I heard KFOR wasn't included properly in the last Neilsen ratings because their "HD" channel wasn't included in the rankings, so Neilsen was simply making good. I can also tell you there sales staff is in a flood of trouble. They have lost several accounts over it, they are currently short several sales staff.

I heard KFOR wasn't included properly in the last Neilsen ratings because their "HD" channel wasn't included in the rankings, so Neilsen was simply making good. I can also tell you there sales staff is in a flood of trouble. They have lost several accounts over it, they are currently short several sales staff.


The economic troubles and the problems in the auto industry are taking a huge bite out of the ad revenue at most stations around the country.

It had to be incredibly strange for KFOR, but now think about KOCO! They were thinking they were #1 at 5 and 6pm for several sweeps periods, now they dropped like a fly. This may be as devastating to them as to anyone.

Imagine thinking that you were totally kicking butt when in fact you were in last place? OUCH!

This is one of the biggest fiascos to happen in local news that I can think of.

I agree with you FritterGirl. KFOR is usually the worst a Now, just if one of our stations would start broadcasting in HD...

It's gotta be embarrassing for the other local stations when the first local HD news broadcast is from the PBS station.
ONR in HD beginning Monday (http://blog.oeta.tv/onr/index.php/2008/12/08/onr-in-hd-beginning-monday)
I've been watching OETA's news just because it's high definition.

I dont think it's the slightest bit imbarrassing for the local stations. What's been embarrassing is watching them roll this out. Face it, with the economy down, I don't think the stations are rushing out to spend 3 to 5 Mil, yes I said million, for their news sets to be in HD, besides, product gets better (production gear) and it gets cheaper.

Face it, with the economy down, I don't think the stations are rushing out to spend 3 to 5 Mil, yes I said million, for their news sets to be in HD, besides, product gets better (production gear) and it gets cheaper.

I don't know about the other stations, but I think Ch. 9 has been shooting with HD capable cameras for some time now. They're just not using them in that mode yet.

I deal with the local tv stations on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. We probably won't see any of them rolling out full HD for several years. As someone above said, the cost is too prohibitive in this market. It would cost several million to upgrade all equipment and broadcast in complete HD, to clarify, the February 2009 deadline is to broadcast in DIGITAL not HD, there is a big difference in quality. FYI....all of them are still running BETA tapes, yeah the BETA's from the 80's just in case you were wondering. I was wanting to broadcast my new commercials in FULL HD but that ain't happening for a few years. On the production end I can produce them in HD, but they will be broadcast in Standard Definition (SD). Even the network shows that are broadcast in HD will have to be reduced to digital SD until they upgrade to full HD broadcast equipment.

FYI....all of them are still running BETA tapes, yeah the BETA's from the 80's just in case you were wondering. They can run beta's, but Ch. 9 is shooting with Panasonics that use P2 cards. It's a simple menu option to change the format from standard def to HD. And I believe they're playing back their news stories from a server. Of course, that doesn't address their broadcast capabilities...only what they can produce in-house.

Good points as well Tao Maas, but again, it's not the production that's really the issue, there are plenty of ways to get around making HD production easily, it's the broadcasting that I pointed out and you elaborated on as well. From what I'm hearing, it will be years before they upgrade to true HD broadcasting. I've heard the economy will delay it further.

I'm not trying to argue with you, Metro. It's just that I was under the impression that it was a HD playback problem that was holding things up. I don't have an HD set so I don't know whether this is true or not, but aren't some of the affiliates passing along HD programming from network over the air?

Good points as well Tao Maas, but again, it's not the production that's really the issue, there are plenty of ways to get around making HD production easily, it's the broadcasting that I pointed out and you elaborated on as well. From what I'm hearing, it will be years before they upgrade to true HD broadcasting. I've heard the economy will delay it further.

This is so stupid. I think one of the Tulsa stations is broadcasting in hi def. What's the difference between there and here? Does it have to do with economy? Apparently not. Doesn't have to do with population base either, being OKC is bigger. So what's the hold up as I've asked them many times? It's pretty lame if you ask me...

I'm not trying to argue with you, Metro. It's just that I was under the impression that it was a HD playback problem that was holding things up. I don't have an HD set so I don't know whether this is true or not, but aren't some of the affiliates passing along HD programming from network over the air?

Yes, they are passing HD network programming on their HD channels, but from my contacts at the stations, the broadcasting isn't completely HD and won't be. Wasn't trying to argue, just pass along info that I knew first hand from my conversations with the stations.

This is so stupid. I think one of the Tulsa stations is broadcasting in hi def. What's the difference between there and here? Does it have to do with economy? Apparently not. Doesn't have to do with population base either, being OKC is bigger. So what's the hold up as I've asked them many times? It's pretty lame if you ask me...

Are you sure it's true 100% HD? Because the 3 local networks have HD channels here, but it's not 100% HD. Basically most stations nationwide don't have 100% digital and HD equipment, specifically broadcasting equipment. Now programs might be produced in HD, but the broadcast might just be digital, not HD. I'm not an expert but that's the way I understand it from those who do understand it.

Are you sure it's true 100% HD? Because the 3 local networks have HD channels here, but it's not 100% HD. Basically most stations nationwide don't have 100% digital and HD equipment, specifically broadcasting equipment. Now programs might be produced in HD, but the broadcast might just be digital, not HD. I'm not an expert but that's the way I understand it from those who do understand it.

I'm referring to the actual newscast of the local affiliate. Of course they broadcast the nationally syndicated shows in HD that offer it in that format but I'm talking about local production with station owned cameras.

And thinking back it might not have been Tulsa. I think it was KC. Is it because of the market size?

in DIGITAL not HD, there is a big difference in quality.

There is a big difference, but it's not the quality.

Hi-Definition (HD) has to do with the number of lines of information on the screen. Just as more megapixels in a digital picture give you more detail, HD's 720-1080 lines give you far more detail, color, and crispness than Standard-Definition's 480 lines.

Digital has to do with how the information is delivered. With Analog, the signal was in waves, which require more bandwidth. Digital signals are 1's and 0's and take up much less space. This is why one TV station, such as KWTV, can now have 2 or 3 channels on their FCC-dictated airspace.

The reason Digital and HD are often confused is because it takes a digital signal to carry an HD broadcast over the air.

I'm not trying to argue with you, Metro. It's just that I was under the impression that it was a HD playback problem that was holding things up. I don't have an HD set so I don't know whether this is true or not, but aren't some of the affiliates passing along HD programming from network over the air?

Ah ha! I found the other person on this Earth holding out for HD at a later time! I too, do not have HD yet! I have this motto about technology, "He who buys last buys best!", and only lately did I see an HD TV that I could really get excited about. I've also watched the price of it drop hundreds of dollars in just a few months, so hey, I can wait! All my friends who jumped in months or years ago are already wanting to upgrade!

I had a friend who had a 720p Toshiba, around 36", and he was really happy with it, but he got greedy, sold it, and got a larger 1080p. Now he sees motion blur and he's not a happy camper!

I get crisp vibrant colors on my Toshiba SD TV, and no motion blur whatsoever, so I can hold out.

As for the TV that got my attention, it was somewhere around 36", a Samsung 1080p at 120hz, and they had what looked like a specially prepared segment from Entertainment Tonight with Mary Hart, and watching it was like a religious experience. Maybe that's why I kept saying OMG every few seconds. ;-)

Anyway, this is an interesting thread. It's taken on a life all its own.

Ah ha! I found the other person on this Earth holding out for HD at a later time! I too, do not have HD yet! I have this motto about technology, "He who buys last buys best!", and only lately did I see an HD TV that I could really get excited about.

Well, you almost lost me this past weekend. We came really close to pulling the trigger on a 40" Toshiba. lol One of the reasons I've been hesitant is because I've yet to see an HD signal in someone's home that is as good as what I see in the stores. Because of that, I think that had the government not mandated this switch to digital, folks would never have adopted HD as readily. I'm old enough to remember when color tv's came along. It was a whole new world and everyone HAD to get one. I don't think we ever had a similar "Wow!" moment with HD due to the variety of sources and different resolutions. There's just too many variables.

Well, you almost lost me this past weekend. We came really close to pulling the trigger on a 40" Toshiba. lol One of the reasons I've been hesitant is because I've yet to see an HD signal in someone's home that is as good as what I see in the stores. Because of that, I think that had the government not mandated this switch to digital, folks would never have adopted HD as readily. I'm old enough to remember when color tv's came along. It was a whole new world and everyone HAD to get one. I don't think we ever had a similar "Wow!" moment with HD due to the variety of sources and different resolutions. There's just too many variables.

Here's hoping you'll get a 120hz model, because that's what really seemed to make this TV standout in a store full of TV's (I was at Best Buy).

I appreciate how far we've come too. I grew up with black and white TV, and a good day was anytime the picture just held reasonably steady without too much snow or vertical roll. You had to adjust the dials for each station you watched. When I finally got digital tuning, it felt like I died and went to TV Heaven. My mother is even more thrilled. I got her converted to digital tuning and she has the best picture she's ever had in her life.

What's the difference between 1080p and 1080i? I noticed mine says 1080i and it is a 50" from Phillips with DLP.

What's the difference between 1080p and 1080i? I noticed mine says 1080i and it is a 50" from Phillips with DLP.

Someone else will probably step up and explain this much better, but it's something like this:

The "p" means "progressive" scan, which means the picture is painted in its entirety from top to bottom on one pass. The "i" means "interlaced", and I believe it takes two passes to paint one picture on your screen. Standard TVs today (the old kind like mine) are 480i.

My TV Geek friend told me that you might actually prefer watching sports in 720p rather than 1080i, just because of possible motion blur. Of course, I'm sure there are other variables, and I'd swear he said that no one is sending out 1080p signals yet anyway, at least not his cable company. Don't hold me to that; I could be totally wrong.

There are so many variables today. You've got the response time of the pixels, which is now down around 5 milliseconds or so, and also the refresh rate, where 120hz is noticeably better than 60hz.

I guess the bottom line is, if it looks great, then be happy. I also read an article on how to adjust your TV picture, to get it out of what they call "Torch Mode", which is the setting from the factory designed to impress you in the showroom. It turns out that in the long run, there are better ways to adjust your picture and they mentioned it even cut down on the energy requirements for the LCD screen. Go figure.

The "p" means "progressive" scan, which means the picture is painted in its entirety from top to bottom on one pass. The "i" means "interlaced", and I believe it takes two passes to paint one picture on your screen. Standard TVs today (the old kind like mine) are 480i.

That's pretty much it. Each interlaced pass is called a "field". Two interlaced passes (one being the odd numbered lines, the other being the even numbered lines)= a frame. Video is 30 frames per second and film is 24 frames per second, which is part of why video has a different "feel" than film.

drums is correct on interlaced vs. progressive.

With a lot of motion, you can really tell the difference on interlaced. You will see what's called "forking", especially if you pause during action. Movies are meant to be seen in progressive, as that's what projected film is.

I stumbled upon this link. There are endless places on the web to read about TV's, but this is a nice page with a lot of specs displayed side-by-side for a lot of excellent TV's.

Top Rated HDTV Televisions at DEEP DISCOUNT prices. 1080p and 120hz HDTVs Reviews. (http://www.smart-review.com/hdtv.html)

Scroll to the bottom for a nice glossary of terms too!

The TV that stole my heart at Best Buy is the Samsung LN40A650 40-Inch 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV with RED Touch of Color. I nearly fell to my knees and worshipped that TV the first time I saw it. ;-) I've also watched the price come down a few hundred dollars in the past few months, so maybe my budget and the price will meet somewhere in the future.

It's gotta be embarrassing for the other local stations when the first local HD news broadcast is from the PBS station.
ONR in HD beginning Monday (http://blog.oeta.tv/onr/index.php/2008/12/08/onr-in-hd-beginning-monday)
I've been watching OETA's news just because it's high definition.

Just for kicks, I watched OETA last night, and wow! The graphics, color-schemes, and look of the set were gorgeous. Maybe I'm tired of the bright, red and blue colors on other stations, but whoever chose the OETA colors did a fantastic job. It reminds me of "Southwest Indian Art" colors, and I nearly had an artistic cow when I saw the beautiful weather graphics.

The show was simple and professional, with no choreography, just good old standard camera work. The OTS graphics were gorgeous too. This was clearly not your father's OETA!

I was also impressed by the fact that it felt more like "watching a magazine" instead of a sensationalized version of the front page of a newspaper. They didn't have all these live reporters creating a false sense of drama, trying to overload us with a nightly dose of crime, death, and destruction. Instead, it seemed like the stories were much more thoughtful and deliberate, more useful in the long run than just hearing about who-killed-who, etc.

Of course, I'm guessing the average Oklahoman doesn't want a quality newscast like this; we just want to see a house-fire or a car-chase, but hey, don't get me started.

At the end of the show I heard them mention they were the only statewide newscast in HD. Too cool! Maybe KOCO, KFOR, and KWTV need to start holding fund-raisers every year to generate money so they can keep up with OETA! ;-)

Hmmm, at the time of getting the TV with research, I thought it was one of the best at that time. I guess people prefer the other way around. I tried to study the picture and couldn't find any flaw, except that when an OU game is shown on ABC (KOCO), the picture looks more stunning on the HD channel.

I'm still not sure how to correctly set the picture such as the contrast, color, tint, and everything else. I try the best I can to get it close to the best I can get.

Is it possible to change the 1080i format on the TV to another? I'll have to look up the model again and find the one I have. I got it from Aaron's Rent and at the time, Walmart was selling the same thing. 50" silver frame with stand from Phillips. Yeah, I'll go look it up. I dunno where the manual is.

I also learned from the manual that it is recommended to have the picture displayed completely from top to bottom, side to side. I forgot the reason why. It doesn't recommand standard size with black space around, so I always have it on Scretch mode via Cable Box.

Hmmm, at the time of getting the TV with research, I thought it was one of the best at that time. I guess people prefer the other way around. I tried to study the picture and couldn't find any flaw, except that when an OU game is shown on ABC (KOCO), the picture looks more stunning on the HD channel.

I'm still not sure how to correctly set the picture such as the contrast, color, tint, and everything else. I try the best I can to get it close to the best I can get.

Is it possible to change the 1080i format on the TV to another? I'll have to look up the model again and find the one I have. I got it from Aaron's Rent and at the time, Walmart was selling the same thing. 50" silver frame with stand from Phillips. Yeah, I'll go look it up. I dunno where the manual is.

I also learned from the manual that it is recommended to have the picture displayed completely from top to bottom, side to side. I forgot the reason why. It doesn't recommand standard size with black space around, so I always have it on Scretch mode via Cable Box.

I dug out my December 2008 issue of Men's Health that talked about adjusting a TV picture, and I thought I'd give you a brief overview of it. I spent the last couple of days doing it to my own set, and the results were great.

It says to let your TV warm up about 15 minutes before you start adjusting it. I also suggest "freeze framing" a picture from a DVD so you can work with a stationary target. Trying to adjust to a changing picture is awful.

"Temperature"
If you have a setting for this, adjust it to D65. If you don't have the ability to calibrate it like that, use the "warm" or "low" setting.

"Sharpness"
Try turning the sharpness all the way down while watching a crisply shot movie, then inch it upward.

"Brightness"
This adjusts the overall black-level of the picture, which I call "shadow detail." It suggests starting very high, then come downward until you lose detail, then adjust back upward.

"Contrast/Picture"
This adjusts the overall level of white on the screen. Turn it up high, then back it down until details show on a white shirt.

"Color"
This is the intensity of the color (the "saturation"). Pause a shot of someone with fair skin, turn the color up very high until they appear sunburned, then back it down until their skin looks natural.

I also suggest you do these things in a fairly dim room. I made my adjustments, watched for an hour, then tweaked some more. Now that I really have a handle on Brightness and Contrast, I can look at a picture and know which one to adjust. It's like owning a whole new TV.

Good points as well Tao Maas, but again, it's not the production that's really the issue, there are plenty of ways to get around making HD production easily, it's the broadcasting that I pointed out and you elaborated on as well. From what I'm hearing, it will be years before they upgrade to true HD broadcasting. I've heard the economy will delay it further.


I talked some friends from the local stations this weekend. They CAN broadcast HD (which is why they can pass along HD programs from network), they just don't have any HD playback formats. Plus, there's no real indication when they'll go full HD because it'll most likely be driven by the advertisers. You and I may want to broadcast our offerings in HD, but who do you think the stations will cater to...us or the Mathis Bros.? LOL Uh...yeah....I'm thinkin' we're going to lose that one.

That sounds like an excuse. No advertising agency of any worth is still working in SD. When I worked at one of the local agencies, we were completely HD capable but the stations won't accept it.

I talked some friends from the local stations this weekend. They CAN broadcast HD (which is why they can pass along HD programs from network), they just don't have any HD playback formats. Plus, there's no real indication when they'll go full HD because it'll most likely be driven by the advertisers. You and I may want to broadcast our offerings in HD, but who do you think the stations will cater to...us or the Mathis Bros.? LOL Uh...yeah....I'm thinkin' we're going to lose that one.

I'm not an insider, and you guys are losing me here with your explanations. What do you mean when you say they "don't have any HD playback formats"?

And we know SKYNEWS9 HD has an HD camera, right? We also know that most cameras out in the field probably do HD by now, since I read about great HD vid-cams in magazines all the time, so --- where is the bottleneck, especially since we know they can broadcast HD right now?

That sounds like an excuse. No advertising agency of any worth is still working in SD. When I worked at one of the local agencies, we were completely HD capable but the stations won't accept it.

Okay, so why work in HD if the stations won't accept it for air? When we were looking to upgrade to HD, the first thing the salesman asked us was, "How many of your clients are asking for HD?" We all looked at each other with blank expressions because the answer was, "None". He said, "The reason I ask this is because typically I'm finding that very few people are requesting HD stuff." He was right. WE wanted our stuff to be in HD because it looks so much better, but our outlets weren't asking for it. From the stations' standpoint, when should they switch to full HD? When half their advertisers ask for it? 75%? 90%? In this economic downturn, how many advertisers can the stations afford to turn away because they're not producing spots in HD? SD allows EVERYBODY to advertise, even if the HD spots have to be letterboxed.

jbrown, you are correct. I should have said "the illusion of better quality."

I'm not an insider, and you guys are losing me here with your explanations. What do you mean when you say they "don't have any HD playback formats"?

And we know SKYNEWS9 HD has an HD camera, right? We also know that most cameras out in the field probably do HD by now, since I read about great HD vid-cams in magazines all the time, so --- where is the bottleneck, especially since we know they can broadcast HD right now?

I don't think there is much of a bottleneck regarding getting the local newscasts on the air in HD. In Ch. 9's case, they can shoot out in the field in HD on P2 cards (which are very much like the memory cards in our digital still cameras), dump those cards into a big server, and play the video back directly off the server during the newscast. The bottleneck comes when they want to bring something from the outside into their system. How do you get it in there? Blu-Ray player? Download it from the internet? Use a tape-based system? I believe it's not that the stations CAN'T provide a means for getting HD content into their system. It's that they're not sure if they really want to.

... In this economic downturn, how many advertisers can the stations afford to turn away because they're not producing spots in HD? SD allows EVERYBODY to advertise, even if the HD spots have to be letterboxed.

HD allows everyone to advertise too. There's no reason that all commercials would need to be HD. Many commercials were still black and white when color became available. And all the local ads are currently SD during national HD programs, so that's no excuse.

HD allows everyone to advertise too. There's no reason that all commercials would need to be HD. Many commercials were still black and white when color became available. And all the local ads are currently SD during national HD programs, so that's no excuse.

Yes, but the SD commercials won't look as good as the HD commercials when played side-by-side, whereas if all the commercials are played back in SD, there's more of a level playing field. Don't look for the stations to tell their SD customers, "Tough! If you don't like it, then change." They're doing everything they can to hang onto advertisers, not alienate them.

Yes, but the SD commercials won't look as good as the HD commercials when played side-by-side, whereas if all the commercials are played back in SD, there's more of a level playing field. Don't look for the stations to tell their SD customers, "Tough! If you don't like it, then change." They're doing everything they can to hang onto advertisers, not alienate them.

Guys, I'm sorry, I must be missing a technical point that's right in front of my face. Can't you buy HD cameras these days for a couple thousand dollars? Can't these cameras be used to shoot commercials, the results of which are then taken back to the station and "processed" in whatever way is necessary?

And who shoots commercials for businesses like Mathis Brothers and such? Surely a firm that does that would be using HD by now. I really don't understand it. We've known about this switch for a very long time now.

Yes, yes, and yes.

There is no excuse for any production company to not be working with HD equipment at this point.

Guys, I'm sorry, I must be missing a technical point that's right in front of my face. Can't you buy HD cameras these days for a couple thousand dollars? Can't these cameras be used to shoot commercials, the results of which are then taken back to the station and "processed" in whatever way is necessary?

And who shoots commercials for businesses like Mathis Brothers and such? Surely a firm that does that would be using HD by now. I really don't understand it. We've known about this switch for a very long time now.

What you're missing is that HD and digital are two entirely different things. The federal mandate is for stations to go digital, not HD. The stations can switch to digital transmission and NEVER...I repeat, NEVER...broadcast an HD signal. This is why it's so confusing to consumers and why the Obama folks want to delay things a bit. Drumsncode, you're a pretty astute, technilogical person or else we wouldn't even be having this conversation on a internet message board...so, if you're not totally clear on all this stuff, what hope does Granny Smith in Podunk, OK, have of understanding what this change means? I've posted this before, but when we were looking to upgrade to HD, the first thing our salesman asked us was, "Do you have clients asking for HD material?" Our answer was, "No". He asked the question because he was finding that it was the producers of content that wanted HD...not the broadcasters.

he was finding that it was the producers of content that wanted HD...not the broadcasters.

Yeah but the viewers want HD. It's laugable that anyone is still producing local advertising in SD. That's like a video store only renting VHS.

Thanks Tao, I realize you're trying hard to clear the haze in my head. I was a computer programmer for 20 years; I realize the difference between "just digital" and full HD. Right now I'm enjoying a digital signal on TV without having any HD equipment. I get that part.

The thing I really don't understand is why the stations can't just mix the SD content with the HD content during a broacast, or do they do that now?

What happens when we're watching an HD football game on KOCO and they air a Mathis Brothers commercial shot in SD? I mean, c'mon, every piece of gear I have can upconvert (and downconvert) and all that stuff, including all the junk on my computer that handles all the different formats of DVD's and CD's and such. It's supposed to be a world of interoperability!!

Can't they shoot the local news in-studio in HD and send us that signal? I don't care if some commercials are not as crisp as the actual newscast, heck I ignore those anyway, and I'm not looking to see Bill Mathis in HD, and certainly not Mr. Norman Nobody doing his "Toad Road" commercials, but our stations have geared up for this for a long time. I can't imagine that they want to just keep hanging on to SD for what seem like silly reasons to me.

How about I channel that guy on Saturday Night Live and yell out, "Just Fix It!" :-)

Yeah but the viewers want HD.


Do they? Maybe it's different in your circle of friends, but the number of folks I know who have SD sets vs HD sets is running about 3-5 to 1 in favor of SD.

The switch was supposed to happen in 2006 but they pushed it back to '09. Now a month away and they're wanting to delay it again. How could you miss all the commercials and info about the switch? I think people are far more ready than they think. They just want people to still be able to watch TV not understand the difference between HD and digital. If you're on cable or satellite, then you have nothing to worry about no matter what kind of TV you have. I think the number of people that recieve their TV over antenna and nothing else is a whole lot fewer than what the authorities think.

The confusion over HD vs. Digital was done on purpose by the industry. They wanted people to believe that the digital conversion meant that they would be recieving everything in HD.

As far as HD TVs are concerned; be careful about the 120Hz TVs. Some people don't have a problem with it but others have noticed that since the refresh rate is so fast that when you watch a movie the movement seems unnatural akin to watching a Keystone Cops movie. It can also make movies look as if they were shot on video instead of film.

Someone also noted that TVs look better in the store than they do in the home. The reason is that in the store they have the brightness pumped way up to make the colors pop and the TV area in stores often has dimmed lights to make the contrast even greater. You can achieve the same thing at home with the TV's sports setting or game setting but pumping up the brightness just means that the bulb in rear projection TVs or the backlight in LCD and Plasma TVs will wear out faster.

Also, don't buy your video cables at Best Buy et. al. They may have thin margins on their TVs to get you to buy but they make it up on their cables by selling you an 8' HDMI for $60 - $70. You can get an 8' HDMI cable at Monoprice for about $6, HDMI Cable, Home Theater Accessories, HDMI Products, Cables, Adapters, Video/Audio Switch, Networking, USB, Firewire, Printer Toner, and more! (http://www.monoprice.com) And Monoprice has quick delivery. It doesn't have to be Monster Cable to be good.

The thing I really don't understand is why the stations can't just mix the SD content with the HD content during a broacast, or do they do that now?

What happens when we're watching an HD football game on KOCO and they air a Mathis Brothers commercial shot in SD? That's what they're doing now. They're passing along the HD signal from the network, but playing back the commercials in SD.


Can't they shoot the local news in-studio in HD and send us that signal? Yes, they can certainly do that now and I expect them to broadcast their newscasts in HD in the near future.


I can't imagine that they want to just keep hanging on to SD for what seem like silly reasons to me.

It's money and profitability...not such silly reasons in these times. The way I understand it, the stations will have a certain amount of bandwidth to work with. They can either broadcast a full HD signal (and use all of that bandwidth) or they can break it up into smaller chunks and broadcast multiple SD channels. Taking Oprah as an example, if the station elects to broadcast Oprah in full HD and use up all of their bandwidth, can they charge enough for the commercials they sell within Oprah to equal the amount they'd make if they broadcast Oprah in SD, sold commercials within the show, but also broadcast 5 Sham-Wow/AutoMax/Total Gym infomercials within that same time period?

Was I on drugs or was part of the 630 newscast in HD?

^^ I noticed that, too. It was between the "Great State" segment and the break.

Yep, you are correct...I was shocked because it actually looked good! It had to have been a mistake when they did their digital test and hooked up the analago again but when they cut to a commercial and returned :dizzy:it was back to digital.

The HD is so much better...

KFOR testing to do full HD on digital? I'm not sure I understand this.

I don't really see the difference on what is HD or not with my HDTV DLP TV. Sometimes, the only difference is stunning colors, but other than that, nothing to notice it.

Normally, KFOR's newscast is in SD in a 4:3 ratio, which means either you have black sidebars on the screen, or the image is stretched, making everything look too wide (I choose to use the sidebars). For one short segment that evening, the broadcast was in 16:9 (filled the whole screen) and looked noticeably better than normal.

KFOR testing to do full HD on digital? I'm not sure I understand this.

I don't really see the difference on what is HD or not with my HDTV DLP TV. Sometimes, the only difference is stunning colors, but other than that, nothing to notice it.

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference in HD vs. digital, then you either need your eyes checked or you got ripped off when you bought that "hdtv"...