On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them, that was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were working in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address

One person's nitpicking is another's peeve. This was a championship game.
Keeping the lens clear is absolutely basic. They could have hired someone
off the street to stand there with a sponge. It's just struck me as really
unprofessional.

I agree there were others things wrong with the show like that high endzone
shot which I guess was to show us that it was snowing there. But maybe
that's nitpicking too.

Bearman

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover
every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone
shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them, that
was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were working
in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some
slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:24:04 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


One person's nitpicking is another's peeve. This was a championship game.
Keeping the lens clear is absolutely basic. They could have hired someone
off the street to stand there with a sponge. It's just struck me as really
unprofessional.


Sometimes the camera is positioned where it cannot be reached.
I agree there were others things wrong with the show like that high endzone
shot which I guess was to show us that it was snowing there. But maybe
that's nitpicking too.

Bearman

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover
every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone
shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them, that
was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were working
in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some
slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address


To reply drop XYZ in address

Last word, eh, Thumper.

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:24:04 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


One person's nitpicking is another's peeve. This was a championship
game.
Keeping the lens clear is absolutely basic. They could have hired
someone
off the street to stand there with a sponge. It's just struck me as
really
unprofessional.


Sometimes the camera is positioned where it cannot be reached.
I agree there were others things wrong with the show like that high
endzone
shot which I guess was to show us that it was snowing there. But maybe
that's nitpicking too.

Bearman

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover
every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone
shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or
two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them,
that
was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were
working
in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some
slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address


To reply drop XYZ in address

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:33:43 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


Last word, eh, Thumper.


Not really, I just think it's rather foolish to complain about the
two times (that I saw) that there were water spots on a lens when last
year we were watching this in sd or NTSC. Hd has some growing pains
to grow through and is making great strides. Why not look at this as
better than last year but not perfect yet. If you watch football you
will know that water spots are not all that uncommon when the weather
is like this.
Thumper
"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:24:04 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


One person's nitpicking is another's peeve. This was a championship
game.
Keeping the lens clear is absolutely basic. They could have hired
someone
off the street to stand there with a sponge. It's just struck me as
really
unprofessional.


Sometimes the camera is positioned where it cannot be reached.
I agree there were others things wrong with the show like that high
endzone
shot which I guess was to show us that it was snowing there. But maybe
that's nitpicking too.

Bearman

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover
every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone
shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or
two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them,
that
was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were
working
in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some
slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address


To reply drop XYZ in address


To reply drop XYZ in address

"Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message ...
"Jeff B" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...

I don't know what game you were watching, but the CBS HD presentation
was great, IMHO.

Indeed. The FOX digital broadcast is so ugly,
makes me want to puke.
I wish that FOX would go away so that MLB and
NFL would be prevented from giving their contracts to
the provider that goes out of their way to give us
the crappiest presentation possible.

Of course it is, if you watch it on a 1080i set, which doesn't match 480p in
either resolution or in being progressive scan. A 480p signal looks far
better on a 480p set than on most 1080i TVs (it's always possible some 1080i
set with some truly incredible scaler system can figure out how to make such
a signal transfer look as good as on a native display, but I'm having
trouble imagining how). True, 480p has less resolution than either 720p or
1080i, but there's a lot of exaggeration about how bad people think the
signal itself is. Half the problem is viewing the signal on an inappropriate
display.

Is that you, Mr. Murdoch?

Fox's signal is certainly much worse than an HD signal, but it's much
better than 480i 4:3 signal which is supercompressed coming from
DirecTV or cable.

It's truly difficult to watch the Fox football game after experiencing
the great video of the CBS and ABC game.

not to mention, the thing is moving and it's snowing...i think that's gonna
make for moisture on the lens...maybe they could get a midget to ride on the
thing and keep it clean


"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:24:04 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


One person's nitpicking is another's peeve. This was a championship
game.
Keeping the lens clear is absolutely basic. They could have hired
someone
off the street to stand there with a sponge. It's just struck me as
really
unprofessional.


Sometimes the camera is positioned where it cannot be reached.
I agree there were others things wrong with the show like that high
endzone
shot which I guess was to show us that it was snowing there. But maybe
that's nitpicking too.

Bearman

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:27 -0700, "bearman" wrote:


But these guys are getting beaucoup bucks to show us the best possible
picture. Couldn't they at least have someone wipe off the lens cover
every
once in a while )if only the big drops).


Seeing water drops on lenses isn't unusual. This is really nit
picking. Sometimes a camera just happens to be in a spot where they
can't clean the lens after every spray of water. This broadcast had a
lot more wrong with it than a few drops.
Thumper
Bearman

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:36:40 -0500, oscargrouch wrote:
i think he's talking about when they showed a high-in-the-endzone
shot
where
you couldn't even see the field for a kickoff and at least one or
two
plays
after...locale would not have mattered

He also mentioned a lot of audio drops. Unless we all heard them,
that
was
probably local.

So the cameramen made a few mistakes. Seeing as how they were
working
in
-5 degree weather with a lot of snow, I think we can cut them some
slack.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)


To reply drop XYZ in address


To reply drop XYZ in address

"oscargrouch" wrote in message ...
"Thumper" wrote in message
They announced before hand that they wouldn't use the flying cam much
last week except for replays because they received thousands of
complaints the week before from people who didn't like it's use.
Thumper

i just don't
get how you could not like it...is it the fact that you actually get to see
the holes open up in the line?

In one of the playoff game on ABC couple weeks ago, I noticed the
flying cam was in low resolution. When the picture cut from one
camera angle to the next, it was like an eye sore when they cut to the
flying cam. I don't mind they use the flying cam for replay if they
hang a HD camera there. I perfer seeing the regular standard camera
angle in each play first, because it gives the viewers a consistent
frame of reference from play to play. Excessive use of the flying cam
confuses the hell out of a lot of people, sometimes you may wonder why
the runner is going the wrong direction only to realize a few seconds
later that the camera pointed from an opposite angle. I would also
file a complaint if they continue to abuse the flying cam too much.
On the other hand, after the play was viewed from a standard angle,
then a replay using the flying cam does wonders to provide a fresh new
perspective of the same play.

IMO, the flying cam is ideal for replay, but it is bad choice for
every play.

I love roller coaster, so I won't belong to the group of people who
throw up nine bottles of beer due to motion sickness triggered by the
fast moving camera angle. Still, I hate excessive use of flying cam.

On 21 Jan 2004 23:06:13 -0800, (CP) wrote:

"oscargrouch" wrote in message ...
"Thumper" wrote in message
They announced before hand that they wouldn't use the flying cam much
last week except for replays because they received thousands of
complaints the week before from people who didn't like it's use.
Thumper

i just don't
get how you could not like it...is it the fact that you actually get to see
the holes open up in the line?

In one of the playoff game on ABC couple weeks ago, I noticed the
flying cam was in low resolution. When the picture cut from one
camera angle to the next, it was like an eye sore when they cut to the
flying cam. I don't mind they use the flying cam for replay if they
hang a HD camera there. I perfer seeing the regular standard camera
angle in each play first, because it gives the viewers a consistent
frame of reference from play to play. Excessive use of the flying cam
confuses the hell out of a lot of people, sometimes you may wonder why
the runner is going the wrong direction only to realize a few seconds
later that the camera pointed from an opposite angle. I would also
file a complaint if they continue to abuse the flying cam too much.
On the other hand, after the play was viewed from a standard angle,
then a replay using the flying cam does wonders to provide a fresh new
perspective of the same play.

IMO, the flying cam is ideal for replay, but it is bad choice for
every play.

I love roller coaster, so I won't belong to the group of people who
throw up nine bottles of beer due to motion sickness triggered by the
fast moving camera angle. Still, I hate excessive use of flying cam.

I agree.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

"oscargrouch" wrote in message ...
when are they gonna give US the choice of what camera to watch?

Multi-angle is available on DVD. Is HDTV capable of that? DTV have 6
sub-channels. So they can produce the Superbowl in 6 different camera
angles. But I would think it is a bad idea. It would be like getting
stuck in a bad corner of the stadium instead of letting the director
to show you the best angle possible.