TV Programmers Seek the Elusive Dog Market

HonorPoncaCityDotCom writes "Stanley Coren reports that a number of new television stations are providing programming specifically designed for dogs and while many people report that their dogs completely ignore what is visible on television, with modern resolution and quicker imaging, more dogs have become potential television viewers. The increase in dog viewership is primarily attributed to the way the dog's eye works. The image on a standard television screen is updated 60 times per second and since a human's flicker fusion frequency is only 55 Hz, the image appears continuous and the gradually changing images give us the illusion of movement. However dogs can discern flickers at up to 80 Hz so with the increased availability of high-resolution digital screens that are refreshed at a much higher rate, the images are less likely to appear to be flickering to the canine eye. Presentation factors are also an issue. Dogs are most likely to respond to images that have been captured at the eye level of a dog with a low camera angle where there are moving things like animals or birds. But even if that requirement is fulfilled, most dogs do not watch television because the TV is normally placed at a comfortable eye level for human beings and dogs do tend not to scan upward, and therefore do not notice the TV images. All of which brings us to DogTV, the first cable network to deliver 24-hour programming for dogs that lets you flip on the channel while you go out for the day as your pet is stimulated, entertained and relaxed. 'If the dog wasn't enjoying it, he would find something else to do, like nibble on the end of a sofa,' says veterinarian Ann E. Hohenhaus."

Comments

Aquarium Chanel

[HappyHead]

My dog always liked the Aquarium Chanel on satellite. It would keep him occupied for hours if I was going out - he'd still be sitting there watching the fish going back and forth, occasionally looking around behind the TV to try and find them.

Re:wealth brings stupidity

[tibit]

Because, of course, helicopters are cat-allergic, right? The rotor sneezes and disintegrates as soon as a cat comes anywhere near.

In other words, get a grip. Not all emergencies are alike. If you have a small pet in your arms, there's no reason at all for the rescuers to tell you to forgo it. Heck, what you're arguing is pretty much life over quality of life. Yeah, we'll rescue you at any cost, but $DEITY forbid the rescuee has a living thing with them to comfort them. Being displaced in an emergency is obviously no biggie for you and you will stomach it like a big boy, right? You should have rotten for a couple of weeks at the superdome with all the other "ingrates" to get a humanistic perspective.

If it was an emergency where the rest of my immediate family would be already dead, and I had a choice of being rescued with our cat or perishing with him, I'd probably choose the latter. Say what you will, but our cat always knows when there's something wrong with one of us, and he sometimes works quite hard at comforting us. When my wife got back from a C-section, the cat would walk directly across her scar, massaging it. He kept at it for weeks. Nobody prompted it, it didn't see the scar directly, and so on. He just knew what to do. I have plenty of other examples like that. Just because it's not human doesn't mean it's life is worthless. Just to preempt what might be coming: no, I'm not freeing any lab monkeys, thank you very much, it'd be a retarded thing to do. Neither is our cat a "member" of our family. He's our cat. He gets his food and water, his vet check-ups, has a few small toys, and is kept indoors. He treats us with care, and we do the same, but we don't go overboard. He scratches a couple of designated dining room chairs, we don't have any pet furniture.