Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Mike Bertelson, Jun 29, 2012.
Just curious. . . do you think Cooking Channel content "needs" HD more than CSPAN?
What the Cooking Channel needs is William Castle and Smell-O-Vision.
Speaking of William Castle, I saw recently that TCM HD was broadcasting Spine Tingler! The William Castle Story on October 26 at 3:15 AM (ET). If you are a fan of B movies, or just of cinema history, you owe it to yourself to watch this. It's a fun documentary. William Castle was a showman in the finest sense of the word.
I do. At least there is something to SEE on the Cooking Channel. One only needs to HEAR what is presented on CSPAN.
I would not put either of them above any of the missing sports or movie channels, but I would put both of them above QVC or any other shopping channel or any of the religious channels. Cooking Channel would be above RFD in my book, but CSPAN would not. In my order, CSPAN comes right after Bloomberg and HLN, but before QVC.
Amazing. Now we're 1/2 step from someone suggesting it be downgraded to radio simulcast.
Speaking of H2, I never watched it on DirecTV, but now that I have the HD version on cable, it's become the channel I watch the most. When nothing else is on, I can count on catching an old Modern Marvels or something I never saw before. Granted a lot of H2 content is older stuff that's been upconverted and stretched. But even upconverted, HD makes a world of difference.
Those of you who have CSPAN in HD on cable or otherwise, do they really have any HD content or HD cameras? I imagine a low budget operation like that wouldn't have much HD anyway. At least Cooking has a lot of HD content (mostly old Food Network shows). While I'd love to have everything in HD, as long as we're setting priorities, I have to agree that CSPAN is pretty low on the list. They have very little content that has production values worthy of HD compared to most others on people's lists.
This. Not just for H2 but for HD in general. I see so many people complaining that something is not real HD because it is upconverted, or whatever.... but who really cares? It does look a hell of a lot better than SD.
Party like it's 1979.
I had moved on, but I had to reply to this. Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...
"Needs" is a little too strong of a word. TV existed long before HD came around... Do I think the Cooking Channel benefits from HD more than C-SPAN?! Yes...
The Cooking Channel consists MOSTLY of instructional programming. I find the visual aspect of instructional programming to be very important. My limited experiences with C-SPAN has made it appear to me that the channel's visual aspect serves predominantly as a (potential) added bonus for it's viewers.
Some might say that I'm biased by those statements given that Cooking Channel is on my wishlist and the C-SPANs are not, so let me make the following statements:
My DVRs stay on The Weather Channel HD almost constantly when I'm not viewing something. I have close to zero interest in sports. If The Weather Channel was not available in HD on DirecTV, it would be on my wishlist. The Pac-12 Network is NOT on my wishlist. If one were to ask me WHICH channel would benefit MORE from HD... I'd say the PAC-12 Network.
Back before HD, typical screen sizes were much smaller. SD on an old 19" 4x3 display looks pretty good, but put it on today's average 42" HD set and the viewing quality stinks.
My mom has a small LCD in the kitchen, something around 21" and SD looks pretty good on that little thing. But that's just not what most people are using for their main TV these days. The industry needs to catch up.
Back in the late 90's when we first got D*, the SD looked fantastic on our 37" Sony Trinitron. A Charter tech came over one day and as he was walking by our TV he said "Is that a DVD?" I said "No, it's DirecTV." He literally hung his head and said "Oh."
I don't believe that would ever happen today because the SD PQ on D* sucks so bad.
Beer googles are the leading cause of coyote love. Coyote love is when you wake up the next morning with your arm pinned under the "beauty" you took home from the bar. Rather than waking her you gnaw your own arm off to escape.
Well, for, say, DIY, I would agree. There's a lot more distant/wide shots in doing a room or a backyard or a roof or whatever where HD clearly helps --clearly adds to the instructional value.
But Cooking? Aren't those mostly much closer shots? Are you really suggesting that you can't quite tell what's being done in SD shots on Cooking channel? That the instructional value is somehow diminished because of it?
There is more than close-up shots of talking heads on CSPAN. There's a good bit of "atmospheric" programming where HD would clearly enrich the experience. Conventions being an example. Campaign events around the country (they show a lot of those at this point in the political cycle). Conferences at different locales around the country with large panels/crowds. Even congressional committee meetings where there are sizeable panels and crowds. As a race we've been reading body language for longer than we've been using the spoken kind, and yet somehow the picture doesn't count anymore if it is "just" people communicating. I find that a puzzling position to take.
Yes... I can recall multiple times where an HD resolution picture would have been extremely helpful to have... particularly on smaller TVs.
HD enriches all experiences... well, I can think of a few people or things I'd rather not see in HD, but overall... it's an improvement on all channels.
It's not that the picture doesn't count... or at least that's my stance anyway. It's that I don't believe the channel benefits from HD as much as some of the other channels out there. On a personal level, I'd just as soon have the C-SPAN channels as the Pac-12 Network, the new LA RSNs, or even TruTV, E!, NGW-HD or Disney, Jr. I have nothing against the channels... and while I wouldn't consider them a top priority at this time, I do feel that they should be added in the future.
I've been puzzled by the whole debate anyway as I still don't see why it really matters. If one likes the channel, one should anticipate it. If someone wants it, it shouldn't matter how much of a benefit HD would be to the channel. If one (or several people) feel that HD doesn't benefit one channel as much as another... just be glad they're not in charge of the decisions.
subtract pac-12 network off the anticipation list, as its not gonna be on D* at all
You don't know that. It's as anticipation worthy as any channel.
guess you didn't read.
I thought HD anticipations counted on channels ALREADY on D* ?
That doesn't mean no deal can be reached.
Did I read the ESPN page correctly? That one might miss up to 20 games all season- out of what, 150? OMG, how will we survive?? :nono2:
well at least for now the answer is NO..
Ive noticed with channel pulls and absences of channels yet to be on a carrier..when something is in print or a scrolling ticker warning of the pull.
ITS PRETTY MATTER OF FACT FINAL that at this PRECISE moment or on said day of deadline...there will be no more soup for you...or NO SOUP at all!
Thus a big sack of nothing..I too want PAC-12 for my bar..dont get a big asking for any of those teams unless its a bowl game or important matchup. Had some USC & UCLA Stanford fans..But I have D* wired to more of the TV's than I do Time Warner so if its asked for it'll be on a select few TV's..
Listening to Whites comments on the financial calls it doesn't surprise me at all that the is no PAC-12 network up.