Time for 100% HDTV... Viewers Are Ready

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blog.jackperry.com/pt/blog/default.aspx?id=56&t=It-is-time-to-go-100-HDviewers-are-r' target='_blank'>http://blog.jackperry.com/pt/blog/default.aspx?id=56&t=It-is-time-to-go-100-HDviewers-are-r</a><br /><br /></div><i>"In a much earlier blog, I wrote about a guy who emailed me to say, "Something in HD is better than anything in analog." His point was that since he and wife had purchased their first HD set, they had started to watch all HD, even if it meant not watching better shows if they were still only available in analog. You know what? I tend to agree with him. I've even found myself tuning into a soccer game on HD Net simply because it was in HD. As an old hockey player, I never imagined sitting down and watching a soccer game. That said, HD makes soccer on TV great...almost compelling... People are buying HD sets en masse. While they aren't flying off the shelves, they are being purchased at a noticeably higher rate than even six months ago."</i><br /><br />And I agree that viewers are ready for 100% HDTV. I am certainly one of them. I have had HDTV for only about 2 months now and while I am not as extreme as the example above, I find myself watching weird and random nature shows that are in HD than the more popular shows that were usually on my normal schedule but aren't in HD. Same goes for movies that are on the premium channels - I'll pick a less interesting HD movie over one that may be more interesting but isn't in HD. I really wonder why providers aren't recognizing this demand by the users (unless this is among isolated incidents). What do you feel?

[Macguy59]

I've had one for almost 2 years now and I still do that :lol: Going all HDTV works for me.

[jeffd]

if tomarow everything was HDTV, I would save and make a HDTV (or atleast a converter, especialy one that supports PCs or PC monitors ;) ) my next purchase.

As of now, I have no intention of upgrading from my 34 inch anchor.

[Darius Wey]

I'm glued to HDTV. I've had it for around two years now, and it's bliss. I'm always watching HD travel and nature shows for no apparent reason. ;)

It's a shame that a huge proportion of the world's networks are still broadcasting in standard definition though.

[Suhit Gupta]

So does anyone have a theory about why more HD content isn't available? It isn't like the hardware is that expensive, I mean HD camcorders are almost mainstream now.

Suhit

[Felix Torres]

The cost of the cameras is not quite trivial but its not the real hold-up.
Most network shows are in fact shot and (mostly) broadcast in HD.
Its the network affiliates *and* the cable-only channels that are the hold-ups.
The issue with the latter should go away this year when (if?) DirecTV launches their new HD service and the cable-only channels come on board.
As for the local affiliates, the handwriting is on the wall for them; by 09 they will have to switch whether they like it or not.
More, since realistically there should be little difference between ABC, CBS, etc and TNT or HBO, at some point I think the networks will realize that too much of their revenue is going out in the form of affiliate fees and decide to change their operational model...

There are better ways to reach the 10-15% of the viewers without cable or satelite service than to pay for hundreds of repeater stations...

[egads]

What are the ages of the people who are saying they watch 100% HDTV?

I find the younger the person the more likely they are to use tech just for the sake of using tech. Most forty something people I know have no plans on getting HDTV till they have to. The only time I want to see HD is when I'm watching a movie, why would I want to see the nightly news or MythBusters in HD? HDTV shows too much detail sometimes; watching a show the other night I was able to count four long black hairs growing out of a mole on someguys face. Normal TV would have hid this :D
For me if your going to make something HD you have to put a bit more into the production to take advantave of the HD.

[klinux]

I have to agree with egads too. Content is king.

I would rather listen to a symphony on FM than Britney on SACD. This applies to any other media as well: give me a well shot grainy picture by Henri Cartier-Bresson over a 10 mega-pixel shot of someone's vacation, so on and so forth.

I will of course listen to the high definition source at least once, of course, just so I can judge for myself and form my own opinion but content is where the meat is.

[klinux]

[i]I really wonder why providers aren't recognizing this demand by the users (unless this is among isolated incidents). What do you feel?


Its [sic] the network affiliates *and* the cable-only channels that are the hold-ups.

Good question but a grossly simplified response.

In my opinion, it is because the demand is not there yet. We may see the difference and demand the service but the reality is that we are vastly outnumbered by the public who do not see the difference and thus do not demand the HDTV and are are much less likely to pay for the difference between HD and SD.

Case in point: A December Scientific Atlanta survery quoting Forrester says that only 16 million households have HDTV and of those &lt;50% of them have HDTV reception. One in five does not know that they need new OTA antenna or STB and one in four thought they were already watching in HD. (http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&amp;aId=6521)

Another example is also how most people are already satisfied with the quality of CD and MP3 (as opposed to SACD and DVD-Audio) and DVD (480i/p vs HDTV).

It will take longer than we think to change people's minds.

[Damion Chaplin]

I just wish more cable channels offered their content to local providers. My provider only offers about 10 HD channels, and half of them are premium pay channels. All I want is Sci-Fi for Bob's sake!

I've had HDTV for about a year and a half and can't imagine going back. I do things like record a whole marathon of Firefly with my DVR, only to realize when I start watching them that I'd rather wait and rent the DVD just to get better picture quality. Kind of like the first time I moved from a 15" to a 17" monitor or from dial-up to DSL - once you see how good it can get there's just no going back. I'm totally ready for 100% HD content.

And let's not forget that not only does it provide HD picture, but also HD audio. My GF watched that dance reality show that was on Fox last year and not only was it a fabulous picture, but the music was absolutely booming.

[Felix Torres]

New broadcast technologies have always been dependent on broadcaster support to ramp up; color TV and MTS TV are examples of this. Both were transmitted long before there was any measurable installed base.
For content providers to claim that 12-20% HDTV penetration is insufficient is disingenuous; they are simply unwilling to make the investment.

This is *not* a chicken and egg situation, but rather a Field of Dreams scenario; if they broadcast it, folks *will* watch.

[egads]

It will take longer than we think to change people's minds.

The only thing that will change most common peoples minds will be when HDTV costs less than SDTV. $5-$10 more for HDTV a month is not worth it. Now if HDTV was $5-$10 cheaper than standard cable/SAT you would get many people going HD!

[Suhit Gupta]

What are the ages of the people who are saying they watch 100% HDTV?
I would humbly disagree with you egads (and klinux). While I am in my mid/late-20's, I think I am past the point of doing things just because pop culture determines they are hip. I agree that I'd pick something else (anything else) over Britney Spears even when quality of picture or sound was an issue, so I agree with your point over the actual content. However, my point was that HD is so compelling that I will often pick something in HD content over non-HD even if the non-HD content is mildly more interesting. This obviously does not apply to issues where the non-HD content is CLEARLY something I care about.

When it comes to movies, I have bought a DVD player that upscales to 1080i which makes the movie watching experience a delight, and I did this even though I had to pay a premium for this player. So ultimately the point is that the content creators or the distributors should realize that this is the direction in which they should move. When HD came out many years ago, people complained so heavily about just a couple of channels being available in HD and that too only for select programs. I feel like in almost 7-8 years (when I first heard about HD), there are still a relatively small selection, i.e. when compared to the non-HD content.

Suhit

[Suhit Gupta]

This is *not* a chicken and egg situation, but rather a Field of Dreams scenario; if they broadcast it, folks *will* watch.
Right, but clearly they aren't "building" it.

Suhit

[klinux]

This is *not* a chicken and egg situation, but rather a Field of Dreams scenario; if they broadcast it, folks *will* watch.
Right, but clearly they aren't "building" it.

No one is saying that folks won't watch it if it is broadcasted. But since the folks won't pay for it so they have no interest in building it. Trust me, if people really want it and demand it (recall the "I want my MTV" campaign or the Toyota Prius product) they will build it.

[Jason Dunn]

As great as the content in HD looks/sounds, I think the truth is that much of the HD adoption comes down to one thing: people replacing their TV sets and getting HD sets because the price is right. That's a long adoption rate that will take time...