AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yeah I know it's not HD but I'd like to comment that to me the quality of Fox's 16:9 shows (Dark Angel, Boston Public and Ally M) seems significantly better this year. The shows seem to have better lighting and much less grain/noise in the flat background areas. Not HD but a big cut above NTSC never the less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Peterson
You watch Fox, the "non-HDTV" network? Really? I sure don't.
Rich, It seems strange to see a consumer guide author say he doesn't watch one of the Big Four. Do you also avoid CBS because they don't have DD 5.1 yet?


I watch based on content, not picture or sound format. I guess you don't watch news on TV, huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
I don't have an HD set yet, but I will continue to watch Fox's programming whether they choose to make their DTV transmissions HD or not. Their Sunday evening programming and Boston Public is some of the best stuff on television, period. They are the only comedy series that I watch at all.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
One thing I have noticed on my local Fox WSVN is that the Live programming like the News & Deco Drive are way way better than anything else they show..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
I like that Fox is at least doing widescreen. If they aren't going to do all out HD, at least they aren't making us watched crop crap like NBC does. It's nice to see headroom everyonce and a while.


I don't watch much on Fox, but Boston Public is one and it looks great even though it's not 1080i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
Because of Fox network's anti-HDTV position, I unquestionably avoid watching them. My feeling is their affiliates should be required to be bunched together with perhaps four other local affiliates who are also not doing HDTV, and forced to multicast on a single 6 MHz channel. The spectrum they are wasting could then be freed up and sold to those who will do HDTV. Fox Network's position is slowing the transition and at the same time wasting valuable spectrum. One way I can fight that is to turn them off, so I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,161 Posts
Quote:
Because of Fox network's anti-HDTV position, I unquestionably avoid watching them.
Do you also avoid UPN & WB? If they have a good show, I watch it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,488 Posts
Rich,

Amen. However, I will confess to watching Boston Public. I totally agree that Fox is wasting bandwidth and absolutely thumbing their nose at the American public. They were given extremely valuable FREE bandwidth and are abusing this privelage big time. They should be ashamed. There is no question they are slowing the transition to HD across America. The World Series was such a disgrace that I can't express my distaste in words that are fit to print. There is no way that CBS would have been caught doing this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Ross
Rich,

Amen. However, I will confess to watching Boston Public. I totally agree that Fox is wasting bandwidth and absolutely thumbing their nose at the American public. They were given extremely valuable FREE bandwidth and are abusing this privelage big time. They should be ashamed. There is no question they are slowing the transition to HD across America. The World Series was such a disgrace that I can't express my distaste in words that are fit to print. There is no way that CBS would have been caught doing this.
Don't want to stir the hornet's nest (but you know I'll do it anyway :)), but as I understood it, the transition is to DTV, not to HDTV. Is there some written mandate that the broadcasters produce and air any high-definition programming? If there were, I should think that FCC would have removed resolutions lower than 720p from the subset of ATSC that they chose to adopt.


I don't recall that the "American public" asked for HDTV--some of the broadcasters did, with the the enthusiastic support of some of the government. So how is Fox thumbing their nose at the "American public", especially when fewer than 200,000 homes nationwide can view their digital content at all? (And what percentage of those people would watch their programming, even if it was in HD)? Nothing prevents them from starting to broadcast HD in the future if they're given some commercial motivation to do it.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,620 Posts
No, there is no written mandate for HDTV. But there was a group of broadcasters that I believed Fox belonged to, that spoke in front of Congress more than once, asking for the digital spectrum specifically for HDTV.


This took place a number of years ago. Perhaps someone can refresh this information here, as it seems to be at the crux of this discussion.


This is what a number of members of Congress are referring to when saying the broadcasters had better keep their word about HDTV, or risk losing the bandwidth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
Quote:
So how is Fox thumbing their nose at the "American public", especially when fewer than 200,000 homes nationwide can view their digital content at all?
If every network had the same attitude as Fox with regard to HDTV, that number would be close to zero. Fox is not only thumbing their noses at the American public, but also at those networks that are investing in making the transition happen by providing the one DTV application the transition needs: HDTV.


Sooner or later broadcasters are going to realize that HDTV is the one and only DTV application that will actually motivate we the viewers to spend money buying equipment that is necessary for the transition to succeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
What he said .....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Peterson
Sooner or later broadcasters are going to realize that HDTV is the one and only DTV application that will actually motivate we the viewers to spend money buying equipment that is necessary for the transition to succeed.
The viewers are not driving this transition--the FCC is. We the viewers are not going to make the transition happen. The transition is going to happen because the FCC has mandated it. Period. We don't have any choice.


I would guess that, by the end of the transition, most people will not own equipment capable of viewing HD--just tuners capable of tuning DTV and displaying it on their old NTSC sets, because they won't have any choice if they want to keep watching OTA television. I say this because I don't think that most people will find HDTV to be a more compelling reason to buy a new television than color was, and I think it was a long time after all the stations were broadcasting most of their programming in color before most people had color sets.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
If Fox has such a bad attitude towards HDTV then why do they own so many HD camara's? I mean why bother to film 720P if you're always going to downconvert to 480P?


Have a little patience. Just a few month's ago ABC was the antichrist of the DTV world, and look how that's changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
If all the networks broadcast HDTV the general public would move to that medium just like they did with color tv. It will be a status thing and it will snowball. FOX is not helping the process at this time. However, I think, by the actions of other networks they will be forced into doing it eventually. The 480P broadcast is a stopgap measure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken H
No, there is no written mandate for HDTV. But there was a group of broadcasters that I believed Fox belonged to, that spoke in front of Congress more than once, asking for the digital spectrum specifically for HDTV.


This took place a number of years ago. Perhaps someone can refresh this information here, as it seems to be at the crux of this discussion.


This is what a number of members of Congress are referring to when saying the broadcasters had better keep their word about HDTV, or risk losing the bandwidth.
They did, and now some in congress are rightly saying they did

so with no intent to do HDTV, but simply to get the largest block

of frequencies for multicast use. I think with out HDTV as a

"carrot", it might easily have come about to create digital

channels of 1-2 MHZ instead of the current 6mhz, and shrink

down the whole TV spectrum or increase the net number of

channels, or both.


As it is, the 6mhz has been effectively given over with increasing

signs that it will not be given back at any time soon, so the

matter is what to do with that allocation that makes sense

(returns a profit). The contenders were datacasting, multiple

DTV channels, and HDTV. The first is failing badly. In the second,

I think the stations will find that people will not pay extra for

the box and antenna to get a few extra channels that are no

different from the current channels, when they can easily get

cable or satellite and get more than a hundred new channels.


Competition will solve this. With the rise in popularity of HDTV,

which is slow but inevitable, I highly suspect that the various

formats out there will foster a period of "HDTV paranoia", where

people will denegrate, say, ABC for having less resolution lines

whether they can see the real difference or not. That time is

pretty far off, but it will result in unification of product around

the 1080i standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
This is the HDTV Programming Forum, NOT the Standard Definition, Widescreen Programming Forum. So, all FOX comments should reside in another forum, NOT this one. In light of FOX's anti-HDTV public position, no true hi-def supporter would consider watching FOX.


When it comes to hi-def TV, FOX equals FUBAR!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigR
If all the networks broadcast HDTV the general public would move to that medium just like they did with color tv. It will be a status thing and it will snowball. FOX is not helping the process at this time. However, I think, by the actions of other networks they will be forced into doing it eventually. The 480P broadcast is a stopgap measure.
I agree. Although I don't think that any overwhelming portion of the market will own HD capable sets by the end of the transition (i.e., when the stations are forced to stop transmitting NTSC), there should be a very significant number. When there are tens of millions of HD sets with HD tuners out there whose owners are choosing between equally popular programming, I think that it will behoove Fox to present all of their primetime programming in HD.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Tom -

As I understand it, the topic of this thread was that you felt that Fox 16:9 480p was better this year than last year. Let me take the rare approach of actually responding to the topic.


In L.A., I have watched four Fox 16:9 programs regularly both last year and this. I also monitor several other Fox programs for picture quality. I have not noticed any change in picture quality from last year to this.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top