Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ESPNHD ever go 16x9?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 1:41:10 AM

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

I've only had my TV for a weekend (43" Pioneer) and while the picture is
spectacular, I have to ask long-timers: Does ESPNHD ever show
programming in 16x9 format or is it all 4:3 with "banner ads" padding
the sides?


Jim
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."

More about : espnhd 16x9

Anonymous
November 22, 2004 1:51:27 AM

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

Yes, they show football games in 16:9. Their Sunday night game --
tonight -- will be 16:9. Also, the studio portion of Sports Center is
sometimes 16:9.

mack
austin


"Jim Hill" <jimhill@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:cnr5i6$4a6$1@iruka.swcp.com...
> I've only had my TV for a weekend (43" Pioneer) and while the picture is
> spectacular, I have to ask long-timers: Does ESPNHD ever show
> programming in 16x9 format or is it all 4:3 with "banner ads" padding
> the sides?
>
>
> Jim
> --
> "Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 1:51:28 AM

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

Yes, when the programming is in HD. Why would you want to see a SD
program stretched into 16x9? They clearly state when the programming is
in HD or not.


--
charper1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by charper1
Related resources
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 1:51:28 AM

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

Mack McKinnon (MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Yes, they show football games in 16:9. Their Sunday night game --
> tonight -- will be 16:9. Also, the studio portion of Sports Center is
> sometimes 16:9.

Actually, except for 4:3 highlights and some interviews where they use
another studio, both SportsCenter and all NFL programming (the Sunday
night game, NFL Live, NFL Prime Time, etc.) are in full-time 16:9 HD.

I'm hoping they get another HD studio built out so that Baseball Tonight
will be HD next year.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LoveRanking.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 1:51:29 AM

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

charper1 wrote:
> Yes, when the programming is in HD. Why would you want to see a SD
> program stretched into 16x9? They clearly state when the programming
> is in HD or not.

I think the original poster was more making a statement about the overall
lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than suggesting that 4:3
SD material be stretched to 16:9.

I'm by no means a sports fan, but even if I was I'd recognize how much of a
waste of bandwidth this channel truly is.

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 3:47:52 AM

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

Yeah. I am pissed. Most of their NBA games have not been in HD. NBA TV is
showing the Knicks now and I can't even see that in HD. I guess it's
because I am in CT so it must be blocked, but damn...

--
This site exposes them all!

www.unclet.netfirms.com

Damn toms!
"tooloud" <nospam.jake@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:30cn3hF2v83rjU1@uni-berlin.de...
> charper1 wrote:
> > Yes, when the programming is in HD. Why would you want to see a SD
> > program stretched into 16x9? They clearly state when the programming
> > is in HD or not.
>
> I think the original poster was more making a statement about the overall
> lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than suggesting that
4:3
> SD material be stretched to 16:9.
>
> I'm by no means a sports fan, but even if I was I'd recognize how much of
a
> waste of bandwidth this channel truly is.
>
> --
> tooloud
> Remove nothing to reply...
>
>
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:09:57 AM

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

charper1 wrote:
>
>Yes, when the programming is in HD.

Which, one would think, would be during all programming hours. Else
they ought to consider calling it "ESPNSomeHD".

>Why would you want to see a SD program stretched into 16x9?

I wouldn't, but then, I also don't want to see an SD program in 4:3 on
one of the "High Definition" channels for which I now pay extra. I
guess I'm funny that way.


Jim
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:09:58 AM

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

Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >Why would you want to see a SD program stretched into 16x9?
>
> I wouldn't, but then, I also don't want to see an SD program in 4:3 on
> one of the "High Definition" channels for which I now pay extra.

First, if you have DirecTV, stop paying extra. Go to their website and
delete the HD Pack, then re-add it. You'll get it for free for 6 months.

Second, it will be a long time before everything is HD, so I don't mind
watching 4:3 sports upconverted to 720p and sent at 15Mbps, which gives
me an actual quality of 640x480, and puts the SD DirecTV ESPN feed of
2-3Mbps 480x480 with 240x240 chroma to shame.

--
Jeff Rife | /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
SPAM bait: | \ / against HTML e-mail
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | X and USENET posts
spam@ftc.gov | / \
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:10:41 AM

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

tooloud wrote:

>I think the original poster was more making a statement about the overall
>lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than suggesting that 4:3
>SD material be stretched to 16:9.

Dingdingding! You're a winner.


Jim, diggin' the TV nonetheless
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:10:42 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:10:41 +0000 (UTC), jimhill@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
wrote:

>tooloud wrote:
>
>>I think the original poster was more making a statement about the overall
>>lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than suggesting that 4:3
>>SD material be stretched to 16:9.
>
>Dingdingding! You're a winner.

Yup. I have ESPN-HD in my weekend house and, so far, I've seen about
2 hours of HD since I got it in July.

Kal
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:10:43 AM

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

Kalman Rubinson (kr4@nyu.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Yup. I have ESPN-HD in my weekend house and, so far, I've seen about
> 2 hours of HD since I got it in July.

Boy, you must not spend much time there. ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
beginning of July.

--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
SPAM bait: | over in Jersey."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
spam@ftc.gov | that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 6:08:31 AM

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

Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:10:41 +0000 (UTC), jimhill@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
> wrote:
>
> >tooloud wrote:
> >
> >>I think the original poster was more making a statement about the
> >>overall lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than
> >>suggesting that 4:3 SD material be stretched to 16:9.
> >
> >Dingdingding! You're a winner.
>
> Yup. I have ESPN-HD in my weekend house and, so far, I've seen about
> 2 hours of HD since I got it in July.
>
> Kal

You don't watch ESPN-HD very much, do you?
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
November 22, 2004 6:13:37 AM

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

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:25:59 -0500, Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:10:41 +0000 (UTC), jimhill@swcp.com (Jim Hill)
>wrote:
>
>>tooloud wrote:
>>
>>>I think the original poster was more making a statement about the overall
>>>lack of actual HD programming on the ESPNHD channel than suggesting that 4:3
>>>SD material be stretched to 16:9.
>>
>>Dingdingding! You're a winner.
>
>Yup. I have ESPN-HD in my weekend house and, so far, I've seen about
>2 hours of HD since I got it in July.
>
>Kal

There's lots of stuff in HD. How about tonight's football game?
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 8:08:09 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

>ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
>per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
>beginning of July.

That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.


Jim
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 8:08:10 AM

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

Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
> >per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
> >beginning of July.
>
> That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
> 24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.

Why? It's better than any broadcast network, and even better in some ways
than HDNet, Discovery HD Theater, etc., *if* you take into account facts
like HDNet Movies showing each movie about 3 times during a 24 hour period.

Showtime-HD and HBO-HD show lots of 4:3 and upconverts. HDNet, HDNet
Movies, INHD, Bravo-HD, and Discovery HD Theater all repeat the same
programming several times during each 24 hour period. TNT-HD has about
3-4 hours/day of true HD, and everything else is stretched to 16:9.

And, let's play a game: you are now CEO of ESPN networks. What will you
show on ESPN-HD to allow it to achieve 100% true HD 24/7?

--
Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
SPAM bait: | Turn, turn, turn.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Tell us the lesson
spam@ftc.gov | That we should learn"
| -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:41:43 PM

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

On 22 Nov 2004 03:08:31 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

>You don't watch ESPN-HD very much, do you?

No reason to. Aside from auto racing, billiards and poker, I rarely
see anything on it worth watching. Oh, that includes ALL the
commentary. I caught one preseason pro football game and one college
game. Ho hum.

Kal
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:43:10 PM

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

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:13:37 GMT, Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:25:59 -0500, Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu>
>wrote:
>>Yup. I have ESPN-HD in my weekend house and, so far, I've seen about
>>2 hours of HD since I got it in July.

>There's lots of stuff in HD. How about tonight's football game?

Note that I get ESPN-HD in my weekend house which is used, usually,
from Friday evening through Sunday afternoon. Perhaps ESPN-HD is
better at other hours or days but I don't see it.

Kal
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 7:14:01 PM

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

"Jim Hill" <jimhill@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:cnrs7p$cv8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> >ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
> >per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
> >beginning of July.
>
> That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
> 24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.

Well, then, you must be REALLY pissed about everything on TV OTHER than
ESPN, since the vast majority of it is still broadcast in standard
definition. I think ESPN is doing a hell of a lot better than most of the
networks, especially when you consider that they live by showing short
replay segments, some of which are in HD, but most SD. Add commercials and
you have constant change from HD to SD and back again. Not like playing
movies. Yet, they use those "ESPN" bars on each side to make the
transitions pretty smooth. And their HD, such as Sunday Night Football and
Sports Center from the HD set, looks stupendous!

mack
austin
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 10:49:27 PM

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

Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Well, no. I'm not pissed about any SD network broadcasting SD. I'm a
> little bummed out that one of the HD stations for which I am paying
> extra is broadcasting SD.

"One of"? I guess you don't get HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, Starz!-HD, or TNT-HD.
All of them carry a lot of SD.

You should also be upset about ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., ever broadcasting
any SD, since they have just as much HD-capability as ESPN. ABC in
particular is practically criminal, since MNF is the *only* sporting event
in HD on that network. It's also the only ABC show that has any part of it
outside of primetime and is in HD. Even NBC does better than that (although
not much).

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 3:05:03 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
>Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> >ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
>> >per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
>> >beginning of July.
>>
>> That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
>> 24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.
>
>Why?

Because having eaten the expense of the HDTV, the HDTiVo, and the
DirecTVHD package, I'd like all my programming to use that gear to its
extreme. I know, I know, that's not a rational position. But HD just
looks so _good_!

>And, let's play a game: you are now CEO of ESPN networks. What will you
>show on ESPN-HD to allow it to achieve 100% true HD 24/7?

Bantamweight boxing. Lots and lots of bantamweight boxing.


Jim
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 3:05:04 AM

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

Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
> >> 24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because having eaten the expense of the HDTV, the HDTiVo, and the
> DirecTVHD package, I'd like all my programming to use that gear to its
> extreme. I know, I know, that's not a rational position. But HD just
> looks so _good_!

Again, complain about all the *other* networks. At least ESPN gives you
30% or so full HD.

> >And, let's play a game: you are now CEO of ESPN networks. What will you
> >show on ESPN-HD to allow it to achieve 100% true HD 24/7?
>
> Bantamweight boxing. Lots and lots of bantamweight boxing.

First, there isn't that much available. Second, how will you get the
boxing people to pay for all those cameras when they don't even have the
money to pay ESPN for carriage? ESPN won't pay for the cameras unless
they get some ROI, and--right now, anyway--that means baseball, football,
basketball and their most watched studio shows get HD priority.

But, if the Pro Bowlers Tour (or some other marginally rated sport,
although the PBA *was* kicking the NHL around in the ratings last year)
said "we are going to start filming in HD with cameras we buy...will you
carry it?", you better believe ESPN would do it.

--
Jeff Rife | "Man, I thought Ultimate Robot Fighting was real,
SPAM bait: | like pro wrestling, but it turns out it's fixed,
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | like boxing."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:04:36 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
>Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Well, no. I'm not pissed about any SD network broadcasting SD. I'm a
>> little bummed out that one of the HD stations for which I am paying
>> extra is broadcasting SD.
>
>"One of"? I guess you don't get HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, Starz!-HD, or TNT-HD.
>All of them carry a lot of SD.

ObOtto: "Drag."

I haven't checked much. The setup just went live Friday night and this
week is unfortunately being consumed by "Let's get this all done by, oh,
Thanksgiving" tasks.

And Usenet.


Jim
--
"Lord, give me strength, at least until 12:01 pm EST, 20 Jan 2009."
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:04:37 AM

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

Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I haven't checked much. The setup just went live Friday night

Then, maybe you should give it more than 3 days for checking. :) 

For those of us with HDTV for 2+ years, the current crop of HD is a dream.
For others (not me) who have had HDTV for 4 or more years, they used to
look forward to 4 hours of HD each *year*, so I'm sure the 50 or so hours
of HD every day to choose from isn't getting too many complaints.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostPassword.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 12:02:23 PM

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

if you're waiting for billiards and poker to be in hd, you'll be waiting a
while...they'll be in hd right after trading spaces switches over


"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:hi54q0hepsao9m1978jrd2mtujev9vhv3q@4ax.com...
> On 22 Nov 2004 03:08:31 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>
> >You don't watch ESPN-HD very much, do you?
>
> No reason to. Aside from auto racing, billiards and poker, I rarely
> see anything on it worth watching. Oh, that includes ALL the
> commentary. I caught one preseason pro football game and one college
> game. Ho hum.
>
> Kal
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 6:16:39 PM

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

"oscargrouch" <leeYOURjackVIRGINITYmo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:30jik3F30h5evU7@uni-berlin.de...
> if you're waiting for billiards and poker to be in hd, you'll be waiting a
> while...they'll be in hd right after trading spaces switches over

"Trading Spaces" is in HD now, on Discovery HD.

mack
austin
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 6:28:37 PM

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

Bottom line is they all have to start somewhere and all you are
suggesting that these channels wait untill everything is 100% HD before
they go to air, but in the same breath you bitch about channels NOT
being on-air. Get real, this stuff takes time and MAJOR money to get
enough hardware to be able to cover the fast global world of sports.


--
charper1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by charper1
November 25, 2004 9:31:24 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c0da4a42febfc6598993e@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> since MNF is the *only* sporting event
> in HD on that network. It's also the

They showed some NBA playoffs in HDTV.

Guess those HDTV trucks get freed up after the NFL season.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:32:15 PM

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

ESPN HD used to stretch all their SD programs to 16x9. When all the
atheletes were stretched sideway, everyone looked obese. They
probably thought that would be more pleasing to the obese Americans.
They added the side banners only starting a few months ago. Now the
sidebars show some HD patterns which provide a very high contrast to
the SD contents at the middle of the screen. The viewer can tell that
the station is doing HD broadcast, only that the program material is
not HD.

charper1 <charper1.1g3fuw@satelliteguys.us> wrote in message news:<charper1.1g3fuw@satelliteguys.us>...
> Yes, when the programming is in HD. Why would you want to see a SD
> program stretched into 16x9? They clearly state when the programming is
> in HD or not.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:43:41 PM

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

If you compare movie or documentary production to sports broadcasting,
ESPN gets an extremely easy job. All they need is equipment and being
there at the event. Then they get something to show a few minutes
later.

Imagine the cameramen have to travel to a rain forest or under the
ocean, the editor has to cut all the pieces together to make a nature
program. Even a sitcom in studio requires someone to write the funny
script and some actors to play it out. Given that, it is a shame that
ESPN is not on HD 7/24 yet.


Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c0b556ee04190ad989934@news.nabs.net>...
> Jim Hill (jimhill@swcp.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > >ESPN has averaged about 10 hours
> > >per *day* of true 16:9 HD since the SportsCenter set was finished at the
> > >beginning of July.
> >
> > That'd be really cool if there were 10 hours in a day. Since there are
> > 24, though, I must register Deep Disapproval, with a hrrumph.
>
> Why? It's better than any broadcast network, and even better in some ways
> than HDNet, Discovery HD Theater, etc., *if* you take into account facts
> like HDNet Movies showing each movie about 3 times during a 24 hour period.
>
> Showtime-HD and HBO-HD show lots of 4:3 and upconverts. HDNet, HDNet
> Movies, INHD, Bravo-HD, and Discovery HD Theater all repeat the same
> programming several times during each 24 hour period. TNT-HD has about
> 3-4 hours/day of true HD, and everything else is stretched to 16:9.
>
> And, let's play a game: you are now CEO of ESPN networks. What will you
> show on ESPN-HD to allow it to achieve 100% true HD 24/7?
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:45:04 AM

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

Caloonese (caloonese@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> If you compare movie or documentary production to sports broadcasting,
> ESPN gets an extremely easy job.

Actually, movies are the easiest thing for HD. They are already complex
to film/edit/etc., and nothing is going to change that, but converting to
HD is the work of less than a day after the final cut is available, and
it only needs to be done once.

> All they need is equipment and being
> there at the event.

"All they need"...funny. Obviously, you don't know how hard it is to
produce a 10-20 camera live event. Adding HD increases that complexity
by a decent amount (as well as by an order or two of cost magnitude).

> Imagine the cameramen have to travel to a rain forest or under the
> ocean, the editor has to cut all the pieces together to make a nature
> program. Even a sitcom in studio requires someone to write the funny
> script and some actors to play it out.

Big deal. As with movies, turning these into HD is trivial. The original
capture isn't, but it has *always* been of at least HD resolution, because
it uses 35mm film (except in very rare cases). Today, HD digital cameras
are used instead, but this just makes the editing even easier.

Live is so much harder, and ESPN is essentially a 90% "live" network.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/HighTech.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:19:13 PM

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

I am not saying live show operation is easy. I meant it is "easy" for
the ESPN producers to fill the 7/24 programming because you don't need
to come up with the contents. Yes, it takes a lot of work to capture
an event on tape, but the event itself isn't planned by ESPN. If you
broadcast three football games in a day, you've already got a very
full schedule. Imagine you have to fill the same amount of time with
comedy and drama etc.


Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1c1867dadb8ad8dc989962@news.nabs.net>...
> Caloonese (caloonese@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > If you compare movie or documentary production to sports broadcasting,
> > ESPN gets an extremely easy job.
>
> Actually, movies are the easiest thing for HD. They are already complex
> to film/edit/etc., and nothing is going to change that, but converting to
> HD is the work of less than a day after the final cut is available, and
> it only needs to be done once.
>
> > All they need is equipment and being
> > there at the event.
>
> "All they need"...funny. Obviously, you don't know how hard it is to
> produce a 10-20 camera live event. Adding HD increases that complexity
> by a decent amount (as well as by an order or two of cost magnitude).
>
> > Imagine the cameramen have to travel to a rain forest or under the
> > ocean, the editor has to cut all the pieces together to make a nature
> > program. Even a sitcom in studio requires someone to write the funny
> > script and some actors to play it out.
>
> Big deal. As with movies, turning these into HD is trivial. The original
> capture isn't, but it has *always* been of at least HD resolution, because
> it uses 35mm film (except in very rare cases). Today, HD digital cameras
> are used instead, but this just makes the editing even easier.
>
> Live is so much harder, and ESPN is essentially a 90% "live" network.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:25:12 PM

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

Caloonese (caloonese@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I am not saying live show operation is easy. I meant it is "easy" for
> the ESPN producers to fill the 7/24 programming because you don't need
> to come up with the contents.

Except that they *do* need to come up with the "contents". The recording
of HD for a show that isn't already being recording using an HD-resolution
device (35mm or HDCAM) isn't easy. You have to get HD cameras there, and
the number of $100,000 HD cameras is limted...for obvious reasons.

> If you
> broadcast three football games in a day, you've already got a very
> full schedule.

So, this takes care of about 16 Saturdays during the year. What about the
other 349 days?

Again, if you look, there is about 10 *hours* per day of true HD on ESPN-HD.
That's 7 hours more per day than every broadcast network, and is almost
as good as channels like HBO-HD and Showtime-HD, who don't need to constantly
find new HD content...old movies already converted to HD are fine for them
to run over...and over...and over.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TreeChainsaw....
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
!