Will superbowl be on HD?

"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)