No F1 HD broadcasts until 2012

[TheMoose]

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/06/13/f1-boss-ecclestone-says-no-high-definition-feed-until-2012/

F1 boss Ecclestone says no high definition feed until 2012

Bad news for Formula One fans worldwide, as Bernie Ecclestone told the media we will likely have to wait until 2012 to get a glimpse of the racing series in high definition. Trailing every other autosport federation we can think of, and nearly every sport in existence, F1 spent the weekend during the Canadian GP testing HD and even 3D cameras and feeds, but according to Ecclestone there aren't enough viewers that want it. Andrew Barratt, vice president of F1 sponsor LG backed Ecclestone's assertions, calling F1 "the most technical sport in the world to shoot" and saying the differences in the varied locales make it tough to get right, in his comments to Autosport. From our perspective, it was shocking when we couldn't watch the US GP in F1 in 2007, that it could take five more years to make the jump is nothing short of ridiculous.

This really blows, I do not understand what he means by "there aren't enough viewers that want it" Everyone with an HDTV that watches F1 wants to watch it in HD, & if Bernie believes his own propaganda that F1 is the most watched sport then there surely must be more than enough people that want F1 in HD.

My guess is Bernie needs more time to decide how he can make more money by showing F1 in HD.

 

[chromatic9]

But the HD freeview boxes or HDTVs with built in HD tuners have only been available in the UK recently and the rest of Europe is watching the UK to see how it goes.

I don't know how the US is but the HD audience is very small at the moment.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

But the HD freeview boxes or HDTVs with built in HD tuners have only been available in the UK recently and the rest of Europe is watching the UK to see how it goes.

Oh that explains it.

 

[overheating]

That is funny, this whole time I thought I was watching the races in HD. I either need to have my eyes, or my brain checked.....or both.

<Runs to TV to check the last F1 race resolution.>

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But the HD freeview boxes or HDTVs with built in HD tuners have only been available in the UK recently and the rest of Europe is watching the UK to see how it goes.

The Australian federal government is backing a roll-out of Freeview digital tuners so that every home in Australia has one - but the project won't be finished until 2012.

Everyone with an HDTV that watches F1 wants to watch it in HD

But not everyone who watches Formula 1 has HD. I know I don't. And I like it that way, because I lose a lot of picture when broadcasts are done in HD.

I'd say Bernie's hesitations come from the way HD would be very expensive. FOM would have to replace each and every camera they use, plus the equipment to broadcast. There are twenty-four cars on the grid, each with two camera on the (and sometimes three). That's a minimum of forty-eight cameras right there. Plus, they have to be specially designed into the car so as not to compromise the aerodynamics. Then there's the coverage of the actual circuit, which probably requires another fifty cameras or so given the range of angles they have to choose from. They'd also need spares in case some of the cameras break or go on thefritz or whatever. So you're looking at at least a hundred cameras there.

This is made somewhat more complex by the fact that there are just twenty races in a season, and with three days of action over the course of a weekend, that means they're used for just sixty days in the year. More, three hours of free practice, one hour of qualifying, two hours of racing and allowing for one hour of pre- and post-race coverage (I have no idea how much the BBC actually does) means the cameras are used for just eight hours of coverage over the course of a weekend. They're not being used very much. Now, I suppose you could always make the case for FOM borrowing HD cameras from local networks that send their cameras out to cover national rally championships or whatever, but you have to consider that those cameras are available to those networks twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, and can be put to other uses, thus offsetting the cost.

But the biggest problem in all of this is the arrangement FOM has with the broadcasters. The BBC has exclusive rights to broadcast the races; every other network that telecasts it - SPEED, Eurosport, Channel Ten, etc. - buys that footage from the BBC and FOM to be used as they choose to. The Olympic Games are the only other sporting event that I can think of that has this arrangement. Now, if FOM were to purchase HD cameras, the costs would be offset to the customers. That means the rates for syndicated networks will increase, and depending on the size of that increase, it's likely to drive networks away. I Australia, we get the race. And that's it. It wasn't until this year and the government changing the laws to allow free-to-air networks to establish second and third channels that we started getting qualifying. If the rates went up, would Channel Ten consder renewing their arrangement wth FOM? I'd say yes - but only because of Mark Webber's presence and the way the network hero-worships him. But if he retired tomorrow, would they consider it? They'd have to pay more for the same package with the only difference being that it was in HD. All we get is the race on a delayed broadcast at midnight after some dodgy movie (last night it was BORAT). It's easy to see why the network might back out; Formula 1 is not a big market here. After all, the Australian Grand Prix is the only race we get broadcast live. And if we're willing to back out over that, what chance do smaller broadcasters that have no national presence in Formula 1 stand? By introducing HD cameras an broadcasts, FOM would drive fees up and customers away. This would prompt more broadcasters to leave because FOM still have to cover the fixed costs associated with the upgrade. It just snowballs.

And do you know who the big loser in all of this is? It's not the fans - it's the teams. The money paid to FOM for broadcast and sydication rights doesn't go into Bernie' coffers. He injects it straight back into the sport in the form of a pay-out to the teams based on the end of year standings. The television rights form their prize money, and for some teams, it forms a significant part of their budget. If the amount of money available deceases, smaller teams will find it harder to survive and manufacturers will have a tough time justifying their continued presence. Look at Mercedes; their budget for this year consists of a) the money paid to Brawn GP for winning the 2009 title, and b) title sponsorship from Petronas. They haven't put a single Euro of their own into the team for 2010. But if you take that prize money away, they're going to need more money from the parent manufactuter, who may not be willing to commit.

So in your haste to get an HD broadcast as soon as possible, you run the risk of doing considerable damage to the sport.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Here is a pretty decent article about it. Basically the consumers and broadcasters have to be ready for it.

 

[Casio]

After all, the Australian Grand Prix is the only race we get broadcast live.

What are you talking about? We get every race and qualifying live on FTA.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What are you talking about? We get every race and qualifying live on FTA.

Are you talking about One HD? Because One HD isn't a part of the standard free-to-air package. You have to pay extra to pick up digital broadcasts through a set-top box. If you bought a basic television tomorrow, all you'd get is Channel Ten, and they delay every race but the Australian Grand Prix.

 

[Casio]

Are you talking about One HD? Because One HD isn't a part of the standard free-to-air package. You have to pay extra to pick up digital broadcasts through a set-top box. If you bought a basic television tomorrow, all you'd get is Channel Ten, and they delay every race but the Australian Grand Prix.

One HD is on Digital Free-To-Air, which basically every TV in the last 2-3 years is. I got a TV last year which shows One and I didn't pay extra for a top box.

 

[Scaff]

I personally am rather disappointed by this announcement, particularly given that I don't buy some of the arguments being presented.

A more than large enough audience already exists for HD broadcast, particularly in the area of sport.

Having just watched the vast majority of Le Mans in HD (a big thumbs up to Eurosport for its excellent quality HD footage) they have more than proven the concept and the audience. It also shows that you don't need HD on every camera, its not a must of in-car at all, but for the track-side footage and in particular the pits in was excellent.

Yes F1 would need to cover a great deal more races, but given that they have a much larger audience than Le Mans, I don't agree with some of the reasons given.

F1 needs and deserves HD.


Scaff

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And what about all the televisons that are more than two or three years old?

 

[senamic]

And what about all the televisons that are more than two or three years old?

Digital set top boxes with all the digital/hd channels (but broadcast on a digital resolution-don't ask how) are available, in Perth at least, for a fair amount (~$50-$100 for an average one). The show all free to air channels free of charge, and will even show HD programs, albeit in digital quality (like I said, don't ask how). I'd say get one of them. I have one plugged into my 6 year old Cathode Ray TV set in my room, and while the quality is not great, it is better than analogue and picks up all free to air channels.

 

[Casio]

And what about all the televisons that are more than two or three years old?

Oh ok. That makes sense.

Just so everyone else is clear too. F1 doesn't broadcast a colour image for free into Australia cause you have to buy a colour TV to view it.

 

[TheCracker]

Ironically F1 in HD is probably the one thing that would make me increase my already too costly SKY bill or make me fork out for a FreeSat HD DVR box.

 

[TheMoose]

But the HD freeview boxes or HDTVs with built in HD tuners have only been available in the UK recently and the rest of Europe is watching the UK to see how it goes.

I don't know how the US is but the HD audience is very small at the moment.

I did not know Europe was so far behind in HDTV.
The most recent numbers I found is from www.hdtvmagazine.com from May 2010 & they say,

CEA's study also shows that video products continue to be the top CE device consumers own, with HDTV ownership continuing to increase. Sixty-five percent of U.S. homes now own at least one HDTV, an increase of 13 percentage points from last year, making it the top industry growth driver of the past 12 months. Consumers also are buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now owns 1.8 HDTVs, up from 1.5 in 2009. HDTVs are also the top product consumers say they want to purchase. Nearly one in four households (23 percent) plan to buy a new high-definition set in the coming 12 months.

Personally I have 3 HDTV's & am getting ready to buy a 4th one for my shop.
I got my first HDTV in 2004, which is why I'm so surprised that Europe is so far behind.

As usual Bernie ignores the fact the United states even exists so the huge number of HDTV's here is not a factor in his decision.
You can make all the excuses you want but even the dinosaurs in NASCAR have HD broadcasts!!!

 

[Ardius]

As usual Bernie ignores the fact the United states even exists so the huge number of HDTV's here is not a factor in his decision.
You can make all the excuses you want but even the dinosaurs in NASCAR have HD broadcasts!!!

Because the US market is tiny for F1. Europe is the main viewing audience and always has been. Thats why the races are scheduled at odd times to suit the TV hours in Europe but not anywhere else.

Bernie always said HD would be given if TV companies wished to pay for it. I guess very few TV broadcasters in Europe want to pay for it.

 

[chromatic9]

I did not know Europe was so far behind in HDTV.

EU region as a whole is far behind but UK is not that bad in actually buying HDTVs. Problem is most HDTVs that have been sold in the last 5 years have digital tuners that won't decode HD broadcasts, its all SD DVB-T MPEG2. HD programing has been done through expensive satellite and cable packages so you get stats like only 5-10% of HDTV owners in Europe have access to HD programs.

I own an HDTV for 3 years but only use PS3/360/PC on it. BBC launched HD freeview 6 months ago but only Manchester and London could receive it, each month it improves and now (June2010) 50% of the UK can receive BBC HD (2012 should be most of the UK) but every HDTV and freeview box sold before can't receive it. I have to buy a 2nd gen freeview box with DVB-T2 tech or upgrade to a HDTV made in 2010.

Here's a link that describes Germany adoption of HD.
http://german-way.com/blog/2009/09/28/where-is-hdtv-germany/

France has some HD channels and some tuners there accept MPEG4 but the DVB-T2 is a new way of MPEG4 which allow much more HD channels in the same space and looks like the future for HD freeview across EU. Denmark should have the DVB-T2 up by the end of the year.

So Bernie isn't going to roll out HD for the US and pockets of the EU. Even by 2012 only some major EU countries will have HDTV penetration and the HD broadcast infrastructure.

F1 is free to air. If Germany don't care, can you imagine how many care out of the half billion who watch it. I can only see F1HD happening sooner if it becomes part of those expensive satellite subscriptions.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

My guess is Bernie needs more time to decide how he can make more money by showing F1 in HD.

[/thread]

Just like with the internet, Bernie needs to see wads of cash before he shows any interest....

 

[adam46]

Really makes no difference to me, I watch on a 32' Panasonic Curved-screen TV, nothing like retro.

 

[Kylehnat]

That is funny, this whole time I thought I was watching the races in HD. I either need to have my eyes, or my brain checked.....or both.

<Runs to TV to check the last F1 race resolution.>

I'm with 'ya. If that's not HD I'm seeing on SPEED, I can't wait to see what it looks like when Bernie opens his wallet a little . Maybe he just doesn't want people to be able to count the hairs growing out of his ears.

 

[daan]

Well, I can't afford and HD source or full HD TV so, screw you guys, but F1 shouldn't be available on HD until I can.

 

[yeti]

Utter lameness - if the Rugby can do it - F1 can do it.

To be the "pinnacle of motor sport" and not provide HD viewing is utter crap... get a grip Bernie and pay for some decent cameras.

C.

 

[Ardius]

Utter lameness - if the Rugby can do it - F1 can do it.

To be the "pinnacle of motor sport" and not provide HD viewing is utter crap... get a grip Bernie and pay for some decent cameras.

C.

It doesn't make financial sense to do so though, as we have just discussed in this thread. Its not that Bernie is asking too much, its more that TV companies aren't interested in paying very much at all for HD because the number of viewers of HD feeds in Europe is relatively low.
For F1 to be broadcast in HD, it would need a majority of the TV broadcasters to want it and I imagine many European broadcasters don't feel they have the audience to really justify paying for it.

We have seen that Bernie can be reasonable if he needs to be, but in this case he doesn't.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just so everyone else is clear too. F1 doesn't broadcast a colour image for free into Australia cause you have to buy a colour TV to view it.

Yes, but everyone has a colour television. But not everyone has an HD-capable one. I know I certainly don't.

 

[Casio]

Yes, but everyone has a colour television. But not everyone has an HD-capable one. I know I certainly don't.

Not everyone has a colour television. I actually have a family member who still has a black and white TV in their bedroom. And with some adapters even that could get One HD on it. I have 3 HDTVs, I don't have to pay extra to watch live Formula One, other then the outlay of the TV which I was buying anyway.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You don't have to pay extra to watch it.

But people like me do. And people like me are unwilling to, because I don't have the budget for it.

 

[Casio]

That's like saying walking isn't free cause you have to buy shoes.

Don't come to Australia everyone. You have to pay extra to walk.

 

[Small_Fryz]

You don't have to pay extra to watch it.

But people like me do. And people like me are unwilling to, because I don't have the budget for it.

Removed by Mod

Thats like saying it costs money to listen to the radio because you have to buy a radio. It costs money to watch TV because you have to buy a TV.
They cant broadcast one HD over the normal signal because its HD! you cant play a DVD in a VHS player. Its like buying a car that drives on all the roads, Then someone opens up a beach to drive on. Now you complain it costs money to drive on the beach because your car cant drive on the beach, like somehow they need to make it so that your car can do it... If you want to take advantage of driving on the beach then you need a 4WD. If you already have this a 4WD, then you can drive on the beach, for free.

 

[daan]

You don't have to pay extra to watch it.

But people like me do. And people like me are unwilling to, because I don't have the budget for it.

But the HD signal would not replace the "normal D" signal. If you don't want, or can't get, an HD signal, the "normal D" signal would still be available the same way it is now.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Also a HD box costs like $30, so i mean, i can understand not being able to afford one.