Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AFC Game on FOX ** NOT ** True HDTV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:02:10 PM

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

I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.

In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?

Ron Bennett

More about : afc game fox true hdtv

Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:04:17 PM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:

> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD
> picture for many of their football games. This one is noticeably
> poor, not a good plug for HD. From what I have read (including
> postings from people who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has
> bandwidth issues at the uplink (to the satellite) end.

What I noticed was that the sharpest truest HD picture was when they
were showing the broadcast booth instead of the field.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:06:33 PM

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

Ron Bennett wrote:
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett

The main cameras look good, some of the wide angle cameras did not look as
crisp.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:09:32 PM

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

I assume you're talking about the NFC Championship game in Philly. I'm
watching it on Cincinnati's FOX OTA and it looks awesome, definitely true
HD. Some of the cameras look better than others like usual but most of it is
very, very good.


"Ron Bennett" <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote in message
news:ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net...
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:30:43 PM

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

Ron Bennett wrote:
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett

I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD picture
for many of their football games. This one is noticeably poor, not a
good plug for HD. From what I have read (including postings from people
who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has bandwidth issues at the uplink
(to the satellite) end. They are filtering and compressing the picture
way too much. Picture is a lot better than SD, but don't expect a
showpiece picture quality for the Superbowl unless Fox makes changes
before then. And no, this is NOT a 720p vs 1080i issue.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 8:05:15 PM

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

In article <tamdna_v34AzimncRVn-3w@comcast.com>, afiggatt@comcast.net
says...
>
>
>Ron Bennett wrote:
>> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>>
>> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>>
>> Ron Bennett
>
> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD picture
>for many of their football games. This one is noticeably poor, not a
>good plug for HD. From what I have read (including postings from people
>who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has bandwidth issues at the uplink
>(to the satellite) end. They are filtering and compressing the picture
>way too much. Picture is a lot better than SD, but don't expect a
>showpiece picture quality for the Superbowl unless Fox makes changes
>before then. And no, this is NOT a 720p vs 1080i issue.

Well, that explains why there is lot of artifacting too...

FOX should be ashamed of broadcasting such a lousy HDTV picture.

Ron
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:28:28 PM

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

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
>> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD
>>picture for many of their football games. This one is noticeably
>>poor, not a good plug for HD. From what I have read (including
>>postings from people who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has
>>bandwidth issues at the uplink (to the satellite) end.
>
>
> What I noticed was that the sharpest truest HD picture was when they
> were showing the broadcast booth instead of the field.

What was weird about it was the cameras at the ends of the field
looked ok, but the camera or cameras from the sides of the field which
show the wide field overview of the plays were noticeably soft and
occasionally had shimmering effects. If they can get all the field
cameras up to the same level as the end ones, the superbowl will be ok
picture wise. Still soft in detail due to bandwidth and filtering, but
better than the NFC Championship.

Alan F
January 23, 2005 11:49:35 PM

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

I watched part of the Eagles game on Comcast cable and, apart from the
appalling
number of advertisements which made most of the transmission irritatingly
unwatchable, the quality of the picture was superb. How pleasant it would
have been without all the unecessary statistics plastered across half of the
screen and other "cute" electronic gismos which detracted so badly from this
viewers pleasure.

Having given up on the Eagles match, later, at the behest of my wife who is,
for some weird reason totally beyond my comprehension,
an American Football fan, I then tried to receive the OTA HD broadcast from
our Harrisburg, Pa. tv station, WHPTV
channnel 21-1 for the Steelers game but my Samsung tuner only showed me a
"No Service" icon. All other channels from the H'burg area were coming in
well, just the WHPY station was off.

In the interests of marital harmony, I emailed the Technical manager and he
told me they were transmitting at 100% power. Earlier in the week I was
able to receive this station with no problem. Unfortunately, the "regular"
OTA analogue signal was of poor quality when enlarged on a 42" widescreen
monitor, and the quality of the picture of same programme on Comcast's
channel 4 was so bad it was pointless watching it..

Can anyone suggest a reason as to why my tuner did not pull in the HD
transmission from OTA? I tried rememorizing the various channels this
machine can pull in and also dialled in the channel using the remote's
numerical pad, all to no avail.

The worst of this is I now have to get into bed with a wife who is a
Steelers
fan.

Geoff


"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U5ydnccFDLXN3GncRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Paul Kienitz wrote:
>> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD
>>>picture for many of their football games. This one is noticeably
>>>poor, not a good plug for HD. From what I have read (including
>>>postings from people who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has
>>>bandwidth issues at the uplink (to the satellite) end.
>>
>>
>> What I noticed was that the sharpest truest HD picture was when they
>> were showing the broadcast booth instead of the field.
>
> What was weird about it was the cameras at the ends of the field looked
> ok, but the camera or cameras from the sides of the field which show the
> wide field overview of the plays were noticeably soft and occasionally had
> shimmering effects. If they can get all the field cameras up to the same
> level as the end ones, the superbowl will be ok picture wise. Still soft
> in detail due to bandwidth and filtering, but better than the NFC
> Championship.
>
> Alan F
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:08:07 AM

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

Ron Bennett Wrote:
> Well, that explains why there is lot of artifacting too...
> FOX should be ashamed of broadcasting such a lousy HDTV picture.
>
> Ron

Mine was in true 720p, was uninterrupted and 100% flawless.


--
charper1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by charper1
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:08:08 AM

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

In article <charper1.1jccem@satelliteguys.us> charper1
<charper1.1jccem@satelliteguys.us> writes:


>Ron Bennett Wrote:
>> Well, that explains why there is lot of artifacting too...
>> FOX should be ashamed of broadcasting such a lousy HDTV picture.

>Mine was in true 720p, was uninterrupted and 100% flawless.

Ours in Houston, TX (OTA) was also in true 720p. It was marginally good
although one of the cameras appeared to have continuing trouble holding
focus.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:39:31 AM

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

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:02:10 -0500, Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:

>I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
>In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
>Ron Bennett

Unwatchable in SF bay area. Signal doesn't last 5 seconds before it
breaks up. Fox, Hd, what Hd?
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:39:32 AM

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

Picture is fine here in LA area -- not as good as CBS, but certainly
much better than SD.

"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
news:41f41969.178479421@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:02:10 -0500, Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:

>I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
>In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
>Ron Bennett

Unwatchable in SF bay area. Signal doesn't last 5 seconds before it
breaks up. Fox, Hd, what Hd?
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 12:39:32 AM

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

Diver wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:02:10 -0500, Ron Bennett
> <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station)
>> via Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly
>> does NOT appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't
>> when I watch Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has
>> better hardware?) and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a
>> general lack of detail.
>>
>> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really
>> be?
>>
>> Ron Bennett
>
> Unwatchable in SF bay area. Signal doesn't last 5 seconds before it
> breaks up. Fox, Hd, what Hd?

Worked just fine for me in the east bay.....
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:05:36 AM

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

I am a DirectTv customer with FOX NY in HD. Picture was fantastic the whole
game. No problems at all. Maybe it is not the FOX feed, but your
provider's transmission of the signal.

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:nb6dnSWL3qaUoWncRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> Ron Bennett wrote:
> > I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> > Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> > appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> > Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> > and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
> >
> > In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> > to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
> >
> > Ron Bennett
>
> The main cameras look good, some of the wide angle cameras did not look as
> crisp.
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:13:31 AM

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

charper1 wrote:
> Ron Bennett Wrote:
> > Well, that explains why there is lot of artifacting too...
> > FOX should be ashamed of broadcasting such a lousy HDTV picture.
> >
> > Ron
>
> Mine was in true 720p, was uninterrupted and 100% flawless.
Same here with ota in Roanoke, Virginia.

Keith
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:42:03 AM

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

In article <ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net>, Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:

> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett
>

And you pay how much for cable? OTA here in the Bay Area is just short
of awesome.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 2:03:22 AM

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

"Geoff" <engconn@comcast.net> wrote in message news:p 9qdnbMAAZ-syWncRVn-
> Having given up on the Eagles match, later, at the behest of my wife who
is,
> for some weird reason totally beyond my comprehension,
> an American Football fan

you really can't figure it out?
January 24, 2005 2:59:20 AM

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

Comcast is fu**ing you. It's them,. not fox. Get an antenna for local or
go sat...but get OFF Comcrap.

"Ron Bennett" <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote in message
news:ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net...
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:07:15 AM

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

I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was rock
solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have had
problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today. Must be
the atmospherics. Weird!

"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
news:41f41969.178479421@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:02:10 -0500, Ron Bennett
> <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>>Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>>appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>>Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>>and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>>
>>In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>>to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>>
>>Ron Bennett
>
> Unwatchable in SF bay area. Signal doesn't last 5 seconds before it
> breaks up. Fox, Hd, what Hd?
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:07:16 AM

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

In article <T_WId.14286$wZ2.3078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Phil Ross
<paross@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was rock
> solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have had
> problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today. Must be
> the atmospherics. Weird!
>
Looked great for me as well in San Jose OTA and I've never had
problems with KTVU. I guess cable just isn't what it's cracked up to
be.

--
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.

My address has been anti-spammed.
Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
January 24, 2005 8:49:39 AM

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

I have a Samsung 360 receiver and have the same situation with channel 21 in
DFW, it receives the analog but not the digital. When I first got the
receiver it would get 21-1 but somehow lost it. I rescanned the OTA
channels without success. It isn't a big deal since it wasn't something I
watched, I believe it was local weather radar.

"Geoff" <engconn@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p 9qdnbMAAZ-syWncRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> I watched part of the Eagles game on Comcast cable and, apart from the
> appalling
> number of advertisements which made most of the transmission irritatingly
> unwatchable, the quality of the picture was superb. How pleasant it would
> have been without all the unecessary statistics plastered across half of
the
> screen and other "cute" electronic gismos which detracted so badly from
this
> viewers pleasure.
>
> Having given up on the Eagles match, later, at the behest of my wife who
is,
> for some weird reason totally beyond my comprehension,
> an American Football fan, I then tried to receive the OTA HD broadcast
from
> our Harrisburg, Pa. tv station, WHPTV
> channnel 21-1 for the Steelers game but my Samsung tuner only showed me a
> "No Service" icon. All other channels from the H'burg area were coming in
> well, just the WHPY station was off.
>
> In the interests of marital harmony, I emailed the Technical manager and
he
> told me they were transmitting at 100% power. Earlier in the week I was
> able to receive this station with no problem. Unfortunately, the
"regular"
> OTA analogue signal was of poor quality when enlarged on a 42" widescreen
> monitor, and the quality of the picture of same programme on Comcast's
> channel 4 was so bad it was pointless watching it..
>
> Can anyone suggest a reason as to why my tuner did not pull in the HD
> transmission from OTA? I tried rememorizing the various channels this
> machine can pull in and also dialled in the channel using the remote's
> numerical pad, all to no avail.
>
> The worst of this is I now have to get into bed with a wife who is a
> Steelers
> fan.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> "Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:U5ydnccFDLXN3GncRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> > Paul Kienitz wrote:
> >> Alan Figgatt wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD
> >>>picture for many of their football games. This one is noticeably
> >>>poor, not a good plug for HD. From what I have read (including
> >>>postings from people who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has
> >>>bandwidth issues at the uplink (to the satellite) end.
> >>
> >>
> >> What I noticed was that the sharpest truest HD picture was when they
> >> were showing the broadcast booth instead of the field.
> >
> > What was weird about it was the cameras at the ends of the field looked
> > ok, but the camera or cameras from the sides of the field which show the
> > wide field overview of the plays were noticeably soft and occasionally
had
> > shimmering effects. If they can get all the field cameras up to the same
> > level as the end ones, the superbowl will be ok picture wise. Still soft
> > in detail due to bandwidth and filtering, but better than the NFC
> > Championship.
> >
> > Alan F
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
January 24, 2005 8:56:25 AM

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

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tamdna_v34AzimncRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Ron Bennett wrote:
> > I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> > Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> > appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> > Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> > and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
> >
> > In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> > to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
> >
> > Ron Bennett
>
> I think it is true 720p, but Fox has not had a really sharp HD picture
> for many of their football games. This one is noticeably poor, not a
> good plug for HD. From what I have read (including postings from people
> who claim to be Fox engineers), Fox has bandwidth issues at the uplink
> (to the satellite) end. They are filtering and compressing the picture
> way too much. Picture is a lot better than SD, but don't expect a
> showpiece picture quality for the Superbowl unless Fox makes changes
> before then. And no, this is NOT a 720p vs 1080i issue.
>
> Alan F

During the regular season all the NFL games on FOX were HD and there were
probably at least 5 games on at any one time and sharing the available
bandwidth. Yesterday there was one game on. Hard to see how one game would
produce bandwidth issues







>









>
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 9:50:09 AM

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

Man, it's amazing how conditions change around the country.

The NFC HD broadcast here in central pa was PERFECT. The sound, the
picture, it was ALL incredible. It was a fantastic viewing experience. I
was getting 5.1 dolby sound over my speakers and it was great. Sub was
pumpin', I felt like I was right THERE at Philly.

The AFC was a little pixelated at times on CBS. But still GREAT. Sound
wasn't NEARLY as good, but still a great event/broadcast.

I'm also watching via Comcast here in Harrisburg pa. I don't think this is
Fox's problem...prolly comcast's.

Don


"Ron Bennett" <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote in message
news:ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net...
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 9:50:35 AM

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

Bingo.

Don

"Spencer Rogers" <Spencer.Rogers@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:K7qdneqbF5GL-2ncRVn-rw@rcn.net...
>I am a DirectTv customer with FOX NY in HD. Picture was fantastic the
>whole
> game. No problems at all. Maybe it is not the FOX feed, but your
> provider's transmission of the signal.
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 6:26:19 PM

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

In Austin, the FOX game picture was just OK, for the most part. Certainly,
it did not compare well with the second game from CBS, where the picture was
stunning. At first, I thought FOX was having snow and wind problems, as the
picture seemed to be breaking up in crowd shots with blowing snow. And
there were focus problems with one or more cameras. All in all, better than
SD but not great, not up to the FOX average for football games, even.

And when are the networks going to catch onto the idea that, next to the
"booth cam", the ONE camera that really needs to be HD is the "blimp cam"?
Those SD blimp shots are garbage!

mack
austin


"Ron Bennett" <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote in message
news:ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net...
> I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
> Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
> appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
> Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
> and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>
> In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
> to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>
> Ron Bennett
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 9:24:21 PM

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

"Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:230120052041348510%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> In article <T_WId.14286$wZ2.3078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Phil Ross
> <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was
>> rock
>> solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have had
>> problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today. Must
>> be
>> the atmospherics. Weird!
>>
> Looked great for me as well in San Jose OTA and I've never had
> problems with KTVU. I guess cable just isn't what it's cracked up to
> be.

FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD signal.

Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....

>
> --
> Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
>
> My address has been anti-spammed.
> Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 9:26:20 PM

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

"Spencer Rogers" <Spencer.Rogers@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:K7qdneqbF5GL-2ncRVn-rw@rcn.net...
>I am a DirectTv customer with FOX NY in HD. Picture was fantastic the
>whole
> game. No problems at all. Maybe it is not the FOX feed, but your
> provider's transmission of the signal.

My provider was OTA FOX broadcast.


>
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nb6dnSWL3qaUoWncRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>> Ron Bennett wrote:
>> > I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>> > Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>> > appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>> > Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>> > and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>> >
>> > In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>> > to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>> >
>> > Ron Bennett
>>
>> The main cameras look good, some of the wide angle cameras did not look
>> as
>> crisp.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 5:42:03 AM

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:
> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:230120052041348510%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
> > In article <T_WId.14286$wZ2.3078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Phil Ross
> > <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was
> >> rock
> >> solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have
> >> had problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today.
> >> Must be
> >> the atmospherics. Weird!
> >>
> > Looked great for me as well in San Jose OTA and I've never had
> > problems with KTVU. I guess cable just isn't what it's cracked up to
> > be.
>
> FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD signal.
>
> Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....
>
> >
> > --
> > Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
> >
> > My address has been anti-spammed.
> > Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.


Not true, Cox carries them in HD in CT.
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 5:42:04 AM

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

<cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20050124214203.900$fL@newsreader.com...
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:
>> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:230120052041348510%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
>> > In article <T_WId.14286$wZ2.3078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Phil Ross
>> > <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was
>> >> rock
>> >> solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have
>> >> had problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today.
>> >> Must be
>> >> the atmospherics. Weird!
>> >>
>> > Looked great for me as well in San Jose OTA and I've never had
>> > problems with KTVU. I guess cable just isn't what it's cracked up to
>> > be.
>>
>> FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD signal.
>>
>> Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
>> >
>> > My address has been anti-spammed.
>> > Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
>
>
> Not true, Cox carries them in HD in CT.
> Chip

I stand corrected, as I found out after I posted as well! Comcast where I
am does not carry it (though OTA works well).

>
> --
> -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 5:42:05 AM

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

L Alpert wrote:
>>>FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD signal.
>>>
>>>Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....
>>>
>>Not true, Cox carries them in HD in CT.
>>Chip
>
> I stand corrected, as I found out after I posted as well! Comcast where I
> am does not carry it (though OTA works well).

Many local cable companies carry the local digital OTA stations, but
you have to have the HD set top box or a cable card to receive it. But
it can be a very mixed bag in what cable companies carry what in
different territories. Comcast in Reston, VA carries the local digital
(which means true HD when the local station is showing the network HD
feed) channels for ABS, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, but does not have UPN, so I
do get 5 out of the 6 national broadcast networks. Hopefully they will
add UPN sometime soon - along with HDNET, etc.

Other local cable operations, mainly the more rural outfits, may not
yet have any HD channels at all. This is part of what I think confuses
people about HD, the complicated path to getting HD channels - OTA,
cable, satellite.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:49:43 PM

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

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:K-mdnVyFR42EUWjcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>L Alpert wrote:
>>>>FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD
>>>>signal.
>>>>
>>>>Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....
>>>>
>>>Not true, Cox carries them in HD in CT.
>>>Chip
>>
>> I stand corrected, as I found out after I posted as well! Comcast where
>> I am does not carry it (though OTA works well).
>
> Many local cable companies carry the local digital OTA stations, but
> you have to have the HD set top box or a cable card to receive it.

Which I have the STB5100 (soon to be the dual tuner DVR), though I get all
locals OTA, the cable I like for the SHO/HBO/STARZ/INHD/ etc....

I just hate commercials that much!

> But
> it can be a very mixed bag in what cable companies carry what in
> different territories. Comcast in Reston, VA carries the local digital
> (which means true HD when the local station is showing the network HD
> feed) channels for ABS, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, but does not have UPN, so I
> do get 5 out of the 6 national broadcast networks. Hopefully they will
> add UPN sometime soon - along with HDNET, etc.

We currently get ABC/CBS/PBS/NBC, no WB or UPN (though again, my OTA pulls
them in just fine)...

>
> Other local cable operations, mainly the more rural outfits, may not
> yet have any HD channels at all. This is part of what I think confuses
> people about HD, the complicated path to getting HD channels - OTA,
> cable, satellite.

Bandwidth.....rebuilding a cable system to increase bandwidth is expensive.
Small population densities will get it last. My in-laws street was wired
for cable only about 6 years ago, and they are in a fairly well populated
area except for their 2 mile long dead end road.

>
> Alan F
>
>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 9:59:56 PM

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

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:39:31 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:02:10 -0500, Ron Bennett
><bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station) via
>>Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does NOT
>>appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I watch
>>Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better hardware?)
>>and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of detail.
>>
>>In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting it
>>to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really be?
>>
>>Ron Bennett
>
>Unwatchable in SF bay area. Signal doesn't last 5 seconds before it
>breaks up. Fox, Hd, what Hd?

After I read some of the posts I noticed that some ppl were getting a
good signal so I dismissed the problem as having the error at the
source. I respositioned my antennae and the picture cleared up just
fine. First time I've had to reposition in about two months.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:12:00 PM

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

Mack McKinnon wrote:
> In Austin, the FOX game picture was just OK, for the most part.
Certainly,
> it did not compare well with the second game from CBS, where the
picture was
> stunning. At first, I thought FOX was having snow and wind problems,
as the
> picture seemed to be breaking up in crowd shots with blowing snow.
And
> there were focus problems with one or more cameras. All in all,
better than
> SD but not great, not up to the FOX average for football games, even.
>
> And when are the networks going to catch onto the idea that, next to
the
> "booth cam", the ONE camera that really needs to be HD is the "blimp
cam"?
> Those SD blimp shots are garbage!
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
> "Ron Bennett" <bennett@wyomissing.com> wrote in message
> news:ct13b6$h93@library1.airnews.net...
> > I'm watching the AFC Fox Game right now (Philadelphia, PA station)
via
> > Comcast ... the signal may be 720p, but the picture certainly does
NOT
> > appear to be 720p ... the grass seems blurry (it doesn't when I
watch
> > Monday Night Football on ABC; perhaps ABC just has better
hardware?)
> > and edges aren't clearly defined; there is a general lack of
detail.
> >
> > In short, is FOX filming the game at 480p (480i?) and upconverting
it
> > to 720p so FOX can claim it's HDTV when the picture may not really
be?
> >
> > Ron Bennett
> >
January 31, 2005 4:22:04 PM

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

On 25 Jan 2005 02:42:03 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

>"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:
>> "Otto Pylot" <otto@bogus.address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:230120052041348510%otto@bogus.address.invalid...
>> > In article <T_WId.14286$wZ2.3078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Phil Ross
>> > <paross@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I watched OTA in San Jose (45 miles south of San Francisco) and it was
>> >> rock
>> >> solid for me on both of my HD receivers (Sony TV and LG DVR). I have
>> >> had problems with KTVU/Fox in the past, but it looked just fine today.
>> >> Must be
>> >> the atmospherics. Weird!
>> >>
>> > Looked great for me as well in San Jose OTA and I've never had
>> > problems with KTVU. I guess cable just isn't what it's cracked up to
>> > be.
>>
>> FOX, from what I understand, is OTA only. No one carries their HD signal.
>>
>> Also, Comcast HD stations work quite well for me....
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before.
>> >
>> > My address has been anti-spammed.
>> > Please reply to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
>
>
>Not true, Cox carries them in HD in CT.
>Chip
So does Comcast in Massachusetts
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
!