So what about those north american TV's with a built in ATSC tuner ...thats the USA equivalent of freeview..in a way
Yeah but there's no organisation behind it, programme guide or anything really. On my TV, you just can manually tune the channels in and it'll come up like 4.1 WRCHD for NBC 5.1 WTTGHD for FOX etc but the main networks aren't on the same channel from market to market and there's no guarantee your local market will carry specific channels, there's lots of local channels etc. Some TVs are able to set recordings and bring stuff up but none I've ever owned have ever been able to and we've had HD sets since 2002.
The frequency's for local affiliates are not "disorganized" as Stephen is saying, they're just not grouped into blocks of national channels like the UK is. Television frequency's as well as radio are actually highly organized. We even have some AM stations that ramp up at night and can be heard hundreds of miles away, known as clear-channel stations. But the system is designed for regions and local communities rather than a national menu of networks.
Yeah but there's no organisation behind it, programme guide or anything really. On my TV, you just can manually tune the channels in and it'll come up like 4.1 WRCHD for NBC 5.1 WTTGHD for FOX etc but the main networks aren't on the same channel from market to market and there's no guarantee your local market will carry specific channels, there's lots of local channels etc. Some TVs are able to set recordings and bring stuff up but none I've ever owned have ever been able to and we've had HD sets since 2002.
What about cable? Aren't there several different providers with different packages of channels (eg Comcast, Time Warner Cable)? When did analogue cable die out in the US?
What about cable? Aren't there several different providers with different packages of channels (eg Comcast, Time Warner Cable)? When did analogue cable die out in the US?
There are various cable providers but many cities only have 1 or 2 available choices (and even then, only one of them may be available in the entire city).
As for the switchover for cable, it's happening slowly but not as quickly as the over-the-air. I know where I live all the most popular channels are still in the analogue range (TNT, ESPN, MTV, FX, etc) though every few months it seems as though a few more channels migrate to the digital range. Most specialty channels are digital only (at least where I live).
What about cable? Aren't there several different providers with different packages of channels (eg Comcast, Time Warner Cable)? When did analogue cable die out in the US?
It's been dead and gone for a while now where I live but at my university all we have is some weird unencrypted cable system that has no guide or on-demand and has a couple HD channels but the rest are analogue 4:3 SD. Thankfully, a lot of the networks like E!, CNN and ESPN have been switching over to letterboxing their 4:3 SD channels, so my roommate and I zoom that to get a 16:9 SD picture on our TVs. Feels like The Land Before Time compared to what I have back home.
Anyone who thinks US television is better than UK needs a serious reality check!
Even the so called "premium" services like HBO have so many repeats it is dire.
I am not saying British TV is the best, but having seen US, Australian, Canadian, Scandinavian, South African and quite a few others it is easily the least worst!
A couple of weeks isn't really enough time to get the full measure of a country's TV output. Typically that doesn't give anyone enough time to find many of the programmes that interest them, get into the storyline of serials, etc. The ads on US television are annoying, but as people have already posted, one does get used to them, and learns to do other things while they're on.
There is a lot of rubbish on US television, but one only needs to find a few hours per day that's worth watching, and with four main networks, plus all the cable channels, it's not that difficult to do. And the heights that the great US programmes hit are hard for any other country's TV to better. Game of Thrones, for example, which is pretty stunning, continues the tradition of the likes of Mad Men, Sopranos, The Wire, etc. Next time anything of this ilk, and with so many high quality episodes, makes it to UK TV can someone please let us know, because I'd be delighted to see it.
I started a thread several months ago asking if US network programmes have become shorter in length and wondering whether the likes of Dallas would be 50 minutes (because it was followed by Points of View which was a ten minute filler before the news)
What about cable? Aren't there several different providers with different packages of channels (eg Comcast, Time Warner Cable)? When did analogue cable die out in the US?
There are several companies, but sometimes you can either get one, or two if your lucky.
I started a thread several months ago asking if US network programmes have become shorter in length and wondering whether the likes of Dallas would be 50 minutes (because it was followed by Points of View which was a ten minute filler before the news)
Both US and UK (non BBC) shows have shrunk in length over the years to fit in more commercials. I believe the average American primetime tv show is now around 41 minutes long, where once it was around 48. Likewise I think ITV shows are now around 45 minutes, where once it was around 50. Apparently its not unhead of for US sitcoms to clock up under 20 minutes of actual programme now.
I started a thread several months ago asking if US network programmes have become shorter in length and wondering whether the likes of Dallas would be 50 minutes (because it was followed by Points of View which was a ten minute filler before the news)
American network shows in one-hour time slots used to be 51 minutes in length, so 9 minutes of ads filled out the rest of the time slot. I believe the amount of ad time per hour started increasing around the end of the 1980's, compensating for the audiences for given programmes shrinking as more and more channels started competing for the attention of viewers. In other words, shrinking audiences meant advertisers insisted on paying less for an individual ad. If you are the network, what do you do if every ad is netting you less revenue? Simple: increase the total number of ads to make up for the loss. This process was really a natural evolutionary response to Americans getting more choice in their television.
Ofcom's rules for films are different to TV programmes.
No that has changed films can now have add breaks every 12 mins watch ITV 3-4 Chan 5 etc just another nightmare, all I can say is forget Commercial TV here in the UK R.I.P:(
Apparently its not unhead of for US sitcoms to clock up under 20 minutes of actual programme now.
Well I've never heard of it? Stuff slotted for half hour's on OTA TV usually runs 21 and change. With about 9 minutes of ads. Stuff slotted for an hour runs 42 to 43 with 17-18 minutes of ads. I did a rough look at half hour shows on Hulu and they were all 21 minutes with 1 episode of Outsourced coming in at 20:36. Now that was a rough look and I don't watch ABC, and only watch CSI: Miami and Hawaii Five-O on CBS both hour long shows, but I think the standard 9 or 18 minutes of ads is pretty firm.
No that has changed films can now have add breaks every 12 mins watch ITV 3-4 Chan 5 etc just another nightmare, all I can say is forget Commercial TV here in the UK R.I.P:(
The latest COSTA document still says one break per 30 minutes of film.
Well try telling that to ITV 3/4 etc, On The Buses film on a few days ago had adds on every 12 mins, a 90min film is listed as 2 hours in the ITV listings ie Carry On Camping etc, so are ITV breaking the rules ??? No they are not Ofcom said it was ok to do this ITV 1 said they don't have any plans to break films every 12 mins yet, but see how long it will take for ITV1 to do just that, A few years down the line the ITV etc won't show movies because hopefully the public won't wear it.
I have a digital cable subscription with Time Warner Cable.
The SD picture quality (still broadcast in 4:3) is shocking compared to SD (16:9) in the UK.
The HD picture quality is pretty good on some channels but bad on others due to what appears to be high compression.
What makes U.S. commercials annoying is that many of them are very poor quality and attempt to sell their product(s) by being (not very) funny.
The majority of commercials are for prescription drugs, legal action (against prescription drugs) and fast food. Oh, and let's not forget those awful political ads!
Well try telling that to ITV 3/4 etc, On The Buses film on a few days ago had adds on every 12 mins, a 90min film is listed as 2 hours in the ITV listings ie Carry On Camping etc, so are ITV breaking the rules ??? No they are not Ofcom said it was ok to do this ITV 1 said they don't have any plans to break films every 12 mins yet, but see how long it will take for ITV1 to do just that, A few years down the line the ITV etc won't show movies because hopefully the public won't wear it.
That's ridiculous for films. It's why I prefer to watch them on DVD. I rarely watch movies on TV these days.
I have a digital cable subscription with Time Warner Cable.
The SD picture quality (still broadcast in 4:3) is shocking compared to SD (16:9) in the UK.
The HD picture quality is pretty good on some channels but bad on others due to what appears to be high compression.
What makes U.S. commercials annoying is that many of them are very poor quality and attempt to sell their product(s) by being (not very) funny.
The majority of commercials are for prescription drugs, legal action (against prescription drugs) and fast food. Oh, and let's not forget those awful political ads!
Why would SD be 16:9, 16:9 is HD? And you haven't seen anything yet regarding campaign ads. Just wait for 2012 the networks are licking their chops. Try living in a swing state, every ad break is campaign ads nonstop even at midnight and 5:00am.
Why would SD be 16:9, 16:9 is HD? And you haven't seen anything yet regarding campaign ads. Just wait for 2012 the networks are licking their chops. Try living in a swing state, every ad break is campaign ads nonstop even at midnight and 5:00am.
A channel broadcast in 16:9 does not have to be HD (take a 16:9 DVD for example).
Many digital SD channels in the UK (e.g. BBC, Channel 4, Sky Movies, etc) have been broadcast in 16:9 (not 4:3) for many, many years now.
The picture quality of those digital SD channels broadcast in 16:9 is vastly superior to those broadcast in 4:3 in the U.S.
When I first subscribed to digital cable in the U.S. it was surprising to see none of the SD channels were broadcast in 16:9 and had poor picture quality (compared to PAL 16:9).
I understand HD in the U.S. is synonymous with 16:9 and was one of the advantages. However, 16:9 is nothing new in the UK.
A channel broadcast in 16:9 does not have to be HD (take a 16:9 DVD for example).
Many digital SD channels in the UK (e.g. BBC, Channel 4, Sky Movies, etc) have been broadcast in 16:9 (not 4:3) for many, many years now.
The picture quality of those digital SD channels broadcast in 16:9 is vastly superior to those broadcast in 4:3 in the U.S.
When I first subscribed to digital cable in the U.S. it was surprising to see none of the SD channels were broadcast in 16:9 and had poor picture quality (compared to PAL 16:9).
I understand HD in the U.S. is synonymous with 16:9 and was one of the advantages. However, 16:9 is nothing new in the UK.
This isn't the UK though. My parents have Time Warner digital cable and like every channel in SD is available in HD now too. Why waste the money to change the screen ratio on the SD channels? I know Europe did that whole intermediate widescreening SD, but we got HD in like 1999 or 2000, there's no reason to upgrade an obsolete standard, even QVC and The Weather Channel are in HD.
This isn't the UK though. My parents have Time Warner digital cable and like every channel in SD is available in HD now too. Why waste the money to change the screen ratio on the SD channels? I know Europe did that whole intermediate widescreening SD, but we got HD in like 1999 or 2000, there's no reason to upgrade an obsolete standard, even QVC and The Weather Channel are in HD.
That simply is not true.
I subscribe to Time Warner Cable (like your parents).
Many channels are available in HD (about 90, including several premium channels). A lot of channels are still broadcast in SD only with poor picture quality.
Comments
Yeah but there's no organisation behind it, programme guide or anything really. On my TV, you just can manually tune the channels in and it'll come up like 4.1 WRCHD for NBC 5.1 WTTGHD for FOX etc but the main networks aren't on the same channel from market to market and there's no guarantee your local market will carry specific channels, there's lots of local channels etc. Some TVs are able to set recordings and bring stuff up but none I've ever owned have ever been able to and we've had HD sets since 2002.
It's only a cheap channel they give away for free, that they bought from Virgin. Hardly a reflection on their pay channels.
What about cable? Aren't there several different providers with different packages of channels (eg Comcast, Time Warner Cable)? When did analogue cable die out in the US?
As for the switchover for cable, it's happening slowly but not as quickly as the over-the-air. I know where I live all the most popular channels are still in the analogue range (TNT, ESPN, MTV, FX, etc) though every few months it seems as though a few more channels migrate to the digital range. Most specialty channels are digital only (at least where I live).
It's been dead and gone for a while now where I live but at my university all we have is some weird unencrypted cable system that has no guide or on-demand and has a couple HD channels but the rest are analogue 4:3 SD. Thankfully, a lot of the networks like E!, CNN and ESPN have been switching over to letterboxing their 4:3 SD channels, so my roommate and I zoom that to get a 16:9 SD picture on our TVs. Feels like The Land Before Time compared to what I have back home.
A couple of weeks isn't really enough time to get the full measure of a country's TV output. Typically that doesn't give anyone enough time to find many of the programmes that interest them, get into the storyline of serials, etc. The ads on US television are annoying, but as people have already posted, one does get used to them, and learns to do other things while they're on.
There is a lot of rubbish on US television, but one only needs to find a few hours per day that's worth watching, and with four main networks, plus all the cable channels, it's not that difficult to do. And the heights that the great US programmes hit are hard for any other country's TV to better. Game of Thrones, for example, which is pretty stunning, continues the tradition of the likes of Mad Men, Sopranos, The Wire, etc. Next time anything of this ilk, and with so many high quality episodes, makes it to UK TV can someone please let us know, because I'd be delighted to see it.
If you want to be a couch potato, US TV can be mind numbing, especially the ads.
There are several companies, but sometimes you can either get one, or two if your lucky.
Both US and UK (non BBC) shows have shrunk in length over the years to fit in more commercials. I believe the average American primetime tv show is now around 41 minutes long, where once it was around 48. Likewise I think ITV shows are now around 45 minutes, where once it was around 50. Apparently its not unhead of for US sitcoms to clock up under 20 minutes of actual programme now.
American network shows in one-hour time slots used to be 51 minutes in length, so 9 minutes of ads filled out the rest of the time slot. I believe the amount of ad time per hour started increasing around the end of the 1980's, compensating for the audiences for given programmes shrinking as more and more channels started competing for the attention of viewers. In other words, shrinking audiences meant advertisers insisted on paying less for an individual ad. If you are the network, what do you do if every ad is netting you less revenue? Simple: increase the total number of ads to make up for the loss. This process was really a natural evolutionary response to Americans getting more choice in their television.
No that has changed films can now have add breaks every 12 mins watch ITV 3-4 Chan 5 etc just another nightmare, all I can say is forget Commercial TV here in the UK R.I.P:(
Well I've never heard of it? Stuff slotted for half hour's on OTA TV usually runs 21 and change. With about 9 minutes of ads. Stuff slotted for an hour runs 42 to 43 with 17-18 minutes of ads. I did a rough look at half hour shows on Hulu and they were all 21 minutes with 1 episode of Outsourced coming in at 20:36. Now that was a rough look and I don't watch ABC, and only watch CSI: Miami and Hawaii Five-O on CBS both hour long shows, but I think the standard 9 or 18 minutes of ads is pretty firm.
The latest COSTA document still says one break per 30 minutes of film.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/other-codes/tacode.pdf
Well try telling that to ITV 3/4 etc, On The Buses film on a few days ago had adds on every 12 mins, a 90min film is listed as 2 hours in the ITV listings ie Carry On Camping etc, so are ITV breaking the rules ??? No they are not Ofcom said it was ok to do this ITV 1 said they don't have any plans to break films every 12 mins yet, but see how long it will take for ITV1 to do just that, A few years down the line the ITV etc won't show movies because hopefully the public won't wear it.
The SD picture quality (still broadcast in 4:3) is shocking compared to SD (16:9) in the UK.
The HD picture quality is pretty good on some channels but bad on others due to what appears to be high compression.
What makes U.S. commercials annoying is that many of them are very poor quality and attempt to sell their product(s) by being (not very) funny.
The majority of commercials are for prescription drugs, legal action (against prescription drugs) and fast food. Oh, and let's not forget those awful political ads!
Multichannels have different rules to the five PSB channels.
That's ridiculous for films. It's why I prefer to watch them on DVD. I rarely watch movies on TV these days.
Why would SD be 16:9, 16:9 is HD? And you haven't seen anything yet regarding campaign ads. Just wait for 2012 the networks are licking their chops. Try living in a swing state, every ad break is campaign ads nonstop even at midnight and 5:00am.
A channel broadcast in 16:9 does not have to be HD (take a 16:9 DVD for example).
Many digital SD channels in the UK (e.g. BBC, Channel 4, Sky Movies, etc) have been broadcast in 16:9 (not 4:3) for many, many years now.
The picture quality of those digital SD channels broadcast in 16:9 is vastly superior to those broadcast in 4:3 in the U.S.
When I first subscribed to digital cable in the U.S. it was surprising to see none of the SD channels were broadcast in 16:9 and had poor picture quality (compared to PAL 16:9).
I understand HD in the U.S. is synonymous with 16:9 and was one of the advantages. However, 16:9 is nothing new in the UK.
This isn't the UK though. My parents have Time Warner digital cable and like every channel in SD is available in HD now too. Why waste the money to change the screen ratio on the SD channels? I know Europe did that whole intermediate widescreening SD, but we got HD in like 1999 or 2000, there's no reason to upgrade an obsolete standard, even QVC and The Weather Channel are in HD.
That simply is not true.
I subscribe to Time Warner Cable (like your parents).
Many channels are available in HD (about 90, including several premium channels). A lot of channels are still broadcast in SD only with poor picture quality.