Well, Fox broadcast was kind of High Def.

I was thinking the samething...

 

It looked great to me--Comcast/Houston HD FOX channel 309..

Pleasant surprise...

Greg

 

The picture was great, and the race started off good almost got ten or so laps between commercials compared to the three or four on the last race. However towards the end I was just getting annoyed with all the breaks and the stupid animations popping up at the bottom of the screen.

 

I could have lived without the grid walk segment -- odd that Fox reinstated that part.

Anyone else notice that the race was not only time delayed, but time compressed, too? On the two commercial breaks bracketing the "racing per matchett" segment, they went out for two laps worth of commercials, and came back four laps later.

There were a couple more times when three or so laps had passed during a commercial break.

They virtually skipped the last 20 laps of the race -- they only had a half lap recap over laps 50-60, at least.

I wonder when they recorded the commentary. It's a lot easier to "predict" strategy when you announce a race after it's over.

 

It looked pretty good here too (Charleston, SC). The picture was maybe not quite as good as the USGP, but better than Canada, as I recall. I'm lovin' F1 in HD, especially when it's a Ferrari 1-2!

 

Right on!

 

Aside from not airing it live, and no pre-race, I'd rather see it on Fox due to the HD, definitely better picture. Speed needs to air it in HD. I know they had HD cameras at Indy, would guess all tracks have the same HD cameras by now.

 

There seemed to be much less comercials too ?

 

What is the point of broadcasting in HD if you don't change the aspect ratio to 16:9?

IMHO totally useless. I would much rather have a 16:9 ratio by itself and no HD. That would be a much bigger improvement.

 

They placed commercials more frequently in less "active" segments of the race for what I can tell... Makes sense.

The way to watch these races is to record them on TiVO or DVR - if you're annoyed by the commercials, you owe it to yourself to look into this option.

Quality wise, to my recollection, this was the best quality picture I have ever observed on an F1 race. It really makes for a far more enjoyable experience. It allows for easier identification of the cars as well. I really thought the whole setting - smooth black uncomplicated track suface vs. grass made for a great looking setting.

Overall, I have no complaints with Fox vs. Speed - I have no problem watching races on Fox over Speed because of the HD. It's that much more enjoyable of an experience, especially with larger (e.g. 46", 50", 55"+) TV sets. Given the choice, both airing simultaneously, I'd watch whichver has it in HD.

No complaints here. Speed / Comcast / etc. needs to get their act together and get some HD coverage. Unfortunately, getting HD channels on the Comcast lineup is a complex/competitive process because of bandwidth issues apparently. My concern is that there are a lot of channels earlier in the queue than Speed that are in demand more by customers (like HDNET), that would go into the HD lineup first.

So, we're very fortunate to have the Fox HD coverage, I feel.

 

It was HD. It was fantastic!

 

It was 16:9. It filled every inch of my 50" widescreen with absolute crisp clarity.

 

I thought it looked pretty good, but all their other HD programming is about 2X clearer.

 

Hmm. Does that then depend on the local Fox affiliate? It was regular 4:3 in Chicago. Had I expanded it to 16:9, I would have gotten ridiculously flat F1 cars.

I have other programs on the History and Discovery channel that broadcast in crisp (HD) quality AND 16:9 aspect ratio. Now THAT looks good. So it's not that my set couldn't deal with it.

 

Perhaps it is broadcast differently in different markets. I know that previous non-Speed channel F1 broadcasts this year were showing as HD on my on-screen TV guide, but were not HD. This was the 1st time that it actually was. I'm anxious to see if this weekend's race will again be HD.

 

Guys, it was not broadcast in HD. F1 is not broadcast in HD, nor will it be anytime soon. For that to happen, all the cameras would have to be HD cameras, including the in-car cameras. Ignoring the cost of moving such equipment, and the fact that the weight completely disallows it in-car, each race is broadcast by the local host network with their own equipment. I remember hearing that NASCAR will be tackling the problem of installing HD cameras in each car soon (if they haven't already), but they will be the first and probably the only ones to do so within the next 5+ years.

There are some HD broadcasts in Europe now on satellite, but in general, HD in Europe is in its infancy, and for all practical purposes, they do not have the concept of HD. You can be sure that the FIA wouldn't broadcast in HD just for the USA television market.

That being said, it was indeed broadcast 16:9 ratio, and it was the best looking F1 race I have ever seen on my TV! You can thank FOX for using line doublers or similar expensive hardware to up convert the resolution.

Oh yeah, and the Ferrari 1-2 finish wasn't bad either! (next time Massa will be #1 though)

 

For whatever reason my Tivo with Directv has failed to record any broadcast on Fox, races only!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why, because it shows up under my recorded list, but when you hit play there is nothing there!!!

Man, I was pissed yesterday, oh well!


Robert

 

Your TIVO gave you two utterly boring hours back. Be happy!

 

Well, maybe. It still looked good to me. Of course the in-car isn't HD. I wouldn't say that for a broadcast to be considered HD, the in-car has to be HD also. Most of the broadcast is from outside the cars...

 

I wish it was in HD, but it just won't be for years. It looked good indeed, but it still wasn't shot in HD from any camera there. The quality of shots was the same both in and outside the car. You can tell, because it was also 16:9 in car.

Anyway, I'm surprised I'm hearing myself say this, but I will be sad to find the races off of FOX after this Sunday. The broadcast quality was amazing. Why can't we get that feed all the time? Is it available on any internet broadcast in full quality?

 

How can you be sad over a tape delayed sports broadcast? I much rather watch F1 in the crummiest picture possible but have it live.

 

Good point. But to me it's worth a tape delay for that kind of quality, and the 16:9 format! I saw SO much more just in 16:9. Besides, I record races on TiVo and make sure to avoid all human contact until I see the full race.

Not long ago when stopping in a starbucks in Berlin, they had a huge TV inside, and I happened to catch a MotoGP race on Eurospeed. I was amazed to see it was also 16:9 and looked to be HD. It looked 100x better than our feed of MotoGP races here. It wasn't HD (it was probably PAL 576p), but the feed was just amazing compared to what we see here on Speed, which to me looks like a 10 year old broadcast on VHS.

We just need to get better quality feeds here. That can only happen if Speed goes HD and chooses to give us the feed that Fox did, or F1 is aired on a major network that has HD broadcasts (even less likely)!

There has to be a better live feed available somewhere on the internet. Does anyone know of one? If not, maybe I will start downloading races from BitTorrent. Better quality, and great way to archive the races, too.

 

I just searched, and found that Speed may be HD very soon, assuming these guys launch their satellite on time:
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4130030

Maybe we will get our better feed then.