July 04, 2009

Top Gear in HD?

For those desperate to see Clarkson and co in high defintion, a chance to be heard - in her latest BBC blog post Danielle Nagler (Head of BBC HD) asks:

What it is about Top Gear that means you really want to watch it in HD?

What are the qualities which you identify as particularly suitable for HD?

Can you let me know - ideally in one short sentence - either through comments here or by emailing me at danielle.nagler@bbc.co.uk? I want to understand what you see in SD shows that you believe gives them added value in HD, not least because it is really helpful in evaluating new HD programme opportunities that cross my desk.

8 comments:

Rowan said...

Topgear and shows like it bore me to tears. Therefore I don't want it clogging up BBC HD. Its bad enough that Wimbledon is on for so long. Sport/Cars... nil interest. Just my opinion but an opinion none-the-less.

lee said...

I think we all know the kind of viewers that this show attracts (perhaps more to the point, those that Clarkson attracts).

To consider the HD side of things...I got nothing really out of Wimbledon in HD - obviously more of a feel of depth was there, but it didn't "add" anything. Which is what I would say about Top Gear. Sure the fast car shots might be clear, but ultimately, I don't see what we would gain.

On the car topic, what we need, is F1 HD - sick of the arguements between BBC and Bernie about who's fault it is!

stephend said...

The out-of-studio sections of Top Gear are always beautifully shot, and would be ideal for HD in my view.

mattbuk said...

As a Top Gear fan, I cannot wait for it to be shown in HD!!!

Chris said...

It's not very encouraging to have to justify why you want *any* show in HD! Did they have the same arguments when colour was brought in in the late 60s?? I feel we need to get past the idea that HD is something really special that only certain big ticket shows need or "deserve".

Rowan said...

I agree with Chris and was about to post this thought myself!

lee said...

Hi Chris/Rowan

I defo agree with you...just not quite yet hehe

Once HD is cheap as SD and standard viewing for everyone, there can be no arguements about what is and isn't "good" for HD - I only argue that at the moment, people like the BBC (who make TG) have to be very careful about what they choose to spend the money on upgrading and broadcasting in HD.

I think things like Dr Who make sense (although the last special was not that great...) and the nature programs are DEFO the best.

I hope this makes sense - basically whilst HD IS restricted to certain shows, I think they have to be careful what they choose.

Either that, or I just don't like the thought of listening to Clarkson in 7.1...he is bad enough in Stereo ;-)

Lord Voldemort said...

As others have said, you shouldn't look at it as "does this show deserve HD", as that is counter-productive.

Look at it this way. In the future, all the main channels will be HD. So will they want to air SD shows? Not so much.

Shows like Top Gear run overseas and repeats on other channels incessantly. Those channels WILL be HD in a year or two and the less Top Gear that is in HD, the less content they will have.

Every show that is NOT HD today we will be moaning about in years to come about how shortsighted they were to not upgrade sooner. Its not about if BBC HD has the capacity to show it today, its about will it be on Blu-ray tomorrow or broadcast on a third-party HD channel.

That said, how anyone can argue Top Gear does not deserve HD baffles me. Its a show about cars, often about the beauty of those cars. In SD, you can barely see the cars, would you go to the car dealer without your glasses? That is what Top Gear is currently like.

Also, you cannot wait for HD to be cheap for everyone before shooting in HD or, as I said above, there will be no content. You need a reasonable back catalogue to show when everything is at the end of its current series, or else you are back watching SD.

Besides, what kind of insane argument is it that us who paid the current cost of a HDTV do not deserve to have anything to watch on it, simply because some people cannot afford it? By that logic technology would never have progressed this far.

Did you also argue as to why bother developing colour TV when most people could only afford B&W?