AfterDawn: Tech news

HD customers love quality but disappointed with programming options

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 06 Oct 2007 19:35 User comments (13)

HD customers love quality but disappointed with programming options According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits, but a lot less enthusiastic about the number of HD channels and type of content being provided. A huge 85% of respondents gave the picture quality a 4 or 5 rating (5 being excellent, 1 being very poor).
However, only about 39% gave the same rating for the type of content that is available to them in HD. Interestingly, there was no difference in responses between users of cable services and users of satellite services. Women were more optimistic than men about both quality and content, while owners of HD DVR's were the least satisfied customers.

"Nielsen's High Definition Survey shows that HD technology is outpacing content, although a few networks do score high in consumer satisfaction," said Steve McGowan, Nielsen Senior Vice President Client Research Initiatives. "Television owners clearly feel that HD viewing is a more intense experience than standard television and there are early indications that the acquisition of an HD television can, initially at least, stimulate the type of television that is viewed."

The vast majority of users watched sport or movies in HD, with ESPN HD being the most popular sports Channel and HBO HD being the most popular for movies. Discovery HD was the most popular channel for documentaries while music and reality shows had the least HD viewers.

Source:
HDTV Magazine

Previous Next  

13 user comments

16.10.2007 23:07

directv just recently added alot of HD programing....basicly doubled the hd programs they had and i hear by the ned of the year even more i'm glad to say that someone is finally adding more hd content....

27.10.2007 7:50

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

37.10.2007 7:50

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

47.10.2007 7:50

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

57.10.2007 14:29

This is why a lot of this new technology doesn't get adopted. Everything is in place except for the stuff that the poeople want to spend their money on. Still as far into the HD revolution as we have come, their are very few "must have" movies in either HD format, and many of the networks are not converting their programming to a HD format.

Money talks. Look at what has sold well in the past, and convert it to HD, rebundle, rebadge, and re sell it.

67.10.2007 21:55

Quote:
According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...
^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you donít back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every ďHDĒ channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that arenít going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know itís hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that donít just use their HD TVsí to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.

77.10.2007 22:22

no point of HDTV untill HD is standard.

88.10.2007 7:21

Isnt it true that most channels are only broadcasting in 720p? So for all thos 180p/i customers out there are really getting cheated.

98.10.2007 8:25

Quote:
Quote:
According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...
^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you donít back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every ďHDĒ channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that arenít going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know itís hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that donít just use their HD TVsí to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.
I agree. HD is nice, but quality is iffy. Some programs use too much compression and the quality looks like sh!t. And also, many shows are badly produced, they are so grainy on hd that it's unbearable to watch. It may look ok on standard def, but HD will show all your video flaws. Give us quality!

108.10.2007 12:19
micha
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...
^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you donít back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every ďHDĒ channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that arenít going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know itís hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that donít just use their HD TVsí to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.

118.10.2007 16:54

Quote:
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard

An ideal solution, however that would make to much sense...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2007 @ 17:33

1213.10.2007 6:51

I have HDTV and DirecTV. It broadcasts in 1080i and I have great picture quality. They have recently added alot more channels in HD and are aiming to have added 100 more by years end. If you are having bandwidth problems or having HD displayed in 720 only, I suggest you switch to DirecTV.

1318.10.2007 17:13

Well as a consumer i do realize that it is just in its infancy and will take some time before the new technology will grow to its full capacity so we will just have to be patient and see where this goes to.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive