Will superbowl be on HD?
 

Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:
Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!

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

Last time we met, BB had said:
On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:
Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!

The Patriots game last weekend wasn't great; sound kept dropping out,
and screen froze a few times. And at least one of the cameras they
used wasn't HD.

Not to mention they missed a kickoff and a few plays, and the camera
work was awful.

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.



dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu

Drew Volpe wrote:
Last time we met, BB had said:

On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:

Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.


Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!


The Patriots game last weekend wasn't great; sound kept dropping out,
and screen froze a few times. And at least one of the cameras they
used wasn't HD.

Not to mention they missed a kickoff and a few plays, and the camera
work was awful.

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.


I don't know what game you were watching, but the CBS HD presentation
was great, IMHO. There is no way I would ever wish a Fox broadcast over
CBS. Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.

Until FOX goes 720p later in the year.

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.

Jeff B

Steve K. wrote:

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.


Until FOX goes 720p later in the year.


Mmmmmmm that'll be nice. Can't wait.

On 20 Jan 2004 16:17:48 GMT, Drew Volpe wrote:

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.

Well, a Fox feed would certainly alleviate your need to complain about
that one SD camera (since they'd ALL be SD)!

Sounds like you had some local issues; it came in great in Portland.

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

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:13:09 GMT, Jeff B wrote:

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.

Once they upgrade to HD this year, it shouldn't be an issue. Hopefully
we'll eventually get to the point that the NFL or MLB would have HD as a
requirement for any contract.

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

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:16:36 -0500, Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Until FOX goes 720p later in the year.

Mmmmmmm that'll be nice. Can't wait.

Note, the only thing that's been committed is the infrastructure (and
probably O&O stations). Your local affiliate will have its own issues
upgrading to this. It seems like Fox announced this rather late in they
year, so they may not have gotten the budget for 1994.

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

Do you know if it will be shot by a completely seperate crew like last years
ABC production? I like that better then the 16:9 HD version of the game
being framed for 4:3 SD.


"BB" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:
Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!

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




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

BB wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:16:36 -0500, Michael J. Sherman wrote:


Until FOX goes 720p later in the year.

Mmmmmmm that'll be nice. Can't wait.


Note, the only thing that's been committed is the infrastructure (and
probably O&O stations). Your local affiliate will have its own issues
upgrading to this. It seems like Fox announced this rather late in they
year, so they may not have gotten the budget for 1994.

1994?

Last time we met, Michael J. Sherman had said:
Drew Volpe wrote:

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.


I don't know what game you were watching, but the CBS HD presentation
was great, IMHO. There is no way I would ever wish a Fox broadcast over
CBS. Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.

Who cares how much resolution it has if the product sucks ? Would you
also prefer a DVD-Audio of a cat being strangled over a hissy tape of the
Beattles ?


dv
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:31:21 -0500, Michael J. Sherman wrote:

Note, the only thing that's been committed is the infrastructure (and
probably O&O stations). Your local affiliate will have its own issues
upgrading to this. It seems like Fox announced this rather late in they
year, so they may not have gotten the budget for 1994.

1994?

Hehe, I'm "so last-century". That would be 2004. This year.

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

the pats game the week before i thought was exceptional...lots of flying cam
shots (any of the moving cams that show depth really make the hd)...seems
they couldn't use the skycam last week though since every time they did it
had moisture on the lens...agreed, though, this week was not the production
of the week prior


"Drew Volpe" wrote in message
...
Last time we met, BB had said:
On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:
Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting
better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!

The Patriots game last weekend wasn't great; sound kept dropping out,
and screen froze a few times. And at least one of the cameras they
used wasn't HD.

Not to mention they missed a kickoff and a few plays, and the camera
work was awful.

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.



dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu

"Drew Volpe" wrote in message
...
Last time we met, Michael J. Sherman had said:
Drew Volpe wrote:


? Would you
also prefer a DVD-Audio of a cat being strangled over a hissy tape of the
Beattles ?


dv

That depends, cat on a DVD audio with my Boston Speakers, versus hissy
Beatles on a Bose system?

I'll take the CAT!

Claygetting ready to dodge incoming

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)

BB wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:13:09 GMT, Jeff B wrote:


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.


Once they upgrade to HD this year, it shouldn't be an issue. Hopefully
we'll eventually get to the point that the NFL or MLB would have HD as a
requirement for any contract.


I predict there will be no HD MLB games this 2004 season.

Jeff B

I don't know what game you were watching, but the CBS HD presentation
was great, IMHO. There is no way I would ever wish a Fox broadcast over
CBS. Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.

You must be awfully easy to please. Yes, the picture quality of CBS HD was
superb (when the camera lens was not clouded with condensation) but the
technical quality of this game broadcast as well as the Titans-Pats game the
week before were atrocious. At one point they missed a kickoff because they
were apparently unable to operate the switcher and had to resort to the high
overhead camera normally reserved for cover shots. There were also numerous
little blackouts and the aformentioned camera that looked like it was
shooting in a steam room. There were more screw-ups in these two games than
I can ever recall in a CBS football broadcast.

Lee

--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

Who cares how much resolution it has if the product sucks ? Would you
also prefer a DVD-Audio of a cat being strangled over a hissy tape of the
Beattles ?

You could compromise and just listen to an average recording of Yoko Ono.
g

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"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.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:34:19 -0500, "oscargrouch"
wrote:

the pats game the week before i thought was exceptional...lots of flying cam
shots (any of the moving cams that show depth really make the hd)...seems
they couldn't use the skycam last week though since every time they did it
had moisture on the lens...agreed, though, this week was not the production
of the week prior

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

"Drew Volpe" wrote in message
...
Last time we met, BB had said:
On 19 Jan 2004 21:00:52 -0800, CP wrote:
Which network will broadcast Superbowl on Feb 1?
I hope it is not FOX because FOX is not on HD yet.

Then you'll be glad to know its on CBS! They've just been getting
better
and better at the HD broadcasts all year. Hi-def party time!

The Patriots game last weekend wasn't great; sound kept dropping out,
and screen froze a few times. And at least one of the cameras they
used wasn't HD.

Not to mention they missed a kickoff and a few plays, and the camera
work was awful.

Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.



dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu


To reply drop XYZ in address

with the sotu on cbs hd, nbc hd and fox 'hd' at the same time, it was easy
to see the drastic inferiority of fox's 480p signal...i don't get it...are
you saying otherwise?


"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.

"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

are you ****ing kidding me? why are people so ****ing stupid? 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? is it the fact you may actually get to see a
receiver a second BEFORE the ball gets to him? GASP...these people should
be made to listen to the superbowl on the radio...yay, let's just use the
1965 50 yard-line view...THE MOST UNdimensional angle that could possibly
exist...when are they gonna give US the choice of what camera to watch? i
remember they did one nba game with a cable cam...people hated it, so now we
never see it...it was awesome

Drew Volpe wrote:
Last time we met, Michael J. Sherman had said:

Drew Volpe wrote:


Hopefully they'll get things sorted out over the next two weeks. I'd
prefer a well-produced FOX feed to what I got last week from CBS anyday.



I don't know what game you were watching, but the CBS HD presentation
was great, IMHO. There is no way I would ever wish a Fox broadcast over
CBS. Let's see: Fox = 480p. CBS = 1080i.


Who cares how much resolution it has if the product sucks ? Would you
also prefer a DVD-Audio of a cat being strangled over a hissy tape of the
Beattles ?

I personally find the Fox games annoying. There have been *many*
instances where the cameraman was faked out by a draw play, not showing
proper replays, and having that annoying Tony Saragusa guy talk way too
long. I cannot stand Fox games.

Last time we met, Jeff B had said:




I predict there will be no HD MLB games this 2004 season.


For the second half of last season, most of the Red Sox home games were
in HD last year. NESN plans to continue this next season, so I'll
be watching games in HD.


dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu

On 21 Jan 2004 15:14:50 GMT, wrote:
Last time we met, Jeff B had said:




I predict there will be no HD MLB games this 2004 season.


For the second half of last season, most of the Red Sox home games were
in HD last year. NESN plans to continue this next season, so I'll
be watching games in HD.

There were a lot of Oriole games in HD last year... not that there are
any fans to watch it though. ;)


John.

For the second half of last season, most of the Red Sox home games were
in HD last year. NESN plans to continue this next season, so I'll
be watching games in HD.


dv



Fair enough.

My prediction is that there will be no nationally televised
HD MLB games in 2004.

Jeff B

Last time we met, Badger had said:

"Drew Volpe" wrote in message
...
Last time we met, Michael J. Sherman had said:
Drew Volpe wrote:


? Would you
also prefer a DVD-Audio of a cat being strangled over a hissy tape of the
Beattles ?


dv

That depends, cat on a DVD audio with my Boston Speakers, versus hissy
Beatles on a Bose system?

With Boston speakers using oxygen-free, gold plated, tuned cables.



dv

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the
center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South
Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South
End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End.

Drew Volpe, mylastname at hcs o harvard o edu

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).

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)

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.