Lost Finale NOT Going to be in HD?

[SRW1000]

So then it would go something like this:

I think it would look more like this:

[LoadStar]

I'm the same as most of you. I'm incredibly disappointed that the local affiliates either aren't able or aren't interested in developing or purchasing a system capable of doing graphic overlays on a digital feed, without dropping back to SD or 4:3 aspect ratio.

However, I'm also disappointed that certain users here can't seem to express that disappointment without it turning into a semi-incoherent, mostly irrational series of rants in posts and web pages. Calling them, their station(s), and their services all sorts of names doesn't help either. Frankly, if I were a representative of one of the local affiliates, if all I saw were these endless rantings and ravings, I don't think I'd really rank fixing the problem all that high on my list either.

You have to realize that they have a STRONG interest in making the weather alerts as visible as possible. It's a public service, and the public seems to want it as demonstrated by the viewership going way up during storms. If it means that, for an hour or two, the picture quality goes down... well, that's the cost of keeping the public safe for them.

You have to somehow let the affiliates know, without ridiculing or annoying them, and without all this anger, that yes, purchasing a HD capable graphics system should be a high priority. Convince them that a HD capable system will help make their station more visible to the public.

Tell them to consider the fact that WISN just bought a whole new whiz-bang computer system for their weather deparment... I don't think it predicts the weather all that much better, it just LOOKS so much cooler on the newscasts. Think how cool weather alert maps would be if they were in full digital quality! They could show actually visible radar maps, clearly legible warning text, you name it! Convince them that more people would likely watch THEIR station during weather conditions if they had a system that didn't destroy the video quality.

Didn't your gramma ever tell you "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" or whatever the old phrase is? Stop getting so angry all the time! (Besides, you're likely just making your life that much shorter with all that anger all the time!)

[Tom Snyder]

What DVR are we talking about?

TWC SA 8300HD. Yeah... I should probably have a battery back up for all my stuff. But I should probably have more in my 401k, too...

[Joseph S]

You have to realize that they have a STRONG interest in making the weather alerts as visible as possible.

No, they do not. They have an obligation to the community to provide accurate, unobtrusive, and to the point information in a timely manner when there is a significant public risk or story. A chance of a thunderstorm forming is not a significant public risk. Neither is the actual presence of a thunderstorm a significant public risk. A colored block the size of the entire visible screen is still no more helpful than their bugs.

It's a public service, and the public seems to want it

It's a public service to tell people to clean the storm drains when they are covered and a heavy rain is coming. It's a public service when a tornado warning (not watch) is announced to place that front and center. It's a public service to interupt programming for a local disaster.

It's not a public service to say "Flood Watch" for 3 hours when NOAA says to clear the storm drains. Actually, what they did last Fall in interupting 3 hours of programming on a night when it never rained in the entire State was a significant public disservice to the community and the interested viewers during sweeps. It neither provided accurate info nor let viewers know what could be done to prevent the problem the NOAA was concerned about.

It's not a public service to interupt HD and SD programming for rain, thunderstorm watches, snow, and blizzard watches. You're confusing public service with propaganda. They're using this to brand national programming as their own and they use whatever excuse they can find to make their logo as big they can and the national logo as small as possible. What could, but did not need to, have been announced was the truth. "Conditions are present that may cause a thunderstorm, but it may not produce them." That could be done in up to 1 minute clips every half hour.

as demonstrated by the viewership going way up during storms.

It's going up because more people are staying in, not because they ruined an entire night of programming with misinformation.

[LoadStar]

And you completely and totally miss the point.

1. Stations feel that keeping people safe is a public service.
2. Severe weather is dangerous weather.
3. Staying out of severe weather keeps people safe.
4. If people know about the weather, they stay out of it.
4. Ergo, making sure people know about the severe weather is a public service.

If the NWS issues an alert - whether it be a watch or warning - that means their experts know that conditions are right for dangerous weather to form. It might not be raining at present, but the atmospheric conditions are there for dangerous weather to form at a moments notice. The NWS does NOT just issue alerts for hype's sake... they're a taxpayer funded division of the government that is tasked with keeping people safe.

Now. Those are the facts, and they do fall on the side of the station operators. Where the station operators fail, is that they exploit the very real need to keep people safe to promote themselves. Is it necessary to cover 1/3 of the screen in a "LIVE LOCAL LATEBREAKING SEVERE WEATHER" banner, when only 1/4 of THAT is actually useful information? No. That's just useless and annoying self-promotion.

However... knowing that stations do this, also helps give us a way to convince the broadcasters to do better. We can argue that if stations spend a bit of money and get a system that allows them to do graphic overlays without switching resolutions or aspect ratios, it will make their broadcast look that much better, help present the information that much clearer, AND make us happier in the process.

[Joseph S]

And you completely and totally miss the point.

I disagree. I understand the point, but the stations do not. The reason for the warnings is public safety, not propaganda. If they cared about safety they would report what the NOAA says and provide an explanation.

1. Stations feel that keeping people safe is a public service.

You can say they do, but their actions have shown the opposite. If this is really a concern why do they not put up these graphics or provide information during actual storms not ocurring in primetime? Telling people to clear storm drains is a public safety matter. "Flood Watch" is not. Same last night. Where was the differentiation for what a "watch" actually is versus a "warning?"

It has nothing to do with public safety and all to do with using network programming to shove their brand down your throat.

[Matt Heebner]

The NWS does NOT just issue alerts for hype's sake...

True but local stations DO just that. The bigger the hype the bigger the viewership.  Countless times I have heard and seen  severe thunderstorm warnings and severe winter warnings only to have nothing happen or very little happen.... but listening and watching local stations you would think it was the end of days or something.

Sorry but it is absolutely rediculous to have warnings for something as common as a thunderstorm, and even more rediculous to hype it the way local news stations do.....

Matt

[LoadStar]

If this is really a concern why do they not put up these graphics or provide information during actual storms not ocurring in primetime?

Uh. They do, when the NWS issues a watch or a warning. The fact is, most severe weather in this area forms during prime time, because that's when the atmosphere is destabilized, so that's when the most watches/warnings for this area are issued.

Telling people to clear storm drains is a public safety matter. "Flood Watch" is not.

The NWS doesn't issue flash flood watch/warnings unless the conditions are favorable for flooding conditions that can threaten life or property. They don't issue flood watches/warnings to get people to clear storm drains. (If they want people to do that, they'll issue a weather advisory, not a watch or warning.)

Same last night. Where was the differentiation for what a "watch" actually is versus a "warning?"

I'm not sure what you mean by this one. It was pretty clear to me what was a watch and what was a warning last night.

I just checked your web page... the top graphic even clearly indicates the warnings that were, indeed, issued by the NWS last night.

There was a watch issued by the NWS for pretty much all of eastern Wisconsin, issued at 6:50 p.m., to expire at 11:00 p.m.

They then issued a severe thunderstorm warning at:
- 6:34 for Dodge and Jefferson to expire at 7:45
- 7:24 for Washington and Waukesha to expire at 8:45 (Washington cancelled at 7:59)
- 7:43 for Jefferson county to expire at 8:30 (cancelled at 8:16)
- 7:47 for Walworth county to expire at 8:30

The big screenshot you have on your webpage shows a warning for Waukesha, Jefferson, and Walworth. Therefore, I'd estimate the screenshot was taken somewhere between 8:00 and 8:16 p.m. Based on the fact that the LOST title graphic is on screen, this is probably right. (What I don't get is that you call that graphic "inaccurate" on your page. According to the NWS, that graphic is dead-on accurate. There was indeed watches and warnings affecting the counties shown with watches and warnings.)

I'd also like to respond to your signature, that says that says "it wasn't raining." It most certainly WAS raining. There were quite definitely severe storms out. If you're going to criticize them, do so accurately. It makes you foolish essentially calling them wrong when you yourself aren't correct.

[LoadStar]

True but local stations DO just that. The bigger the hype the bigger the viewership.  Countless times I have heard and seen  severe thunderstorm warnings and severe winter warnings only to have nothing happen or very little happen.... but listening and watching local stations you would think it was the end of days or something.

Sorry but it is absolutely rediculous to have warnings for something as common as a thunderstorm, and even more rediculous to hype it the way local news stations do.....

Matt

Local stations cannot issue watches and warnings. Only the NWS can.

And the NWS does not issue watches or warnings for hype. They issue watches because the conditions are favorable for the development of severe storms; they issue warnings because storms are present in the area.

Now, how MUCH the local station hypes it is variable. With a watch, they could present it responsibly, putting a scroller on the bottom every couple minutes, or the map showing the watch, or maybe a quick break-in during a commercial break. Or, they could over-hype it, by breaking into programming instead of waiting for a commercial break, or by pushing it to the lead of the newscast and doing "LIVE BREAKING NEWS TEAM COVERAGE."

Warnings - I expect those to be out there as soon as they're issued by the NWS. If there is a tornado watch present, I even expect break-ins by the meteorologist, even if it's just a severe thunderstorm warning, because severe thunderstorms can produce tornados at a moments notice.

[AndrewP]

Local stations cannot issue watches and warnings.

But they can just preempt HD broadcast with the half screen weather map  :rofl:

[LoadStar]

But they can just preempt HD broadcast with the half screen weather map  :rofl:

RIGHT! THIS is my point.

I want the local affiliate ALL to buy a system capable of displaying watches and warnings that does NOT require them to drop out of 16:9 high definition programming! This has been my point all along.

I just wanted to point out that the way that some posters, like Joseph, have been presenting their views is probably not the best way to go about things. Give the broadcasters positive suggestions that serve everyone's best interest, not a non-stop barrage of vitriolic spew that just makes us look like angry ranting idiots.

[AndrewP]

RIGHT! THIS is my point.

I want the local affiliate ALL to buy a system capable of displaying watches and warnings that does NOT require them to drop out of 16:9 high definition programming! This has been my point all along.

I just wanted to point out that the way that some posters, like Joseph, have been presenting their views is probably not the best way to go about things. Give the broadcasters positive suggestions that serve everyone's best interest, not a non-stop barrage of vitriolic spew that just makes us look like angry ranting idiots.

What do you mean? They already broadcast two different channels - digital and analog. They just SHOULD leave HD broadcast on the digital channel and put if they want the weather crap on the analog channel.
NOBODY requires them to drop the HD program. It is their decision.
So Joseph, and most others here (maybe even all others but you) are right and you are wrong.

[LoadStar]

What do you mean? They already broadcast two different channels - digital and analog. They just SHOULD leave HD broadcast on the digital channel and put if they want the weather crap on the analog channel.

This is a completely unrealistic expectation.

First, they only have the two stations as a transition until 2009 at the latest. By that point, they'll have to have systems in place anyway to carry severe weather coverage on the digital channel anyway.

Second, during the transition, the digital and analog channels aren't intended as seperate services. They mirror each other's programming, and as a result, I expect them to mirror the severe weather alerts as well.

So Joseph, and most others here (maybe even all others but you) are right and you are wrong.

Excuse me? What exactly have I said that is wrong? I want the same thing most posters here want - responsible alerts of severe weather. That means, do NOT drop down to 4:3 or to SD resolution just to show on-screen graphics. Do NOT take up a third of the screen when only the lower corner of the screen actually carries useful information.

I just want the argument for the broadcasters to do something about this to be made in the right way. Give reasonable suggestions, presented in a positive manner, backed up with accurate facts. Show the broadcasters that if they improve their severe weather coverage, it's a positive for them as well as for us.

[AndrewP]

Excuse me? What exactly have I said that is wrong?

You give them too much excuses. Maybe you started to watch HD not long ago. But I am tired of that weather hype in 4.5 years of watching OTA HD.

[LoadStar]

You give them too much excuses. Maybe you started to watch HD not long ago. But I am tired of that weather hype in 4.5 years of watching OTA HD.

I'm not giving them any excuses they don't already have in ready supply and are already giving themselves.

It's important in any negotiations to know where your opponent is coming from. Once you do, you can structure your arguments accordingly to bring them over to your side, or at the very least find some middle ground.