HD coverage of the Nascar Race and Indy car races makes the F1 coverage look like Crap
TonyMitch
lacking any vibrant colors until I watched the Indycar race yesterday
In HD. The Indycar in-car views were beyond crisp and clear. And when
the cars passed that were on track, you can see the actual shine on
the cars and the surrounding scenery reflecting from the cars
surface. F1 coverage looks like DVD quality while Indycar and Nascar
coverage looks like Blue-Ray. F1 really needs to get with the times.
F1’s current dull picture doesn’t do anything for the show.
I know... Most of you guys here can’t tell the difference between
Standard Definition and High Definition, and some also refuse to
acknowledge that current television technology provides a far clearer
and crisper picture than their 13 year old 4:3 Sony Triniton CRT T.Vs
can produce. So everything looks the same on those old T.Vs. leading
them to believe that HD isn’t any better.
Whether folks here want to acknowledge it or not, F1 needs HD now. It
amazes me that the most advanced car races on the planet are being
broadcast in a format that no other major sports (and even minor ones)
are using anymore. Get with the times F1!! I was so surprised when
they showed people in the F1 pits looking at the race on a 4:3 T.V!
And HD isn’t even slated until 2012 for F1? What a laugh. It’s bad
enough that most of the races are boring and the coverage looks like
crap (even next to AMA Superbike). If F1 wasn’t being run by a
hardheaded, stubborn old-man, we’d have F1 races in HD years ago.
I might not even watch f1 next year (which would be the first time
since 1992). There are other racing series that offer a far more
immersing experience because of the HD coverage (even if the cars are
slower).
Now let the attacks and insults begin.
News
No argument here!
Bernie has taken the low/cheap-tech road. Leaves more in the wallet, eh?
Mark
>
> I never realized how current F1 coverage is so blurry, dull, and
> lacking any vibrant colors until I watched the Indycar race yesterday
> In HD. The Indycar in-car views were beyond crisp and clear. And when
> the cars passed that were on track, you can see the actual shine on
> the cars and the surrounding scenery reflecting from the cars
> surface. F1 coverage looks like DVD quality while Indycar and Nascar
> coverage looks like Blue-Ray. F1 really needs to get with the times.
> F1’s current dull picture doesn’t do anything for the show.
Yes - that's because F1 coverage *is* DVD quality not HD.
It will be transmitted/recorded in (European) standard definition (576
of 625 lines visible). Some broadcasters upscale this to HD (720 or
1080). Even 720 will be a big improvement over US standard definition
(at most 525 lines), but even good upscaling will make it look blurred
compared to genuine HD pictures - you can't create detail which doesn't
exist.
> I know... Most of you guys here can’t tell the difference between
> Standard Definition and High Definition, and some also refuse to
> acknowledge that current television technology provides a far clearer
> and crisper picture than their 13 year old 4:3 Sony Triniton CRT T.Vs
> can produce. So everything looks the same on those old T.Vs. leading
> them to believe that HD isn’t any better.
The problem isn't the CRTs - in fact many CRTs look good showing HD
pictures - but the sources. If you rely on a digital picture and
mismatch scanlines, newer sets *do* look worse.
A good 1080p display matched with a good 1080p source, however, looks
superb.
You are being unfair, however, if you suggest that the HD tag
automatically gives you a better picture. In my experience, the shops
selling these things often give you worthless advice and I have often
had to reconfigure friends setups because it looks terrible having been
setup by so-called "expert fitters".
> Whether folks here want to acknowledge it or not, F1 needs HD now. It
> amazes me that the most advanced car races on the planet are being
> broadcast in a format that no other major sports (and even minor ones)
> are using anymore. Get with the times F1!! I was so surprised when
> they showed people in the F1 pits looking at the race on a 4:3 T.V!
>
> And HD isn’t even slated until 2012 for F1? What a laugh. It’s bad
> enough that most of the races are boring and the coverage looks like
> crap (even next to AMA Superbike). If F1 wasn’t being run by a
> hardheaded, stubborn old-man, we’d have F1 races in HD years ago.
>
> I might not even watch f1 next year (which would be the first time
> since 1992). There are other racing series that offer a far more
> immersing experience because of the HD coverage (even if the cars are
> slower).
>
> Now let the attacks and insults begin.
You're wrong. Many F1 fans would love HD now. Whether enough of them
are willing to pay enough for it to be provided now is a different
matter. And that's all Bernie and the TV companies care about.
I have HD with an HD subscription to my cable company, but I suspect
that many people either don't have the TV set or the subscription to
benefit. That will change.
AC
Talk about dumbing down. Not watching cos it don't look nice, aye? You
cant to see shiny stuff?
F1 does not *need* HD in any way shape or form. It might be nice, but it
is not a necessity.
Cant be arsed to find out, but I wonder how many people have cared
enough to start a thread about this? More people care about team orders
and iffy overtaking than HD. If funny, all we hear about is how people
want great racing with over taking, etc. Not HD.
Sorry, couldn't care less about HD. It might well be nice, but it adds
nothing to the party that I care about.
Give it a couple of years and I suppose you'll be demanding 3D.
Look, the vast majority of F1 viewers don't have HD TV. There for the
numbers don't add up. When they do, you will have your HD TV. Simples.
--
AC
TonyMitch
> TonyMitch wrote:
> > I never realized how current F1 coverage is so blurry, dull, and
> > lacking any vibrant colors until I watched the Indycar race yesterday
> > In HD. The Indycar in-car views were beyond crisp and clear. And when
> > the cars passed that were on track, you can see the actual shine on
> > the cars and the surrounding scenery reflecting from the cars
> > surface. F1 coverage looks like DVD quality while Indycar and Nascar
> > coverage looks like Blue-Ray. F1 really needs to get with the times.
> >
> > I know... Most of you guys here can�t tell the difference between
> > Standard Definition and High Definition, and some also refuse to
> > acknowledge that current television technology provides a far clearer
> > and crisper picture than their 13 year old 4:3 Sony Triniton CRT T.Vs
> > can produce. So everything looks the same on those old T.Vs. leading
> >
> > Whether folks here want to acknowledge it or not, F1 needs HD now. It
> > amazes me that the most advanced car races on the planet are being
> > broadcast in a format that no other major sports (and even minor ones)
> > are using anymore. Get with the times F1!! I was so surprised when
> > they showed people in the F1 pits looking at the race on a 4:3 T.V!
> >
> > enough that most of the races are boring and the coverage looks like
> > hardheaded, stubborn old-man, we�d have F1 races in HD years ago.
> >
> > I might not even watch f1 next year (which would be the first time
> > since 1992). There are other racing series that offer a far more
> > immersing experience because of the HD coverage (even if the cars are
> > slower).
> >
> > Now let the attacks and insults begin.
>
>
> Talk about dumbing down. Not watching cos it don't look nice, aye? You
> cant to see shiny stuff?
>
> F1 does not *need* HD in any way shape or form. It might be nice, but it
> is not a necessity.
Neither are color broadcasts a necessity. Heck, why dont we just go
back to Radio Broadcasts? LOL!
>
> Cant be arsed to find out, but I wonder how many people have cared
> enough to start a thread about this? More people care about team orders
> and iffy overtaking than HD. If funny, all we hear about is how people
> want great racing with over taking, etc. Not HD.
>
> Sorry, couldn't care less about HD. It might well be nice, but it adds
> nothing to the party that I care about.
You are living in the Bronze Age. I'm sure there were people saying
the same thing about Color TVs when they were first released. They
were probably saying things like "Black and White is good enough" and
that "color doesn't add anything to the racing". Dude whether you
want believe it or not (and it really isn't up for debate). HD offers
a better viewing experience. Why do you seem to be against that?
> Give it a couple of years and I suppose you'll be demanding 3D.
Not really a fan of 3D.
> Look, the vast majority of F1 viewers don't have HD TV. There for the
> numbers don't add up. When they do, you will have your HD TV. Simples.
And all those folks are also living in the Bronze Age.
Brad
Why not now? 3D compatible sets don't cost much more than normal ones
already, and if the technology is there why not use it?
If they are going to do HD, I imagine their extra cost for 3D would be
minimal at that end too.
>
> Look, the vast majority of F1 viewers don't have HD TV. There for the
> numbers don't add up. When they do, you will have your HD TV. Simples.
I haven't read of a survey about it recently, but would be shocked if less
than 75% of Australian homes didn't have at least 720p capable sets now.
--
Brad
News
Ah, but F1-HD would improve the quality of remote scrutineering and
stewardship!
TonyMitch
I'm not sure why someone would refuse to acknowlege (or want)
something that is clearly better. Talk about being stuck in thier
ways.
John Briggs
I'm pretty certain you don't mean "stewardship".
--
John Briggs
News
Interpret as "perform Steward of Meet functions"... remotely, of course.
AC
LOL. Nice one.
>
> If they are going to do HD, I imagine their extra cost for 3D would be
> minimal at that end too.
Was there not some report of it being trailed for F1?
>
>
>>
>> Look, the vast majority of F1 viewers don't have HD TV. There for the
>> numbers don't add up. When they do, you will have your HD TV. Simples.
>
> I haven't read of a survey about it recently, but would be shocked if less
> than 75% of Australian homes didn't have at least 720p capable sets now.
>
Well, prepare yourself.
--
AC
AC
> AC wrote:
>> TonyMitch wrote:
>>> I never realized how current F1 coverage is so blurry, dull, and
>>> lacking any vibrant colors until I watched the Indycar race yesterday
>>> In HD. The Indycar in-car views were beyond crisp and clear. And when
>>> the cars passed that were on track, you can see the actual shine on
>>> the cars and the surrounding scenery reflecting from the cars
>>> surface. F1 coverage looks like DVD quality while Indycar and Nascar
>>> coverage looks like Blue-Ray. F1 really needs to get with the times.
>>>
>>> I know... Most of you guys here can�t tell the difference between
>>> Standard Definition and High Definition, and some also refuse to
>>> acknowledge that current television technology provides a far clearer
>>> and crisper picture than their 13 year old 4:3 Sony Triniton CRT T.Vs
>>> can produce. So everything looks the same on those old T.Vs. leading
>>>
>>> Whether folks here want to acknowledge it or not, F1 needs HD now. It
>>> amazes me that the most advanced car races on the planet are being
>>> broadcast in a format that no other major sports (and even minor ones)
>>> are using anymore. Get with the times F1!! I was so surprised when
>>> they showed people in the F1 pits looking at the race on a 4:3 T.V!
>>>
>>> enough that most of the races are boring and the coverage looks like
>>> hardheaded, stubborn old-man, we�d have F1 races in HD years ago.
Ah, that old line.
Yeah, yeah, you have HD TV. Me too, you fucking illiterate idiot. You
deserve that for your stupid reply.
Now, read my post again.
--
AC
AC
Might improve the "intelligence" teams get. Hey, I wonder if they don't
like the idea for that reason??????????
--
AC
AC
I reckon that more people have HD TVs than HD sources. Most TVs these
days are HD of one spec or another. I'm not sure its possible to buy a
TV in the UK without that HDTV ready label. But whether or not all of
them have upgraded their Sky, cable etc is debatable. I suppose there is
free view HD as well, isn't there?
My main TV and Sky are HD (which is why Tony's reply to me is so rank
stupid), but I have had to buy HD tv's when replacing things like the
kids TV's. Not because I specifically wanted HD TVs for them, just
because that what there was available. Comes in handy for their xbox I
suppose.
--
AC
TonyMitch
You have HD and you still prefer SD? What the hell is wrong with you?
>
> Now, read my post again.
>
> --
> AC
Why should I read your post again? It's obvious that you are well
behind the technology curve, but for some strange reason you actually
prefer it that way. Resistant to change are we? Either that or you
need some prescription glasses. When was the last time you had your
eyes examined? Saying no to HD in this day and age is almost the same
as saying no to refrigeration. Enjoy your Blurry F1 coverage.
TonyMitch
"AC" the only person in the world that prefers SD over HD. I suppose
prefer Cassette Tapes and Vinyl records over Compact Discs?
Zeppo Marx
>
> Watching live beats all of them.
Well, although I see myself as an F1 fan I found out (for myself - and
all other mileages my and will probably vary) that watching live does
not give me a damn thing. Well it gives me headache (the noise) - but I
can live easily without.
I was invited to Monaco and Hockenheim (team invitation to one of the
sponsors) including pit pass, paddocks and such. I enjoyed those
immensely, but I ended up watching the race on a big screen TV in one of
the VIP areas in paddocks and *not* live.
Well, except the start. After the start (which was impressive from the
place I was sitting in) it was just a millisecond of the cars rushing by
on the straight. I found my self bores to death. I was missing the
times, cockpit view, fights in the back of the field and slow motions.
So, after 10 minutes or so, I went inside, found a nice place in front
of the TV and watched there.
So, since then I was invited several times to go and see the races live.
Usually I would simply thank and decline or take the tickets and the
passes and give it to someone who really wished to make this experience.
And stayed home to watch the TV.
Go figure.
>
> The silly season is in full swing.
>
WebSlave
> I'm not sure why someone would refuse to acknowlege (or want)
> something that is clearly better. Talk about being stuck in thier
> ways.
There are three quite clear reasons (most likely all stated already):
1) They don't have equipment to watch it
2) Their provider couldn't or wouldn't send it
3) They would have to pay more
Fourth but not generally known reason is that to benefit from HD you'd
have to buy much (and I mean MUCH) bigger sets. People don't tend to
watch their tv's from under 2 meters distances. Further than that, the
difference is hardly visible to the eye, unless you have a much bigger
tv-set. Not something everybody wanted to have (or could afford).
-Webs-
AC
What I found is that after a while you forget its funky HD and begin to
accept it as the norm. So it sort of loses its appeal. I tend to think
that if you are spending time wowing at the HD, what you are watching
cant be that engaging. I like a lot of old TV shows and movies and what
keeps me watching is the plot and acting, the definition is irrelevant.
Put it this way, would that Villeneuve / Arnoux clip be any more
exciting in HD? Or what more would we know about that Schumacher /
Barrichello incident? I suspect very little.
Big question, would I watch F1 in my living room on my big funky TV
rather than in my study on my PC if it were in HD? Nope.
--
AC
AC
Now tell me Tony, where exactly did I say I prefer SD over HD?
Either learn to read or stop lying.
>I suppose
> prefer Cassette Tapes and Vinyl records over Compact Discs?
Oh, definitely prefer vinyl and analogue audio. Yup, analogue over
digital for *my* music every single time. Its so much warmer and rich. I
even use my Leak amp and Celestion Ditton speakers to play my PC audio
through. Wacky old me, aye? The DAB switch over is very emotional for
me. I'm gonna miss FM radio. DAB is awful.
None of which, of course, has bugger all to do with HD TV.
--
AC
AC
Nothing to figure. You make perfect sense.
Sure, if you get pit passes etc then that is worth while. But sitting on
a stand or standing on a bank watching cars wizz by every min and a half
has to be pointless. If you can get to one of the great corners and
experience the cars going through it is a thrill, but after a while,
well, you've seen it. Yeah, TV, timing screen and now driver tracker
every time.
Its worth it as a one off experience, but that's pretty much it.
--
AC
WebSlave
> What I found is that after a while you forget its funky HD and begin to
> accept it as the norm. So it sort of loses its appeal.
Spot on. It's happened to color-tv and more recently to widescreen.
The "problem" is that those who were the first to embrace the new
technology complain about not everybody having done so in their pace
(including TV broadcasters and production companies). But they don't
seem to understand that they themselves chose to be the pioneers. So
they suffer the consequeces of that. The world will follow, in time.
(At least this time their bet didn't go wrong, like with laser-discs
or V2000.)
> I tend to think
> that if you are spending time wowing at the HD, what you are watching
> cant be that engaging. I like a lot of old TV shows and movies and what
> keeps me watching is the plot and acting, the definition is irrelevant.
It's always about the content. I can't imagine somebody watching
something he/she finds boring just because it's HD. I bought a DVD box
of an 80's tv-series and the image quality is crappy even in my 20-
years-old tv-set. But the quality of the story isn't.
> Big question, would I watch F1 in my living room on my big funky TV
> rather than in my study on my PC if it were in HD? Nope.
I would, if I had one (with a computer on the side showing Live
Timing). But I don't feel I need one. Before the major tv channels in
Finland switch to HD, I have no reason to switch either. So far HD
just costs extra.
-Webs-
SNAFU
AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>Sure, if you get pit passes etc then that is worth while. But sitting
>on
>a stand or standing on a bank watching cars wizz by every min and
>a half
>has to be pointless.
You forgot "Paying a fortune" before "sitting on a stand"!
>Its worth it as a one off experience, but that's pretty much it.
And in fact I only saw one Grand Prix live.
--
SNAFU
Per rispondermi privatamente, sostituisci "snaphoo" con "snafu"
To reply via e-mail, please remember to replace "snaphoo" with "snafu"
Ola Trygve Kvitle
>
> I never realized how current F1 coverage is so blurry, dull, and
> lacking any vibrant colors until I watched the Indycar race yesterday
> In HD. The Indycar in-car views were beyond crisp and clear.
> And when the cars passed that were on track, you can see the
> actual shine on the cars and the surrounding scenery reflecting
> from the cars surface. F1 coverage looks like DVD quality while
> Indycar and Nascar coverage looks like Blue-Ray. F1 really needs
> to get with the times.
> F1’s current dull picture doesn’t do anything for the show.
>
Transmitting in HD and in a different aspect ratio would probably
not make much improvement when the problem is caused by the
source and the transmission bandwidth.
Ola Trygve Kvitle
APLer
Still don't see him as a troll?