Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NBC HD did the horrible again.

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 7:42:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
the top of the stadium to record the echoes out of the PA system.
They could at least hook up the audio from the official feed instead
of making the whole show sound like a home video. They even added
insult to the injury by announcing their High Definition Sight and
"Sound" every few minutes. It proved once again, NBC treated the HD
shows as second priority.

The entire Olympics HD experience is so negative that I felt ashame to
tune my TV to NBC when I have guests in my house. If SONY thought
they had used the Olympics to promote HDTV, they were quite wrong.
They actually did a disservice to the progress of the HDTV market
growth. I bet many new buyers were scared off HDTV because of what
NBC and SONY had done in these two weeks.
I am glad that it was over now though the damage was done.

More about : nbc horrible

Anonymous
August 30, 2004 1:54:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Caloonese wrote:
> I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
> the top of the stadium to record the echoes out of the PA system.
> They could at least hook up the audio from the official feed instead
> of making the whole show sound like a home video. They even added
> insult to the injury by announcing their High Definition Sight and
> "Sound" every few minutes. It proved once again, NBC treated the HD
> shows as second priority.
>
> The entire Olympics HD experience is so negative that I felt ashame to
> tune my TV to NBC when I have guests in my house. If SONY thought
> they had used the Olympics to promote HDTV, they were quite wrong.
> They actually did a disservice to the progress of the HDTV market
> growth. I bet many new buyers were scared off HDTV because of what
> NBC and SONY had done in these two weeks.
> I am glad that it was over now though the damage was done.

A "disservice to the progress of the HDTV market"? I think you're
going overboard here. I've been very happy with the NBC HD feed all
during the Olympics.

In your eyes I don't think NBC could ever had done a good job; you
will always find something wrong with it, no?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 1:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Caloonese wrote:

> I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
> the top of the stadium to record the echoes out of the PA system.
> They could at least hook up the audio from the official feed instead
> of making the whole show sound like a home video. They even added
> insult to the injury by announcing their High Definition Sight and
> "Sound" every few minutes. It proved once again, NBC treated the HD
> shows as second priority.
>
> The entire Olympics HD experience is so negative that I felt ashame to
> tune my TV to NBC when I have guests in my house. If SONY thought
> they had used the Olympics to promote HDTV, they were quite wrong.
> They actually did a disservice to the progress of the HDTV market
> growth. I bet many new buyers were scared off HDTV because of what
> NBC and SONY had done in these two weeks.
> I am glad that it was over now though the damage was done.


In fact, to follow up, maybe this is why broadcasters aren't so quick
to rollout HD stuff. No matter how hard they try, there will always
be people like you ready to nitpick everything. No wonder some
content providers don't want to deal with the HD snobs.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 2:43:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <46ob02-jb3.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>,
Michael J. Sherman <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote:
>Caloonese wrote:
>
>> I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
>> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
>> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
>> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
>> the top of the stadium to record the echoes out of the PA system.
>
>In fact, to follow up, maybe this is why broadcasters aren't so quick
>to rollout HD stuff. No matter how hard they try, there will always
>be people like you ready to nitpick everything. No wonder some
>content providers don't want to deal with the HD snobs.

Well, the "missing in action" complaint is a valid one. It's quite
absurd that SD viewers were able to see the opening and closing
ceremonies well before the HD feed carried them.

It will assuredly be better in 2008.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 3:02:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I also watched part of the olympics and I would have thought that for as big
as NBC is, they would have co-incided their SD and HD programming so that
the HD folks would not be watching delayed programming. As well, I have to
state they did over do the SONY commercials and the aerial views of Greece,

Either Sony paid alot for exclusive advertising rights or no other
advertiser wanted to chip in at this time for fear of no one seeing their
ads and just waisting money.

My take was that this was more of an experiment for NBC and not a "ready for
primetime" production.

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Michael Urban" <urban@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cgvee9$mms$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <46ob02-jb3.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>,
> Michael J. Sherman <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote:
>>Caloonese wrote:
>>
>>> I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
>>> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
>>> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
>>> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
>>> the top of the stadium to record the echoes out of the PA system.
>>
>>In fact, to follow up, maybe this is why broadcasters aren't so quick
>>to rollout HD stuff. No matter how hard they try, there will always
>>be people like you ready to nitpick everything. No wonder some
>>content providers don't want to deal with the HD snobs.
>
> Well, the "missing in action" complaint is a valid one. It's quite
> absurd that SD viewers were able to see the opening and closing
> ceremonies well before the HD feed carried them.
>
> It will assuredly be better in 2008.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

KD2PM wrote:

> I would have thought that for as big as NBC is, they would have
> co-incided their SD and HD programming so that the HD folks would not
> be watching delayed programming.

As has been pointed out here before, NBC couldn't simulcast because not
all of the venues were equipped with HD, and I don't think NBC had much
control over that. And the delay was requested by the affiliates, so
that the HD coverage would be less competitive with the SD broadcast.

> My take was that this was more of an experiment for NBC and not a
> "ready for primetime" production.

Except that they already had an opportunity to experiment in Salt Lake
City in 2002, two and a half years ago. I watched both, and there was
zero improvement in 2004.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
August 30, 2004 4:20:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Given a lot of the negative opinion on the HD Olympic coverage over there in
the States I wonder who was actually to blame. I live in the UK and we've
had access to a single european HD satellite channel in operation since
January, and it's not very good at all. The station that runs the channel
said that they did the actual Olympic filming with their cameras, so it may
be NBC wasn't to blame after all? The reason why I'm not sure is
Euro1080(the company name) didn't show anything on their own channel for
Europeans, instead they sent everything overseas. So did NBC use their own
cameras or did they just use the feed from Euro1080?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

hg wrote:

> Given a lot of the negative opinion on the HD Olympic coverage over
> there in the States I wonder who was actually to blame.

I concluded at the start of the games (and said so here) that NBC wasn't
solely to blame. The cameras, audio, and OB (outside broadcast) trucks
were provided by Athens Olympic Broadcasting (AOB),

http://www.aob.gr/english/

so NBC didn't have a lot of control over what content would be available
or the quality of the video and audio. It wasn't possible for NBC to
simulcast SD and HD because AOB didn't equip all of the venues for HD.

> [...] Euro1080(the company name) didn't show anything on their own
> channel for Europeans, instead they sent everything overseas. So did
> NBC use their own cameras or did they just use the feed from Euro1080?

Interesting.

Alfacam is the TV equipment company that started Euro1080, and it looks
like they may have been the company hired by AOB to supply HD production
facilities for the Olympics.

http://www.alfacam.be/

They were also in Salt Lake City in 2002, which might be why the 2004
coverage looks a lot like the 2002.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 4:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I would have thought the opposite in that they would have tried to promote
the HD side with live feeds rather than delayed. 2006 is around the corner
and its going to be a hard sale to get more and more folks to follow the HD
bandwagon if they think that the carriers are trying to drag their feet. Not
saying that is what they are doing, but one could get the impression that if
NBC really wanted to make a name for itself in the HD arena, they would have
had more control over the programming and would have advertised their HD
coverage more on the SD channels for people to be tempted to try it our or
go visit a place where they could see it readily (Sears, Circuit City, Best
Buy etc.)

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Ernie Wright" <erniew@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zJKdnX8ePu-Mza7cRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> KD2PM wrote:
>
>> I would have thought that for as big as NBC is, they would have
>> co-incided their SD and HD programming so that the HD folks would not
>> be watching delayed programming.
>
> As has been pointed out here before, NBC couldn't simulcast because not
> all of the venues were equipped with HD, and I don't think NBC had much
> control over that. And the delay was requested by the affiliates, so
> that the HD coverage would be less competitive with the SD broadcast.
>
>> My take was that this was more of an experiment for NBC and not a
>> "ready for primetime" production.
>
> Except that they already had an opportunity to experiment in Salt Lake
> City in 2002, two and a half years ago. I watched both, and there was
> zero improvement in 2004.
>
> - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael J. Sherman wrote:

> people like you ready to nitpick everything. No wonder some content
> providers don't want to deal with the HD snobs.

The criticism is valid, not snobbery. It has less to do with the
quality of the image and sound, which was all over the map, and a lot
more to do with the delayed and incomplete coverage and the amateurish,
B-team feel of the whole production.

During the basketball games yesterday, they were breaking to show an
"Olympic Update" that included the results of the very game they were
showing, as well as the results of everything they would broadcast for
the rest of the day. They did this without warning. Anyone who might
have been trying to shield themselves from this knowledge in order to
maintain some suspense about the outcome of what they were watching
was instantly screwed out of enjoying the rest of the day in HD.

Also during the breaks, they were showing a piece that lauded the TV
technology used to broadcast the games, concluding ungrammatically
that "Athens has outdid itself!"

The opening ceremonies needed to be padded by about 20 minutes, so in
the middle of the broadcast, they just broke for "commercial" (the
only one they had, not HD, shown so often we all got sick of it, and
apparently without the knowledge of the sponsor) and then *repeated*
the 20 minutes we'd just seen. The closing ceremonies weren't shown
until after everyone had seen them in their entirety in SD and gone to
bed.

The stupidity of all of this has nothing to do with the novelty or the
cost of the equipment or anything technical. It's just an indication
of NBC's lack of commitment to professional standards of production
that everyone takes for granted in SD. They *didn't care* that they
were producing bad TV. They assumed nobody was actually watching.
They were producing a demo channel, not a real broadcast.

They've been defended for this because the potential audience was only
about a million viewers, but that's never stopped them from doing a
professional job on any of their cable outlets. They squandered an
opportunity to have the eyeballs of almost every HDTV owner. My guess
is that most people capable of seeing the HD broadcast gave up on it and
watched most of the events in SD.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

KD2PM wrote:

> I would have thought the opposite in that they would have tried to
> promote the HD side with live feeds rather than delayed.

The affiliates weren't going to get any income from broadcasting the HD
feed. Because of the way NBC chose to broadcast it, the affiliates
couldn't run local commercials.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Makes sense Ernie. I get the Philly feed and not once did I see any local
programming or commercials. Looks like they just transmitted whatever Athens
sent them...

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Ernie Wright" <erniew@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0aadnWpTzuTU-q7cRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> KD2PM wrote:
>
>> I would have thought the opposite in that they would have tried to
>> promote the HD side with live feeds rather than delayed.
>
> The affiliates weren't going to get any income from broadcasting the HD
> feed. Because of the way NBC chose to broadcast it, the affiliates
> couldn't run local commercials.
>
> - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 6:31:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The program scheduling problem has been beaten to death, so this
thread didn't even try to repeat it.

The "HD" audio of the closing ceremony was much worse than the SD
broadcast, in fact it was worse than a home video from my camcorder.

I am not nitpicking. I am point out a major missing portion, like 50%
of the HD experience. If 50% is only a nit, your expectation is way
too low. Perhaps you couldn't tell the difference when you watch the
show using a single 3" speaker.




"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message news:<24ob02-jb3.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...
> A "disservice to the progress of the HDTV market"? I think you're
> going overboard here. I've been very happy with the NBC HD feed all
> during the Olympics.
>
> In your eyes I don't think NBC could ever had done a good job; you
> will always find something wrong with it, no?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:37:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I hope you understand that Sony did not even know their commercial was being
shown every 2 minutes. NBC "did a favor" for sony by giving them a free ad
spot. Sony did not know that NOBODY had purchased advertising space on the
HD version. From what I understand, Sony was not happy about that. I am
not sure if Sony even provided the salsa commercial for the HD olympics, NBC
may have just reused another Sony ad they had on file-do a google search for
more details.

--Dan

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0408300242.4dd5a8ca@posting.google.com...
> tune my TV to NBC when I have guests in my house. If SONY thought
> they had used the Olympics to promote HDTV, they were quite wrong.
> They actually did a disservice to the progress of the HDTV market
> growth. I bet many new buyers were scared off HDTV because of what
> NBC and SONY had done in these two weeks.
> I am glad that it was over now though the damage was done.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:55:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0408300242.4dd5a8ca@posting.google.com...
>I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at

HDTV live broadcasting is new. Expect to live with some bad experimentation
until people figure out what looks/sounds best. How much did you pay NBC
for them to send that feed to your house, by the way?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

GaryH wrote:

> HDTV live broadcasting is new.

Maybe to you, but many people here watched the 2002 broadcast, which if
anything may have been slightly better.

> Expect to live with some bad experimentation until people figure out
> what looks/sounds best.

As I've said, most of what was bad was not a technical issue at all.
It was just amateurish production.

> How much did you pay NBC for them to send that feed to your house, by
> the way?

About as much as I paid for the SD feed. Why is that relevant?

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Free. Comes with the Comcast Digital package (and of course the HD cable box
at $5 a month extra). All of the Philly stations do SD and HD simulcast for
the "most" part. None of the NY stations on Comcast here are in HD.

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"GaryH" <dontyouspamme@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:RZIYc.7385$AT7.5489@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> "Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ee67c74a.0408300242.4dd5a8ca@posting.google.com...
>>I watched the Olympics closing ceremony in SD because the HD version
>> was missing in action as usual. Then I waited after midnight to see
>> the HD "rerun" of the ceremony. What a joke in NBC's way to use the
>> 5.1 audio capability of HDTV!! Sound like they put a microphone at
>
> HDTV live broadcasting is new. Expect to live with some bad
> experimentation until people figure out what looks/sounds best. How much
> did you pay NBC for them to send that feed to your house, by the way?
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 8:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

This is a big crock of bullshit. If they did the same audio quality
of the SD show on the HD, I wouldn't have started this thread. Yes, I
watched both shows. Did you do the same before you started to defend
NBC?

How much I paid NBC is irrelevant. The Olympics is a once-in-4-years
opportunity to burn a lasting image on the viewers' mind. The timing
of increasing popularity of HDTV sets in the US and the Olympics
itself was just right for NBC to leave a mark. NBC totally screwed it
up.

The closest analogy I could think of is a car maker to present a
shitty car as their concept car in a car show. No car maker is going
to sell any of their concept cars, yet they dumped money into them.
It is the corporate image they pay for, not how many of their concept
cars they can sell. NBC should have done a good show even if no
advertiser was paying for the HD programs. It was their image at
stake.



"GaryH" <dontyouspamme@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<RZIYc.7385$AT7.5489@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> HDTV live broadcasting is new. Expect to live with some bad experimentation
> until people figure out what looks/sounds best. How much did you pay NBC
> for them to send that feed to your house, by the way?
August 30, 2004 8:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Two years ago NBC paid to develop and implement a digital backbone for the
2002 winter games and subsequent games. This was put to good use for these
games. But NBC simply did not invest in enough hardware or bandwidth to
produce or send HDTV feeds of every event at the same time.

In 2 years NBC has noted that they intend to have one production feed, all
wide HDTV at the source. This should enable NBC to provide same time
conventional aspect ration and resolution and wide HDTV feeds. With the rest
of the world interested in wide screen feeds and digital production this
should be possible even with extensive use of shared hardware.

Richard.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 12:47:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:02:00 -0400, "KD2PM" <kd2pm2@comcast.net>
wrote:

<snip>
>Either Sony paid alot for exclusive advertising rights or no other
>advertiser wanted to chip in at this time for fear of no one seeing their
>ads and just waisting money.
<snip>

There was an article in the Wall street Journal a week ago that said
NBC was unable to sell any other ads on their HD transmission. They
therefore decided to do Sony a favor and replay the lone ad and give
them free ad time. When the VP of Sony's US operations heard about
how often the ad was being played he was aghast and shortly thereafter
the second Sony ad and the previews for NBCs Fall lineup appeared.

dickm
August 31, 2004 4:46:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I keep waiting for someone to remember that NBC did NOT produce the HDTV
winter olympics broadcast 2 years ago. Mark Cuban did and SOLD it to NBC.
So this really was NBC's first time in the HD "bigs".

BTW, you can only have your image at stake if enough people SEE the programs
to affect it. In the US TV universe, HD viewers are insignificant and the
nets and locals are earning zero dollars right now on their multimillion
dollar investment. What you think doesn't matter a tinkers damn. Watch the
Olympics in HD or don't....either way you have zero effect on NBC's income.

But there will always be yahoo's like caloonese who couldn't make a lemonade
stand profitable telling NBC how they should run their business.

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0408301442.52ad5711@posting.google.com...
> This is a big crock of bullshit. If they did the same audio quality
> of the SD show on the HD, I wouldn't have started this thread. Yes, I
> watched both shows. Did you do the same before you started to defend
> NBC?
>
> How much I paid NBC is irrelevant. The Olympics is a once-in-4-years
> opportunity to burn a lasting image on the viewers' mind. The timing
> of increasing popularity of HDTV sets in the US and the Olympics
> itself was just right for NBC to leave a mark. NBC totally screwed it
> up.
>
> The closest analogy I could think of is a car maker to present a
> shitty car as their concept car in a car show. No car maker is going
> to sell any of their concept cars, yet they dumped money into them.
> It is the corporate image they pay for, not how many of their concept
> cars they can sell. NBC should have done a good show even if no
> advertiser was paying for the HD programs. It was their image at
> stake.
>
>
>
> "GaryH" <dontyouspamme@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:<RZIYc.7385$AT7.5489@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> > HDTV live broadcasting is new. Expect to live with some bad
experimentation
> > until people figure out what looks/sounds best. How much did you pay
NBC
> > for them to send that feed to your house, by the way?
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 12:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sure, it wasn't ideal audio and certainly did not take advantage of my
$2k speakers, but NBC was sending me that HD signal for free. So I
don't have a lot of room to complain, actually.

Things can only get better. I'm just trying to be optimistic here. I
found the visuals and *most* of the audio just great during the Olympics.



Caloonese wrote:
> The program scheduling problem has been beaten to death, so this
> thread didn't even try to repeat it.
>
> The "HD" audio of the closing ceremony was much worse than the SD
> broadcast, in fact it was worse than a home video from my camcorder.
>
> I am not nitpicking. I am point out a major missing portion, like 50%
> of the HD experience. If 50% is only a nit, your expectation is way
> too low. Perhaps you couldn't tell the difference when you watch the
> show using a single 3" speaker.
>
>
>
>
> "Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message news:<24ob02-jb3.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...
>
>>A "disservice to the progress of the HDTV market"? I think you're
>>going overboard here. I've been very happy with the NBC HD feed all
>>during the Olympics.
>>
>>In your eyes I don't think NBC could ever had done a good job; you
>>will always find something wrong with it, no?
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Ernie Wright (erniew@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> As has been pointed out here before, NBC couldn't simulcast because not
> all of the venues were equipped with HD

There is no reason they couldn't have simulcast the events that *were*
filmed in HD. They had no problem cutting away in the middle of events
on the HD feed and starting the loop again (or repeating chunks), so I
don't think there would be an issue with interrupting some other event.

Let's not even talk about the HD coverage of the Marion Jones long jump
where the audio was nearly 5 *minutes* out of sync with the video. Most
of the issues with the HD broadcast were caused by NBC not giving a damn.
If they had ordered an intern or two to watch and report any problems,
there would have been a lot fewer complaints here.

--
Jeff Rife | "These are not scraps. These are historic
SPAM bait: | remains of a once-great society of hair."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- George Costanza
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 6:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

>> As has been pointed out here before, NBC couldn't simulcast because
>> not all of the venues were equipped with HD
>
> There is no reason they couldn't have simulcast the events that *were*
> filmed in HD.

There weren't enough HD cameras at the venues that were covered. In
fact, the HD commentators often complained openly during the broadcast,
particularly during the gymnastics all-around, that they couldn't get a
camera to look at the things they wanted to talk about. We'd see one
gymnast talcing an apparatus instead of the three who were in the middle
of their performances elsewhere in the hall.

Remember that NBC neither provided nor controlled the cameras. That was
handled by Athens Olympic Broadcasting.

I think NBC knew going in that the HD facilities available to them in
Athens wouldn't be sufficient to allow them to simulcast.

> Let's not even talk about the HD coverage of the Marion Jones long
> jump where the audio was nearly 5 *minutes* out of sync with the
> video.

And the audio was ahead of the video, so that you heard the results of
some events before they'd even started in video.

I gather from posts on AVSForum that this happened after NBC's HD truck
had a power failure that damaged some of their equipment, after which it
may have been near-miraculous that they were able to provide any kind of
feed at all.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Curmudgeon wrote:

> I keep waiting for someone to remember that NBC did NOT produce the
> HDTV winter olympics broadcast 2 years ago. Mark Cuban did and SOLD
> it to NBC. So this really was NBC's first time in the HD "bigs".

I suspect this is a distinction that doesn't make much difference. In
both cases, the equipment and some of the people were probably hired
from third parties, companies many of us have never heard of. And
because of the way the HD audio and video comes from an international
pool and is simply mixed into what we see on NBC, NBC's specific role
may have been identical at both games.

For whatever it's worth, the two broadcasts certainly *look* like they
were done by the same people.

> BTW, you can only have your image at stake if enough people SEE the
> programs to affect it.

The potential audience was about the same as a typical ratings day at
MSNBC. Not great, but good enough to expect production values that
don't insult the intelligence of viewers.

Botching the HD broadcast probably won't hurt NBC much in the long run,
but doing it well could have helped them.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:01:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"KD2PM" <kd2pm2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3_2dneuCZKX15ancRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> The arguement does not hold up with SD either. Both are free and both
> should be equal to the quality of the programming. When NTSC is history,
> they will be forced to make changes so why not start now?


Some of you guys are so clueless as to how difficult and expensive it is to
coordinate a broadcast the scope of the Olympic games. Did you take a look
at the credit roll at the end of the closing ceremonies? There are hundreds
of technicians and others involved and it's frankly amazing that there
weren't a multitude more problems than there were. When I was young the
Olympics were full of "Please Stand By" cards and moments of dead air. Now
we have 10 different angles of the swimmers from above and below the surface
and more technology than one can shake a stick at. And you have the gall to
condemn a sound mixing problem coming out of a mobile truck with many miles
of cable and dozens of mics to fail? None of us knows what the problem or
failure was but you can be sure if bad sound was presented there was a damn
good reason why something didn't work and it wasn't just a sound mixer with
bad judgment sitting behind the board nodding off and waiting for someone to
yell WRAP.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:03:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b9e7b3f47cc766e9897fc@news.nabs.net...
> Ernie Wright (erniew@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> As has been pointed out here before, NBC couldn't simulcast because not
>> all of the venues were equipped with HD
>
> There is no reason they couldn't have simulcast the events that *were*
> filmed in HD. They had no problem cutting away in the middle of events
> on the HD feed and starting the loop again (or repeating chunks), so I
> don't think there would be an issue with interrupting some other event.
>
> Let's not even talk about the HD coverage of the Marion Jones long jump
> where the audio was nearly 5 *minutes* out of sync with the video. Most
> of the issues with the HD broadcast were caused by NBC not giving a damn.
> If they had ordered an intern or two to watch and report any problems,
> there would have been a lot fewer complaints here.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "These are not scraps. These are historic
> SPAM bait: | remains of a once-great society of hair."
> AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
> spam@ftc.gov | -- George Costanza


Jeff, have you ever sat in a broadcast truck? Do you really think that no
one is monitoring the signal? If the audio was 5 minutes out of sync you can
be sure there were people pulling their hair out.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 11:13:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 30 Aug 2004 03:42:33 -0700, caloonese@yahoo.com (Caloonese) wrote:


>The entire Olympics HD experience is so negative that I felt ashame to
>tune my TV to NBC when I have guests in my house. If SONY thought
>they had used the Olympics to promote HDTV, they were quite wrong.
>They actually did a disservice to the progress of the HDTV market
>growth. I bet many new buyers were scared off HDTV because of what
>NBC and SONY had done in these two weeks.
>I am glad that it was over now though the damage was done.


Still think we'll all be watching HD in a couple of years ?

I'm buying a 4:3 TV.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 4:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

So your statement promotes the fact that indeed the broadcast "should have"
been better with all the folks behind the scenes who, we suspect, have some
time around the trucks, and should have been able to pull this off.

I believe it to be more up the management ladder that made the decision not
to invest much in this undertaking and let the 3rd party do it for them. If
anyone complains, they can shrug it off as not being their problem but the
3rd party. Well... NBC still needs to be held accountable for their actions
of broadcasting whatver the 3rd party sent their way.

I would not say clueless, I know how much the "worker bees" have to perform.
Have friends that work at both NBC and ABC in NY. I have yet to talk to the
NBC sports person to get his take on it all....

Will be interesting to see if the NYC Marathon (ABC usually carries this
locally) will be in HD or if perhaps ABC learned a bit or two from NBC and
wont tread there.


--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:lamdnZdy0vn2jKjcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>
> "KD2PM" <kd2pm2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3_2dneuCZKX15ancRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>> The arguement does not hold up with SD either. Both are free and both
>> should be equal to the quality of the programming. When NTSC is history,
>> they will be forced to make changes so why not start now?
>
>
> Some of you guys are so clueless as to how difficult and expensive it is
> to coordinate a broadcast the scope of the Olympic games. Did you take a
> look at the credit roll at the end of the closing ceremonies? There are
> hundreds of technicians and others involved and it's frankly amazing that
> there weren't a multitude more problems than there were. When I was young
> the Olympics were full of "Please Stand By" cards and moments of dead air.
> Now we have 10 different angles of the swimmers from above and below the
> surface and more technology than one can shake a stick at. And you have
> the gall to condemn a sound mixing problem coming out of a mobile truck
> with many miles of cable and dozens of mics to fail? None of us knows what
> the problem or failure was but you can be sure if bad sound was presented
> there was a damn good reason why something didn't work and it wasn't just
> a sound mixer with bad judgment sitting behind the board nodding off and
> waiting for someone to yell WRAP.
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 4:20:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"KD2PM" <kd2pm2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7bKdnXG9V7Gf06jcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> So your statement promotes the fact that indeed the broadcast "should
> have" been better with all the folks behind the scenes who, we suspect,
> have some time around the trucks, and should have been able to pull this
> off.
>
> I believe it to be more up the management ladder that made the decision
> not to invest much in this undertaking and let the 3rd party do it for
> them. If anyone complains, they can shrug it off as not being their
> problem but the 3rd party. Well... NBC still needs to be held accountable
> for their actions of broadcasting whatver the 3rd party sent their way.
>
> I would not say clueless, I know how much the "worker bees" have to
> perform. Have friends that work at both NBC and ABC in NY. I have yet to
> talk to the NBC sports person to get his take on it all....
>
> Will be interesting to see if the NYC Marathon (ABC usually carries this
> locally) will be in HD or if perhaps ABC learned a bit or two from NBC and
> wont tread there.

I've got a buddy who has done the camera shading/video for the NYC Marathon
for a few years now...I'll have to ask him what he knows.
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 7:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Jeff, have you ever sat in a broadcast truck?

Yes.

> Do you really think that no
> one is monitoring the signal?

For HD, that's not unusual at all, as the *many* posts to AVS Forum that
say "I had to call the news hotline and get them to wake up the engineers"
show.

If analog broadcasts go haywire, somebody is working on it within minutes
at most (seconds probably), and apology graphics are up if a fix isn't
available within those same few minutes. There was absolutely no sign
that NBC over here had a clue that anything was wrong, and this happens
*all* *the* *time* with HD broadcasts from NBC at the network level.

--
Jeff Rife | "If the world were destroyed and you were the
SPAM bait: | last man within a thousand mile radius, I would
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | swim across the ocean on a rumor that Screech
spam@ftc.gov | from 'Saved by the Bell' was spotted in Japan."
| -- Ellen
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 8:07:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> Sure, it wasn't ideal audio and certainly did not take advantage of my
> $2k speakers, but NBC was sending me that HD signal for free. So I
> don't have a lot of room to complain, actually.
>
> Things can only get better. I'm just trying to be optimistic here. I
> found the visuals and *most* of the audio just great during the
> Olympics.

For the most part I can agree with you. Was it the most perfect HD
broadcast? No. Was there flaws with it? Yes. Did I still enjoy what
was aired even if I got sick of the damn annoying Todd ad? Most
certainly yes.

I know myself that HDTV is still in its early growing stages, and there
is a LOT of improvement that can be done. But just like the advancement
from black and white to color TV, we will start seeing HDTV being taken
more seriously by the networks once they see the user base really taking
off (and of course more $$$ too).

Hang in there folks, we'll get there soon enough.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 8:09:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

KD2PM wrote:
> Makes sense Ernie. I get the Philly feed and not once did I see any
> local programming or commercials. Looks like they just transmitted
> whatever Athens sent them...

My local NBC affiliate ran some ads during the hourly scenic break here
in the Twin Cities area. A few ads were 16:9 WS while the rest were 4:3
with black bars on the sides.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 12:13:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, hg wrote:
> Given a lot of the negative opinion on the HD Olympic coverage over there in
> the States I wonder who was actually to blame. I live in the UK and we've
> had access to a single european HD satellite channel in operation since
> January, and it's not very good at all. The station that runs the channel
> said that they did the actual Olympic filming with their cameras, so it may
> be NBC wasn't to blame after all? The reason why I'm not sure is
> Euro1080(the company name) didn't show anything on their own channel for
> Europeans, instead they sent everything overseas. So did NBC use their own
> cameras or did they just use the feed from Euro1080?

Trust us. It wasn't just the "filming" of the Olympics that caused NBC to get
the bad reputation. It was also:

1) The same TV commercial at every break. (The same panorama of Greece on the
hour as well).

2) Repeating each 4 hour block up to six times, changing at 8pm LT each day.

3) No schedule for the HD channel in the usual places (e.g. "TV Guide").

4) The delay of the opening ceremony (as compared to the analog transmission)
by one hour - by inserting 2002 figure skating. Don't forget the glitch (15
minutes repeated) of the procession of countries of which their names started
with R-T.

5) In some places (USA East Coast?), no closing ceremony in HD at all.
!