Jump to content


Photo

Fox News


182 replies to this topic

#41 Charles

Charles

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts

Posted 20 September 2009 - 05:55 AM

^^^

Okay, so Comcast just lied to me then. They inaccurately changed my program guide around.

#42 Lazlo

Lazlo

    CNN Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 29 September 2009 - 01:49 PM

What's the point of going widescreen to show more of the picture, when you increase the font size of the banners. Most people are saying that the banners are still the same size as when the channel was in 4:3, and that may be true, but that huge font looks quite silly to me.

I noticed Inside Cable News touched on the issue too: http://insidecablene...te-your-opinion

#43 nodefault

nodefault

    CNN Intern

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 29 September 2009 - 07:44 PM

I think it's completely ridiculous too. Plus, you have the added complication of most SD channels already being over compressed by the providers - now you've got black bars taking up 20% of the vertical space of the picture as a result of a 16:9 picture being letterboxed in a 4:3 frame. Those black bars are being compressed as though they're a part of the picture which is really wasteful, and the letterboxed picture looks worse because it's deprived of bandwidth relative to when a 4:3 picture filled the whole frame.

Anyway... here are two caps; one from FNC HD and one from the SD version. Unfortunately, I don't have any caps of the "old" FNC-SD channel since I seldom ever watch Fox unless Shepard Smith is on (imo, the only halfway unbiased person on the whole channel). Some might be in my pile of recorded DVDs but I couldn't put my hands on any right away.

Click on the pictures for larger versions.

HD Channel:
Posted Image

SD Channel:
Posted Image

#44 Charles

Charles

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts

Posted 29 September 2009 - 08:50 PM

Thanks for those caps, nodefault. I think it was a bad decision to letterbox it for SD viewers, and increasing the size of the lower-thirds was another bad decision, too.

#45 Jon

Jon

    CNN Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts

Posted 30 September 2009 - 01:37 AM

I think the decision to letterbox standard definition viewers was a great idea. It takes advantage of the new standard, and helps allow more breathing room for the picture. However, instead of taking advantage of the added space, they simply made the font bigger. Bad move.

If CNN went this route, I could really see the new lower thirds taking advantage of all the added width. Text will no longer be squished, and more picture will flow through...unless they decide to go with Fox's route.

#46 Nuggle

Nuggle

    CNN Correspondent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,375 posts

Posted 02 October 2009 - 03:18 PM

It looks like FOX wasted an opportunity to better use their screen by blowing the size of the text up. I don't watch Fox News, maybe 5 mins when that Smith guy and the Fox Report is on, but if they could just at least maybe make the text the same size it was when it was 4:3, it would look a lot better.

#47 Morpium

Morpium

    CNNFan.org Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,260 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 05:49 AM

Like everyone else, we were getting the SD letterbox feed, but that has since changed. It's still SD, but we can now choose either: 4:3 cropped, 4:3 letterbox or 16:9 widescreen.


(click to enlarge)

I guess it would be the same up in the States now?

#48 Charles

Charles

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:30 AM

Right now, I'm only getting what you see in cap #2-- a 16:9 picture letterboxed into a 4:3 feed. Of course, I can manipulate my screen anyway I want to. I guess cable operators can offer alternate feeds with different stretches like what you see, Morpium? Or maybe it's something in the Australian feed?

#49 Jon

Jon

    CNN Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:45 AM

High definition viewers always get shafted in terms of usable real estate for graphics. Because networks still need to broadcast a 4:3 picture, they cram everything in to fit that safe area. It looks fine on a standard 4:3 screen, but at times cluttered for 16:9 viewers.

I was thinking of going high definition, but the service is too damn expensive. I'm essentially paying for four channels at the moment. (CNN, USA, CNBC, and Comedy Central)

Plus, they gauge you on equipment rental fees. I've been lucky enough to do without so far.

#50 Charles

Charles

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,270 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 07:03 AM

High definition viewers always get shafted in terms of usable real estate for graphics. Because networks still need to broadcast a 4:3 picture, they cram everything in to fit that safe area. It looks fine on a standard 4:3 screen, but at times cluttered for 16:9 viewers.


The best graphics I've seen on a high definition channel are the straps seen at the beginning of a music video on MTV's HD channel (yes, they run real music videos on it). They're very tiny and minimalist, yet they're very legible on an HDTV.

The new Fox graphics are really obnoxious if you ask me. They look fine when I'm viewing it as a 4:3 picture, but when I zoom the picture on my HDTV so that the 16:9 picture takes up the entire screen, they're just way too big.

I was thinking of going high definition, but the service is too damn expensive. I'm essentially paying for four channels at the moment. (CNN, USA, CNBC, and Comedy Central)


At least you can get those HD channels. With Comcast here, even the highest tier of service doesn't include any of the HD news channels. :evil: Oh, but I do get the Food Network in HD, which is ironic considering that women generally don't care about HD. :lol:

#51 Jon

Jon

    CNN Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 07:50 AM

Sucks. CNN in standard definition looks horrible on my Sony Bravia. So far, I have it hooked up to my computer for DVDs via a long VGA cord. That's about the only high definition content on my television, and even then, it's up-converted DVDs.

I don't even have the equipment to receive over the air HD channels from the Los Angeles networks.

#52 Nelly

Nelly

    CNN Copy Editor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 12 October 2009 - 04:45 PM

It's a shame that Fox News has such a political bent because they have been increasing their news coverage in daytime recently. Just a short minute or 2 ago, I saw Greg Burke doing a full 3 minute report and live cross on the unemployment rate in South Africa. When's the last time you would have seen a report like that on CNN?

Fox is so far tainted that it will never be a credible source, to me anyway. But it's good to know that someone in Fox knows there's a whole world outside the states.
"The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were." (David Brinkley)

#53 Morpium

Morpium

    CNNFan.org Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,260 posts

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:06 AM

Jane Hall is gone from Fox News. She says she left because a lack of debate. A spokesman says her contract wasn't renewed. Mediaite says she appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources, Sunday.

#54 Leeroy

Leeroy

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,771 posts

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:48 AM

Fox News Watch was the only show I would watch regularly on the channel. After Eric Burns was given his marching orders I only tuned in once in a while. Jane's leaving has put an end to any thought of watching any more future editions.

#55 Houston

Houston

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4,138 posts

Posted 27 October 2009 - 11:17 PM

I can't believe Jane is gone. The host now isn't too bad, but they never seemed to replace Neil Gabler and now with Jane gone - I'll give them a few episodes out of habit, but without those two, the show has become more and more delusional about the MSM after them and all the right wing... I find defending the likes of Glen Beck and cohorts unwatchable.

#56 AExAVF

AExAVF

    CNN Copy Editor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts

Posted 06 November 2009 - 07:05 AM

Lately I have been watching more Fox News, not because I like Fox per se, but because of my dissatisfaction with CNN (and CNNI) at times. We have Fox News on cable TV. My father is a Fox fan, and watches O'Reilly, Hannity, and especially Beck. He would also tune in to watch Fox's programming such as Special Report with Bret Baier and America's Newsroom.

I would assume Fox's domestic programming doesn't differ that much from the international audience, except for some "Extra" segments shown for international audiences, and variations in airing of some of their programs. CNN, on the other hand, has the Domestic and International channels, and depending on your location, you only get one of these (Domestic for North America and certain regions, International for all others).

I may not agree with many of the views of the commentators at Fox, but then again the whole point is you have to have a broad perspective. You take the information, and in the end it is all up to you to decide with the info you receive. You can either act upon it, or simply discard the info from your memories.
"As an anchor Kate Bolduan has no equal; as a correspondent she has no known biases."
- lifted from the words of Victor Caroli as he describes Predaking in the files of Teletraan II.

#57 Gruffny

Gruffny

    CNN Correspondent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts

Posted 13 November 2009 - 11:31 AM

I like the Fox Report, but it's on too late for me most nights. I feel it's a little over the top (presentation-wise) but it's still a news bulletin. Hard to believe that Fox News is the only cable channel in America that does a straight news like that at night.
Let's put the NEWS back into Cable NEWS Network.
less World Sport, more World Report.

#58 Houston

Houston

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4,138 posts

Posted 15 November 2009 - 07:44 AM

Is anyone surprised?
http://static.photob...FAN/Dobbsad.flv

#59 Nelly

Nelly

    CNN Copy Editor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 20 November 2009 - 11:18 AM

And O'Reilly offered Dobbs a semi-regular segment. How long until he's there or at FBN fulltime? I would be surprised if we didn't hear an announcement within 2 months. But I could be wrong.
"The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were." (David Brinkley)

#60 jjlucash

jjlucash

    CNN Intern

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 12:21 AM

I'm doing a little ~experiment~ by giving Fox a try, despite what many say. All I saw was a 4am repeat of The O'Reilly Factor and I LOVE it, despite that I disagree with him, Beck, Coulter and Ingraham. I will definitely add Fox to my CNN/HLN/MSNBC lineup.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users