it is great that you and others are producing content for the 15% of the people after the high end format but dont forget about the other 85% of people...

We are also seeing more and more re-runs, so lets not forget, that when someone gets done a really succesfull program, it might be shown once a year in some network for the next 50 years or so. If the program is SD, it's attractiveness will surely lower after about a decade...

Ash Greyson · December 27th, 2005, 07:33 PM

True... many of the newer sitcoms will have an HD master but the majority of syndicated re-runs wont... Like I said somewhere in one of these debates... there will be better up-rezzing technologies as a result of HD proliferation when it happens...

ash =o)

Steve Crisdale · December 27th, 2005, 07:43 PM

Blah blah, blah blah blah....

Done too death. This whole subject is getting more and more boring with each posted addition - mine included!!

These particular sub-forums are devoted to those people who are either interested in HD/HDV and the cameras that are now available to shoot it. By inference, HD viewing devices are discussed.

Who gives a rat's how long it takes for HD viewing devices to dominate the World!! You want to get into HD? Then get into HD. You want to stay SD? Stay SD.

This is just so much pedantic crap that goes round and bloody round in circles achieving nothing. If you don't like HD/HDV/HDTV, then go play with the SD folks in their sub-forums, and blow kisses of appreciation at each other - and let us HD/HDV/HDTV folks congratulate ourselves on how clever we've been to beat all the SD lovers to the punch... even if it means we get our asses burned!!

There's only one thing that knows how all this stuff is going to pan out - that's time, and no five knuckle shuffler convention is gonna alter that.

Have the guts of your convictions and beliefs to know that whatever you decide to do in the face of this new technology, it's the right decision for you... and that there's no need to make yourselves look like scared and lonely kids who've got to convince everyone else that they're wrong in order to feel good about themselves.

Boyd Ostroff · December 27th, 2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toke Lahti

If the program is SD, it's attractiveness will surely lower after about a decade...

I read an interview with Mark Cuban from HDnet awhile ago. Interestingly, he said that the OLD sitcoms (like Leave it to Beaver) were the first things they re-mastered for HD. It was relatively easy to do this, since they were all originally shot on film...

Ash Greyson · December 27th, 2005, 10:04 PM

Yep I am sure the old standards will be re-mastered... as Barry said above, just got to get the people who advertise during those shows to care. Steve, you are correct, you cannot argue what may happen in the future... the funny thing is, we all agree that at some point, HD WILL happen... we are just splitting hairs over when. My big beef is with the people who tell the 18 year old kids on this forum that SD is dead and that they are silly to do anything but HD right now...

ash =o)

Steve Crisdale · December 28th, 2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

HD WILL happen... we are just splitting hairs over when. My big beef is with the people who tell the 18 year old kids on this forum that SD is dead and that they are silly to do anything but HD right now...
ash =o)

Anyone with half a brain who isn't either working for one of the manufacturers or a totally brainwashed fanboy knows that if SD was Julius Caesar, only the first couple of conspirators knives have hit home.

Would it be appropriate to tell those hesistating at plungeing their daggers in "just wait and see before you decide to jump ship" or "the end is gonna happen whether you strike or not... if you are going to jump to our team then you might as well make up your mind".

You say HD WILL happen. It is more realistic to say HD HAS happened. If those who don't want to wait decide to jump ship, they don't have to wait for HD equipment to become available. So what it's not at saturation level. Neither were jet airliners within the first few years following their taking to the skies. Did it mean the best propellor aircraft were sent to the scrap heap straight away?

Sheesh... The only thing new to come out of all this is it's repetitiveness!!

I hope your not being ageist towards 18yr olds with enough stray cash to go and buy these new HD/HDV camcorders?

If they ask about what sort of camera the forum members would advise them to look at - given their budget and that they know about HD - then anyone who doesn't mention these new cameras would be derilict in their responsibility to answer honestly. It's not like the kid is gonna have to wait for 6-12 months to get one, because they are available NOW.

If you feel agrieved that such queries from 18yr olds should also be informed of the available SD options... no one is stopping you from replying to any query as far as I'm aware.

If you don't like SD - don't use it...
If you don't like HD - don't use it... Tough decision isn't it?

Hang on... it's still possible to keep the thread going for at least a few more pages worth of pointless conjecture, facts and figures to argue over - who's right: who's wrong. Boring...

Mike Morrell · December 28th, 2005, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

Hang on... it's still possible to keep the thread going for at least a few more pages worth of pointless conjecture, facts and figures to argue over - who's right: who's wrong. Boring...

I always find these types posts amusing. If a thread has turned boring for you, why continue to read more posts from it and then add a post saying that it is boring? I can usually stop myself from reading threads that do not interest me.

As far as HD in reruns in syndication, we are already seeing shows like Law and Order and ER on TNT HD now in HD in reruns. HD is here now and it is even here now with syndicated programming. This is even more fuel for the fire that you might want to consider shooting in HD now, even for SD projects. Surely it will have more long term viability if it is in HD.

Kevin Dooley · December 28th, 2005, 06:34 AM

My .02... not that it's even worth that much.

Clearly HD is the way of the future for delivery... even eventually in the wedding/event/corporte markets... That's delivery. I think the point most people are missing is that acquisition is already in a position to be all HD, thus future proofing your work, if nothing else. I work as a production assistant on various TV shows and commercials, and guess what... they're all (every single one of them) shot on either HD or film... and they're all (yes, every single one of them) shown primarily in SD... It just makes sense... the work is ready for its jump to HD if it happens soon, plus you're gaining many many pluses in terms of picture quality by changing your acquisition....

Ever notice how a movie shot in Film or HD looks better on 4:2:0 NTSC rez DVDs than pretty much any thing shot on SD (be it DV, DVCPRO 50, DigiBeta, Betacam SP, etc.)? Yup, there's a reason for that... and now with lower end HD acquisition the little guys can feel like they're closing that gap. And in many respects they are.

HDTV market penetration? Proliferation of HD Broadcast Content? Bleh. What does it matter? Capture your project in the best format you can afford.... if you have a modest camera budget and are going to be using a 1/3" camera... look towards the newer affordable HD. If you're budget is bigger... seriously consider a 2/3" HD cam as they're prices have also dropped.

For the 1/3"ers and the 2/3"ers you're gaining better temporal and spatial resolution and (in the case of the HVX or the higher ends) better colorspace.

Call me crazy, but in an HD camera subforum, if we're talking HD v. SD we might as well focus on acquisition, right?

Steve Crisdale · December 28th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Dooley

Call me crazy, but in an HD camera subforum, if we're talking HD v. SD we might as well focus on acquisition, right?

Yay!! Someone else who understands that this subject belongs in SD sub-forums.

I'll bet there hasn't been one thread like this in the SD sub-forums, even though that is where this sort of mumb-jumbo, theoretical conjecture into the possibilities of the inevitable belongs.

I sure as hell ain't gonna turn around and buy a SD camera now that I have two HD ones, just because of a purile discussion like this.

Toss it into the SD sub-forums where it belongs. SD camera owner/users are the one's who have to worry about this sort of conjecture. They're the one's who have to take the gamble. But the SD proponents no doubt prefer it stays in the HD sub-forums, for obvious reasons... don't want to scare the true SD believers do we?!!

Those of us with HD equipment, from viewing to capturing to editing etc. have already decided and laid our stakes on the table. What's to decide?

This thread goes over the same old ground that has been covered ad-nauseum in other HD sub-forums already. That is why this discussion is so downright boring.

December 27th, 2005, 07:43 PM	#39
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Give it a rest. Blah blah, blah blah blah.... Done too death. This whole subject is getting more and more boring with each posted addition - mine included!! These particular sub-forums are devoted to those people who are either interested in HD/HDV and the cameras that are now available to shoot it. By inference, HD viewing devices are discussed. Who gives a rat's how long it takes for HD viewing devices to dominate the World!! You want to get into HD? Then get into HD. You want to stay SD? Stay SD. This is just so much pedantic crap that goes round and bloody round in circles achieving nothing. If you don't like HD/HDV/HDTV, then go play with the SD folks in their sub-forums, and blow kisses of appreciation at each other - and let us HD/HDV/HDTV folks congratulate ourselves on how clever we've been to beat all the SD lovers to the punch... even if it means we get our asses burned!! There's only one thing that knows how all this stuff is going to pan out - that's time, and no five knuckle shuffler convention is gonna alter that. Have the guts of your convictions and beliefs to know that whatever you decide to do in the face of this new technology, it's the right decision for you... and that there's no need to make yourselves look like scared and lonely kids who've got to convince everyone else that they're wrong in order to feel good about themselves.

December 28th, 2005, 06:34 AM	#44
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	My .02... not that it's even worth that much. Clearly HD is the way of the future for delivery... even eventually in the wedding/event/corporte markets... That's delivery. I think the point most people are missing is that acquisition is already in a position to be all HD, thus future proofing your work, if nothing else. I work as a production assistant on various TV shows and commercials, and guess what... they're all (every single one of them) shot on either HD or film... and they're all (yes, every single one of them) shown primarily in SD... It just makes sense... the work is ready for its jump to HD if it happens soon, plus you're gaining many many pluses in terms of picture quality by changing your acquisition.... Ever notice how a movie shot in Film or HD looks better on 4:2:0 NTSC rez DVDs than pretty much any thing shot on SD (be it DV, DVCPRO 50, DigiBeta, Betacam SP, etc.)? Yup, there's a reason for that... and now with lower end HD acquisition the little guys can feel like they're closing that gap. And in many respects they are. HDTV market penetration? Proliferation of HD Broadcast Content? Bleh. What does it matter? Capture your project in the best format you can afford.... if you have a modest camera budget and are going to be using a 1/3" camera... look towards the newer affordable HD. If you're budget is bigger... seriously consider a 2/3" HD cam as they're prices have also dropped. For the 1/3"ers and the 2/3"ers you're gaining better temporal and spatial resolution and (in the case of the HVX or the higher ends) better colorspace. Call me crazy, but in an HD camera subforum, if we're talking HD v. SD we might as well focus on acquisition, right? __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

December 27th, 2005, 05:52 PM	#33
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Production and adoption are two very different things though. Production is moving rapidly to mostly-HD origination, for longevity purposes if nothing else. Yes, the majority of prime-time non-reality programming is originated in HD. But who's watching it in HD? Besides me & Mike, that is? About 7% of US households have HDTVs in them. Of those that have HDTVs, at least half have no connection to any sort of HD service (meaning an external OTA antenna, or HD cable service, or DirecTV HDTV). Less than half who have access are actually paying the costs to get the HD service. VOOM went out of business because they couldn't get subscribers. And even when customers pay for the service, how many channels do they get? In LV on Cox Cable, there are about 246 channels. I think six are HD. I won't watch anything in SD if there's an HD broadcast of it, that's for darn sure. And I'm moving to all-HD origination this year. But I still think it's gonna be a long, long time before HD makes serious inroads into a large percentage of US households. My bellweather right now, for knowing when HD is starting to make a dent in the # of viewers, is going to be when I see the first commercial airing in HD. Right now every commercial on every HD broadcast I see is up-rezzed SD. Which is funny, because most of the decent-budget commercials I've worked on have all been shot on HD; but advertisers apparently aren't finding the additional HD post costs worth it in order to finish the spots on HD. The day advertisers start to find it worthwhile to actually deliver an HD master of their commercials for HD broadcast is the day that I'm going to start believing that HD programming is actually reaching a significant percentage of US households. The Consumer Electronics Association and the manufacturers can release all the pie-in-the-sky stats they want, but it's the advertisers who know who their market really is. When they start finishing commercials in HD and broadcasting them in HD, that's when you'll know HD penetration has become a market force to be reckoned with.

December 27th, 2005, 06:11 PM	#34
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Mike, you proved my point... yes those numbers I posted are a bit skewed but SOMEONE IS PRODUCING ALL THAT SD CONTENT! How many hours in the day of paid programming, infomercials, etc. are there? TONS and it makes no sense for them to go to HD, even as source. The major networks only make up a FRACTION of the broadcast hours in a day. ash =o)

December 27th, 2005, 07:33 PM	#38
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	True... many of the newer sitcoms will have an HD master but the majority of syndicated re-runs wont... Like I said somewhere in one of these debates... there will be better up-rezzing technologies as a result of HD proliferation when it happens... ash =o)

December 27th, 2005, 10:04 PM	#41
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Yep I am sure the old standards will be re-mastered... as Barry said above, just got to get the people who advertise during those shows to care. Steve, you are correct, you cannot argue what may happen in the future... the funny thing is, we all agree that at some point, HD WILL happen... we are just splitting hairs over when. My big beef is with the people who tell the 18 year old kids on this forum that SD is dead and that they are silly to do anything but HD right now... ash =o)