What is the problem with FOX's widescreen?

[Skipjack]

After watching yet another Packer loss in SD... I got to thinking.

How does Fox do their widescreen?   I was wondering what the problem was.  If it's cost of equipment, I offer the following solution:

Couldn't they just use an anamorphic lens on an existing video camera to "squeeze" the recorded image horizontally and then "unstretch" it in the studio for broadcast?  I know they exist because I looked into getting one for my Sony Handycam.

An anamorphic lens couldn't cost much more than a couple grand for a studio quality lens, I would think.

Sure, they would lose some horizontal resolution... but, if FOX were concerned with resolution,  THEY'D BE OFFERING HD! :mad:

[foxeng]

Originally posted by Skipjack
After watching yet another Packer loss in SD... I got to thinking.

How does Fox do their widescreen?   I was wondering what the problem was.  If it's cost of equipment, I offer the following solution

FOX doesn't own the production trucks. They rent them and the more bells and whistles, the more the cost. Some trucks have 16:9 cameras and some use 4:3 with anamorphic lens so there is no set specs.

With less than 3% of the total viewing audience with the capability of viewing anything other than analog, it isn't really cost effective to have everything in HD or ED. This was the same with color. It started slowly and built up. HD is following the same path.

As more people are able to see digital, the HD (ED) content will increase. It is a fact that there is much more HD (ED) content at this stage of deployment, than there was at the same time in color. There is also more capital outlay involved to go HD than it was for color so it is even more remarkable the amount of HD (ED) content verses the color content that can be seen by the public.

Just things to think about.

[Tom Snyder]

Couple questions:

How much does it cost to do a football game in HD with rented trucks?

How much does Fox get for a 30 second spot during NFL football?

[foxeng]

Originally posted by Tom Snyder
Couple questions:

OK, I will try and answer them as best I can.

Last question first.

How much does Fox get for a 30 second spot during NFL football?

Sports are sold in packages and not individual spots. That is why you tend to see the same advertisers all season long or half season. The average ratings are used to figure the cost and it is then sold like that. Of course some teams will do better than others and you always hope that you have priced the packages to make a profit no matter what happens with the teams.

How much does it cost to do a football game in HD with rented trucks?

That too is done for a season and not on a game per game basis with the different truck owners. That is why you tend to see the same teams in WS on FOX or HD on CBS, like KC, Washington, Philly, NY, Dallas. It is usually the same trucks.

The networks look at the records of the teams, their national draw and what their performance for the upcoming season might be and then put out bids accordingly. That is why CBS does the HD on their big game, and FOX does WS on their two big games,  and you normally don't see the bottom feeders like Cincy, Cleveland, Arizona, (glup) Carolina. You get two bottom feeders and the total audience in both markets will not equal to one market of a large marquee game which is shown in more than 2 markets. It is the same basic criteria that ABC uses for MNF. You want big marquee games to bring in the viewers since the games are sold on potential viewers and not actual viewers and if the actual rating number is lower than the network sold it as, they have to do make goods, which means the networks have to run more spots for no additional money to make up the difference. You start to do many of those and any profit is shot.

As the season goes on, the networks can shuffle trucks around, in a limited area, but much over a certain area and it starts costing the networks more money to produce because the truck owners have a contract and they have their schedule planned and now in mid stream they have to change the schedule and they want more money. (They have other gigs to do besides sports) Sports is a big money maker, but it is a big expense as well and most networks cut it pretty close and some will loose money to promote other areas of the network because they know they can get viewers to promote the network. That is why FOX will spend whatever it takes for the NFL. The NFL built FOX. Of course there is a limit to the amount of red ink any company is willing to spill. The threshholds are different for each network. FOX 2 ED games, CBS one HD game.

Remember, the money that the networks pay to the NFL is also figured in on that profit for the games so it just isn't what does it cost to broadcast a particular game, but what does the who sports package cost in total verses the amount of money that can be made off advertising. (Aw yes, capitalism at its best! :blush: )

Of course, you as a viewer could care less about the Arizona/Cincy game if it has no direct bearing on your Packers (or Panthers) but those fans are as rabid as you, just less of them and the networks have to care about them too if they are to make a profit. It is quite a tight wire act and it has been like this since the first sporting event was broadcast on radio in the 20's. HD/ED just makes it more interesting to figure.

I hope that answers your questions. If not, I will try again. :drink:

[Skipjack]

Where are the trucks rented from?  The HDTV manufacturers?  I would think the HDTV manufacturers would have a vested interest in the amount of HD sports shown on television.

More HD sports = More HDTV sales.

I mean, of all the audiences, I think the sports fans are most likely to invest in HD equipment (rather than your cop drama, or sit com fans, for example).   And to break that down even further, I would bet football fans would be the most passionate about seeing their teams in HD.  

This is why I can't understand why the HDTV manufacturers aren't offering a hand in getting these things on the air; either financially or by loaning equipment to networks.  Sure you could argue it comes down to the almighty dollar.  But, I would think it would be a good investment in the long run... particurlarily if you allow them to slap their logo on the screen ("HDTV brought to you by Toshiba")

Hell, I would think the government would want more HD football on TV!   They're the ones pushing everyone to go digital in the first place.  It would only speed up the process IMO.

Oh, and thanks, foxeng for all your information.  It's nice to have a voice from Fox on here.... even if it isn't a local one.

[StarvingForHDTV]

Originally posted by Skipjack
Hell, I would think the government would want more HD football on TV!   They're the ones pushing everyone to go digital in the first place.  It would only speed up the process IMO.

They should be plenty happy with standard definition digital football on TV.  I think they just want the broadcasters to switch from analog to digital.  High definition is not a concern as far as I know.

Starving

[foxeng]

Originally posted by Skipjack
Where are the trucks rented from?  The HDTV manufacturers?  I would think the HDTV manufacturers would have a vested interest in the amount of HD sports shown on television.

More HD sports = More HDTV sales.

The trucks are owned by companies that do broadcast productions. The set manufacturers have nothing to do with the trucks.  The sponsorships are paid to the client (networks in this case) and not directly to the truck owners.

There was a pretty good accounting of the number of HD trucks on AVSForum a couple of weeks ago and I think the final number was 20 trucks available for shows in the entire US currently. If every truck was used for football, there wouldn't be any available for all the other stuff that is being done in HD that is not live oriented. (goes to tape for broadcast later) There are many trucks under construction now, but it takes about 6 to 9 months to build and test a truck, SD or HD. There just isn't enough to go around at the moment.

I mean, of all the audiences, I think the sports fans are most likely to invest in HD equipment (rather than your cop drama, or sit com fans, for example).   And to break that down even further, I would bet football fans would be the most passionate about seeing their teams in HD.

You are correct when you say sports is the first "killer app" for HD. Everyone in the business is admitting it, even FOX. As for football being the most passionate for HD, I guess you haven't kept up with the soccer and baseball bitch threads on AVSForum. Those folks would LOUDLY disagree with you on the football being the most passionate. (since they feel that they have been short changed by football) My take is ALL SPORTS FANS are rabid for HD, PERIOD!

This is why I can't understand why the HDTV manufacturers aren't offering a hand in getting these things on the air; either financially or by loaning equipment to networks.  Sure you could argue it comes down to the almighty dollar.  But, I would think it would be a good investment in the long run... particurlarily if you allow them to slap their logo on the screen ("HDTV brought to you by Toshiba")

Some have done just that. ABC had sponsorship for MNF in 1999 and CBS did for college football last season. I suspect FOX will attempt to get sports sponsorships next year.

Oh, and thanks, foxeng for all your information.  It's nice to have a voice from Fox on here.... even if it isn't a local one.

I can't speak for WITI. I have no connection with them other than we both are owned by FOX and we share a lot of the same equipment and if I can help them, they might call for a specfic item or if they can help me, I will call them. I can answer broader questions or things about my station that MIGHT pertain to the Milwaukee market, but beyond that, you know as much if not more than I do.

"Glad to help the team where I can. Good Lord willing, it will all work out. etc. etc, etc"   Crash Craddock to Nuke in Bull Durham (with shots in MY home town of the Greensboro Hornets, now the Greensboro Bats at a stadium that is about to be replaced! boo hiss!)

[foxeng]

Originally posted by StarvingForHDTV
They should be plenty happy with standard definition digital football on TV.  I think they just want the broadcasters to switch from analog to digital.  High definition is not a concern as far as I know.

Starving

If it helps get the analog channels cleared out, then yes, the FCC is all behind it. If it impedes it, the FCC is against it.

[JoeK]

Foxeng

Thanks for the information.   The informative posts are much appreciated.

 As you may have seen from other posts on the forum we are only getting Fox digital on cable at the moment in this market.

[foxeng]

Originally posted by JoeK
Foxeng

Thanks for the information.   The informative posts are much appreciated.

 As you may have seen from other posts on the forum we are only getting Fox digital on cable at the moment in this market.

I understand the frustration. I have viewers in my market that can only receive my digital signal via cable as well. We were lucky that were were able to put our DTV antenna at 900 ft on our tower and get 35 mile reliable coverage, but there are some beyond that coverage who see our analog just fine and on the digital see nothing and I hear from them just like you guys are bitching here.  

We try and do what we can, but corporate FOX dictates a lot of this at the moment, but this too will change in time. It will get better, I promise. These are all growing pains and in the years to come, will only be distant memories for a choice few who spent the money early. :hug:

[mhz40]

The World Series isn't even in HD, is it?  What's the deal?

[foxeng]

Originally posted by mhz40
The World Series isn't even in HD, is it?  What's the deal?

The World Series is in 480 16:9. FOX will not begin to offer HD to the affiliates until next Fall. That's the deal.

[JoeK]

The digital World Series picture is very good.  I assume it is 480p.  I am comparing it with cable analog, so some may take exception with my opinion.  The 16:9 is just so much better for sports.

[foxeng]

Originally posted by JoeK
The digital World Series picture is very good.  I assume it is 480p.  I am comparing it with cable analog, so some may take exception with my opinion.  The 16:9 is just so much better for sports.

Yes, 480p to your receiver.