OT NBC's High Definition coverage

Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to watch
the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the output is
extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem fine.

Mark_

On 2/13/06 4:03 AM, in article ,
"mark_digital©" wrote:

Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to watch
the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the output is
extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem fine.

Mark_


Wrong group. Try "alt.tv.tech.hdtv"...


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

mark_digital© wrote:
Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to
watch the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the
output is extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem fine.

Mark_

It even looks extremely sharpened on standard cable!
-The WORST Olympics picture I've ever seen.
Even the studio shots are horrible.
It makes me wonder if their system for down-sampling HD to standard is
somehow screwed up.
It's just really really bad to the point of serious distraction.
Did you see the "Flying Tomato's" hair last night, as it literally seemed to
flash on and off, as though it had white lights in it? Jeeeeez their images
are bad!

Mark² wrote:
mark_digital© wrote:
Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to
watch the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the
output is extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem
fine. Mark_

It even looks extremely sharpened on standard cable!
-The WORST Olympics picture I've ever seen.
Even the studio shots are horrible.
It makes me wonder if their system for down-sampling HD to standard is
somehow screwed up.
It's just really really bad to the point of serious distraction.
Did you see the "Flying Tomato's" hair last night, as it literally
seemed to flash on and off, as though it had white lights in it? Jeeeeez
their images are bad!


Sad to say that, whilst digital photography has improved the general
ability to take good images, digital television is currently giving us
some of the poorest quality TV we've has for a long while. One can only
hope that once all the standards are sorted out, and the standards
convertors are removed from the path, we will actually get some benefit.

Of course, the drastically larger number of channels at vastly poorer
artistic and technical quality is another issue!

David

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:55:23 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

It's just really really bad to the point of serious distraction.
Did you see the "Flying Tomato's" hair last night, as it literally
seemed to flash on and off, as though it had white lights in it? Jeeeeez
their images are bad!


Sad to say that, whilst digital photography has improved the general
ability to take good images, digital television is currently giving us
some of the poorest quality TV we've has for a long while. One can only
hope that once all the standards are sorted out, and the standards
convertors are removed from the path, we will actually get some benefit.

Wouldn't the flickering tomato be cause by too rapid movement for
the "compression" technology to cope? What works well for general
subjects is often broken by special cases.


Of course, the drastically larger number of channels at vastly poorer
artistic and technical quality is another issue!

Ah, broadcast TV, the last bastion of quality programming. g
Yeah, cable has a lot of junk, but it also has such as CSPAN-2's
Book TV. Unfortunately in this area (Cablevision), that channel is
too often preempted by local Jamaican and Bollywood MTV type music
videos and endless real estate and shyster lawyer ads.

"ASAAR" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:55:23 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Of course, the drastically larger number of channels at vastly poorer
artistic and technical quality is another issue!

Ah, broadcast TV, the last bastion of quality programming. g
Yeah, cable has a lot of junk, but it also has such as CSPAN-2's
Book TV. Unfortunately in this area (Cablevision), that channel is
too often preempted by local Jamaican and Bollywood MTV type music
videos and endless real estate and shyster lawyer ads.

For what it's worth the FCC has just reconsidered its position
on "a la carte" cable programming, and Sen. McCain is going
to introduce legislation in a few weeks to encourage cable
operators to offer that service. Finally, we'll be able to pay for
just the channels we want, without having to subsidize the other
85%, which is absolute crap. Finally, I won't be forced to
receive junk channels like GolfTV and Fox "News" to get
C-SPAN and Comedy Central.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:30:26 GMT, Mark C. wrote:

For what it's worth the FCC has just reconsidered its position
on "a la carte" cable programming, and Sen. McCain is going
to introduce legislation in a few weeks to encourage cable
operators to offer that service. Finally, we'll be able to pay for
just the channels we want, without having to subsidize the other
85%, which is absolute crap. Finally, I won't be forced to
receive junk channels like GolfTV and Fox "News" to get
C-SPAN and Comedy Central.

There's been a little of that in the news lately. It will need
some careful consideration to get it right, since junk channels tend
to be more heavily watched, and some of the better, small audience
channels might be abandoned if more money could be made by having 15
Disney, 12 MSNBC and 26 Fox channels. At least there's a chance for
more public feedback that might even be considered, now that the
arrogant Powell regime is over. What is NOT needed is a politically
motivated overseer, which might produce a mess similar to what has
been happening recently with the CPB.

Mark² wrote:
mark_digital© wrote:

Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to
watch the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the
output is extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem fine.

Mark_


It even looks extremely sharpened on standard cable!
-The WORST Olympics picture I've ever seen.
Even the studio shots are horrible.
It makes me wonder if their system for down-sampling HD to standard is
somehow screwed up.
It's just really really bad to the point of serious distraction.
Did you see the "Flying Tomato's" hair last night, as it literally seemed to
flash on and off, as though it had white lights in it? Jeeeeez their images
are bad!


The images from some cameras are really great on HDTV (768x1366
pixels. In fact truly stunning compared to regular TV
that looks like crap after viewing full HD. But not all the
cameras have the full HD capability, so it seems that the
HD resolution is changing from shot to shot.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
The images from some cameras are really great on HDTV (768x1366
pixels. In fact truly stunning compared to regular TV
that looks like crap after viewing full HD. But not all the
cameras have the full HD capability, so it seems that the
HD resolution is changing from shot to shot.

Roger

Close-ups are are good but not much better. They're capturing at 500 frames
per second and their followup slo-mo's are perfect, so I don't think it's
the cameras. It's the reprocessing. Their technicians are screwing up back
in the control room or maybe they're uplinking to satellite via mpeg4 and
that's too much compression; too much halow artifacts.

Mark_

mark_digital© wrote:
Was wondering if anyone else has had to revert to analog TV signal to watch
the skiing? I see NBC is broadcasting 4:3 480 pixels but the output is
extremely sharpened. Oddly enough the commercials seem fine.

I got and recorded it in 16:9 HD. Your local channel may be
having trouble.


--
--Bryan