# why isn't espnhd widescreen?



## magellanmtb (Nov 19, 2006)

During the commerical of 24, I switiched over to view the australian open coverage on espn (channel 72). Why does Espn persist on having the vertical banners on either side of the transmission. HD should be widescreen, period!!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

It wasn't in HD. Pretty much all that's in HD is SportsCenter, NFL Primetime, Monday Night Count Down, Live Pro Sports and most college sports. ESPN HD is not HD 24/7.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Would you rather the SD content be stretched to fit your screen? Just because a channel is labeled as HD doesn't mean everything is in HD. Have you watched TNTHD?


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

jdspencer said:


> Would you rather the SD content be stretched to fit your screen? Just because a channel is labeled as HD doesn't mean everything is in HD. Have you watched TNTHD?


Before we start the DBS Talk "let's pound on the amateurs" rant, let's try to look at what he said and realize that he obviously didn't realize that just because a channel is labeled "HD" doesn't mean all of the programming is HD. Now he knows.


----------



## humara (Jan 12, 2007)

agreed. but it is annoying that espnhd continues to label things as HD (at least in my vip622) guide and then when you watch it, it is not HD. there are some marginal sports that would be ok to watch in HD but def not worth in SD.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

humara said:


> agreed. but it is annoying that espnhd continues to label things as HD (at least in my vip622) guide and then when you watch it, it is not HD. there are some marginal sports that would be ok to watch in HD but def not worth in SD.


My D* H20 didn't have it listed as HD. That's an E* issue.


----------



## magellanmtb (Nov 19, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> It wasn't in HD. Pretty much all that's in HD is SportsCenter, NFL Primetime, Monday Night Count Down, Live Pro Sports and most college sports. ESPN HD is not HD 24/7.


Being a recent convert to HD, I apologize in advance if this is a basic question, but If es2h and channels such as 80,82, etc are not always HD, then there are more levels of transmissions then I though. I always though there was HD and SD, but the australian opne tennis, and various local channel programming (outside of prime time) show with side bars seems much better than SD channels such as HGTV, AMC, etc. So there seems to be

*very good HD: *(discoveryHD, HDnet, OTA locals, PBSHD (ota channel 13-1)
*good HD: *(espn hd, locals prime time, etc
*bad HD:* (TNT, occasional movies in HD
*digital transmission: * not HD but much better image than SD (ESPNhd/nonHD, CBS, NBC durring the day, WPIX, WOR non prime time.
*SD: * HGTV, CNN, MSNBC, FOOD, FINE,DIY, etc.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe it helps to think of it like this... The TV image starts out as a clean photograph whether in SD or HD... but the photograph doesn't fit inside the envelope so they have to fold it. Over time they want to carry more envelopes in each trip, so they get smaller envelopes and have to fold the pictures more and more.

When you get the envelope, and unfold the picture... it has all these creases in it no matter how you try to flatten it back out... and the more the folds the worse it looks.

SD on satellite or cable is compressed, and some channels are more compressed than others. OTA is compressed too, but not nearly as much as cable/satellite. HD on satellite/cable is compressed but starts out at a much higher resolution to begin with.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

ESPN/ESPN2 may not be getting the Australian Open picture in HD. (I have a feeling they will only have the final in HD.)

But I'm pretty sure they have the picture available in wide-screen right now. Why aren't they showing full wide-screen picture on ESPN-HD or ESPN2-HD without the annoying HD bars?

The other day (I believe late Monday night, Tuesday morning US time - which equated to primetime night match on Tuesday night Australian time), ESPN-HD showed a match for few minutes in wide-screen. It was definitely not HD. It was not ugly stretched material like TNT-HD either. Everything looked with correct proportions on the screen, not short/fat people. But then they went to a commercial break and came back with those pesky HD bars.

Given that wide-screen is standard format for pictures transmitted worldwide, and also seen by above evidence, I'm absolutely positive they do have wide-screen pictures. They're just arbitrarily truncating them off even on so-called HD channels.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

I'm watching the 4th round match involving Maria Sharapova LIVE right now on the "so-called" ESPN-HD. This is the Monday night primetime match for Australian and Asia Pacific TV audience.

Of course, I understand that the picture is not HD. But if you look carefully at the bottom of the screen, you'll see that the horrible HD bars don't cover 100% of the screen. You'll see thin hairline portion of the screen. There you can actually see portions of the screen which have been covered up. For example, I saw portion of the tennis ball when it went out of bounds in that region, saw portion of some person's head in the crowd when they showed a crowd shot and so on.

This is egregiously bad behavior on part of ESPN. I would even go so far as to call it unprofessional, unnecessarily converting a wide-screen picture into 4:3 ratio, even when the picture available to them is in 16:9 aspect ratio.



Damn you, freaking backward-arsed ESPN, what a pathetic stone age crap are you pulling? If you can't even professionally cover an event, why even bother paying rights for it? It would have been better if a channel like Universal HD covered it. I remember how fantastic was their coverge of US Open. Almost all of it was in HD, and even whatever wasn't HD was all in wide screen.

Does anyone know of a contact at ESPN where you could call to complain about this?


----------



## uscboy (Sep 5, 2006)

Eh, in their defense, I see why they don't display widescreen 480 as widescreen... one, ESPNHD is a simulcast of regular ESPN, so for most it's cropped anyway... but even more significant to them would be that the average Joe would assume the tennis match was HD since it didn't have the sidebars and then they would go on and complain that HD on ESPN looks horrible compared to HD on so-and-so...

Sidebars are easier to explain to people than the idea that there is widescreen that isn't HD.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

uscboy said:


> ... but even more significant to them would be that the average Joe would assume the tennis match was HD since it didn't have the sidebars and then they would go on and complain that HD on ESPN looks horrible compared to HD on so-and-so...
> 
> Sidebars are easier to explain to people than the idea that there is widescreen that isn't HD.


Average Joe, average Joe. So basically, the majority of people watching are stupid. They think having a picture in widescreen makes it HD. And people who know about these things should suffer because of them? It's all about stupidifying everyone across the board.

I don't even buy above argument. ESPN could have put a small disclaimer (picture not HD) near the "LIVE Australian Open" etc. graphics. And it would be equally applicable to even a simulacast on SD version of that channel. Come on, intentionally truncating an available widescreen picture with those ugly bars is a disgrace. I hate, absolutely hate those bars.

BTW, can someone remind me of any other HD channel which does this "HD bar" crap? That's not a wiseass, rhetorical question. I just don't remember off the top of my head. I know about the crap about TNT-HD squishing a 4:3 picture to 16:9 (another pet peeve of mine, don't even get me started). But does any other channel pull the atrocity of what ESPN HD channels do?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

I saw highlights of the Australian Open on ESPN Sports Center and the moderators (Mary Carillo and Darrin Cahill) were in HD. I saw tv cameras on the main stadium with HD symbols on the side. ESPN2 must have chosen not to air it in HD.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

richiephx said:


> I saw highlights of the Australian Open on ESPN Sports Center and the moderators (Mary Carillo and Darrin Cahill) were in HD. I saw tv cameras on the main stadium with HD symbols on the side. ESPN2 must have chosen not to air it in HD.


Yeah, I know. It had been like that from the first match till the final. This discussion is not about HD vs. SD, but intentional truncating of widescreen picture.

I suppose I could start a rant about not having access to HD picture even when they had it. But I'll limit my whining. I have no idea what consideration lead for them to decide HD or no HD. There maybe some cost factor associated and I'm willing to relent on that point. But there should be a very negligible cost for adding "picture not HD" to their graphics. Fact of the matter is, they just don't seem to care about their audience with such intentional truncating.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Yeah, I know. It had been like that from the first match till the final. This discussion is not about HD vs. SD, but intentional truncating of widescreen picture.
> 
> I suppose I could start a rant about not having access to HD picture even when they had it. But I'll limit my whining. I have no idea what consideration lead for them to decide HD or no HD. There maybe some cost factor associated and I'm willing to relent on that point. But there should be a very negligible cost for adding "picture not HD" to their graphics. Fact of the matter is, they just don't seem to care about their audience with such intentional truncating.


Chandu, I used to work for ESPN as an IT guy. I do know that it is a considerable undertaking when they go on the road. Considering the trek from Bristol to Australia, it may have been cost-prohibitive. Another possibility is when you consider sending the team over that works with the HD, there's still a day or two lost for travel and set-up time here to come back. The company also has to consider having the crew in Miami for the Super Bowl.

These may or not be the reasons, but I was just trying to throw out some of the things they go through.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

purtman said:


> Chandu, I used to work for ESPN as an IT guy. I do know that it is a considerable undertaking when they go on the road. Considering the trek from Bristol to Australia, it may have been cost-prohibitive. Another possibility is when you consider sending the team over that works with the HD, there's still a day or two lost for travel and set-up time here to come back. The company also has to consider having the crew in Miami for the Super Bowl.
> 
> These may or not be the reasons, but I was just trying to throw out some of the things they go through.


You're still talking about things I'm not talking about.

I can understand some economic reason for them not showing HD picture. I can live with that. Would I cringe knowing they have the HD picture, but they still aren't showing it? Sure. But there are so many disappointments in life, you just learn to move on. I'm not talking about that, which is what most of your post seems to address.

What I'm complaining about is, them intentionally slapping HD bars over part of picture, truncating it. Nobody can possibly justify such a decision while keeping a straight face. And I also proposed a very simple and cheap solution of "picture not HD" graphics to counter the stpidification of audience.

Fact of the matter is, they're arbitrarily enforcing a "widescreen = HD" rule upon us, which couldn't be farther from truth.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Chandu said:


> You're still talking about things I'm not talking about.
> 
> I can understand some economic reason for them not showing HD picture. I can live with that. Would I cringe knowing they have the HD picture, but they still aren't showing it? Sure. But there are so many disappointments in life, you just learn to move on. I'm not talking about that, which is what most of your post seems to address.
> 
> ...


Are you referring to the two vertical bars on the left and right of the picture? That is ESPN's standard filler for the non-HD pictures. They're not trying to say that the picture is HD as much as the fact that the person is watching ESPN-HD or ESPN2-HD. You're one of the few I've heard who was unaware of this. Also, if you look at your guide, you will not see the HD logo to signify that this is HD.

As far as them trying to intentionally mislead people, I highly doubt they're doing that. If people have a letter-box picture, I'd much rather have my company's logo filling in the sides than some empty space.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

purtman said:


> Are you referring to the two vertical bars on the left and right of the picture? That is ESPN's standard filler for the non-HD pictures. They're not trying to say that the picture is HD as much as the fact that the person is watching ESPN-HD or ESPN2-HD. You're one of the few I've heard who was unaware of this.


I don't believe you're following what this conversation is about. I've been watching ESPN-HD / ESPN2-HD for the last 5 to 6 years, and have seen those ugly bars for a looooooooooooooooong time. I know exactly the purpose they serve when original picture being shown is in 4:3 ratio.



> Also, if you look at your guide, you will not see the HD logo to signify that this is HD.


Once again, a comment which has absolutely nothing to do with what is the topic of this thread. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is this topic so complicated? Well, at least the title of this thread should have given it away.



> If people have a letter-box picture, I'd much rather have my company's logo filling in the sides than some empty space.


See, it would really help to read the thread from the beginning. Please read every single post in this thread from the beginning. *IT WAS NOT A LETTER BOX PICTURE.*

See? It's not that hard really. Sorry to be sounding so frustrated and a wiseass. But if you read the thread correctly, you would know that the complaint is about intentionally truncating a widescreen picture to letter box.

So, stop saying the word "HD" in your response.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Chandu said:


> I don't believe you're following what this conversation is about. I've been watching ESPN-HD / ESPN2-HD for the last 5 to 6 years, and have seen those ugly bars for a looooooooooooooooong time. I know exactly the purpose they serve when original picture being shown is in 4:3 ratio.
> 
> Once again, a comment which has absolutely nothing to do with what is the topic of this thread. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is this topic so complicated? Well, at least the title of this thread should have given it away.
> 
> ...


Do you get much sympathy for your grievances with that attitude?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

John W said:


> Do you get much sympathy for your grievances with that attitude?


Well, in my defense I've been going back and forth on this topic since yesterday, and must have typed "this discussion is not about HD vs. SD" ad nauseum. Also my first reply to him was very polite if you check. But in response, when he typed up a bunch of non sequitur, and the same "non-HD picture" response, it would be a shock if it didn't frustrate me. His second response added absolutely no value to the conversation. My usual rule of thumb is, if I'm not going to add any value by posting something, I won't post at all.

The only post which was on the money was #11 (uscboy). Since then, I'm only left repeating "this discussion is not about HD vs. SD" ad nauseum. I'm still waiting to hear some feedback from a poster like "uscboy" who actually understood what this conversation is about, specifically about this comment of mine: "What is wrong with slapping a graphic 'picture not HD' to a widescreen SD picture?"


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Chandu said:


> I don't believe you're following what this conversation is about. I've been watching ESPN-HD / ESPN2-HD for the last 5 to 6 years, and have seen those ugly bars for a looooooooooooooooong time. I know exactly the purpose they serve when original picture being shown is in 4:3 ratio.
> 
> Once again, a comment which has absolutely nothing to do with what is the topic of this thread. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is this topic so complicated? Well, at least the title of this thread should have given it away.
> 
> ...


Chandu, as you say, read every post from the beginning. Let's start with the first:
*During the commerical of 24, I switiched over to view the australian open coverage on espn (channel 72). Why does Espn persist on having the vertical banners on either side of the transmission. HD should be widescreen, period!!*
That is referring to the vertical bars that I referred to. As far as reading comprehension, you clearly had trouble understanding this. That's what this topic started with. So keep on the subject.
As far as your "sorry" comment, if you were truly sorry, you wouldn't repeat your putdowns of people.
Instead of sounding like a real jerk as you do in your comments and trying to sound like a real genius, maybe you should read the comments and go to one of those "ugly bars". You might find a date.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

...why ESPN thinks it gets away with foisting 4:3 AR and crappy SD on its viewers.

Some time ago, ESPN conducted a comprehensive intelligence analysis of typical
TV sports potatoes and has determined that, after two or three beers and a bag of
Doritos, Joe six-pack can't tell the difference between 4:3 AR and 16:9 AR, not to
mention the fact that the inferior, blurred image of an SD broadcast is quite often 
attributed to the natural inebriating effect of excessive alcohol consumption. :shrug:


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Nick said:


> ...why ESPN thinks it gets away with foisting 4:3 AR and crappy SD on its viewers.
> 
> Some time ago, ESPN conducted a comprehensive intelligence analysis of typical
> TV sports potatoes and has determined that, after two or three beers and a bag of
> ...


Where did you get that?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

purtman said:


> As far as reading comprehension, you clearly had trouble understanding this. That's what this topic started with. So keep on the subject.


Haha!!!! :lol: Nicely done!!! :grin:

Says the poster who actually quoted my posts, and then says he is referring to the original post which started this thread.

I thought you were speaking to me when you explicitly took the action of clicking on "Quote" button in my post. Were you having a conversation with Kofi Annan then? My bad, got you. Maybe you could have cut and pasted some paragraphs from the "Flood control budget of 2007 in the Zambezi river basin" in your non sequitur replies. It would have been a lot clearer.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Nick said:


> ...why ESPN thinks it gets away with foisting 4:3 AR and crappy SD on its viewers.
> 
> Some time ago, ESPN conducted a comprehensive intelligence analysis of typical
> TV sports potatoes and has determined that, after two or three beers and a bag of
> ...


Haha, now that's funny. It actually goes hand in hand with the "Average Joe" whom uscboy was referring to.

But in all seriousness, this enforced letterboxed SD scourge of ESPN must go. There are a number of OTA channels in my area which don't transmit HD 24/7. But when they aren't transmitting HD, the SD picture is not enforced letterboxed. It is DVD quality widescreen 480p. Just looking at these OTA channels, I somehow don't buy the argument that "Average Joe equates a widescreen picture to be HD". What ESPN is practicing in, is enforced stupidity on its entire audience to the extent of insulting them.

Not to be content with taking potshots at ESPN in this thread, I've decided to do something more about this. I have no reason to believe I'm guaranteed to be successful, but at least I'll be glad I made some noise. I've located some contact information for ESPN production in Bristol and will make some calls to voice my displeasure. Again, I have no reason to believe there will be a tangible change due to this in near future. But I want at least one random JoeBloe manning their phones go to bed, thinking there was a viewer pissed off because of what they did.

(BTW, I also went in their so-called "viewer zone" forum, the one in which they invite viewers of ESPN to provide them feedback on quality of their programming. If you look under covers, it is nothing more than a "politically correct" pretense they've setup to show as if they care about their viewers. It's a higher probability that they use printouts of complaint posts from there as toilet paper, rather than actually acting on those complaints. In any event if anyone is interested, link to their forum is at: http://www.espnviewerzone.com )


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Haha!!!! :lol: Nicely done!!! :grin:
> 
> Says the poster who actually quoted my posts, and then says he is referring to the original post which started this thread.
> 
> I thought you were speaking to me when you explicitly took the action of clicking on "Quote" button in my post. Were you having a conversation with Kofi Annan then? My bad, got you. Maybe you could have cut and pasted some paragraphs from the "Flood control budget of 2007 in the Zambezi river basin" in your non sequitur replies. It would have been a lot clearer.


Chandu, I won't sink to you level. Rather than get personal as everybody on this post has seen, I was originally trying to help a user, not what you are trying to do. It's attitudes like your own that defeat the purpose of what this site is about.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

purtman said:


> Chandu, I won't sink to you level.


Never mind, you already sunk lower than mine when you told me to



purtman said:


> ....go to one of those "ugly bars". You might find a date.





> It's attitudes like your own that defeat the purpose of what this site is about.


Not to toot my own horn or anything of that sort, but a general post history under my name would indicate otherwise.

This is all assuming you were actually talking me. I mean, I know you quoted my post and seemed to address me. But you never know, you might be addressing the first post in the thread.

Staying on topic:

I gave an older link in one of the previous posts for ESPN related discussion message board. The new and correct link is:

http://www.espnfanzone.com

Speaking of "ugly bars", during Australian Open final I literally had the temptation of taking a hammer and start hitting on them. I was hoping I could see the piece of real estate on the screen being hidden by them that way. 

And an update on the followup with an ESPN person in Bristol about this issue. It sort of went like this:



> Me: Hello, I wish to complain about a telecast quality issue on one of your channels. Are you the right person to speak with?
> 
> Person manning the phone: Yes, sure. I can note down your complaint and forward it to the right department.
> 
> ...




As I had said before, I wasn't putting full weight into thinking this was actually going to lead to any resolution. But at least I know I've done as much as I could've for what it is worth.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

purtman said:


> If people have a letter-box picture, I'd much rather have my company's logo filling in the sides than some empty space.


Purtman, just wanted to make sure you understand that the frustration here is being over a cropped out widescreen content and not a letterboxed picture.
If you watch a Champions League game on ESPN2-HD for example, you'll see that picture quality is ten times better than on ESPN2-SD. But with two "UGLY" bars on both sides and the update line on the bottom it reduces my 34" screen to about 23". And it is VERY frustrating, so much that at times I opt to watch a non-HD version instead. And most of those games are available in a widescreen format, so I do not realy get what espn gain from covering half of the screen with their infamous grey vale.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Art said:


> Purtman, just wanted to make sure you understand that the frustration here is being over a cropped out widescreen content and not a letterboxed picture.
> If you watch a Champions League game on ESPN2-HD for example, you'll see that picture quality is ten times better than on ESPN2-SD. But with two "UGLY" bars on both sides and the update line on the bottom it reduces my 34" screen to about 23". And it is VERY frustrating, so much that at times I opt to watch a non-HD version instead. And most of those games are available in a widescreen format, so I do not realy get what espn gain from covering half of the screen with their infamous grey vale.


I can understand that. I had not seen them do that. It's all been SD when I've seen the bars on the side, even though it is shown on the ESPN2HD.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

purtman said:


> I can understand that. I had not seen them do that. It's all been SD when I've seen the bars on the side, even though it is shown on the ESPN2HD.


Champions League matches coming up later this month (February). Tune in if curious. You'll see the picture quality is definitely hi-rez, without a doubt, way too good to suggest that it might be SD content. But it comes with the sidebars.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Art said:


> Champions League matches coming up later this month (February). Tune in if curious. You'll see the picture quality is definitely hi-rez, without a doubt, way too good to suggest that it might be SD content. But it comes with the sidebars.


I'll have to check it out. Thanks.


----------



## teebeebee1 (Dec 11, 2006)

This thread is great, i've recently had to explain the same concepts to co-workers who purchased HDTV's for Xmas.

"Last night's HD didn't look very good" or "Watched that game in HD last night and it was awesome!"

First off, neither game was in HD which they fail to admit but some people are having a harder time than others, I just wonder why they blow a wad of cash on a tv when they have no bleeping clue what they are getting into HD wise.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Chandu said:


> There are a number of OTA channels in my area which don't transmit HD 24/7. But when they aren't transmitting HD, the SD picture is not enforced letterboxed. It is DVD quality widescreen 480p.


Huh?

Where are they getting 16x9 480p from? If it is foreign (like BBC) material, I can see it or if it is a local-only broadcast of a Fox NFL game that is not in HD.

But if you are getting full 16x9 480p (I don't know anyone who broadcasts in that, much less DVD quality), they have to be stretching or cropping the picture.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Huh?
> 
> Where are they getting 16x9 480p from? If it is foreign (like BBC) material, I can see it or if it is a local-only broadcast of a Fox NFL game that is not in HD.


Exactly. You got it correct on both counts.



> But if you are getting full 16x9 480p (I don't know anyone who broadcasts in that, much less DVD quality), they have to be stretching or cropping the picture.


No, no stretching (like TNT-HD) or cropping (ESPN-HD) going on. This is exactly the crux of the complaint here.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

purtman said:


> I'll have to check it out. Thanks.


Just curious if you had time to tune in this week? There were some crackers, but all of them I had to watch in SD for same old reason... What's even more weird is that one of the SD channels, which is Setanta, were covering the most important game (Barcelona - Liverpool) and the uglyness of it was that they, for some reason, chopped a widescreen telecast to squeeze it into 4X3. Can you imagine watcching a soccer game without seeing what's happening on the far right and far left, and only what's in the middle of the screen? Like when Gerrard was taking a free kick you were not seeing the kicker, just the ball flying out of nowhere...


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Art said:


> Just curious if you had time to tune in this week? There were some crackers, but all of them I had to watch in SD for same old reason... What's even more weird is that one of the SD channels, which is Setanta, were covering the most important game (Barcelona - Liverpool) and the uglyness of it was that they, for some reason, chopped a widescreen telecast to squeeze it into 4X3. Can you imagine watcching a soccer game without seeing what's happening on the far right and far left, and only what's in the middle of the screen? Like when Gerrard was taking a free kick you were not seeing the kicker, just the ball flying out of nowhere...


I saw that it was on twice this week on ESPN, but both times it was on during the day while I was working.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

purtman said:


> I saw that it was on twice this week on ESPN, but both times it was on during the day while I was working.


you don't have a DVR yet? c'mon, man!

on a serious note, it's always during the day time. the kick offs are 11:45 PT.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

That particular Champions League match in question was shown LIVE in HD on Sky Sports HD.

I hope the Champions League Final will be shown LIVE in HD this year on ESPN2-HD just like last year (Barcelona vs. Arsenal).

Incidentally, the Carling Cup Final (Chelsea vs. Arsenal from Cardiff) shown LIVE on Setanta early Sunday morning was also on Sky Sports HD. Of course, since Setanta is not an HD channel, in the US it was in SD and cropped to 4:3 ratio.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

But, Chandu, almost every game shown on Setanta here in US simultaniously is being televised in UK both on Sky Sports and Sky Sprts HD, and very few of them are being cropped. In any case it's weird that here, in this country, we only get a cartoony version of what's available around the world.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to why ESPN2 are showing games in hi rez but with sidebars. Have you watched Lille - MU or Porto - Chelsea?


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Art said:


> you don't have a DVR yet? c'mon, man!
> 
> on a serious note, it's always during the day time. the kick offs are 11:45 PT.


We have a standard DVR. The HD DVR is scheduled for March 23 ... We have D* so there's a delay


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Art said:


> And I'm still waiting for an answer to why ESPN2 are showing games in hi rez but with sidebars. Have you watched Lille - MU or Porto - Chelsea?


It's the same exact reason why they corrupted Australian Open picture/coverage.

Yes, I watched those 2 events mentioned above, as well as Liverpool - Barcelona on Setanta.

Lest anyone else confuses this further, the "hi rez" mentioned above *is NOT* HD. It is still SD. It is DVD quality 480p SD, being shown on the HD version of these channels (ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD), that's all.

The original feed is HD and in 16:9 aspect ratio. There are 3 possibilities of what actually is happening:


ESPN family is getting the original HD feed. They are down-converting it to 480p and then cropping to 4:3 ratio.
By the time it gets handed over to ESPN guys, it's already down-converted and cropped to 4:3.
ESPN guys are getting a down-converted 480p feed in 16:9 aspect ratio. But they're forcibly cropping it to 4:3 ratio.

I have no idea which one of these is the case for Champions League.

For Australian Open, I know for a fact that it was the first. This is because ESPN International were the ones who were producing that event for worldwide consumption, had it in 16:9 HD and had full control over what to do with it. And it has been proven by examination of forced cropping that it was brute force. It's not as if they cropped the picture using software. Instead they slapped their vertical bars brute force over a complete 16:9 picture. It was done so imperfectly that you could even see small portions of original widescreen picture underneath those vertical bars. (Also known as "ugly bars", and I'm thinking of claiming a copyright for that term. :lol I mentioned this in one of earlier posts in this thread.

For Setanta USA, none of these questions arise. It is well known that 100% of Setanta's existence is in SD, all of it being in 4:3 ratio. There is nothing Setanta can do other than show a 4:3 picture.

The difference between Setanta and ESPN family channels is that, ESPN guys have their "HD" versions of channels, with full access to 16:9 real estate. (ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD). Even if a specific program may not be HD resolution, if it was widescreen, ESPN guys have the choice of keeping it in its original format. As I suggested before, for avoiding confusion with such widescreen SD pictures, they also have an option of displaying a disclaimer: "Picture not HD". But they're choosing not to do any of this.

Hope this gorily spelled out clarification is of some use to someone.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

Thanks for taking time explaining it all, Chandu. I really appreciate it. 

I understand that Setanta is an SD channel, and I do not expect miracles from them. What I do hope for is that they keep showing us games in the original 4:3 format (instead of cropped out 16:9), just like they did with every game before the Barca - Pool match. Although, it does feel weird if those games are available in HD somewhere else why not here, in US? Don't we have the most advanced technology available here in this country? Or is it too many cretins at ESPN who still look down at soccer as a "non-american" sport, or what?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Art said:


> What I do hope for is that they keep showing us games in the original 4:3 format (instead of cropped out 16:9), just like they did with every game before the Barca - Pool match.


I don't know if there was a separate 4:3 feed which would look different than a "16:9 cropped to 4:3" feed. I would think there would be the same widescreen feed produced by UEFA distributed to the entire world.

So I'm sure the problem with Steven Gerrard free kick for Liverpool-Barcelona would show up even in the telecast of the same match they showed on ESPN Deportes.

I am one of very few people in this country who get both Setanta USA and ESPN Deportes. I didn't bother watching that match on ESPN Deportes, instead saw it on Setanta. Although I can bet with great confidence that it looked identical on ESPN Deportes.



> Although, it does feel weird if those games are available in HD somewhere else why not here, in US? Don't we have the most advanced technology available here in this country? Or is it too many cretins at ESPN who still look down at soccer as a "non-american" sport, or what?


It's got nothing to do with lack of technology, looking down on a sport or anything like that. As has been documented in detail earlier in the thread, even tennis didn't get shown in HD, although original feed was HD. There are number NFL telecasts which still don't get shown in HD, notably ones on CBS.

Obviously there are cost issues involved with choice of not showing HD, even when HD feeds are available.

There are absolutely no cost issues involved with choice of showing cropped 4:3 feeds, when 16:9 widescreen feeds AND ownership of 16:9 screen real estate is available.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

magellanmtb said:


> During the commerical of 24, I switiched over to view the australian open coverage on espn (channel 72). Why does Espn persist on having the vertical banners on either side of the transmission. HD should be widescreen, period!!


Well, it's been 1 year.

I've been watching the Roger Federer vs Tipsarevic match LIVE (some Serb whom I had never heard of until today) which has been billied as the "Epic". I can't really tell if it's being shown in true HD or if it is widescreen SD upconverted. Whatever it is, it is all widescreen and quality from coverage perspective for such a high quality contest. This is all I was asking for 1 year ago. Looks like all the complaining to ESPN guys has paid of and they did finally listen after all.


----------

