Information

HDTV

by Kim S
Thursday, January 27, 2005. 06:38PM
363 Views 3 Comments

This is a revision of an earlier post.

Yes people are advertising in HD, but not many. I would venture to guess, hardly any. I know of 3 or 4 post houses in San Francisco that are taking on HD, although I believe their ad agency client list is fairly short. I worked on an HD project last August and the post house had only 1 agency client that was using HD, the rest was corporate stuff. It's an expensive proposition and since the tsunami hasn't hit yet, I don't think companies are eager to request it.

On the other hand, broadcasters were forced to take it on several years ago, and the film industry has been working with it as well. And of course the sporting world and other high-tech industries are working with HD too.

Producing something in HD is one thing, but the distribution and the actual broadcasting of it is the tricky part. There are virtually no broadcasters - including some of the networks - that have the equipment in place to get it from the tape to your living room. (With the superbowl being an exception.) Coupled with the fact that people are using different formats, advertising seems non-existent. And no station, including the netwroks is investing the high dollars into a an HD server.

I certainly hope a standard format emerges, like 720P (did I say 1080i?). But as long as there's others out there, it will not be in the forseeable future to get advertising distributed on a non-network level.

I'm a bit of a novice in this area, I do work in a top 20 market and even my friends in San Francisco are not working with HD.

I also know that HD sets are starting to sell like hotcakes, and it might behoove a major national client to work with the networks to create and broadcast advertising in HD. I'm talking about an agency negotiating a deal on behalf of ALL their clients to invest in the technology alongside the networks.

If the equation is already being solved, I would be very interested in learning some of the particulars. And, someone please let me know if I'm off base...

(login to vote or comment.)
Sunday, January 30, 2005. 10:12AM by Kim S
Hear hear to skin imperfections! And, yes shooting on film will remain the standard as film suffers no quality loss when it's converted to HD. I'm more interested in the technical conversion process of actually getting ads broadcast in HD since it will require the networks to spend high dollars on HD servers (not to mention the decks) to traffic these spots. It's one thing to broadcast the signal, it's quite another to load the ads in the first place. The cost should and will be fronted by the clients who want their stuff in HD - why should the post house pay for that? Personally I can't wait for the unexpected ;) (How about those perfect white teeth glowing like Ross' did in that "Friends" episode!)
Saturday, January 29, 2005. 05:25PM by
Apple just released Final Cut in HD, so I think we are beginning to see the market get up to speed. As far as the tech investment (cameras, etc) aren't most commercials shot in film still? Doesn't that mean that the cost will be fronted by the conversion houses and the editing houses? Either way, I think that it will be a little like the advent of stereo broadcast. The industry will adapt. With HDTV, a lot of unexpected things are starting to happen. I read in Broadcasting and Cable last year that some talent agents were keeping their clients off Leno, because the higher resolution might reveal career-damaging skin imperfections!
Thursday, January 27, 2005. 07:19PM by Darren Herman
HDTV is here. It's got a lot of money invested into it, if you ask Mr. Cuban, he's betting a lot of money on it. As for advertisements, they are running on HDTV now, no? All the advertisements are in high definition. However, if you are referring to iTV (interactive TV), everyone is coming out with mediaplays...Doubleclick, yahoo, google, Universal, etc. Get ready!