A Sea Of Red

Why haven't they updated the newscast to HD? Anyone know?

Who cares? It's just news, it's not like the context of the news is going to be improved by rather it's in HD or not. Do you really want to see Noreen Turyn, Len Stevens, Sean Sublette, Shane Butler, Pattie Martin, and Dennis Carter in HD?

I have no doubt that there are some who wouldn't mind Margeret Clevenstine in HD!

flamesbball84 wrote:Who cares? It's just news, it's not like the context of the news is going to be improved by rather it's in HD or not. Do you really want to see Noreen Turyn, Len Stevens, Sean Sublette, Shane Butler, Pattie Martin, and Dennis Carter in HD?

What i really want is for you dig a hole in the middle of the LC soccer field and bury yourself in it. Sadly ill just continue my quest to have every name you ever registar banned from this site.

rogers3 wrote:I have no doubt that there are some who wouldn't mind Margeret Clevenstine in HD!

That's not her name anymore, she got married and has the last name McHugh, at least I assume so since she has a different last name on the WSET website.

Rocketfan wrote:

flamesbball84 wrote:Who cares? It's just news, it's not like the context of the news is going to be improved by rather it's in HD or not. Do you really want to see Noreen Turyn, Len Stevens, Sean Sublette, Shane Butler, Pattie Martin, and Dennis Carter in HD?

What i really want is for you dig a hole in the middle of the LC soccer field and bury yourself in it. Sadly ill just continue my quest to have every name you ever registar banned from this site.

Good luck with that.

I don't think WSET is HD, they're just digital. Actually, their local productions aren't HD, but much of their other programming is in HD.

I feel lucky that Lynchburg has an actual local TV station that focuses on local news, weather and sports.

You can't just snap your fingers and voila, everything is HD. It costs millions of dollars, and honestly, Lynchburg is a two-horse town and they're lucky to have any sort of population base. The only requirement was that TV stations start broadcasting a digital signal. It's considerably cheaper for stations to go digital than go HD.

Badger is right.

Liberty4Life wrote:It's considerably cheaper for stations to go digital than go HD.

Really? I though the cost of the transmitters and antenna work that had to be done was extremely expensive. Not saying you're wrong. That's just always the impression I've been under.

Liberty4Life wrote:Lynchburg is a two-horse town and they're lucky to have any sort of population base.

wah?

El Scorcho wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:It's considerably cheaper for stations to go digital than go HD.

Really? I though the cost of the transmitters and antenna work that had to be done was extremely expensive. Not saying you're wrong. That's just always the impression I've been under.

I really have no idea...but i think I heard that in order to go HD you have to buy all new cameras and such...to go digital you just have to convert your analog signal to digital...my guess would be converting to HD cameras would run a small lynchburg station a lot of money

thepostman wrote:but i think I heard that in order to go HD you have to buy all new cameras and such...to go digital you just have to convert your analog signal to digital...my guess would be converting to HD cameras would run a small lynchburg station a lot of money

This is fairly accurate. The cost of digital conversion has gone down quite a bit since Congress mandated the conversion 10 years ago but going digital is still a pretty good hurdle while the cost of going HD is another hurdle in itself. Unless Allbritton has changed philosophy concerning their Lynchburg outpost, WSET isn't going to get any budget for "frills" like HD anytime soon.

Every station group in the country is awash in a sea of debt thanks to the advertising crash. I doubt WSET bucks the trend.

thepostman wrote:...to go digital you just have to convert your analog signal to digital.

Which means buying an entirely new transmitter, right? As I understand it, it's not like you just flip the "go go digital" switch and it's done. I didn't think the cost of a new transmitter was insignificant.

Libertine wrote:Unless Allbritton has changed philosophy concerning their Lynchburg outpost, WSET isn't going to get any budget for "frills" like HD anytime soon.

It's a catch-22 for them, then. Now that I own an HDTV I can't stand to watch anything in standard definition. If I were to actually watch local news coverage (which I wouldn't), I'll pick the station broadcasting in HD every time. It's a personal preference and completely anecdotal evidence, but I doubt I'm alone. In my case, they lose a viewer.

There is a considerable expense to go digital, as El Scorcho mentioned. I'm guessing plenty of stations are in debt because of the transition, and because of the advertising crash, as Sly Fox mentioned.

On top of those expenses, you need to shell out a ton of money to go HD. It's not just cameras, either (and cameras alone are really expensive, think of all the field cameras and studio cameras that need to be replaced. Those aren't exactly replaced with the types of HD cameras you get at Best Buy).

Once you get the cameras, you're dealing with an entirely new system of gathering video. Back in the day, every station worked on a tape-to-tape system, where you pop a tape out of the camera, pop it into a tape deck and start editing (this was called linear editing). In the digital realm, everything needs to get digitized into a computer for editing (called "non-linear").

Of course, the computers may not be up to code, so you're going to need new computers to handle HD editing. And then it's a question of which editing programs actually allow you to edit in HD. Then what do you do? You need to get the files from the computer on air. You can't dump it down to a Beta tape, which is what used to happen. You need to export the file (and we're talking about new file formats here) into a server. That costs cash, too.

Et cetera. Et cetera.

All in all, you're looking at tens of millions of dollars in expenses. Some stations were prepared and developed long-term plans many, many years ago (check out Charlotte's WRAL, probably the best in the business in regards to technology), others (WSET) weren't.

Oh well.

As someone who has been pricing gear for a completely different type of operation, I have a good grip on pricing. To do things right in legitimate 1080p, it will run a station about $2-3M to replace everything outside of the transmitter. I have no idea how much those run but most everyone needed to upgrade theirs as part of the digital transition.

A station of WSET's size could do a decent HD transition for around $1M. But as I type this the prices continue to tumble. 5 years ago, the price could've been 10x as much.

The problem is that station groups have no liquid assets to make purchases right now. Most are laying off what would've been considered essential staff just 12 months ago.

The television business as it has been know for 50 years is fast moving toward extinction just like their print brothers.

Cost-cutting local news in action. This is not a joke.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That may have been a real newscast but it was also obviously supposed to be humorous. It's not like they normally would have brought in a real bear for a reenactment.

"This is what the bear would have looked like...except real."

Yes, I think it was a joke.

Liberty4Life wrote:...check out Charlotte's WRAL...

Raleigh's WRAL, you mean. First in the US to broadcast in digital. First in the US to broadcast in HD. They're the CBS station I grew up with. They've always done some pretty cool stuff.

El Scorcho wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:...check out Charlotte's WRAL...

Raleigh's WRAL, you mean. First in the US to broadcast in digital. First in the US to broadcast in HD. They're the CBS station I grew up with. They've always done some pretty cool stuff.

Yes, Raleigh. My bad.

(Wow, I'm getting called out on every little misstep I make. Whatever happened to don't haze the new guy?)

Liberty4Life wrote:

El Scorcho wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:...check out Charlotte's WRAL...

Raleigh's WRAL, you mean. First in the US to broadcast in digital. First in the US to broadcast in HD. They're the CBS station I grew up with. They've always done some pretty cool stuff.

Yes, Raleigh. My bad.

(Wow, I'm getting called out on every little misstep I make. Whatever happened to don't haze the new guy?)

Correcting false information is not hazing. Wouldn't have mattered if Sly Fox or Scorcho or ReKlef posted that, it would have been corrected.

or corrected and then insulted, in shucks case.

For the record, WJW is a Fox O&O that consistently sits atop or near the top of the ratings in market #11 and has done so for decades. Clearly they were going for laughs and frankly they fell flat. You either play it straight or go for laughs throughout. That was a poor mix of the two. A station of that calibre should know better.