Tom's Hardware: Topic NLCS/World Series in low definition
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
Boston in Hi def?
either way, comments welcome.
Jeff B
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
> Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
> Boston in Hi def?
> either way, comments welcome.
>
> Jeff B
The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
>
>>Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
>>Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
>>Boston in Hi def?
>> either way, comments welcome.
>>
>>Jeff B
>
>
> The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
> Chip
>
Perhaps you are getting 'widescreen' mixed up with 'Hi Def',
a common mistake.
Jeff B
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
news:%nSfd.17294$R05.11259@attbi_s53...
>
>
> cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> > Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
> >>Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
> >>Boston in Hi def?
> >> either way, comments welcome.
> >>
> >>Jeff B
> >
> >
> > The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
> > Chip
> >
>
> Perhaps you are getting 'widescreen' mixed up with 'Hi Def',
> a common mistake.
>
> Jeff B
The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least via
Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture I've
seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
mack
austin
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> > Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
> >>Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
> >>Boston in Hi def?
> >> either way, comments welcome.
> >>
> >>Jeff B
> >
> >
> > The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
> > Chip
> >
>
> Perhaps you are getting 'widescreen' mixed up with 'Hi Def',
> a common mistake.
>
> Jeff B
Perhaps it is a common mistake, but the broadcast was in HD never-the-less.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
> The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least via
> Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture I've
> seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
Jeff B
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
>>>The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
>>>Chip
Did you notice that when in Boston, FOX bragged
about how the game was in HD every chance they got,
even plastered their "HD 5.1" logo on the screen when returning from
between inning commercials, and at other times too?
Yet in St. Louis, no mention whatsoever about HD, no
"HD 5.1" decals or logos, nothing, nada. Not one peep about
HD.
Of course anyone looking at the screen could plainly see
that the St. Louis pic quality was inferior, and exactly like
SDTV.
It was especially obvious because we had a HD pic (Boston)
and a SD pic (St.Louis) for direct comparison.
Since HD is always widescreen, some just assume that if it is
widescreen, must be HD and don't question why it looks so bad.
Jeff B
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
It was announced at the beginning of the game that it was in HDTV and
Dolby 5.1 sound.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
news:1tVfd.323568$3l3.171475@attbi_s03...
>
> > The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least
via
> > Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture
I've
> > seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
>
> Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
Maybe it wasn't HD where you are, but it was certainly HD here, with 5.1
audio.
mack
austin
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
What a disappointment. Not the Series but Fox in El Paso only sent a
85% black signal on their HD digital channel. They did televise the
game on their analog but with a slight ghost due to the nearby
mountains.. I watched the game over the Dish Network a analog station
located in Albuquerque. Still a huge win for the Red Sox.
hdtvfan
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:42:48 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
>news:1tVfd.323568$3l3.171475@attbi_s03...
>>
>> > The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least
>via
>> > Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture
>I've
>> > seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
>>
>> Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
>
>Maybe it wasn't HD where you are, but it was certainly HD here, with 5.1
>audio.
>
>mack
>austin
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
X-No-archive: yes
"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
news:bFVfd.431441$mD.151235@attbi_s02...
>
> Did you notice that when in Boston, FOX bragged
> about how the game was in HD every chance they got,
> even plastered their "HD 5.1" logo on the screen when returning from
> between inning commercials, and at other times too?
> Yet in St. Louis, no mention whatsoever about HD, no
> "HD 5.1" decals or logos, nothing, nada. Not one peep about
> HD.
> Of course anyone looking at the screen could plainly see
> that the St. Louis pic quality was inferior, and exactly like
> SDTV.
===============================
It was wonderful quality HD for all games here in Seattle (via OTA).
==================================
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
X-No-archive: yes
"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
news:1tVfd.323568$3l3.171475@attbi_s03...
>
>> The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least via
>> Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture I've
>> seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
>
> Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
>
> Jeff B
>
=======================================
Too bad you are not in Seattle.
It was perfect HD OTA for all games.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
FYI, I got this info from a website:
Fox broadcasts in something called High Resolution Digital TV, which
is actually a 480p signal, not true HDTV. Most of the content is
simply regular NTSC (480i) content sent out as 480p, but some content,
such as NASCAR, is shot and broadcast in 480p widescreen (which is a
good improvement over the standard NTSC broadcast, but still not as
good as HDTV). FOX is not currently broadcasting any HDTV content, but
they recently announced that at least 50% of their Fall 2004 primetime
lineup will be in 720p HDTV.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:20:15 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
>news:1tVfd.323568$3l3.171475@attbi_s03...
>>
>>> The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least via
>>> Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture I've
>>> seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
>>
>> Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
>>
>> Jeff B
>>
>=======================================
>Too bad you are not in Seattle.
>It was perfect HD OTA for all games.
>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:06:16 -0400, Andrew Cohen
<quincy99@verizon.net> wrote:
The article may have been out of date though.
>FYI, I got this info from a website:
>
>Fox broadcasts in something called High Resolution Digital TV, which
>is actually a 480p signal, not true HDTV. Most of the content is
>simply regular NTSC (480i) content sent out as 480p, but some content,
>such as NASCAR, is shot and broadcast in 480p widescreen (which is a
>good improvement over the standard NTSC broadcast, but still not as
>good as HDTV). FOX is not currently broadcasting any HDTV content, but
>they recently announced that at least 50% of their Fall 2004 primetime
>lineup will be in 720p HDTV.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:20:15 -0700, "Richard C."
><post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
>>news:1tVfd.323568$3l3.171475@attbi_s03...
>>>
>>>> The WS Tuesday night broadcast was in Hi Def AND widescreen, at least via
>>>> Time-Warner here in Austin. It didn't seem like the best HD picture I've
>>>> seen from Fox, though. Maybe it was the rain?
>>>
>>> Not the rain, it was cause it wasn't hi def.
>>>
>>> Jeff B
>>>
>>=======================================
>>Too bad you are not in Seattle.
>>It was perfect HD OTA for all games.
>>
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
<cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20041027161554.269$5V@newsreader.com...
Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> > Jeff B <fake@addy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
> >>Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
> >>Boston in Hi def?
> >> either way, comments welcome.
> >>
> >>Jeff B
> >
> >
> > The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
> > Chip
> >
>
> Perhaps you are getting 'widescreen' mixed up with 'Hi Def',
> a common mistake.
>
> Jeff B
Perhaps it is a common mistake, but the broadcast was in HD
never-the-less.
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
------------------------------
Suspicion here is Southern California is that St. Louis games weren't
HD. I noticed a lot of pixelation on the Boston games, none on the St.
Louis games. At any rate the Fox pictures, HD or not, weren't nearly as
sharp as the football games on CBS and ESPN-HD. Problem could be local
Fox channel here or Adelphia cable system.
Bill
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
"Andrew Cohen" <quincy99@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6kg2o0d4v51fjfgv5d3nknu2bg9gj2s94p@4ax.com...
> FYI, I got this info from a website:
>
> Fox broadcasts in something called High Resolution Digital TV, which
> is actually a 480p signal, not true HDTV. Most of the content is
> simply regular NTSC (480i) content sent out as 480p, but some content,
> such as NASCAR, is shot and broadcast in 480p widescreen (which is a
> good improvement over the standard NTSC broadcast, but still not as
> good as HDTV). FOX is not currently broadcasting any HDTV content, but
> they recently announced that at least 50% of their Fall 2004 primetime
> lineup will be in 720p HDTV.
Apparently, the information you quote here is now outdated. We are well
into "Fall 2004".
According to what Fox says and according to what my eyes tell me, the Fox HD
sports broadcasts are 720p, real HDTV, not 480p. At the beginning of their
HD sportscasts, such as the Sunday pro football games and the baseball
playoffs and World Series, they say at the beginning of the show that they
are broadcasting in 720p. And, from the look of it, that's what it is.
There is a little variation from time to time, from broadcast to broadcast,
but generally, I think their HDTV looks great.
mack
austin
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
In article <4GPfd.429758$mD.301385@attbi_s02>, Jeff B <fake@addy.com>
wrote:
> Why have all the MLB games from St. Louis been in low definition?
> Perhaps a better question is why were the games from
> Boston in Hi def?
> either way, comments welcome.
>
> Jeff B
>
All the MLB games were telecast in HD OTA here in the San Francisco Bay
Area.
--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
NOTE: Do not place your reply in the "signature" area (after the "-- " line)
because it makes it very hard to quote.
Bill Sharpe (billsharpe@nsadelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Suspicion here is Southern California is that St. Louis games weren't
> HD. I noticed a lot of pixelation on the Boston games, none on the St.
> Louis games.
This tells you exactly nothing.
My local Fox station broadcasts 720p 24/7 (as does yours, I'd bet), so that
more pixelization tells you only something about the broadcast at that
second, and it could be anything from birds roosting on your antenna to
network difficulties at the source.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's a beer sound, Norm?
SPAM bait: |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Norm: I dunno. I usually finish them before
spam@ftc.gov | they get a word in.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> Bill Sharpe (billsharpe@nsadelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>
>>Suspicion here is Southern California is that St. Louis games weren't
>>HD. I noticed a lot of pixelation on the Boston games, none on the St.
>>Louis games.
>
> This tells you exactly nothing.
Well, nothing certain anyway. But I also noticed the difference in
image quality between the Boston games and the St. Louis games. It was
very obvious that all games were in true HD - no question about that.
But the St. Louis images seemed to lose some of their resolution on
certain shots - tracking shots across the audience for example.
And since that is exactly the kind of shot that would be dependent on
the encoding being used, I wonder if the St. Louis broadcast team had
some sort of bandwidth limitations that caused the problem.
In any event, the "pixelization" wasn't due to signal dropouts, it was
due to overly aggressive video compression.
It's also possible that they didn't have enough HD cameras to handle
every task, so a few SD cameras were used for less important, and less
frequently seen, shots. But clearly, the vast majority of what we saw
was true HD.
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> NOTE: Do not place your reply in the "signature" area (after the "-- "
> line)
> because it makes it very hard to quote.
>
> Bill Sharpe (billsharpe@nsadelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
> > Suspicion here is Southern California is that St. Louis games weren't
> > HD. I noticed a lot of pixelation on the Boston games, none on the St.
> > Louis games.
>
> This tells you exactly nothing.
>
> My local Fox station broadcasts 720p 24/7 (as does yours, I'd bet), so
> that more pixelization tells you only something about the broadcast at
> that second, and it could be anything from birds roosting on your antenna
> to network difficulties at the source.
My local Fox certainly does not broadcast 720P 24/7. In fact,
they zoom the picture when not in HD. Very annoying!
Chip
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
(cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My local Fox certainly does not broadcast 720P 24/7. In fact,
> they zoom the picture when not in HD. Very annoying!
I'm willing to bet that the actual transmission *is* 720p, but they just
zoom the source signal. This is stupid, but some stations do it.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/ActualCode.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
X-No-archive: yes
"Andrew Cohen" <quincy99@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6kg2o0d4v51fjfgv5d3nknu2bg9gj2s94p@4ax.com...
> FYI, I got this info from a website:
>
> Fox broadcasts in something called High Resolution Digital TV, which
> is actually a 480p signal, not true HDTV. Most of the content is
> simply regular NTSC (480i) content sent out as 480p, but some content,
> such as NASCAR, is shot and broadcast in 480p widescreen (which is a
> good improvement over the standard NTSC broadcast, but still not as
> good as HDTV). FOX is not currently broadcasting any HDTV content, but
> they recently announced that at least 50% of their Fall 2004 primetime
> lineup will be in 720p HDTV.
>
>
==========================
That is OLD information.
The World Series was broadcast in 720p HD.
========================
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jeff B wrote:
>>>> The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
>>>> Chip
>
> Did you notice that when in Boston, FOX bragged
> about how the game was in HD every chance they got,
> even plastered their "HD 5.1" logo on the screen when returning from
> between inning commercials, and at other times too?
> Yet in St. Louis, no mention whatsoever about HD, no
> "HD 5.1" decals or logos, nothing, nada. Not one peep about
> HD.
> Of course anyone looking at the screen could plainly see
> that the St. Louis pic quality was inferior, and exactly like
> SDTV.
> It was especially obvious because we had a HD pic (Boston)
> and a SD pic (St.Louis) for direct comparison.
> Since HD is always widescreen, some just assume that if it is
> widescreen, must be HD and don't question why it looks so bad.
>
> Jeff B
I got the games in HD here near Boston. Picture was 720P and looked very
good for all 4 games.
--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Jim Gilliland wrote:
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> It's also possible that they didn't have enough HD cameras to handle
> every task, so a few SD cameras were used for less important, and less
> frequently seen, shots. But clearly, the vast majority of what we saw
> was true HD.
... and clearly those 'diamond cam" shots were not HD at all. They were also
completely useless.
--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Brian Denley wrote:
> Jeff B wrote:
>>>>> The broadcasts are in HD here in Connecticut.
>>>>> Chip
>>
>> Did you notice that when in Boston, FOX bragged
>> about how the game was in HD every chance they got,
>> even plastered their "HD 5.1" logo on the screen when returning from
>> between inning commercials, and at other times too?
>> Yet in St. Louis, no mention whatsoever about HD, no
>> "HD 5.1" decals or logos, nothing, nada. Not one peep about
>> HD.
>> Of course anyone looking at the screen could plainly see
>> that the St. Louis pic quality was inferior, and exactly like
>> SDTV.
>> It was especially obvious because we had a HD pic (Boston)
>> and a SD pic (St.Louis) for direct comparison.
>> Since HD is always widescreen, some just assume that if it is
>> widescreen, must be HD and don't question why it looks so bad.
>>
>> Jeff B
>
> I got the games in HD here near Boston. Picture was 720P and looked
> very good for all 4 games.
Well, if you are in Boston, it probably would have looked good on an old B&W
with rabbit ears and a snowy picture that faded in and out, or looked even
better on the radio!
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Home Theatre > HDTV > NLCS/World Series in low definition
There are 1019 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 01:00 envolva won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 random1283 won the Freshman badge
- 08:48 Porksmuggler won the Sophmore badge
- 08:15 joshthor won the Sophmore badge
- 01:00 asianette won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 L O B O won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 kennaki won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 viktor911 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 pkw4 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 tommy indanus won the Freshman badge