Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Question News Channels and those "videophones"

    I'm going to completely avoid the political parts of this and hopefully everyone will concentrate on the technological aspect I am trying to raise here.

    I've noticed that FOX News, MSNBC and CNN seem to have all these reporters sending reports via "videophone." Now, I have been having a real problem with those as the images are so low res and highly pixelated that one cannot make out most of the images. The reporter usually has no discernable facial features and most of the vehicles, structures, etc. look like large, coloured blocks. Does anyone have any firsthand experience with videophones? Are these the same types of devices they are marketing to the masses? Do these LIVE reports bother you as much as they bother me due to the low resolution of the images?
    OK... I BLOG. YOU READ. at http://jedipartner1967.livejournal.com
    **Steven Sterlekar (1969-2001)**

  2. #2
    I think that could be the explanation, that they're using the commercially available stuff... why else would news agencies have such cruddy equipment?? I agree wholeheartedly, the "quality" of the "images" borders on useless, WHEN they're not completely breaking up like some digital TV nightmare.... there can be no other reason... hopefully someone who actually knows the deal will enlighten us
    Something about him reminds me of my older brother, Rex.

  3. #3
    And how! I personally can't stand anymore of these primary school grade news reports.
    OK... I BLOG. YOU READ. at http://jedipartner1967.livejournal.com
    **Steven Sterlekar (1969-2001)**

  4. #4
    I know exactly what you mean, voices sound odd too, kind of warbly and shrill like a bad speak 'n' spell recording or something.
    I'm actually amazed at how many reporters are out there. And how many are travelling with the armed forces in convoy. Seems kind of ghoulish in the one sense but perfectly logical in another.
    Channel 4 news here has some really good quality non partisan coverage. Just the stories and no political slant that's discernable. Excellent video link ups too. Their footage shot with night vision cameras is really clean and clear.
    http://channel4.com/news/
    Plus there's the old faithful
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml
    Don't know if they have video clips available I just copied the links from my favorites folder.

  5. #5
    The videophone shots are 50-50. Some are really good and others crappy. I think if it is a bad link they should just cut it off.
    IMO they should just stick with call-ins and no video.

    I too, am shocked at how many reporters are out there. I think they would just get inthe way. Taking up vehicle space and all. They probably need their own transport to get around.
    thanks Chux Turbo LBC Bobafrett Mtriv73 Rjarvis JF96 JT JMG FB Rogue2 Tycho Slicker Deoxy Caesar JontheJedi JJReason Brandon Solo JMS UK for great deals.
    SSG Pro Football Pick em and Bowl Pick em Champ 2006. 2007 NCAA Bracket Champ
    #24 - Gone but not forgotten

  6. #6
    They're still in need of some work IMHO but they've come a long way since the 1991 war. The technology at that point was just awful.
    "No one helped me so why should I help you?" - College professor circa 1999

    By choosing not to decide you still have made a choice.

    I'm in love with the women of Univision.

  7. #7
    I don't think they use a "video phone" but rather it's like what weathermen use. They have a TV monitor they can look at to see where to point on the board, and news reporters have mostly the same thing. I don't think the ones out in the field have a monitor and if they do it's probably small, but back at the station they have a monitor that the cast from the camera is sent to just like how we see it on our TVs. That's why they're usually higher quality images, the ones in the field job use the earplug headphones to hear what the newscaster is saying/asking.

    So in the end it's not really a video phone but just alot of basic hook-ups. I've never heard them call it a videophone but if you've heard them say that, they're likely just trying to make it sound hi-tech or somethin.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  8. #8
    Well, first, I wish they'd cut down the coverage a tad. They're turning war into entertainment, trying to get the big ratings, and I have serious problems with that. Not to mention that it seems pretty obvious if you've got a reporter yabbering on about where a platoon is, it makes it an obvious target!

    As for the videophones, my first thoughts are, "Hey, this reminds me of the old 'Battle Tank' game on the Atari 2600. Nah, I guess the resolution isn't that good."
    Tommy, close your eyes.

  9. #9
    Low-res or not, I have this weird thing for Christiane Amanpour.

  10. #10
    I think it's due to the satellite uplinking element of it, the cameras seem to be digital MPEG cams which stream a signal back to the station, but some of the datastream gets corrupted along the way - it reminds me an awful lot of watching the war via Real Player ("net congestion - please wait").
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "We named the dog 'Chewbacca'!"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO