Packers v Rams PQ

[smack]

Was anyone else having problems with PQ on todays game?

Lots of artifacts and didn't appear very sharp on either of my sets.  I don't know if it had to do with the dome / lighting or if it was a broadcast / camera issue.

Just curious because I wasn't that impressed with the HD picture.  It almost looked like it was in 480p vs. the usual Fox 720p.

Any other observations?

smack

[flash]

Lots of audio drop outs!

[Mikey]

My PQ seemed fine.  I have TWC Fox channel 506.  Sound dropouts though, yeah, that irritated me.

[gb4fan92]

I had about 6 times where my screen turned blue for about 6 seconds and then returned to excellent quality. Wife was not happy seeing we just switched to Direct. Any ideas what this issue was??

[murdoc]

I had about 6 times where my screen turned blue for about 6 seconds and then returned to excellent quality. Wife was not happy seeing we just switched to Direct. Any ideas what this issue was??

It's an issue with Fox 6.  There is a thread here:
http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7455  
I watched the game on D* channel 88 and it was perfect.

[vegasvic]

I switched around between OTA, Sunday Ticket channel, DTV Channel 88 and DTV Channel 6, didn't notice much difference.

[TPK]

I watched it on u-verse...

It was just about the worst PQ I have ever seen during the NFL game...  

I think the PQ problems cropped up only when they were showing the field...  If they did a close-up on someones head or helmet then the PQ was pretty good...

Its gonna sound wierd, but I think the way the turf was groomed in the stadium had a lot to do with the PQ....  I think the compression was having a difficult time dealing with the way the turf switched shades so much from one set of pixels to the next, causing everything around it to become "artifacty"...

JPEG compression relies on the fact that there are only small color differences between adjacent pixels most of the time...  MPEG-2 compression also relies on the fact that there are only small differences between adjacent frames most of the time...  Take a field like that and scroll it left to right and there are a lot more differences frame to frame than there would normally be if the field were all the same color everywhere....

... This is just a guess of mine,  I could be wrong ....

[Dan the Man]

I noticed the picture going bright then dark at what could best be described as randomly intermittent. I wonder if there was a problem with one of the cameras.

I had this Sunday Ticket player stat screen up for a while and it actually responded to the change in lighting levels as well. If the background image was brighter, the menu got brighter. When the picture dimmed, the menu did as well. I was hoping it was not my set since it is only a little over a year old. It is a Sony projection, so the bulb would just quit I would think.

This was not a local issue from what I could tell. It must have been a network or camera issue. The overall game PQ wasn't all that hot either in general.

[smack]

I watched it on u-verse...

It was just about the worst PQ I have ever seen during the NFL game...  

I think the PQ problems cropped up only when they were showing the field...  If they did a close-up on someones head or helmet then the PQ was pretty good...

Its gonna sound wierd, but I think the way the turf was groomed in the stadium had a lot to do with the PQ....  I think the compression was having a difficult time dealing with the way the turf switched shades so much from one set of pixels to the next, causing everything around it to become "artifacty"...

JPEG compression relies on the fact that there are only small color differences between adjacent pixels most of the time...  MPEG-2 compression also relies on the fact that there are only small differences between adjacent frames most of the time...  Take a field like that and scroll it left to right and there are a lot more differences frame to frame than there would normally be if the field were all the same color everywhere....

... This is just a guess of mine,  I could be wrong ....

similar to what i thought.  It was the shots of the field that looked terrible.  The close ups were fine.