Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Super Bowl Halftime looks pre-recorded


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:07 AM

Color saturation and/or balance are not tied to the frame rate...so I'm not sure what your "in terms of" comment is getting at.

You insisted that the reason that the Beyonce show looked like a pre-recorded package was because they shifted the frame rate.

There weren't any issues with saturation or balance anyway, so it must be an issue with whatever you were watching it on. I'm assuming you weren't at home.

The remarkable difference in contrast and color saturation is what made me (and others) suspect that it wasn't "live" or was otherwise noticeably filtered. It looked like it had been shot on film.

The rest of the coverage (pre, in and post-game) and commercials looked like a little too much compressed HD (although the TV brightness was too high) so I doubt the viewing setup was the direct cause of the film look halftime show.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:23 AM

You insisted that the reason that the Beyonce show looked like a pre-recorded package was because they shifted the frame rate.The remarkable difference in contrast and color saturation is what made me (and others) suspect that it wasn't "live" or was otherwise noticeably filtered. It looked like it had been shot on film.

The rest of the coverage (pre, in and post-game) and commercials looked like a little too much compressed HD (although the TV brightness was too high) so I doubt the viewing setup was the direct cause of the film look halftime show.


It was not shot on film. The frame rate is different. That is the only reason it appeared to have a film-like appearance. There were no issues with color saturation or balance.
DTV = Digital Television

#23 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,341 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:40 PM

What were the frame rates used for the game, the commercials and the halftime show (respectively)?

#24 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 390 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

What were the frame rates used for the game, the commercials and the halftime show (respectively)?


I guess it's one thing for someone to state something as fact, but when asked to provide data......radio silence. ;)

#25 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:02 AM

What were the frame rates used for the game, the commercials and the halftime show (respectively)?


23.976 fps for the halftime show. 29.97 fps for everything else. They do this for the Victoria's Secret show each year as well.
DTV = Digital Television

#26 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 390 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:51 AM

23.976 fps for the halftime show. 29.97 fps for everything else. They do this for the Victoria's Secret show each year as well.


Thanks!

#27 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:03 PM

What's the point of it, just to create a classic film-look?

#28 OFFLINE   Delroy E Walleye

Delroy E Walleye

    AllStar

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 165 posts
Joined: Jun 09, 2012

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:48 PM

What's the point of it, just to create a classic film-look?


That's precisely my original question. Like I said, it's a stupid look for live television. If it's supposed to look like a filmed concert, maybe one can get used to it given enough time.

I could also try to guess that there might be other reasons than artistic choice. I do remember the first HD broadcast of VSFS and the picture was pretty badly blocked up by the overuse of strobe lights.

It could also be to save bandwidth for people to download to phones.

IMO the only advantage of "film-look" to the average user is when saving to DVD and playing back on an old 480 progressive TV, the picture looks a bit sharper.

#29 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:59 PM

Film-look is very psychological. Folks associate film with iconic, classic images that rise above cheap, live, hi-def video. It's the problem with the new Hobbit film at 48 fps, folks are saying it looks like a cheap afternoon soap opera because it's so over-crisp, video-looking and live-appearing. It cheapens the perception of the image. Video = cheap and disposable. Film = Metavalues and quality.

#30 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:46 AM

It was not shot on film. The frame rate is different. That is the only reason it appeared to have a film-like appearance. There were no issues with color saturation or balance.

There were huge issues with the color saturation and balance. Issues that you insist could not be attributed to frame rate.

Live video, regardless of frame rate, should look like live video, right?

For their part, Canon offers a CINE mode:

The separate CINE setting on the HG10 adjusts the color and tonal characteristics of the image, giving the look and feel of a movie shown in a theater.

This is separate and apart from the funky sampling done to get a 24fps recording laid on tape at 60fps interlaced.

So while changing the frame rate changes the frame rate, it takes some proc amp wizardry to truly achieve the look and feel of film.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#31 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:27 AM

There were huge issues with the color saturation and balance. Issues that you insist could not be attributed to frame rate.


What (display) did you view these supposed "issues" on?


This is separate and apart from the funky sampling done to get a 24fps recording laid on tape at 60fps interlaced.


60 fps? Want to try that again? That's HFR territory.

Edited by Hoosier205, 08 February 2013 - 01:57 AM.

DTV = Digital Television

#32 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:38 AM

Still, the quickest path to film-look is 24fps.




spam firewall