http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2008-02-17-reality-hdtv_N.htm

By Mike Snider, USA TODAY
The number of homes with high-definition TVs is on the rise - and so is the
roster of game shows and reality series, thanks in part to the recently
settled Hollywood writers' strike.
But other than rare exceptions such as American Idol, few are broadcast in
high-definition, in contrast to the rest of the networks' prime-time
offerings.

Even though many reality shows would seem to benefit from high definition -
especially exotic favorites such as Survivor and The Amazing Race- producers
and networks do not see HD production as a priority. They say
high-definition cameras are more costly and less reliable. Repairs and video
storage on remote locations make HD a hazard, too.

The cameras "are not meant yet for that type of rough travel and the sheer
cost," says Jonathan Littman, executive producer of CBS' The Amazing Race
and president of Jerry Bruckheimer Television. "It's a pretty high
escalation in our budget. It's not double at the moment, but it's hundreds
of thousands of dollars for the total run."

"Barbara L Sherrill" sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ZNfuj.2057$fX7.1565@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Brian Smith wrote:

Hell's Kitchen in HD looks fantastic.

This is ridiculous.

There are standard def cameras that cost a fortune, too.
But that level of hardware and glass is not needed for these shows.

They could shoot TAR & Survivor just fine on $20,000 HD camera's,
and use $5,000 HD cams cameras for the times when real light weight
and small size are needed. The small cams would be just fine in the
cars, other transports, running through streets and in activities.
Save the big cams for the set shots of the locales and finish lines.

AT THE VERY LEAST, they should begin shooting TAR in 16"9 widescreen,
even if still in standard def. They can letterbox on 4:3 tv's.

On Apr 30, 10:31 pm, T...@nonono.net wrote:

I brought this up elsewhere ... but watch Deadliest Catch on
Discovery ... Filmed in HD ... in sub zero temperatures ... in 20 foot
seas ... covered in salt water and ice ... horrific conditions ...
and they worry about a tropical Island on survivor ???

Exactly.

And that show has a fraction of the viewership of Survivor or TAR.

But they get paid per subscriber, whether they watch or not. NOBODY
could watch, and they would get the same per subscriber amount as they
would if EVERYBODY watched. Actual viewership is of secondary concern
to cable channels.

Trek@nonono.net wrote:

Trek@nonono.net wrote in news:00080402234457.OUI67.Trek@nonono.net:

On May 2, 11:41 pm, UCLAN thanks.org> wrote:

but still Discovery Channel's ad revenue is peanuts compared to any
network show ...

On May 3, 12:13 am, Barbara Bailey yayhu.comm> wrote:

Top posting just to include your entire post below ...

Excellent research ... but that really only proves that the
incremental cost for TAR using HD cameras would be a small part of the
overall budget ... and that Catch using them is a significant part of
their budget ... To me even more reason TAR and Survivor should use
HD ... It would add much less than 1 %% even ...

Very hard for me to take that a cable show can afford something and a
network show can't ...