Obama Vs McCain. The debate will go on!

The coverage should be in HD, tonight. 9PM EST, on just about EVERY Broadcast channels.

Please remember AVS is not the place to discuss political matters, please keep all discussions focused on the broadcast quality only.

NBC did Chuck Todd on location in HD last night during Nightly News, so maybe we won't get stuck with only a semi-HD presentation from them this time.

Will of course be in HD on CNN as well.

I will watch it, it's Important!

FYI - The Fox Business Channel will be carrying it too in HD tonight.

Peace,

DM

Is it a pool feed for tonight? Who's doing the pool feed? That might give us an idea of what to expect in terms of PQ.

Clash between candidates eagerly awaited by TV

By DAVID BAUDER – 15 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AP) — After a two-day cliffhanger over whether their first debate would take place, John McCain and Barack Obama take aim at the ultimate record: most-watched presidential debate ever.

The standard was set in 1980, when 80.6 million people watched that campaign's only debate between President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan. TV audiences that big typically gather only once a year, for the Super Bowl.

Doubt over the debate even happening, which ended Friday when McCain said he would attend, probably heightened interest and reminded people that it's on, said Robert Thompson, head of Syracuse University's Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture.

He predicted the 80 million mark will be topped.

"I was in the grocery store two hours ago and I heard three separate occurrences of people asking, `Is the debate happening tonight?'" Thompson said. "People are buzzing about (it)."

There are three debates scheduled between Republican McCain and Democrat Obama. The potential vice presidents will debate Thursday.

"I'll bet you that all three debates" break the record, said Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent. "I really think people are interested right now."

Americans have shown an intense interest in campaign coverage since the beginning. Still, people in television were startled earlier this month when three political speeches within two weeks — nomination acceptances by Obama, McCain and GOP vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin — were each seen by more than 40 million people. Concern over the economy adds another layer of interest; Nielsen Media Research estimated 52.7 people watched President Bush's address to the nation Wednesday.

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and C-SPAN all planned to televise the debate.

The most-watched debate since 1980 was the second of three between the first President Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992, seen by just under 70 million people. The first debate in 2004 between President Bush and John Kerry was seen by 62.5 million, Nielsen said.

The fact that it's on a Friday night, when people often go out, might hold this year's audience down. Nielsen doesn't measure the audience in public places.

"Every barroom will have it on, every airport," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "There will be a huge number beyond the detectable numbers. I think everyone is going to watch it."

There was even talk of drinking games planned to help pass the time: one sip when Obama mentions "change," another when McCain addresses "my friends."

McCain had urged on Wednesday that the debate be put off to tend to the nation's economic problems, but switched gears on Friday. Networks talked internally about contingency plans, but still sent staff to Oxford, Miss., assuming the debate would happen.

Even though foreign affairs was the announced topic, it was expected the economy would be touched upon.

Besides the candidates' performance, Jim Lehrer's role as moderator certainly is in focus — two media watchdogs this week released reports analyzing the questions asked by journalists during the 35 primary season debates (20 Democratic, 15 Republican).

Questions about candidates' character — honesty and leadership rather than specific issues — made up 36 percent of the questions, according to the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center. The conservative group detected no political bias in how these character questions were framed, but claimed Democrats tended to get more "softballs" than Republicans.

Meanwhile, the liberal Media Matters for America judged the primary debates "a disaster." The group said one-third of the questions asked were non-substantive, about campaign gaffes, political tactics or personality. They also criticized the journalists for not asking enough about the economy.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who moderated five primary debates, said he understands what PBS' Lehrer was going through in preparing for the debate. (After Lehrer, Schieffer, PBS' Gwen Ifill and NBC's Tom Brokaw are moderating the subsequent sessions, with Ifill handling the vice presidential forensic.)

"I certainly felt the historic enormity of what I was doing, and I felt that every second was precious and every question was precious," Blitzer said. "I didn't want to waste time."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j12fezNxl44CD4rPBLTFJv9ifVnAD93EKD7O0

I'll be watching it on MSNBC, since it's SDTV. Some things just shouldn't be seen in HD...

CNN Gears Up for First Presidential Debate

Net Plans Special Daylong Programming for Initial McCain-Obama Tussle

By Larry Barrett -- Multichannel News, 9/23/2008 11:12:00 AM

CNN Tuesday detailed its ambitious plans for coverage of the first presidential debate between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain on Friday, Sept. 26 from the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss.

The daylong programming lineup will be carried in high definition across all the networks over-the-air and online platforms, network officials said.

Anchors Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown and Anderson Cooper will preside over coverage from the CNN Election Center in New York. The day’s coverage will kick off with special debate-focused editions of The Situation Room from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. ET, followed by Lou Dobbs Tonight from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. ET and Campbell Brown: Election Center from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. ET. The first presidential debate will air from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET, with a special edition of Anderson Cooper 360° following from 10:30 p.m. to midnight ET which will provide analysis and commentary on the evening’s developments.

Chief national correspondent John King will be in the studio with the “Magic Wall” to provide in-depth analysis on demographic and delegate data. As the first presidential debate will be focused on foreign affairs, chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and Baghdad-based correspondent Michael Ware will contribute their analysis from a global perspective.

Throughout the special coverage, senior political analyst Gloria Borger, senior political analyst David Gergen and senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin will be on hand to offer their analysis. Additionally, CNN political contributors Paul Begala, Bill Bennett, Donna Brazile, James Carville, Alex Castellanos, Roland Martin and Leslie Sanchez will provide insight from their perspectives across the ideological spectrum.

CNN correspondents Dana Bash, Candy Crowley, Ed Henry, Suzanne Malveaux, Jessica Yellin and senior political analyst Bill Schneider will be live on location at the debate site with the CNN Election Express in Oxford, Miss. The Election Express will serve not only as an on-the-ground broadcast location, but also as a production facility and newsroom for the CNN political unit.

Also, CNN special correspondent Soledad O’Brien will moderate a focus group in Columbus, Ohio. The group will be comprised of a selection of voters from the hotly contested state. During the debate, the participants will operate electronic dial testers that will allow television viewers to see the group’s reactions in real time. In addition, viewers watching the broadcast in high-definition will see exclusive editorial information and commentary appearing on the side panels of their screens throughout the debate.

The first presidential debate will air live on CNN and will simulcast on CNN International, CNN en Español and CNN Airport Network. The debate will also stream live on CNN.com Live, the network’s multistream, live video news service. On Saturday, Sept. 27, the debate will replay on CNN at midnight and 3 a.m. ET and on CNN International at 5 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6598454.html?q=cnn

Please remember AVS is not the place to discuss political matters, please keep all discussions focused on the broadcast quality only.

So will the candidate who looks best in HD be the winner? I hope not!

This will be a rare chance to directly compare the PQ of several HD channels, in real time, from a common feed. Of course, the local network affiliate and signal provider ( cable, sat, OTA) will factor in as well. But it will give you the ability to rank order the channels PQ as they appear on your TV, which is really what matters.

This will be a rare chance to directly compare the PQ of several HD channels, in real time, from a common feed. Of course, the local network affiliate and signal provider ( cable, sat, OTA) will factor in as well. But it will give you the ability to rank order the channels PQ as they appear on your TV, which is really what matters.

Different networks may backhaul the feed at different quality levels and using different systems, so that will have an impact on quality as well as the network distribution and final encoding, distribution.

It will only really allow you to rank the quality of the way the various networks broadcast the debate, not much more...

I am looking forward to viewing the debate in HD, however, there are some in my household who feel certain people shouldn't be viewed in high definition because their sharp and detail appearance may cause shock, nausea, and, in some cases, lightheadedness and fainting.

Oh boy, this should be good. I can't wait to see John Mccain's ugly mug in HD. Skin cancer has taken a toll on that mans face, and HD is gonna show it!

This will be a rare chance to directly compare the PQ of several HD channels, in real time, from a common feed.

And compare the channels with the most and least amount of added on-screen graphics and junk as well. If I became president the first thing I'd do is ban TV bugs completely (OK, maybe not the highest priority for the country right now, but the problem I know how to fix the easiest!)

Oh boy, this should be good. I can't wait to see John Mccain's ugly mug in HD. Skin cancer has taken a toll on that mans face, and HD is gonna show it!

I don't think it will be that bad.. the makeup should help a little.

FYI - The Fox Business Channel will be carrying it too in HD tonight.

Peace,

DM

Nice, good to hear. If only DTV would get hopping on FNC HD.

As noted, political comments are not allowed at AVS. Suspensions will be handed out if this policy isn't followed, meticulously, in this topic.

I'll be watching it on MSNBC, since it's SDTV. Some things just shouldn't be seen in HD...

What??? Why is that????

Should we start to decide what shouldn't and should be in HD based upon content or how somebody's face looks?

Your direction isn't going to help the HD bandwagon.

I am looking forward to viewing the debate in HD, however, there are some in my household who feel certain people shouldn't be viewed in high definition because their sharp and detail appearance may cause shock, nausea, and, in some cases, lightheadedness and fainting.

Then have them go into another room and not watch.

I'm so tired of reading people's comments about what should and shouldn't be in HD.

Oh boy, this should be good. I can't wait to see John Mccain's ugly mug in HD. Skin cancer has taken a toll on that mans face, and HD is gonna show it!

And the thread deteriorates into meaningless drivel before the show even starts.

This Debate is FUN!!! :)

Oh boy, this should be good. I can't wait to see John Mccain's ugly mug in HD. Skin cancer has taken a toll on that mans face, and HD is gonna show it!
Is this one of those times when the "This thread is useless without pictures" little smileys are needed? :D

Oxford is a great town to have this in, been there quite a few times for Ole Miss games. I'm just looking forward to this being over and they move out because it will re-open a couple thousand parking spots for the football games that are really close to the stadium. Definitely going to watch tonight.

I haven't switched channels looking at graphics. The NBC/MSNBC one is kinda big and the continuous switch between NBC News and Decision 08 is getting annoying.

On a scale of 1-10

ABC - 8
CBS - 9
CNN - 9
FOX - 7
NBC - 9
PBS - 9

CBS, NBC, FOX are doing split screen. CNN has graphics on the left, graphics on the right, graphics on the bottom. Thank God they don't do football.....

Ken, your scale seems right-on. I would rate FOX even lower though -- there are some serious problems with that video, including a bunch of ringing. And the audio -- wow -- that is a lot of compression. Sounds like they're in a stadium. No such problems on other networks ...

I was in college in 2004 with basic cable and a roommate who had a TV from the 1980s. Is this the first Presidential debate shown in HD?

thoughts on CNN flooding the screen with data?

thoughts on CNN flooding the screen with data?

Like I said, thank God they don't do football.....

Well this is interesting.... CBS usually has a solid HD broadcast. Usually superior to NBC, but not tonight. CBS is slacking. The image looks soft. The colors are all off. I am disappointed. Not that it matters, its the same content, but the picture just isn't indicative of a normal CBS broadcast....

My local PBS HD broadcast is having a audio sync issue it seems. I do not see it on the other networks.

out of my cbs hd, nbc hd, and pbs hd, pbs hd looks the best, so far.

thoughts on CNN flooding the screen with data?

Unacceptable and an automatic fail!

I haven't started watching it yet, and tivoing FOX since my wife is baking a cake, looks like I decided to tivo the wrong station.

Unacceptable and an automatic fail!

Totally agree. CNN has to much on the screen. Graphics overload.

Compared to the conventions, when all of CNN's graphics were useless, at least these are mildly informative. The audience reaction bar is anyway. Don't really care what all the partisan commentators think is a good or bad point.

I haven't started watching it yet, and tivoing FOX since my wife is baking a cake, looks like I decided to tivo the wrong station.

Mmmmm .... cake. I checked back with FOX later on, and the video was a lot better -- not sure when it got "fixed." Still had a mountain of audio compression though.

My local PBS HD broadcast is having a audio sync issue it seems. Same with KCET-DT in LA. Must have been a national feed problem from PBS.

PQ rankings:

1. CBS/NBC
2. PBS
3. CNN (excessive graphics aside)
4. ABC
5. FOX

ALL HD feeds had identical PQ from my fiber provider. CNN, ABC, Fox business news, NBC, CBS, PBS. Looked like one source feed to me.

Totally agree. CNN has to much on the screen. Graphics overload.


Depends on point of view. Looked good to me. ;)

I've usually preferred CNNHD through the primaries, then got turned off by the dumb "Sound from the Floor" meter and huge triple stack bottom bar for the conventions. I found myself watching the clean CBS presentation tonight, due to CNN's expert-o-meters on the left and right side cluttering the screen. I wanted to listen to the two candidates unfiltered without any "feedback dials" influencing my thoughts as I watched the debate. Sure enough when I checked back in with CNN after the debate, the "experts" scores were as partisan as I expected.

OTA HD-only here. PBS-HD looked the best, by far. Sharpest and most detailed. The rest were all softer in comparison.

All the more amazing considering they have 3 subchannels. But then again, it wasn't exactly an action flick they were showing.

Sure enough when I checked back in with CNN after the debate, the "experts" scores were as partisan as I expected.

Or maybe that was just the actual result of the debate?? :cool:

If they want to do something with those "xxx-o-meter" maybe they should give the studio AUDIENCE clickers and let real people meter the debates. Both parties are guilty of having paid shills talk after the debates/conventions. Why do we need their opinions during the debate as well? Plus the real-time people data would be more useful to the candidates.

They weren't partisan at all on PBS - that's why I watched it.

Of course you're going to get sensationalism and troublemaking on CNN. What did you expect?

PBS had the best presentation graphics-wise: it had no graphics except for the station identifier. It froze in the middle of the debate, however, and I had to switch to another channel.

NBC's constant motion graphic really bugged me, but it was better than CBS's graphic that covered about a quarter of the screen.

ABC's soft picture problems in the west ruled it out.

Local theaters with digital projection were actually selling tickets to the debate to people who wanted to see it in HD.

The picture looked sharp and clutter-free on my local PBS affiliate (WNET-TV NYC, Time Warner Cable). But I found out afterwards that other networks were using split-screens to show McCain not making eye contact with Obama, which PBS didn't do (although the body language came through). So I rewatched the midnight repeat of the debate on CNN-HD and yikes, what hideous display of graphics overkill! Red/blue pie charts, scrolling graphics... what a waste of a perfectly functional 16:9 widescreen frame! :mad:

But I found out afterwards that other networks were using split-screens to show McCain not making eye contact with Obama, which PBS didn't do (although the body language came through).That's why I watched it on PBS. None of that BS to deal with.

Ken, your scale seems right-on. I would rate FOX even lower though -- there are some serious problems with that video, including a bunch of ringing.


How do you get ringing on digits? Are they cranking up some digital enhancement to compensate for a soft, low-bit rate link? Or could they be doing an SD 16:9 backhaul - though one would hope that was SDI/MPEG2 throughout and not analogue as well? Is it absolutely, definitely, a 16:9 HD feed on Fox?

(That said Fox News Channel, by the time it reaches the UK, looks awful in comparison to other US stuff carried on CNBC Europe, or CNN International, and it isn't a standards conversion issue, the overall engineering quality just looks terrible.)

PBS-HD looked the best, by far. Sharpest and most detailed. The rest were all softer in comparison.I watched it on KCET-HD in LA, and then watched portions of the repeat later on CNN-HD.

I was surprised to find that the color seemed off on CNN, whereas it seemed true on PBS. Maybe it was all the surrounding colored graphic objects on CNN that somehow affected the primary content (visible through a "small window" in the center of the surrounding graphics).

While PBS didn't have the split-screen which I admit would have been quite interesting to watch, its simplicity was quite satisfying. Post debate punditry was low key and quite honest and reasonable... no hysterical partisan talking points.

PBS had the best presentation graphics-wise: it had no graphics except for the station identifier. It froze in the middle of the debate, however, and I had to switch to another channel.

NBC's constant motion graphic really bugged me, but it was better than CBS's graphic that covered about a quarter of the screen.

ABC's soft picture problems in the west ruled it out.

I suppose CNN tried to do things a little differently than the traditional way. As the debate was shot 4:3 safe, there's unlikely to be any crucial information on the sides. Why not provide a "judges" scorecard in that area, and "ordinary Joe's" verdict at the bottom. I think that's how they came up with the concept.

Well, if a viewer doesn't like the clutter and distractions, watch it on PBS or the commercial networks -- it's not like he/she doesn't have alternatives.

I was surprised to find that the color seemed off on CNN, whereas it seemed true on PBS.

I noticed the same thing on CNN HD during the Saddleback Forum. The picture just looked weird.

Peace,

DM

I suppose CNN tried to do things a little differently than the traditional way. As the debate was shot 4:3 safe, there's unlikely to be any crucial information on the sides. Why not provide a "judges" scorecard in that area, and "ordinary Joe's" verdict at the bottom. I think that's how they came up with the concept.

Well, if a viewer doesn't like the clutter and distractions, watch it on PBS or the commercial networks -- it's not like he/she doesn't have alternatives.

I thought the graphics this time were useful and pretty cool:)

\

CBS, NBC, FOX are doing split screen. CNN has graphics on the left, graphics on the right, graphics on the bottom. Thank God they don't do football.....

I actually think graphics have a place with sports rather than just being a larger view of a 4:3 safe screen. They take advantage of the (usually) larger high definition screens to offer statistics and noted tidbits. Full interactivity would be even better IMHO.

Back on topic. Jim Lehrer and McCain were both caked in make-up. Obama was, too. Leher and McCain looked like they were French aristocracy during the 1700's sans lipstick, petticoats and wigs. People are afraid of showing pores these days, eh?

Fox was absolutely horrendous. Looked like 16:9 SD on WNYW via Comcast.

CBS was the best, followed by NBC.

Oh my. I'm not sure how bad the CNN graphics were, but it can't be worse than what Fox Business Channel did. Just watching it now. Yikes!

Peace,

DM

Oh my. I'm not sure how bad the CNN graphics were, but it can't be worse than what Fox Business Channel did. Just watching it now. Yikes!

Peace,

DM

I have been watching FBC HD as of late and those stock tickers on the right are always there. They take up about a 3rd of screen real estate and then the ticker on the botton as well. :(

I thought the graphics this time were useful and pretty cool:)

Cool, but at some point they will wear out their welcome.

If a left leaning network can do this (and I'm not suggesting that CNN was doing anything biased Friday -- as there were judges from the both sides), so can a right leaning network. Let's hope it doesn't degenerate to that in future debates or elections.

I watched the whole thing live on WETA-HD PBS via RCN cable. They had the fewest graphical distractions and the best picture quality in my opinion, but I also saw the audio sync issues here.

I watched the whole thing live on WETA-HD PBS via RCN cable. They had the fewest graphical distractions and the best picture quality in my opinion, but I also saw the audio sync issues here.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, while PBS had the fewest graphical distractions and arguably the best PQ, the lack of a split screen took away one of the most interesting elements of the debate.

Back on topic. Jim Lehrer and McCain were both caked in make-up. Obama was, too. Leher and McCain looked like they were French aristocracy during the 1700's sans lipstick, petticoats and wigs. People are afraid of showing pores these days, eh?

Interesting - wonder if the people sorting their respective make-up are aware that you have to use a different tack with HD. Not only does a lot of the make-up traditionally used in SD not work effectively in HD (it suddenly appears to be, well, make-up) and instead appear false, but you also need to be a lot more subtle (which actually takes a LOT more work) if you are going to be effective.

In the UK, one of the main HD operations, Sky, have switched almost entirely to airbrush applied make-up (where it is literally sprayed on), rather than the previous approach, where make-up was physically applied in powder or creme form using puffs and/or brushes.

Make-up for HD takes longer, and costs more (in time and raw materials/equipment), but the results look better both on-camera and in real life.

I think the US has traditionally gone quite "heavy" in the on-camera make-up dept. When I did a couple of shows in a US studio (SD - though 16:9!) a few years ago I was taken aback by how much make-up the male anchors had on when we saw them in real life. (I'm used to working with UK presenters who are made-up for on-camera work, including a couple who are towards the more "showbiz" end of the spectrum, and was surprised that I was surprised!)

Hey All - am I mistaken - or were the graphics NOT on the SD feed? I know that there'a a technical term for this - I just thought it interesting. Unless, of course, I'm mistaken - but I don't think so.

faceoff

Graphics (of the pie charts from the pundits on the sides of the 16x9 widescreen) were NOT on the SD feed of CNN, only the HD version.

Why does NBC-HD always have a lower sound output? I always have to increase the volume. It's especially annoying when watching the Sunday night football games. I caught a few minutes of the debate on CBS cause I couldn't stand the audio on NBC.

Hey All - am I mistaken - or were the graphics NOT on the SD feed? I know that there'a a technical term for this - I just thought it interesting. Unless, of course, I'm mistaken - but I don't think so.

faceoff

It is because the networks like to take space that SHOULD be left empty on 16:9/HD channels and fill it with crap. The sports networks(like ESPN) are just as guilty of doing this on HD channels as well. I personally hate it. Filling the sides of screen is just overkill. And asking for screen burn-in.:mad::mad:

I dislike graphic overlays during sports, when action might actually get obstructed. But during a debate where everything is stationary and the participants aren't really moving? Who cares if there are graphics covering up insignificant portions of the picture?

I dislike graphic overlays during sports, when action might actually get obstructed. But during a debate where everything is stationary and the participants aren't really moving? Who cares if there are graphics covering up insignificant portions of the picture?

I guess the problem I have with it is CNN is trying to turn a debate into a sporting event. "ooh look, Begala just gave McCain another negative point! oh there, Bennett gave McCain a positive point!" Wow, big surprise. Did I really need to know that?

I understand having the stats all over the screen when election results are coming in, in real time, but CNN is just making sh*t up for the debates.

I guess the problem I have with it is CNN is trying to turn a debate into a sporting event. "ooh look, Begala just gave McCain another negative point!

I feel this is a problem with the media in general. My local newspaper headline was "A few jabs but no knockout" as if a calm polite informative debate about political issues between candidates like this one isn't worth watching.

The only "knockout" I can remember was the first Reagan/Mondale debate. A lot of good that did Mondale in the election!