my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » WB in HDTV? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: WB in HDTV? Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 09-16-2004 05:25 PM                        When it comes to teens and their WB shows, they have to have it in the best quality. They love their aspect ratios and detail detail hotties. I'm surprised they haven't done it to MTV yet. The WB gets their nice Nelsons rating of the 18-25 range... or shall I say 14-25, either way most major networks like NBC and CBS have already been in the band wagon a long time ago. It's all about getting the next buck. Who goes to the malls, who goes to stores, who drinks that Pepsi ... Teens... are overrated. And that's what these old geezers think can attract them... Making their network as "hip and with it" as any other network.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-16-2004 06:29 PM                        Pravin - how can your 4:3 image be larger than your widescreen image? One thing I have noticed about all WB prime time shows is that they LOVE the musical montage at the end, usually by some sappy artist. They fucking can't get enough of it. Also everything is usually in slow motion during the musical montage. And then right after that they have an advertising for the music which you can conveniently buy at the fabulous WB online store. Now if only they'd broadcast in something better than Dolby Digital 2.0. Does it cost extra to get HD over cable?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-16-2004 09:50 PM                     Sony, as well as a few other companies, make some HD-capable TVs in a 4:3 ratio. You'll still get a sharper image on these sets than a regular TV, but the 16:9 HD images will be letterboxed. I really don't see much of any point in buying a 4:3 ratio HD monitor. The only motive I can see for any manufacturer in creating such TVs is perhaps a cost saving issue.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-16-2004 10:53 PM                        Wow. Just for a goof I checked out Comcast's web site, and to get my local free HDTV channels through them is MEGA EXPENSIVE and very confusing! I apparently need a variety of boxes and services which really add up. I have an HD tuner built into the TV, so I shouldn't need their cable box. Damn. I guess I won't be paying for cable or satellite any time soon, since the pricing and the required equipment is so damn confusing. Off the airwaves really is the only way to go. Why pay for TV that is already free? I'm glad I'm not retarded.  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-17-2004 12:52 AM                     I don't know why folks in/near moderate to large-size cities buy cable, but I'd guess most of the males are big sports fans. Or maybe they just can't do without FoxNews. I could happily do without both, but out here in the boonies there isn't much TV without cable. Or a dish. I can get one .. yes, one .. OTA VHF channel with an antenna. I'm a long way from even a fair-sized 'city' (which would be Fresno or Bakersfield, 100-something miles to the east .. it's 250 miles north to SF and 250 miles south to LA) and there are many mountains in the way in all directions, anyhow. There's no city to the west, because of the Great Blue Pacific. And it's waaay too far to Hawaii. But, you're right, Joe (and also very fortunate in your available freebies), cable is pretty much a scam. It costs WAY too much, and it's all divided up into 'tiers' of channel-choices (that's the confusion, as you discovered). There's nothing worthwhile on basic cable but, of course, it's the most expensive part and it's, of course, required before one can get the extra 'tiers'. I don't know what Charter charges for their HD 'tier' .. if there is one .. but it's doubtless outrageous and I don't want it. Not yet. I can do just fine without it. Anyhow, count your TV-blessings, Joe. You're saving probably around $60-100 a MONTH, at least. Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 09-17-2004 02:10 AM                     Joe, I got a 4:3 tv. To the others: well i bought my TV in 2000 and there will still be plenty of 4:3 programming in the next few years. You get a 36 inch 4:3 Sony, it will give you a much bigger standard image, and a slightly smaller hdtv image compared to a 34 inch sony for almost the same price. That's why I made my choice. 4:3 images on 34 inch 16:9 sonys are too small for me. As far as why some of us buy cable, well comedy central, espn sunday night football in hidef. If you are a sports fan, you gotta have cable. You get to watch a lot of those IMAX documentaries in hidef. Plus I watch my movies either in the theater or on cable instead of spending money on dvds. 90 dollars is worth it to me. I am sure some of you would prefer to spend it a single night at mons venus instead.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-17-2004 07:50 AM                        $90? A month? That's over $1,000 a year. That's slightly over 50% of my monthly payment for my brand new car that I bought last year (the $90, not the $1000). Yeah, the 4:3 pic on 16:9 TVs can seem small (it doesn't matter if it is a Sony TV or not), but it makes it that much better when you do watch something in 16:9. My 4:3 image is about the same size as my old TV's screen. So it only gets wider after that. I play a lot of video games that support 16:9 and 480p. Some of them support 720p and 1080i. The rest support 480i and some of the older ones support "280p".  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 09-17-2004 12:11 PM                        Comcast Cable says you must have their HD converter box to get HDTV over cable, but this is not correct (at least here). My Sony 51" 16:9 has a built-in HDTV tuner that seems to get all the Comcast HD stations just fine. Of course, this will probably change in the future, given that the signals are currently unencrypted. When Comcast does get around to encrypting the signal, you'll either need a set with one of those plug-in decoder cards (QAM?), or the Comcast settop box. But for now, the HDTV signals are there and free -- You just need to find them because Comcast won't tell you they're there. (Free in the sense that there's no extra cost above getting expanded basic cable.) I was scanning through the really obscure Comcast netherland digital channels last night and found T3 being broadcast in digital, unencrypted, but not HD (and in 4:3). The image quality was pretty good, and the sound was in 5.1. I can also get a whole bunch of audio-only digital music stations over the TV's tuner. TitanTV.com recently added a HD listing for FOX in this market (in addition to SD), so presumably the local FOX affiliate is about to start broadcasting in HD. No digital WB yet though, SD or otherwise. I can get ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS either from cable or over-the-air. FOX is difficult to receive via antenna, must still be low-power. CBS's HDTV rebroadcast of Hallmark's "A Painted House" this past Sunday didn't have the usual CBS bug in the corner. Hooray to Hallmark or whoever was responsible for getting rid of that pesky logo. More annoying to me than the logos is the delay in locking onto a digital station. It takes the TV several seconds to suck in enough bits to make the picture and sound. This makes channel-hopping much slower than it is with analog. Oh well, such is the price of progress.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 09-17-2004 01:49 PM                     "When it comes to teens and their WB shows, they have to have it in the best quality." Best Quality would be to show them WITHOUT the f---ing "The WB" logo on the screen during every damn frame! I saw they also had the words "All New" onscreen next to the bug, also appearing to be through the entire show. It looked like they were just showing a promo, not the actual show! How do people actually WATCH a show with that crap on the screen? And what the hell is the point of HDTV if they're just going to intentionally ruin the picture? That's just like having super-high-quality radio and applying the dynamic range compression that some stations use, and having the DJs talk over the music. I'm glad I decided not to work in TV, I had wanted to for a long time. I wanted to work for an independent TV station, most of which are now extinct thanks to the Fox, WB and UPN networks. If I were running the master control and was told to put a logo on the screen and keep it there, I would walk off the job! Oh yeah- Joe, you are my hero for saying that people who pay for cable are retarded! I was getting FREE cable for a while and never saw anything worth watching on it!  |  IP: Logged Jennifer Pan THE JEN! Posts: 1219 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Nov 2003 posted 09-17-2004 02:41 PM                        I was speaking in terms of ..... COMPLETE SARCASM. Teens don't gave a care about the quality of the programs. For all I know management on the WB think teens forget what station they are watching so they just have to put the logo on there all the time. Even on promos the actors either walk by a huge lit up logo of the WB or have their face plastered next to the logo.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 09-17-2004 05:16 PM                     Jesse O reilly Skeen opines: quote: Oh yeah- Joe, you are my hero for saying that people who pay for cable are retarded! I was getting FREE cable for a while and never saw anything worth watching on it! Get the f*** out of here. Some might say paying for a tv itself is retarded as there is nothing good to watch on network tv. To each his own. Some might saying paying for a movie ticket is retarded given the many crappy theaters. Some might say paying for popcorn with fake butter is retarded. I get a lot of guests and have 3 TVs which get a lot of use. I feel paying $50 for broadway is retarded. We can go on and on.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-17-2004 06:51 PM                     My Mitsubishi HD set has a 4X3 screen but its also a first genereation HD set that goes back to late 1999. At that time many of the HD capable sets sold were 4X3. I'm glad that I went that way then but wouldn't reccomend it now since there is an onslaught of free off air HD programming available in every big city except Joes. since the CRT's are beginning to get somomewhat soft in my set I am planning on replacing it early next year with a large flat panel of some sort.... will have to wait till after xmas to see whats on sale. I can't wait to gain all the space that getting rid of that large rear screen TV will give me. Mark  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-19-2004 01:02 AM                        Well I fiddled around with my rabbit ear antenna and a small piece of aluminum foil and suddenly I am getting 8 digital channels. I imagine I'd get even more with a good rooftop antenna. Channels 2 and 4 seem to drop out quite a bit, unless I put the aluminum foil in a certain place. Anyway, I am getting "the" WB, FOX, CBS and NBC now, and with the foil in place I also get PBS. FOX is indeed in 720p, but I don't think they have any programming that goes above 480i, do they? If so, what? There was a college football game on CBS that looked pretty good, but college football sucks ass. The local news was in HD, but only the studio cameras seem capable of it. Footage from the field is low-def 16:9. Those assholes.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 09-19-2004 02:56 AM                        The US standard for HD OTA signals assumes the use of an outdoor antenna. Indoor antennas were not considered when the various link budgets and minimum field strengths were established for HD OTA service using 8-VSB modulation. If you live close enough to the transmitter and have no multipath issues an indoor antenna will work, but the system wasn't designed for that. Sorry Joe, no rabbit ears allowed now! Fox is supposed to be using 720p for its sports broadcasts. NFL and the next Super Bowl* should all be in 720p. * Yeah, I wrote "Super Bowl" even though I'm not authorized to use the term. The NFL knows were to find me if they wanna sue.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-19-2004 08:47 AM                     Yea, Paul is correct about that. Multipath is a major problem for folks that live in high multipath(mountainous or lots of tall building) areas as the receiver don't know which signal to look at and lock onto.....seems like they will need to take the receivers one step further and make them be able to detect the phase of the received signal so it only locks in on the main or direct signal..... anyway DTV is still in its infancy and has a looooong way to go. I have seen several amplified indoor antennas available and you might want to try one of those. Isn't there a decent house antenna system in your apartment? If you get the PBS HD channel you will notice that they have a little intro before each show to tell you if its just enhanced widescreen or if its actually presented in HD, its about half and half on PBS right now. At least PBS seems to have their act together regarding this. Most of the filmed shitcoms on CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX are all in true HD. Many of the films presented on those channels are also in true HD. Jay Leno is also 1180i HD and has since the beginning of HD itself. How manyn of thosre channels are broadcasting multiple channels in yout area? Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.