18 Comments Add your own

• 1. Matt J  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm

  Sounds like what they used to say about standard video not being ready for the web. Would this comment make any sense 5 years from now?

• 2. Contrarian  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm

  Look at the crappy video that gets huge plays on YouTube.

  It’s barely watchable.

• 3. adam  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm

  Questions;
  Isn’t the Flash/H.264 move going to make things a whole lot easier?
  And isn’t making the “conversion” to HD online hundreds of times cheaper and easier than TV?
  Doesn’t it make sense to get to market early if not first?
  Isn’t this a way to drive people with very deep pockets (and G5’s with Apple TV, Slingbox or comparable) to your site?

  If I had an amazing set up and could watch HD video on my computer I’d be willing to sit through a number of ads for the experience. I have friends who could care less about penguins who watch hours of them waddling about in HD just BECAUSE IT’S ON. For the cost of flipping a switch on the prosumer camera or re-encoding a clip it seems like it might be worth it.

• 4. Anon  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  The current situation is that people don’t care. But don’t you think that within months people will want HD video online? Duh, think about it AOL and CBS. Just because you don’t think its a good idea now, you might as well get ahead of the game.

• 5. Anonymous  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm

  It does suck that a lot of networks make you download special software to watch video. CNN makes you do it, and all they’re playing is a Windows Media stream, but they make you download some Turner something or other before they’ll let you watch it, likely to track users better.

  One other thing the special software is for, besides snooping and HD, is bittorrent. Some players will have users share what video they’ve already downloaded, rather than download it all from the network.

• 6. Robin  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  What are people’s experiences w/ the HD video on Vimeo? I’ve been amazed at how quickly it loads & how well it plays — and I don’t have a superfast connection at home — but I’d love to hear more data points.

  (Oh yeah, to be clear: Vimeo just plays HD video in a normal Flash player. No download required.)

• 7. JoeMo  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm

  I don’t think that I have actually came across a site that actually offers HD content, especially the sites listed above. When you say HD do you really just mean widescreen? Maybe I am just blind but someone post a direct link to a video that is being displayed in a minimum resolution of 1280×720 because I can’t seem to find any.

• 8. will  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm

  IF ONLY cbsnews.com were quick and fast! They dumped Windows Media for Flash a couple of months ago, and demands on the CPU and reliability have taken a dive. Likewise with msnbc.com, which is doubly ironic considering that Microsoft is part-owner of the joint venture!

• 9. Dan  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm

  Quality Leader and Broadcasters….
  not in the same sentence anymore.
  Nobody cares at the stations or networks.
  They spend their time and money in other areas.
  It’s all about putting reporters live from places
  that add absolutely nothing to the story,
  but it’s nice video to have cars passing by behind
  a report on freeway traffic. Geez, how high school.
  Broadcasters have totally lost their way.

  Dan

• 10. Anonymous  |  November 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm

  JoeMo: ABC has an “HD” option for the most recent epsiode of a few select programs.

• 11. Safran  |  November 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 am

  At the moment, with US pipes being so pathetic, I don’t think they can support the HD video anyway. I still get buffering on “regular” video from the network sites.

  Obviously, that has to change as all of this stuff converges. For now, I just don’t see it working.

• 12. MRKDMN  |  November 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 am

  I think the critical factor is how closely expectations are met by delivery. When sites talk about HD, they are not talking about the full 720p or 1080p experience you get while watching your set. The difference between “Lost” on an HD set and an “HD Streaming” episode on ABC.com is discernable; there’s no comparison. So, in many ways, “HD” is just a marketing term for higher quality streams. They don’t deliver on what HDTV delivers.

  And that’s fine, because I don’t want, need, or expect my laptop to deliver true HD in most circumstances. If true HD is filet mignon, then most of today’s web video is a McDonald’s hamburger — but if I order a hamburger, I expect to get hamburger. I will always prefer to watch a show like NBC’s “Heroes” on TV, in HD; I can watch “Frontline” or “Brothers & Sisters” online and be perfectly happy. Media companies are still strugglng with the idea of “platform appropriateness,” but they’ll check on soon enough.

• 13. MRKDMN  |  November 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 am

  BTW, I’m sure, in the vast online video arena, there *are* sites streaming full, uncompressed 720p — I can only think of Apple, but the HD movie trailers require a download, anyway — so when I say sites aren’t doing it, I’m making a generalization I believe to be mostly true.

• 14. discreet_chaos  |  November 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm

  I’ve got to agree with JoeMo; I’ve seen the HD option on ABC’s site, but there are several shows which I stream off of CBS and I’ve never noticed an HD version under “full episisodes”. Maybe it’s under a different category or perhaps you have to come at it from a different angle, but I don’t know that they can say that I don’t care, if I’ve never noticed the option and I’m regularly watching a couple of hours worth of their programming each week.

• 15. JoeMo  |  November 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am

  Isn’t it up people like you and I to ensure that the correct terminology is being used in our industry? The only thing that I ask of all of you is to start using the word HD correctly; don’t you think that it is misleading to the end users? Sure, there may be a few sites that offer near HD streaming video and a few more that actually offer HD downloads but “we” need to stop piggybacking off the HD name; it does no one any good and is just a bad for everyone marketing ploy; plain and simple. Although I am no longer in “the industry” I still would like to see things get better than worse and I hope all of you can help make those changes.

• 16. thedetroitchannel  |  November 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  the more pressing question is does hd video on “TV” matter.

  didn’t we just read where stations (numerous) are delaying their cash outlays to make the switch?

  maybe they take their cue from all the success hd has enjoyed in radio?

• 17. Tim  |  November 4th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  Speaking from a “computer guy” perspective: if the player (whether embedded or downloaded) doesn’t detect a viewing area at least 720 pixels tall, then what’s the point of shipping HD data down the pipe?

  It seems to me the player could detect the abilities of the current viewing window and use that to control download - of course the user would not be able to resize on the fly, maybe - but how often does anyone resize a video while watching it?

• 18. dexxjones  |  November 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

  aol’s problem has nothing to do with HD and everything to do with the site itself. it is impossible to watch videos in order. it is maddening to try and follow any sort of serialized show on that idiot site.

  the aol video site is a perfect example of great content presented in a way least likely to have people actually watch it.

  also, “clips” are anoying, and most online tv watchers like myself that i have spoken to agree that “clips” are for 1994 when dialup was all the rage.

  yourube, etc are successful because they WORK.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed