I have to disagree completely. The "countdown" stuff was great in Atlanta OTA - definitely HD. I even had one guest comment, as soon as he saw it, that it looked outstanding. I saw no focus or sharpness problems. Sorry you had trouble...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
looked great here and I am not one who cares for 720p.......but this was excellent..I'm very leary of anything HD that comes across Sattelite or Cable.I only watch mt HD via OTA
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I watched OTA in the SF bay area (Samsung T351/DVI/42" ALis PDP);It looked soft on most of the cameras to me, too. There were a couple of close views of the families of recipients that were extremely sharp, but most of the stage views and shots of the hall were quite soft. IMO, the best shot of a presenter was of Oprah W.
regards, billb....
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I watched it both OTA and on Time Warner Cable's Scientific Atlanta 8000HD and it looked soft to me too. I don't know if that was a function of 720P or if they purposely softened the picture so we wouldn't see the human flaws in the stars' faces.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well, let's say NYPD Blue, which is consistantly one of the best looking shows on ABC. "
And that's film. I agree with you though. I thought that the first season 'Blue' was on in HD, it had kind of a soft and dark look, but, since then it's had a nice, bright, colorful look.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No, it was not the best. But I suggest we discuss the possibility of lighting issues. Some of the best HD I've seen was outdoor football on a sunny day, but on particular games where the weather changed or the game ran into the evening, views of the crowds had a noticeable drop in PQ.
I've never been to the Oscars, but I'd expect that the lighting in the hall is dimmed considerably. I've also never ran a HD camera, but it's at least possible that the cameras used were not optimized for low light levels. I assume there are adjustments just like a still camera, but as ambient light drops well below normal room lighting, I'd expect some loss of detail. That would explain the detail loss in the hall shots. Do we have any camera operators on the forum?
I'm more intrigued by your comment about the pre-show PQ. Did it really look like ED to you? I'll agree that is was on the opposite end of the HD spectrum from say, CBS's 1080i "CSI" as far as detail, but from my POV, it was still higher than 480p.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
there was no "soft filter".....
it was vey crisp and very clear....
enough so that my wife and 70 year old mother...
who could care less about any of this stuff....
were blown away enough to comment......
"That's really a shame. Why should any other broadcasters
bother to do any better if that what most think is great?"
So you are assuming those of us with positive comments about their feeds are accepting of low quality pseudo HD?
Because what you saw MUST be what we saw?
Kind of condescending?
Like somehow you "know" what it should really look like?
Again, sorry.....
but while certainly not being the greatest HD I've ever seen....
it was NOT soft focus, it was NOT filtered soft......
The fact that you stated
"There's no way that intro stuff out in the street
was anything but ED. The rest was really mediocre
at best."
Highlights that you had some issues that others did not.....
it WAS in HD, and also pretty tight.......
so you need to rethink what was going on....
or not.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
If you were "blown away" by that broadcast I'm glad.
Maybe your feed was much better than others.
If I sounded condenscending I apologize, but I still
think this is most likely a case of beauty being in
the eye of the beholder. I have many DVD's that
"blow away" the look of that broadcast I was fed.
I just found it disappointing, that's all.
Carl
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
read carefully..
I never said I was blown away....
in fact I said again that it was certainly not the BEST HD
I had seen.....
But it was clearly better than 480P...
I could see jewelry detail.....
I could see sweat beads.....
I could read the words on the choir books
during the musical performances....
"Maybe your feed was much better than others."
That was my only point.
Which you seemed to completely discount with
"That's really a shame. Why should any other broadcasters
bother to do any better if that what most think is great"
Especially since you were so positive that
"There's no way that intro stuff out in the street
was anything but ED"
when in fact, you were incorrect.
Or I guess to be fair I should say, your statement did not fit with everyone elses experience.
"case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder"
Dangit you are doing it again.
I buy the best copies of DVD's anyone can...
Superbit, THX mastered, full digital transfers (Shrek, Lion King, Monsters Inc., etc etc etc)
I have a solid DVD player, hooked up correctly.
My set has been ISF'd on all used inputs.
I can TELL the difference between 480p and a quality HD feed, regardless of 720p/1080i.
And yes, I have see some AWFUL "HD" content, either uprez'd SD or just poor camera work.
This show was neither of the above.
Maybe they never flipped on the HD feed for you till the real show....which unfortunatley happens a lot.
Anyway....
you just seemed to be saying "obviously those people who
liked the telecast are accepting sub standard material as HD."
"the look of that broadcast I was fed."
This is what I was not reading from your posts,
and is exactly what I was trying to say.
I believe YOU 100%, it just seemed you didn't "believe" those who had positive comments, and were explaining away
the different opinions as "I am a more discerning viewer"...
I do apologize if I incorrectly perceived what you were saying....
As long as you really don't think that anybody who thought the broadcast was quality superior to 480p are videoboobs,
and understand that there may have been REASONS why your viewing material was not up to par.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Video boradcast cameras can be 480I, 480P or one of the HD scan rates.
There were definitely 480P cameras in the preshow, not all was HD and the only difference was softer edges.
FOX is a great reference for 480P and it is not that far off from HD. I would say no greater difference then the Oscars versus HDnet. I did find the Oscars soft and was slightly disappointed but I have seen better. Before HDnet and D-Theater I would have thought the Oscars looked great. The fact that it was live video does concern me since that is HDnets claim to fame and they definitely are superior to what we received for the Oscars and Grammies.
I went through a period of eye strain myself due to my expectations and this is not the first time I have been through this. That is the power of HDnet. HDnet is THE current reference point for HD video camera productions and HD content. Not only that HDnet is the only commercial broadcaster that is thinking outside the box. Watch an HD movie trailer for a commercial? That will keep me in the seat. I found the Oscar graphics quite childish and old fashioned covering up part of the image showing again that we need to get the commercial TV out of HDTV if the nationals really want to make on impact on alternative programming. I hated that same banner during the State of the Union address. Ya, just keep reminding me I am watching commercial TV. Hmm.
VOOM? Alternative HD programming?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"I've never been to the Oscars, but I'd expect that the lighting in the hall is dimmed considerably. I've also never ran a HD camera, but it's at least possible that the cameras used were not optimized for low light levels. I assume there are adjustments just like a still camera, but as ambient light drops well below normal room lighting, I'd expect some loss of detail. That would explain the detail loss in the hall shots. Do we have any camera operators on the forum?"
Trust me, the stage was lit for television. ABC does not pay the kind of money they pay for the rights to this telecast than let someone else dictate how the hall is lit.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the actors want the pictures to be a little softer than what HD is really capable of? I recall when "Spin City" was on ABC. Heather Locklear's shots were noticably softer than the others. That soap opera that CBS has in HD also looks like it's softened a bit.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
To: Bill K
I was NOT talking about the stage lights. Of course the stage was fully lit. I was talking about the house lights, where the audience was sitting. It was much darker than the stage and some of the complaints were specifically in regard to shots of the audience.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
