AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,999 Posts
Ya' sucked me in again. I thought this thread was going to be about something else, given the non specific thread title.


What's your source on this? (Always a good thing to mention to maintain credibility given all the false rumors that have appeared on the board).


That being said, this has been discussed many times in previous threads, including ABC's own announcement about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,175 Posts
Would that be the Oscars or the Emmys? I just want to make my long range plans to be dissappointed by another false rumor!
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,616 Posts
I've added the specifics to the title.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
I've posted about this before, but in my opinion, the Oscars will mean more to the popularity of HD than the Super Bowl. Because, while the rest of the world plays a very different kind of football, they all watch Hollywood movies. And as much as sports are improved by HD...football players are UGLY. I'd rather see one Hollywood star in HD than any number of steriod-addled gorillas in hob-nailed boots. Also, lots of rich and powerful people have Oscar parties - this could be their first opportunity to witness HD.


If anyone from ABC reads these threads, a couple suggestions?
  • Letterbox the SD broadcast.

Why? Movies are widescreen. Viewers today accept letterboxing - to them it means "movie" (look at current commercials). All the clips could be shown in HD widescreen. Perhaps the broadcast could include an explanation about widescreen, letterboxing and panning & scanning. I'd suggest Martin Scorcese talking and Robin Williams running around demonstrating.
  • Do the pre-show in HD as well.

The dresses and stars on the red carpet are the sole reason some people watch the show.
  • Promote it!

Please. Let the standard definition viewers know that they are missing out. HD is one of the few advantages over-the-air has over that vast throng of cable and satellite channels. Take advantage of it. One banner ad at the start of the show is NOT enough.
  • Use the full dynamic range of the cameras.

Don't filter or reduce the resolution of the image in any way in deference to the fragile egos of the stars. They are going to be photographed by People and US and Entertainment Weekly with 35mm still cameras anyway, a medium with more resolution than HD. They will have spent time and money looking as good as humanly possible already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
A friend of mine is involved in negotiations with ABC, I'm sorry I can't be more specific right now but whether or not he is involved with this years broadcast it will more than likely be in HD. I'll post as soon as I know more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Chris, what an excellent post. Your suggestions are right on the money. The Scorcese-Williams idea is particularly ideal -- it would be wonderful if they would take five minutes to explain letterboxing to the public. I know that Scorcese has spent time promoting the difference between letterboxing and 4:3 pan-and-scan, he and Williams are the perfect pair.


Since ABC is going to do the Super Bowl in HD, it makes complete sense for them to do the Academy Awards show as well, and promotion is critical. 2003 can be a breakout year for HD (Super Bowl, ESPN-HD, Sunday and Monday Night Football games, among others) and ABC can and should promote their programming on SD broadcasts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Quote:
Don't filter or reduce the resolution of the image in any way in deference to the fragile egos of the stars. They are going to be photographed by People and US and Entertainment Weekly with 35mm still cameras anyway, a medium with more resolution than HD. They will have spent time and money looking as good as humanly possible already. [/b]
chris - excellent post!


small correction: the stills are taken w/ D-SLRs nowadays NOT 35mm (for immediate turn-around & transmission) - expect to see rows of Nikon D1 type and Canon 1D type DSLRs - but your point is still valid, since these cameras shoot at resolutions that EXCEED HDTV.
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,616 Posts
tin ear,


Thanks for the great early warning. Based on the recent info from Broadcast & Cable, it looks like it's true ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=202059 ), so I'll revise the topic title again.


Thanks again and we look forward to your future participation.


Best Regards,

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,565 Posts
Damn! I thought is was the Alcoholics Anonymous Convention, supposedly scheduled for February 14th on Alctraz Island. Brought to you of course, in true HD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Burgess
Since ABC is going to do the Super Bowl in HD, it makes complete sense for them to do the Academy Awards show as well, and promotion is critical. 2003 can be a breakout year for HD (Super Bowl, ESPN-HD, Sunday and Monday Night Football games, among others) and ABC can and should promote their programming on SD broadcasts.
This could be the showpiece for 720P. It's a live broadcast, and the 60 frame per second rate should give it an astonishing immediacy, like Trumbell's ShowScan system. But I forgot to add one additional suggestion:
  • Do NOT shoot it in 24P!

This is a live event, a live video event. It is not a motion picture, and it shouldn't poorly ape one of the unfortunate artifacts of one (temporal judder). The viewers will have plenty of opportunity to see 3:2 pulldown during the clips. The MTV Movie Awards were in 24P, and it was a mess - an "artistic" decision by the director.


This should be the best picture any viewer has ever seen. Clear images of beautiful people on a breathtaking set with excellent lighting dressed to the nines. If an actress is wearing a 3 million dollar Harry Winston piece, HD should allow the viewer to tell that is isn't costume jewlery. I mentioned in a previous post, but the year before last, Jennifer Lopez (a talented actress - ignore all this "J. Lo" nonsense) was wearing mink eyelashes! I want to see that kind of detail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Quote:
I've posted about this before, but in my opinion, the Oscars will mean more to the popularity of HD than the Super Bowl. Because, while the rest of the world plays a very different kind of football, they all watch Hollywood movies.
While the world watches American movies, they don't watch television on ABC. The United States, Canada, Australia and Japan are the only countries with HDTV.


The AAs do attract a more divers audience though. I wouldn't even consider watching the Super Bowl if it wasn't in HDTV and known for great commercials, but I do watch the Oscars most years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
I'm with Newbie, for me the Super Bowl is all about the commercials. Let's just hope the advertisers are going to bring us some HD commercials during the Super Bowl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I couldn't disagree more, Chris. The Super Bowl is THE highest rated broadcasted television program every year. It is THE television event of the year. Even when the game is a "yawner", the rating for the Super Bowl surpass the Academy Award show EVERY year. If television wants to showcase its "premier" product, then showcase the Super Bowl. IT is television's premier product, not some boring award show.


Although I am glad to see ANY additional HD programming, and I will watch the Oscar's this year (at least for a little while.) But the bad show tunes, corny jokes, boring stage numbers, and acceptace speeches that drag on are not, IMO, the best way to "sell" HDTV's.


Sports is the "killer app" for HD, and the Super Bowl is the Holy Grail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,010 Posts
That's the first time I ever heard the Academy Awards called "boring."


That adjective is usually used to describe the Superbowl, though. Yeah, the adds are cool, but I'm with Chris on this one. His point is that the Oscar's are the perfect event to show off HD. He's right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryC
I couldn't disagree more, Chris.
You are welcome to do so.

Quote:


The Super Bowl is THE highest rated broadcasted television program every year.
True. Baffling, but true. I didn't claim otherwise.

Quote:


It is THE television event of the year.
So I've been told. But I've also been told that huge numbers of people tune in to watch...the commercials? How boring does an event have to be for people to tune in to watch commercials?

Quote:


Even when the game is a "yawner", the rating for the Super Bowl surpass the Academy Award show EVERY year.
True. But hardly relevant to the point I was making.

Quote:


If television wants to showcase its "premier" product, then showcase the Super Bowl.
Um, they are. The same network, in fact.

Quote:


IT is television's premier product, not some boring award show.
You find the Oscars boring, I find the Superbowl boring. Fine, to each his own. But, again, hardly relevant to my point.


Which is this:


The Super Bowl, minus the commercials and the half-time show is...and make sure you're sitting down while you read this...is just another football game. It looks like any other football game. Other than the importance placed upon it, it is just another football game. Maybe it's shot with more cameras and there's a logo with Roman numerals painted on the field and the Goodyear blimp is floating overhead, but the vast majority of the program is a football game.


The Oscars features some of the most attractive people around. They are dressed in expensive clothes. They carefully lit.


The players on the Superbowl teams are not very attractive. They are all dressed the same. They are flatly lit with harsh lighting. And any mud slung around on the Oscars is entirely metaphorical.


Given that BOTH are going to be in HD, which one of these things is more likely to produce pictures that will sell HD sets?

Quote:
Although I am glad to see ANY additional HD programming, and I will watch the Oscar's this year (at least for a little while.) But the bad show tunes, corny jokes, boring stage numbers, and acceptace speeches that drag on are not, IMO, the best way to "sell" HDTV's.
I'll admit that a lot of the average Oscar telecast can be painful, as you admit any given Superbowl can be a "yawner". The difference is that the Oscars feature a parade of beautiful women and handsome men announcing the winner of a different award every few minutes. The Superbowl could be immesurably improved by interupting it with clips of the best movies of the year in HD as well.

Quote:


Sports is the "killer app" for HD, and the Super Bowl is the Holy Grail.
No, sports is a killer app for bringing sport-watching viewers to HD. But that is not that difficult. Joe Six-Pack might want to buy an HD set when he hears the Superbowl will be in HD. Fine. But Mrs. Six-Pack may well have veto power. The real killer app for sales of HD-ready big screens has been movies on DVD, not a single sporting event. People can watch movies via a progressive DVD player and get a better picture than they ever had before.


HD is not going to take off until we get past the idea that it begins and ends with sports programming. And a stunning-looking Oscars will do a lot for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
You seem to be awfully concerned with how attractive the people are, and how expensive the clothes are, in determining what you will watch. Who cares? Do you actually sit there and discuss the gowns and tuxedo's, and whether or not "she is wearing Harry Winston diamonds or Wellington?" :confused:


Watching (insert washed-up celebrity's name here) sing and dance and tell awful jokes. Boring. Listening to actors thank Aunt Petunia until they are played off stage. I'm sure I can have a party during that event. :rolleyes:


Luckily, we both will get see the one we want in HDTV this year. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top