The 2011 NFL Playoffs - NFC Championship Game in HDTV on FOX - Packers vs. Bears! - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 07:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MRM4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Powell, TN
Posts: 1,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 66
I thought PQ was very good.

As for the studio, at least they took their studio guys on the road. CBS was too cheap to send their guys to Pittsburgh.

Anyone know how CBS was showing highlights of the Packers-Bears game and the graphics were framed for 4:3?
MRM4 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 08:18 AM
Member
 
CharlieB-oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I thought the PQ was good; not excellent, but certainly not horrible with visible artifacts. Watched OTA on WVUE, New Orleans.
CharlieB-oz is offline  
post #63 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 08:34 AM
Senior Member
 
LINEARX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pottsboro, Texas
Posts: 323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I watched an affiliate in north Texas.
PQ was good, game was good, Packers won.
It's always been my opinion that not all cameras at the games are HD especially some of the hand held sideline cameras.
Am I wrong?
LINEARX is offline  
post #64 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 08:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
jpr281's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Long Island, N.Y.
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Does anyone have any 640x480 screen caps of any FOX game in SD where it has been letterboxed? I'm curious to see if it's 16:9 or if it has been cropped in any way.
jpr281 is offline  
post #65 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 12:10 PM
Newbie
 
jreiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by QualityControl View Post
When FOX is transmitted as a subchannel, it is broadcast as a 480i (or 480p) Widescreen signal. There's not enough bandwidth in any single RF channel to properly broadcast 2 hd streams. Now I know stations out there are trying to broadcast 2 hd channels, but every FOX I've seen as a subchannel has been 480, while the main network affiliation on the .1 stays at full HD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post
KCOY briefly experimented with carrying both CBS and Fox in 720p, but reverted to the old setup of CBS in 1080i and Fox in 480i widescreen due to apparent PQ issues.
Ah, this explains what I've been seeing. I would've sworn that I had seen Fox (on channel 12.2) in HD in the past, so I must've caught them during that experimentation phase that coyoteaz mentioned. Thanks to both of you for the good information. It's a shame that I won't be seeing Fox here in HD anymore (unless they move to another channel), but at least now I know why.
jreiter is offline  
post #66 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 02:25 PM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


It's your affiliate. It's not everywhere.

i have access to two fox feeds, WUTV in buffalo and KCPQ in seattle. every single sporting event i have ever watched on either has been a dull, muddy, blurry mess (compared to similar presentations on other networks). i have seen this over numerous games literally every single NFL sunday for the past 3 seasons and also countless baseball games as well. i am currently a rogers cable subscriber, but before that i had an OTA antenna and received WUTV that way with the same exact results.

fox is easily the worst reviewed of the "big 3" on this board when it comes to PQ and AQ, as well as basically every other AV board i frequent. are all our affiliates "bad"? what would the odds of that be? why would fox allow that to happen?

i also travel fairly frequently within both canada and the states, and i see the same thing *everywhere* i go. if i am in a sports bar in an airport with 6 identical plasmas, 3 are showing a fox game and 3 are showing a CBS game the 3 showing the CBS game *always* look better. the worst CBS presentation i have ever seen is still immeasurably better than the best fox presentation. granted thats not exactly hard, scientific facts but taken with everything else i have seen and heard, it tells me that fox simply doesn't have the technology to remain competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to broadcasting sports live in HD. again, even canadian college football presentations on TSN look exponentially better than even the best NFL presentation i have ever seen on fox.

is it their cameras? is it how the video is encoded?is it_________?? i don't know the answers, but i would love to find out
bcope is offline  
post #67 of 82 Old 01-24-2011, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,835
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 54
i'm no fan of cutler, but anyone who thinks he bailed in a game where he
could make himself an unforgettable bear legend and go to his 1st s.b. is more than a little paranoid.

so the theory is he didn't want to play cause he was getting hit too much by
the packs rush. then why didn't he bail earlier in the season in games that didn't count nearly as much when he was taking like 8 sacks a game.

he tried to play at the beginning of the 3rd, but you could see he could not plant when he threw and that 3rd down pass was off target.

let's face it, bears don't have nearly enough weapons on their offense and
they can't pass block.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #68 of 82 Old 01-25-2011, 08:29 PM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcope View Post


i have access to two fox feeds, WUTV in buffalo and KCPQ in seattle. every single sporting event i have ever watched on either has been a dull, muddy, blurry mess (compared to similar presentations on other networks). i have seen this over numerous games literally every single NFL sunday for the past 3 seasons and also countless baseball games as well. i am currently a rogers cable subscriber, but before that i had an OTA antenna and received WUTV that way with the same exact results.

fox is easily the worst reviewed of the "big 3" on this board when it comes to PQ and AQ, as well as basically every other AV board i frequent. are all our affiliates "bad"? what would the odds of that be? why would fox allow that to happen?

i also travel fairly frequently within both canada and the states, and i see the same thing *everywhere* i go. if i am in a sports bar in an airport with 6 identical plasmas, 3 are showing a fox game and 3 are showing a CBS game the 3 showing the CBS game *always* look better. the worst CBS presentation i have ever seen is still immeasurably better than the best fox presentation. granted thats not exactly hard, scientific facts but taken with everything else i have seen and heard, it tells me that fox simply doesn't have the technology to remain competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to broadcasting sports live in HD. again, even canadian college football presentations on TSN look exponentially better than even the best NFL presentation i have ever seen on fox.

is it their cameras? is it how the video is encoded?is it_________?? i don't know the answers, but i would love to find out

No thoughts on this from anyone in the know?
bcope is offline  
post #69 of 82 Old 01-25-2011, 08:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
URFloorMatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Don't know what to tell you. Maybe my CBS affiliate is one of the poorer ones. But I'd say, particularly lately, that WTTG Fox 5 DC puts on a better football presentation than WUSA CBS 9 DC when its airing Fox's A game.

WRC NBC 4 has the consistently best presentation. ESPN has the worst. I'm watching on FiOS, so there's no extra compression in anybody's case.

But like I said before, I'm not really concerned for who's the "best" and who's the "worst." This is about whether the Fox feed is somehow inferior or defective. Whatever Fox is sending out is clearly not, as many of us bear witness to it. WTTG passes along what is to my eyes a perfectly acceptable HD feed. Generally better than ESPN, for instance.
URFloorMatt is offline  
post #70 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

This is about whether the Fox feed is somehow inferior or defective. Whatever Fox is sending out is clearly not, as many of us bear witness to it. WTTG passes along what is to my eyes a perfectly acceptable HD feed. Generally better than ESPN, for instance.

See this isn't at all what I see though, on either my west or east coast feed, or travelling, or the general consensus of what I read on these boards. do you have access to another affiliate's feed? does anyone have access to two fox affiliates? any thoughts on this matter?

What kind of display do you have? How far away from it do you sit? Has it been calibrated? When? What is your eyesight like? Do you wear contacts, glasses? If so, when was the last time your scrip was checked? If not, when was the last time you were checked by an eye doctor?

There are too many variables in play for you to say "it looks good to me and (a small percentage of) others, so it must be a problem with everyone else (the majority) who thinks it looks like crap"

Like if I was the only person on this and every other board i frequent saying that Fox's coverage is a joke compared to everything else (I'm not really including ESPN as I have limited experience with it and the experience I have had has been that it is just as rubbish as fox) then i would have to stop and wonder, but thats not the case...the overwhelming majority report fox looking anywhere from "bad" to "embarrassing" *every single week* that they cover an NFL game (or any other sport for that matter)

personally i have 20/20 vision, have been checked by an eye doc ~every 6 months for the past 3 years (eye surgery a few years ago and subsequent follow ups, issue wasn't acuity related, but they test it every time I go) and i watch from about 7' away from an ISF calibrated Pioneer 6010 connected to a SA PVR via HDMI. Again, I am basing my opinion on countless games, both east and west coast, every sunday for the past few seasons, both at home in my controlled environment and in restaurants/bars/hotels/airports/etc when travelling
bcope is offline  
post #71 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 01:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcope View Post

i have access to two fox feeds, WUTV in buffalo and KCPQ in seattle. every single sporting event i have ever watched on either has been a dull, muddy, blurry mess (compared to similar presentations on other networks). i have seen this over numerous games literally every single NFL sunday for the past 3 seasons and also countless baseball games as well. i am currently a rogers cable subscriber, but before that i had an OTA antenna and received WUTV that way with the same exact results.

fox is easily the worst reviewed of the "big 3" on this board when it comes to PQ and AQ, as well as basically every other AV board i frequent. are all our affiliates "bad"? what would the odds of that be? why would fox allow that to happen?

i also travel fairly frequently within both canada and the states, and i see the same thing *everywhere* i go. if i am in a sports bar in an airport with 6 identical plasmas, 3 are showing a fox game and 3 are showing a CBS game the 3 showing the CBS game *always* look better. the worst CBS presentation i have ever seen is still immeasurably better than the best fox presentation. granted thats not exactly hard, scientific facts but taken with everything else i have seen and heard, it tells me that fox simply doesn't have the technology to remain competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to broadcasting sports live in HD. again, even canadian college football presentations on TSN look exponentially better than even the best NFL presentation i have ever seen on fox.

is it their cameras? is it how the video is encoded?is it_________?? i don't know the answers, but i would love to find out

It's an old story, but the issue is probably the Splicer system FOX uses. They are unique in sending an ATSC signal directly to stations as opposed to the other networks that use higher bandwidth MPEG2 or MPEG4 signals to distribute HD.

Here are a couple of links:

This one covered when FOX first announced the Splicer concept:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news...ations_splice/

This one covers the more recent Splicer II upgrade:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1081182

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #72 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coyoteaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Short of a station violating Fox's design standards and monkeying with the signal after it leaves the splicer, the video output from one Fox station is the same as every other Fox station. There are a small handful of Fox stations who do change things, but they are all in small markets where one station has to serve as the primary affiliate for multiple networks and is trying to carry them both in HD.
coyoteaz is offline  
post #73 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 04:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a Samsung 720p plasma TV, watching WTTG-DT both OTA and on Verizon FiOS. I've watched a lot of FOX football coverage, including the 2011 Cotton Bowl, the NFC championship pregame show, and the game itself. The per-pixel sharpness of the entire Cotton Bowl was spectacular (and the white balance was pretty good, too). The NFC Championship's pregame was similarly sharp. Then, the game began, and suddenly the picture was much softer. Graphics weren't any blurrier, but the images from the cameras were as soft as most FOX NFL games that I've seen.

I don't know what FOX did differently in the chain during the Cotton Bowl, but if they could do that for the NFL games, then I suspect a lot of the complaints in this thread wouldn't exist. I don't believe the stations are responsible for the blurriness problems.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #74 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 04:53 PM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


I don't believe the stations are responsible for the blurriness problems.

precisely my point. all fox presentations i have ever seen are *always* softer and muddier than anything on CBS, NBC or as mentioned even TSN and Sportsnet here in canada.

plenty of other shows on my buffalo fox affiliate (and the western seattle one i get as well) look way better (sharper, crisper, more vibrant colours, the list is long) than the NFL and MLB coverage. by the logic of "it must be the affiliate" wouldn't all programming on the same fox affiliate suffer from the same muddiness/blurriness/all around crappiness?
bcope is offline  
post #75 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ps-thanks for the links ken. ill check those later tonight
bcope is offline  
post #76 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 05:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
URFloorMatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcope View Post

See this isn't at all what I see though, on either my west or east coast feed, or travelling, or the general consensus of what I read on these boards.

I find this ironic, since you're posting in a thread where virtually no one issued a complaint about Fox's coverage after issues around 3:20 were fixed... except you.

Quote:


What kind of display do you have? How far away from it do you sit? Has it been calibrated? When? What is your eyesight like? Do you wear contacts, glasses? If so, when was the last time your scrip was checked? If not, when was the last time you were checked by an eye doctor?

There are too many variables in play for you to say "it looks good to me and (a small percentage of) others, so it must be a problem with everyone else (the majority) who thinks it looks like crap"

Exactly what kinds of extraneous variables could cause me to think Fox's A-game looks well and good but ESPN's weekly presentation is generally terrible? I have a 55" Samsung LED, sit eight or nine feet away, and have 20/20 vision. But it seems odd to question those things, since you're throwing out every bar and hotel where you've ever watched an HDTV, as if you can attest that any of those panels are of high quality or properly calibrated.

I think if you went back and looked, you'd find that when Fox's A game is in question, the reviews are generally positive, on rare occasions even glowing, and this is the consensus. Are they perfect? No. The main cam is usually soft, just not so soft as to be distracting. (Compare ESPN where the main cam is usually downright terrible.)

Thus, if you're talking about last Sunday's game, then there's something wrong with you or your affiliate, not with the main Fox feed. I have never made any promises with respect to any game that is not the A game. Some of them, as you say, are downright terrible and the consensus reflects that. But I rated Fox above ESPN because at least Fox generally puts together one HD worthy game every week. ESPN almost never does.

Since my CBS affiliate took a turn for the worse, the only network that does a respectable job consistently is NBC.

I have started to wonder if there is something in the 720p distribution systems that ESPN and Fox use that for some reason make them unable to broadcast a stunning HD picture out of the main cam during wider shots.
URFloorMatt is offline  
post #77 of 82 Old 01-26-2011, 09:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

I have started to wonder if there is something in the 720p distribution systems that ESPN and Fox use that for some reason make them unable to broadcast a stunning HD picture out of the main cam during wider shots.
FOX & ESPN use completely different distribution systems. ESPN is pretty much like everyone else that does NFL, while FOX is unique.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #78 of 82 Old 01-27-2011, 09:22 AM
Senior Member
 
bcope's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


I find this ironic, since you're posting in a thread where virtually no one issued a complaint about Fox's coverage after issues around 3:20 were fixed... except you.

not exactly. go back and re-read the thread and look at the time stamps. also go back and find the threads from every fox game this year. you will see numerous comments like "its good, for a fox game" and "its as good as fox gets". these are the types of things that irk me. why is fox so consistently sub-par that people need to comment on their output in this way?

Quote:


But it seems odd to question those things, since you're throwing out every bar and hotel where you've ever watched an HDTV, as if you can attest that any of those panels are of high quality or properly calibrated.

as i clearly stated in numerous post in this thread i am simply mentioning that in passing as further anecdotal evidence to support what i am saying. i have mainly based my opinion on what i have seen in my own living room, which is as controlled an environment as you'll find.
bcope is offline  
post #79 of 82 Old 01-27-2011, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
bcope,

It's clear from your postings that you don't like whatever Fox is doing. that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Others do not seem to share your opinion, and that's the way life is. There might be an exception, but for better or for worse, all Fox stations should look identical when carrying Fox network programming.

There is more potential for variation on CBS affiliate stations across the US, while you typically only get to choose between two stations across Canada.
hphase is offline  
post #80 of 82 Old 01-27-2011, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

FOX & ESPN use completely different distribution systems. ESPN is pretty much like everyone else that does NFL, while FOX is unique.

I'm not so sure about that, at least as far as network NFL games are concerned. Fox and ESPN are much more alike (picture-wise.) ESPN and "everyone else that does NFL" could almost not be more different. (That being said, in the final analysis, the results in the home are still similar.)

I know you know all this, but let be explain my reasons.

Fox and ESPN both use 720p. They both backhaul their games to their broadcast centers. They both create a broadcast-ready streams that are decoded directly by the viewer.

NBC and CBS both use 1080i. They both backhaul their games to their broadcast centers. Here is where they differ from ESPN/Fox. NBC and CBS send a contribution feed to their affiliated stations, who in turn decode it, add commercials, and re-encode it for delivery to the viewer. CBS/NBC has an extra decode/encode step that Fox/ESPN do not have. There is also the *potential* for each NBC/CBS station to do their final encodes a little bit differently.

As alluded to earlier, because of the data rates given to each portion of the process, the results are generally similar in the home for all NFL broadcasts. You can nit-pick, but they're both HD.
hphase is offline  
post #81 of 82 Old 01-27-2011, 06:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tighr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

I'm not so sure about that, at least as far as network NFL games are concerned. Fox and ESPN are much more alike (picture-wise.) ESPN and "everyone else that does NFL" could almost not be more different. (That being said, in the final analysis, the results in the home are still similar.)

I think you misunderstood Ken H. When he says "FOX & ESPN use completely different distribution systems", he is referring to the fact that Fox uses a splicer on their broadcast feed, and ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC, and NFL network do not. Fox has a unique system.

This does not mean that the quality of Fox broadcasts are better or worse than the others, and it certainly does not mean that the quality of the others is equal while different from Fox. Again, any variability you're seeing in picture quality amongst your local broadcasters is due to local re-encodes.

~Tighr: Not helping the situation since 1983

tighr is offline  
post #82 of 82 Old 01-28-2011, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
URFloorMatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

FOX & ESPN use completely different distribution systems. ESPN is pretty much like everyone else that does NFL, while FOX is unique.

True, I misspoke. I meant on-site--the truck. I'm wondering if there's something about the on-site equipment that just doesn't translate well for 720p.

We've had Fox and ESPN employees come onto this forum and swear up and down that the picture in the truck is pristine. But somewhere between the truck and my TV we get the less than perfect result we get every week, particularly out of ESPN.
URFloorMatt is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off