Comments on: Does high-definition video matter online?

By: dexxjones

dexxjones — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:23:12 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:30:22 +0000

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?

By: thedetroitchannel

thedetroitchannel — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:38:09 +0000

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?

By: JoeMo

JoeMo — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:19:05 +0000

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.

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:15:20 +0000

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.

By: MRKDMN

MRKDMN — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:31:48 +0000

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.

By: MRKDMN

MRKDMN — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:29:23 +0000

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.

By: Safran

Safran — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:20:40 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:39:09 +0000

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

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:46:02 +0000

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

By: will

will — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:32:16 +0000

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!

By: JoeMo

JoeMo — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:29:37 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:44:15 +0000

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.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:52:12 +0000

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.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:55:56 +0000

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.