Then something is wrong somewhere. Either your hardware, setup or vision needs to be corrected.
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
49ers vs. Chargers on FOX looked High Def to me!!!!!!
I have been out of the loop on the whole FOX widescreen thing. I don't really know anything about it. I haven't been on this site for quite some time, and haven't been paying any attention to anything.
But on Sunday, I just happened to tune into my local Fox affiliates digital channel, and I was totally blown away. The 49ers - Chargers game was on, and it looked like High Definition. I couldn't believe it! How could Fox be doing High Definition?
I had seen some posts about Foxwide on the forums, but never actually clicked on the threads and read them. After that Superbowl debacle, I thought it was just more marketing crap. But this was completely different. The clarity was outstanding, and it was a true 16:9 image, or at least pretty damn close to a true 16:9 image. Amazing!
I immediately called one of my good buddies that is also a High Def fan, and he told me that it must have been 480p/16:9. That there is no way it could actually be High Def.
All I can say is that if that is really only 480p, in 16:9, then Fox might actually have a point, because that looked too damn good.
It looked better than some of the 1080i football games that I have seen on HDnet or CBS. Call me crazy, but it was so clear and so crisp. The closeups were so vivid. And the shots of the audience looked extremely clear and detailed. This had to be HD right? Well, maybe not, but damn it looked good.
If Fox could shoot all their sporting events like this, then I won't have any problem with Fox. I can't believe I'm saying this, but true 16:9 480p is almost as good as real HD. Is it because it's progressive? I have a STB that only does 480p and 1080i, so that if I ever get a 720p signal it converts it to 1080i. So maybe seeing true 480p like this, makes it seem just as good as 1080i? I haven't seen a native 720p signal, so maybe that would look even that much better.
Somebody slap me!
But on Sunday, I just happened to tune into my local Fox affiliates digital channel, and I was totally blown away. The 49ers - Chargers game was on, and it looked like High Definition. I couldn't believe it! How could Fox be doing High Definition?
I had seen some posts about Foxwide on the forums, but never actually clicked on the threads and read them. After that Superbowl debacle, I thought it was just more marketing crap. But this was completely different. The clarity was outstanding, and it was a true 16:9 image, or at least pretty damn close to a true 16:9 image. Amazing!
I immediately called one of my good buddies that is also a High Def fan, and he told me that it must have been 480p/16:9. That there is no way it could actually be High Def.
All I can say is that if that is really only 480p, in 16:9, then Fox might actually have a point, because that looked too damn good.
It looked better than some of the 1080i football games that I have seen on HDnet or CBS. Call me crazy, but it was so clear and so crisp. The closeups were so vivid. And the shots of the audience looked extremely clear and detailed. This had to be HD right? Well, maybe not, but damn it looked good.
If Fox could shoot all their sporting events like this, then I won't have any problem with Fox. I can't believe I'm saying this, but true 16:9 480p is almost as good as real HD. Is it because it's progressive? I have a STB that only does 480p and 1080i, so that if I ever get a 720p signal it converts it to 1080i. So maybe seeing true 480p like this, makes it seem just as good as 1080i? I haven't seen a native 720p signal, so maybe that would look even that much better.
Somebody slap me!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Have you ever seen a CBS football game? HDNet? I don't think I need to say anything more.
I mostly watch ST on Sundays (only way you see the Titans out here), so when I switched to my local for the 9ers, I was also pleasantly surprised... It was not even close to HD, but it did look pretty damn good, ESPECIALLY after the abortion I pay $10 / week for.
Mike
Mike
I assume the original poster is just trying to get the Fox bashers worked up.. Nobody could be that excited about the Fox WS presentation. The only time you could even make a plausible case for saying it looked like HD is when they are zoomed in on a single player. When they show a wider shot, like the whole line of scrimmage, the lack of detail is very obvious.
I think the Fox widescreen presentation is better than 4:3 SD, but there is no way I would confuse it with 1080i/720p HDTV.
Take a look at the link below for some screen captures that show the difference. Compare the Fox superbowl shot to a HDNet sports shot - like an olympic hockey game, or NBA. Look at the detail visible in the HDNet image. Also, factor in that the Fox screen capture is shown at full resolution, and the HDNet image is scaled down for display in a browser.
http://www.feldoncentral.com/hdtv/
I think the Fox widescreen presentation is better than 4:3 SD, but there is no way I would confuse it with 1080i/720p HDTV.
Take a look at the link below for some screen captures that show the difference. Compare the Fox superbowl shot to a HDNet sports shot - like an olympic hockey game, or NBA. Look at the detail visible in the HDNet image. Also, factor in that the Fox screen capture is shown at full resolution, and the HDNet image is scaled down for display in a browser.
http://www.feldoncentral.com/hdtv/
The only positive I can say about Fox and their widescreen is that it beats what the other networks are doing with the NFL. With my Cardinals in the tank, I'd just assume fast forward to the 2003 season with ABC/ESPN HD NFL football (and hopefully CBS too...).
Don't some FOX stations upconvert to 720p? While not true HiDef, with the upconversion, it may have looked pretty decent. But, hey, let's not give FOX any cheering on , with this. They might get the idea it's okay..........even with the HDTV afficionados..............
If that broadcast looked good, then there must be something wrong with the way my local station is passing it on. It looked a bit blurry to me, and motion on the screen didn't seem smooth.
Recall making a similar statement a year or so back about a Fox year-end game in 480p. (Except I didn't mention 1080i.) Managed to tune it OTA, despite bad multipath, and viewed part of the game on a 64-inch RPTV.) Such fidelity can appear very close to DVDs. Close and medium shot images in 480p (or upconverted) appear quite crisp and the 'richer' component-bandwidth colors especially help. The big difference with HDTV becomes apparent when you see long shots of players or distant stands and signs. They're fuzzy and indistinct with Fox's digital 480i, converted to 480p or higher by stations. -- John
my darn fox digital station won't do 16:9 for some reason.
I am running perhaps the lowest-end HD display of anyone here (a 27" Gateway Destination Monitor with 800x600 max resolution) and the difference between fox widescreen and CBS HD football is stunning. There is no comparision.
Foxwide is a big step up from NTSC (a bit higher res, much better color fidelity), but I don't see how anyone would confuse Foxwide with HD.
Foxwide is a big step up from NTSC (a bit higher res, much better color fidelity), but I don't see how anyone would confuse Foxwide with HD.
I'm sure the original poster is joking.
It's exactly what it was: 480i with added information on both sides to make it widescreen. It was average PQ even for 480i, about the same as MNF. It's better than MNF because of the widescreen. Anythng is better than regular 4x3.
It's exactly what it was: 480i with added information on both sides to make it widescreen. It was average PQ even for 480i, about the same as MNF. It's better than MNF because of the widescreen. Anythng is better than regular 4x3.
While it was a far cry from 1080i HD and not anywhere near the quality of some of the CBS college football broadcasts, the 16:9 OTA digital broadcast of the FOX Chargers-Niners game did look much better than most of the previous Fox "widescreen" games from memory. While I don't agree with Fox's definition of HD, it was certainly better than the average 4:3 OTA digital NFL game broadcast from CBS. Maybe I'm missing something but how many 1080i NFL games has CBS been showing? When CBS or ABC converts their NFL schedule to 1080i the standard will be set and Fox's 480p will be put to shame.
Quote:
My local Fox affiliate (KTVU - San Fran) upconverts to 720P. It looks quite good for their film based shows, like Malcolm in the Middle, X-Files, etc. My STB & HDTV also support 720P, so I think I view it in top quality form. Judging from statements about other Fox locals, KTVU is doing a MUCH better job than many of their peers.
But, the sports programs are where I see most benefit from the Hi-Def, and it is very obviously not close to 720p levels of detail. When they pull back, to show many players in a shot, it's very soft/fuzzy (like you would expect from a 480i source).
| Originally posted by Judy Y Don't some FOX stations upconvert to 720p? While not true HiDef, with the upconversion, it may have looked pretty decent. But, hey, let's not give FOX any cheering on , with this. They might get the idea it's okay..........even with the HDTV afficionados.............. |
But, the sports programs are where I see most benefit from the Hi-Def, and it is very obviously not close to 720p levels of detail. When they pull back, to show many players in a shot, it's very soft/fuzzy (like you would expect from a 480i source).
Quote:
What games previous Fox Widescreen games would those be?
| Originally posted by RTK While it was a far cry from 1080i HD and not anywhere near the quality of some of the CBS college football broadcasts, the 16:9 OTA digital broadcast of the FOX Chargers-Niners game did look much better than most of the previous Fox "widescreen" games from memory. |
There were only 2 Faux widescreen games shown this season: Detroit at Green Bay previous week, and SF @ SD this past week. (SF bay area only, don't know about other areas).
To my eyes, both were worst PQ than the FAUX superbowl. They did not look upconverted to 480p, they were standard 480i. But widescreen is always welcome.
To my eyes, both were worst PQ than the FAUX superbowl. They did not look upconverted to 480p, they were standard 480i. But widescreen is always welcome.
Quote:
Well said, Ken.
It just amazes me that we see these kinds of threads.
Widescreen Fox does provide a modest improvement over 4:3 480i, but it can in no way, short of a temporary reversal of the laws of physics, come close to matching a properly captured, transmitted, received and displayed HD broadcast.
Vic W
| Originally posted by Ken H Then something is wrong somewhere. Either your hardware, setup or vision needs to be corrected. |
It just amazes me that we see these kinds of threads.
Widescreen Fox does provide a modest improvement over 4:3 480i, but it can in no way, short of a temporary reversal of the laws of physics, come close to matching a properly captured, transmitted, received and displayed HD broadcast.
Vic W
Maybe I'm missing something here, but people don't seem to mentioning the size of their images. If you screen is small enough or you sit back far enough you won't be able to tell the differences between a lot of things. On my 32" set I can't tell much difference between Leno (HD) and Conan (widescreen SD as of last month). On my 61" set I couldn't tell much difference between Fox 480p and HD. Now that I use a $2600 projector to watch on either my 92" wide (120" diag) screen or my 116" wide screen, there is no comparison. I have to make the FOX stuff smaller just to make it watchable, so I mostly just don't watch it.
--Darin
--Darin
If you local affiliate does not stretch but shows true 4:3 480i with vertical bars, you should watch the first game that way and the second (National 16/9 game) will appear to have slightly better colors and obviously more screen info but the resolution will be the same......
Oh yeah, and edge enhancement out the wazoo so that it doesn't look like good DVDs.....
Oh yeah, and edge enhancement out the wazoo so that it doesn't look like good DVDs.....
Now Anthony, what have we told you about trolling in these here parts? Right. It's fun! 
Anyway, some may have missed this part of a discussion buried at the end of another thread . It appears that we might not be seeing even the full 480 line capability. At this time, I am receiving a FOX image that has a black overscan frame with the entire image placed within the overscan safe area. One might think that this is a good thing because the entire image would then be visible to most people, but to do so the original source resolution (and thus the fine detail) is actually reduced by 10% to make it fit. It is possible that this is a local issue, but I have not heard anything to the contrary. Also, you will not notice the border unless you have a zero-overscan monitor/projector.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, some may have missed this part of a discussion buried at the end of another thread . It appears that we might not be seeing even the full 480 line capability. At this time, I am receiving a FOX image that has a black overscan frame with the entire image placed within the overscan safe area. One might think that this is a good thing because the entire image would then be visible to most people, but to do so the original source resolution (and thus the fine detail) is actually reduced by 10% to make it fit. It is possible that this is a local issue, but I have not heard anything to the contrary. Also, you will not notice the border unless you have a zero-overscan monitor/projector.
Quote:
| Originally posted by Man E Would that then mean that the actual resolution of the image was reduced since the border counts in the bandwidth? Crap. I hadn't thought of that. I mean, wouldn't the 480 include those lines (h & v) in the border? That would reduce the actual image area to 768x432 (ish w/ 5% in each direction). It would also seem to necessitate an additional interpolation of the data to shrink it. |
| Originally posted by spwace Shrinking the image would probably defeat some of the data reduction gained by using the black border in the first place, and it is only 480p so what's the point. I don't know, I'm baffled. |
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
872 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
487 Replies
mrtickleuk
402 Replies
Recommended Communities
