Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When will 51% of TV be in HD and in 16:9?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:56:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.

At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
channels of 16:9 HDTV?

Any clue? 2009? 2015?

The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO. It
seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.

More about : question

Anonymous
July 17, 2005 1:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?

I think all those cable channels will go widescreen before they go high def,
but I don't even expect most channels to be 16:9 before 2010, and I don't
expect them to be mostly HD for another decade after that.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 3:24:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in
news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com:

> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least
> 51/100 channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs,
> IMO. It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely
> expensive.

There's more and more of it all the time. I notice that the big networks
tend to focus it on prime time shows like the Law and Order series, the
CSI shows. The sports is also getting better. When I first got HDTV,
the only Blue Jays games in HD were the home games. Now, as stadiums get
equipped with HD cameras, more and more of the away games are in that
format as well. Not only that, the network I watch the games on usually
has made the effort to bring in games from other teams (their parent
company owns the Jays) in HD as well.

And my movie provider has a 24-7 channel going for movies now. In fact,
the big bottleneck here now is my satellite provider, who simply does not
have enough bandwidth for all of it. That will change, as they will be
eventually forced to launch more birds.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?

This is not the correct question.

The correct question is: when will I be able to get 51/100 hours of TV
that I watch be in HDTV?

That date is very close for most people, since the top 50% of shows (based
on popularity/viewers) are *all* available in HDTV right now. The reality
is that the top 70%+ shows are available in HDTV right now, so unless you
really do watch most of your TV from Comedy Central, CNN, etc. (despite
claims to the contrary, almost no one does this), you can have your wish
right now.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO.
> It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.

All the premium cable movie channels are in HD, ESPN, and all the broadcast
networks as well

What is it that you are waiting for, the weather channel?
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 6:54:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <-pSdneKjRrfFNEffRVn-pw@comcast.com>, Randy Sweeney says...
>
>
>"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
>news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO.
>> It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
>
>All the premium cable movie channels are in HD, ESPN, and all the broadcast
>networks as well
>
>What is it that you are waiting for, the weather channel?
>
>

Actually broadcast network HD is still very spotty. Primetime drama is pretty
much all HD but many primetime shows are still SD. And sports, probably the
best way to showcase HD, are often SD. The networks don't seem to want to spend
any money on HD production, so unless they can get a corporate sponsor to
underwrite the HD production, they still use SD. It's going to take public
demand to force the networks to go 100% HD, but the public is delaying buying HD
TV's until the networks offer more HD material. Question is who will blink
first?
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO.
> It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.

ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, PBS viewed over the air with an antenna. Plentiful
and FREE.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:26:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2IpCe.4490$p%3.27442@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
> news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> I think all those cable channels will go widescreen before they go high
> def, but I don't even expect most channels to be 16:9 before 2010, and I
> don't expect them to be mostly HD for another decade after that.

What do you base your 2020 estimate on? I dare say a single SD professional
camera in use today will still be operational by 2010 and I really don't
believe they will be replaced by more SD cameras. I think the transition
will be on a curve that will begin moving very quickly in the next year or
so and that by 2008 or so every NEW production will be in HD and every
existing older SD programming will be upconverted.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d44609a8cbefcf1989e6d@news.nabs.net...
> Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> This is not the correct question.
>
> The correct question is: when will I be able to get 51/100 hours of TV
> that I watch be in HDTV?
>
> That date is very close for most people, since the top 50% of shows (based
> on popularity/viewers) are *all* available in HDTV right now. The reality
> is that the top 70%+ shows are available in HDTV right now, so unless you
> really do watch most of your TV from Comedy Central, CNN, etc. (despite
> claims to the contrary, almost no one does this), you can have your wish
> right now.

You are absolutely correct. One year ago, the vast majority of my shows were
standard definition. Now, I am watching only standard definition when an
HDTV network shows that format (example: "Entourage"). All prime time
network shows are in HDTV format, and DirecTV now carries all the networks.
They also carry HBO, SHO, UHF, DiscoveryHD HDNet, HDNet Movies, and others.
Bottom line, there is little reason to watch standard def shows at this
point in time. As with most folks, I am very busy nowadays with career,
family, etc, so I place a high value on my time. When I devote time to TV
watching, I want the best experience possible. The combination of good
content and HDTV delivery works for me.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:27:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:54:14 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
<DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
>news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO.
>> It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
>
>All the premium cable movie channels are in HD, ESPN, and all the broadcast
>networks as well
>

Not all premium cable movie channels are HD. Most of the premium
movie channels providers offer a few HD channels.

The number of available HD channels is dependent on the cable service
provider.
July 18, 2005 3:53:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in
news:ktCdnSpe2rKUfEffRVn-jg@comcast.com:

>
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:2IpCe.4490$p%3.27442@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> "Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
>> news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>>
>>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least
>>> 51/100 channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>>
>>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> I think all those cable channels will go widescreen before they go
>> high def, but I don't even expect most channels to be 16:9 before
>> 2010, and I don't expect them to be mostly HD for another decade
>> after that.
>
> What do you base your 2020 estimate on? I dare say a single SD
> professional camera in use today will still be operational by 2010 and
> I really don't believe they will be replaced by more SD cameras. I
> think the transition will be on a curve that will begin moving very
> quickly in the next year or so and that by 2008 or so every NEW
> production will be in HD and every existing older SD programming will
> be upconverted.
>
Why do people answer this troll
July 18, 2005 12:31:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo wrote:
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO. It
> seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
>
>
There is no requirement that ANY channel EVER do 16:9 HD...only that
they originate a digital signal. And that only applies to OTA
STATIONS...not cable channels.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:47:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:BhNCe.87311$Tt.24490@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Spungo wrote:
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO.
>> It seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
>>
>>
> There is no requirement that ANY channel EVER do 16:9 HD...only that they
> originate a digital signal. And that only applies to OTA STATIONS...not
> cable channels.

Was there a requirement that all channels go to color?
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:43:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Steve K. (steve@nodamnspam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> It will be a loooooong while! 2030? 2040? There's a lot of 4:3 content
> out there that get's rerun everyday. "I love Lucy", "Gilligan's
> Island", all the TV talkshows, etc. All of this stuff will always be
> 4:3.

Although I agree that older reruns are set in stone as 4:3 (assuming
channels don't resort to "fat-vision"), talk shows might hit 16:9 faster
than you think. Conan went to 16:9 HD and is letterboxed on the SD
broadcast, so there's some real precedent.

16:9 is quite good for the typical two-person talking head that you see
on these shows, and allows a 3-person shot to look good, too.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/GiantWate...
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 7:56:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo wrote:
>
>
> Was there a requirement that all channels go to color?
>

No. Competition was the hand that forced that change.

Matthew
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 2:42:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11do2b3duqgdt5a@corp.supernews.com...
> Spungo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Was there a requirement that all channels go to color?
>
> No. Competition was the hand that forced that change.
>
> Matthew

That was my point. I'm still curious as to when that will happen with HDTV
though.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 2:44:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d45c27bcf379d78989e73@news.nabs.net...
> Steve K. (steve@nodamnspam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> It will be a loooooong while! 2030? 2040? There's a lot of 4:3 content
>> out there that get's rerun everyday. "I love Lucy", "Gilligan's
>> Island", all the TV talkshows, etc. All of this stuff will always be
>> 4:3.
>
> Although I agree that older reruns are set in stone as 4:3 (assuming
> channels don't resort to "fat-vision"), talk shows might hit 16:9 faster
> than you think. Conan went to 16:9 HD and is letterboxed on the SD
> broadcast, so there's some real precedent.
>
> 16:9 is quite good for the typical two-person talking head that you see
> on these shows, and allows a 3-person shot to look good, too.

I believe Leno is 16:9 HDTV too. My question was more about new programming,
not reruns.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 4:04:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > 16:9 is quite good for the typical two-person talking head that you see
> > on these shows, and allows a 3-person shot to look good, too.
>
> I believe Leno is 16:9 HDTV too.

Yes, but it is composed for 4:3 with "wasted" room on the sides in the 16:9
presentation.

You don't get the same shot choices as used on Conan.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/CheckTheGigabytes.gif
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4645db2acbf0f7989e76@news.nabs.net...
> Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > 16:9 is quite good for the typical two-person talking head that you see
>> > on these shows, and allows a 3-person shot to look good, too.
>>
>> I believe Leno is 16:9 HDTV too.
>
> Yes, but it is composed for 4:3 with "wasted" room on the sides in the
> 16:9
> presentation.
>
> You don't get the same shot choices as used on Conan.

So if you get the NBC HD feed and you have a HDTV, there are black bars on
the sides of the screen? What was the point of going HD without going 16:9?

Can't a show be broadcast 4:3 for analog and 16:9 for the HD signal? Or do
all HD broadcasts have to be letterboxed on 4:3 TV's?
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11do2b3duqgdt5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Spungo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Was there a requirement that all channels go to color?
>>
>>No. Competition was the hand that forced that change.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
> That was my point. I'm still curious as to when that will happen with HDTV
> though.
>

It already has. Fox, formerly the only network not supporting HD, now
broadcasts in HD.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:01:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo wrote:
> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>
> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO. It
> seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.

Nearly every prime time network show is in HD, almost all football
games, and I have 6 or 7 HD dedicated HD channels on cable. Hardly
"extremely rare". Get with it.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 7:55:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Yes, but it is composed for 4:3 with "wasted" room on the sides in the
> > 16:9
> > presentation.
> >
> > You don't get the same shot choices as used on Conan.
>
> So if you get the NBC HD feed and you have a HDTV, there are black bars on
> the sides of the screen? What was the point of going HD without going 16:9?

No, "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is 16:9 HDTV, but is *composed* with
the 4:3 area as the "important stuff" because the SD broadcast just extracts
this 4:3 center area, and there are more 4:3 viewers, so cutting off half
a guest (or part of the joke in "Headlines") isn't a good thing.

Almost all primetime HDTV is filmed this way, unless it is letterboxed on
the SD feed, like "The Late Show with Conan O'Brien" (and "Crossing Jordan",
"The West Wing", etc.).

--
Jeff Rife |
| "He chose...poorly."
|
| -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"
July 19, 2005 8:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 19 Jul 2005 09:01:59 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Spungo wrote:
>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO. It
>> seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
>
>Nearly every prime time network show is in HD, almost all football
>games, and I have 6 or 7 HD dedicated HD channels on cable. Hardly
>"extremely rare". Get with it.


That's about 3 times the total channels we used to get OTA before
cable.
Thumper
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 8:39:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4724bb1969d7e7989e78@news.nabs.net...
> Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > Yes, but it is composed for 4:3 with "wasted" room on the sides in the
>> > 16:9
>> > presentation.
>> >
>> > You don't get the same shot choices as used on Conan.
>>
>> So if you get the NBC HD feed and you have a HDTV, there are black bars
>> on
>> the sides of the screen? What was the point of going HD without going
>> 16:9?
>
> No, "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is 16:9 HDTV, but is *composed* with
> the 4:3 area as the "important stuff" because the SD broadcast just
> extracts
> this 4:3 center area, and there are more 4:3 viewers, so cutting off half
> a guest (or part of the joke in "Headlines") isn't a good thing.
>
> Almost all primetime HDTV is filmed this way, unless it is letterboxed on
> the SD feed, like "The Late Show with Conan O'Brien" (and "Crossing
> Jordan",
> "The West Wing", etc.).

I've seen a lot of people call Letterman's current CBS show "Late Night",
but this is the first time I've seen somebody call O'Brien's show "The Late
Show".

Thanks for the answer though.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 10:20:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I've seen a lot of people call Letterman's current CBS show "Late Night",
> but this is the first time I've seen somebody call O'Brien's show "The Late
> Show".

Sorry, it's actually "Late Night with Conan O'Brian", and Letterman is "The
Late Show with David Letterman". I always get those mixed up.

--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
| "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
| poured gravy on it and ate it."
| -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:50:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d4746d6dc99d6cb989e7a@news.nabs.net...
> Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I've seen a lot of people call Letterman's current CBS show "Late Night",
>> but this is the first time I've seen somebody call O'Brien's show "The
>> Late
>> Show".
>
> Sorry, it's actually "Late Night with Conan O'Brian", and Letterman is
> "The
> Late Show with David Letterman". I always get those mixed up.

:)  A lot of people do, but usually in the reverse of how you did.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:59:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:50:52 -0400 Spungo <spungo@spungo.com> wrote:
|
| "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
| news:MPG.1d4746d6dc99d6cb989e7a@news.nabs.net...
|> Spungo (spungo@spungo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|>> I've seen a lot of people call Letterman's current CBS show "Late Night",
|>> but this is the first time I've seen somebody call O'Brien's show "The
|>> Late
|>> Show".
|>
|> Sorry, it's actually "Late Night with Conan O'Brian", and Letterman is
|> "The
|> Late Show with David Letterman". I always get those mixed up.
|
| :)  A lot of people do, but usually in the reverse of how you did.

Don't you think it's getting a bit late?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 7:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:ktCdnSpe2rKUfEffRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2IpCe.4490$p%3.27442@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> "Spungo" <spungo@spungo.com> wrote in message
>> news:seydnZWe56O6nEffRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>>> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>>
>>> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>>> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>>
>>> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>>
>> I think all those cable channels will go widescreen before they go high
>> def, but I don't even expect most channels to be 16:9 before 2010, and I
>> don't expect them to be mostly HD for another decade after that.
>
> What do you base your 2020 estimate on? I dare say a single SD
> professional camera in use today will still be operational by 2010 and I
> really don't believe they will be replaced by more SD cameras. I think the
> transition will be on a curve that will begin moving very quickly in the
> next year or so and that by 2008 or so every NEW production will be in HD
> and every existing older SD programming will be upconverted.

I'm not talking about how the shows are shot (they will probably use HD
cameras earlier), it's more a matter of bandwidth over the cable/satellite,
as well as demand vs. cost to do so, and total lack of any legal mandate to
make such a switch. I just don't believe over 50% of cable/satellite
channels will be transmitted in HD much before 2020.
July 21, 2005 4:05:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>
>At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>
>Any clue? 2009? 2015?
--------
It will happen at exactly 12:17pm on May 20th, 2011. GOD has spoken.
July 21, 2005 4:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:05:59 -0700, Abe <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
>>
>>At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
>>channels of 16:9 HDTV?
>>
>>Any clue? 2009? 2015?
>--------
>It will happen at exactly 12:17pm on May 20th, 2011. GOD has spoken.
-----
Of course that's Universal time UTC
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 8:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 19 Jul 2005 09:01:59 -0700 Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|
| Spungo wrote:
|> Right now, I pay my $50 and get about 100 channels of 4:3 analog TV.
|>
|> At what point will I be able to shell out my $50 and get at least 51/100
|> channels of 16:9 HDTV?
|>
|> Any clue? 2009? 2015?
|>
|> The only reason to get a widescreen TV right now would be for DVDs, IMO. It
|> seems like HD programming is extremely rare and extremely expensive.
|
| Nearly every prime time network show is in HD, almost all football
| games, and I have 6 or 7 HD dedicated HD channels on cable. Hardly
| "extremely rare". Get with it.

Maybe he's upset that his cartoons are not in HD.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
!