Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jeff Joseph Live on CNN

This is topic Jeff Joseph Live on CNN in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002511

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-20-2003, 04:22 PM:

9-20-2003. Just a FYI for all the 3D fans....

(With apologies to Jeff in advance for copying his announcement without his permission.)

quote:
CNN Live tonight 3-D shows.
I'm supposed to be doing CNN tonight.... a live interview at 7 PM pacific time. I'm supposed to be going on between 7:30-7:55....
Jeff

>>> Phil

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-20-2003, 05:49 PM:

Somebody tape this so we can convert it to a Quicktime download for the warehouse.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-20-2003, 05:53 PM:

I'll be watching my mailbox for the tape so I can convert it. I don't have cable though, so I can't tape it myself.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-21-2003, 09:11 AM:

Anyone see this? It was pretty cool. Could have been a LOT better, though, but what do you expect from a short blip on a basic-cable news channel? It's no documentary...

=TMP=

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-21-2003, 09:27 AM:

I mentioned in the chat room last night that I got a really uncomfortable feeling watching the interview.

Poor what's-her-name started off by wearing the wrong 3D glasses and then went on to talk about how 3D packed an emotional punch in some movie only to be informed by Mr. Joseph that the film was never actually released in 3D.

Oh, it was horrible! The expression on her face betrayed her inner monologue. First and foremost, she wanted to kill the researcher and then the producer of the segment. But just at that moment, she was busy mustering up the confidence to go forth with her next comment/question.

And -- God bless her, she did -- it was the question with the tidbit about advancements in makeup. I still don't know whether she was right or wrong but no matter: our man Jeff blew it off (almost) entirely, opting instead to go straight for the shameless plug.

I really wish news reporters/anchors wouldn't feel the need to brush up on every topic. We know they're only human; they can't possibly know all about every story that comes their way. HomeGirl would have been a lot better off if she had simply approached the interview honestly.

I think Jeff ought to have been a little more "happy to be here" than he appeared.

After watching that interview, all I wanted to do was curl up into the fetal position and find my "happy place."

[Edit: I downloaded the interview and watched it a second time this morning and now I think Mr. Joseph was maybe just exhausted from his busy schedule of screenings and I misinterpreted his weariness for "impatience with Philistine."]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2003, 02:21 PM:

Oh c'mon, it wasn't that bad.

I am glad to see a 16:9 Quicktime. I wonder how that looked to people with regular 4:3 sets? Are there two different streams for CNN, one regular and one widescreen? I can only imagine being the editor and having to conform to BOTH standards.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-21-2003, 03:18 PM:

The sides were chopped off for 4:3, and it didn't look very good on the air.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-21-2003, 03:40 PM:

Where was it available in 16:9 in HD format? I got it in 4:3.

Was this an edit to make it look cooler or was there more pic info actually available in 16:9?

Also, quit UR bitching y'all. I think Jeff did a good job considering the Interviewer, the time constraints, and the fact he was on National TV, LIVE! JEEEZE! At least he didn't choke!

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-21-2003, 04:52 PM:

I think it is true 16:9. The LIVE slug and the bottom info is indented quite a bit. It actually looks quite awkward.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-21-2003, 06:16 PM:

Paul, where, what service, and how did you see this in that format? 480 or 1080?

>>> Phil

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2003, 07:01 PM:

It doesn't have to be HDTV to be 16:9. Regular NTSC can do it as well. And you forgot 720, Phil.

If the sides were chopped off, the time and the CNN logo would have been partially cropped. There would have to be two seperate streams, as one cannot watch the same channel and get both versions, depending on if you have a widescreen TV or not.

Check it out. The black lines represent the exact image width of a regular 4:3 television set. Look how much gets chopped off. It would be unviewable if it were done that way.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-21-2003, 07:49 PM:

Joe: Yeah but then it would have been called "Letterbox"... [Razz]

I totally get it, that's why I asked the question. I only got it on DirecTV in NTSC and viewed it on my 16:9 HD 34" monitor. It was converted from 480i to 1080i. But I was wondering where the source was for the 16:9 "Letterbox" since I saw it in 4:3. I thought maybe Brad did an edit to the 16:9 format.

Also, 720 sux! It should be sent directly to hell. Give me 480p or 1080i! [beer]

>>> Phil

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2003, 10:31 PM:

How could 720p possibly be worse than 480p? That makes zero sense. Perhaps your display does not natively support that format, and up or down converts it to 1080 or 480. If so, then yeah, it's gonna look like crap. Also, 480p is the same exact resolution as regular NTSC, only progressive.

NTSC video does not need to be letterboxed to achieve 16:9. Many of the DVDs out there are anamorphic. The TV takes this image and stretches it to 16:9. Many camcorders shoot anamorphic images right in NTSC that are expanded into 16:9 on a proper TV. You can also have it blow up a letterbox image, but that sucks.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-21-2003, 11:03 PM:

Oh Pleeze Joe! 720 is a bastard "wanna-be 1080" format...Like "My 480 dick is too small, but I wanna play with the big boys. I don't quite measure up, but I'm trying!"

It was invented to appease those that could not afford to go "big-time" 1080 and very much a dead format!

quote:
Also, 480p is the same exact resolution as regular NTSC, only progressive.

DUH! Gosh I NEVER knew that! [Razz]

I still say the BEST of both worlds is 480p and 1080i. And yes, Joe, I am very familiar with the fact that NTSC 525/60/59.94/29.97 was renamed 480i... Another marketing ploy!

>>> Phil

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 12:33 AM:

I still don't understand how you see 720p being inferior to 480p. Doesn't make sense. More resolution=better picture quality. It's like saying "I prefer mono over stereo because stereo isn't 8 channel quality". I prefer progressive to interlaced, so based on what I've seen, I prefer 720p to 1080i. They should have an 1080p. 1080i is a pussy format that just can't measure up because it is too wimpy to go the progressive route. [Razz]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-22-2003, 12:56 AM:

MANY people prefer 720p over 1080i and have argued the image is better since it conforms to a film-like standard. All lines of one image at a time, eliminating shimmer, etc. Lots of artifacts result from any interlaced format, and the sooner video moves away from Interlaced, the better. And this comes from one who shoots in NTSC interlaced.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 11:28 AM:

AFAIK, ABC and ESPN are still backing the 720P HD format:

http://espn.go.com/abcsports/pressreleases/s/2002/0925/1436510.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/ontv/020003_hdtvfaqs.html

quote:
I have heard that there are two HDTV formats — 720p and 1080i. Is there a difference between these formats and can my television receive both these formats?
Regardless of the HDTV format being broadcast, all new HDTV receivers can receive both formats. New HDTV televisions will convert any received signal to a format that is compatible with your new display. The 720p format uses progressive scanning, which is just like your computer monitor. Progressive scan offers crystal clear images that virtually eliminates those scanning lines that are visible on most large screen televisions. ABC broadcasts all of its programming using the 720p format except in Dallas, where the ABC station broadcasts in 1080i. Many new flat panel displays use progressive scan.

The 1080i format uses interlace scanning just like today's analog televisions. Scanning lines are less visible on big screens due to the number of lines. Most currently available projection HDTV's use 1080i.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-22-2003, 12:02 PM:

Joe asks, "I still don't understand how you see 720p being inferior to 480p. Doesn't make sense. More resolution=better picture quality."

My understanding is that in order to obtain more resolution in the limitted available HDTV bandwidth, they need to apply more compression, resulting in more nasty compression artifacts. So resolution is not the only determinant of HDTV quality [Frown]

.

I'm not 100% that this applies to 480p versus 720p, but I know it does apply for some HDTV formats. And then let's not even get into the 3:2 pulldown issues.

--jhawk

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 05:05 PM:

3:2 pulldown should really be an issue, being that 480p and 720p can run at 24, 30, and 60 FRAMES per second natively. Just as long as the source is progressive you should be OK. If it is not progressive, then you are probably watching an NTSC originated program anyway. I see absolutely no reason for pulldown with the HDTV spec. I understand the compression issues for broadcast, but that's not really an issue at home say, playing an Xbox game in 720p.