my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Jeff Joseph Live on CNN (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Jeff Joseph Live on CNN Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-20-2003 04:22 PM                  9-20-2003. Just a FYI for all the 3D fans.... (With apologies to Jeff in advance for copying his announcement without his permission.) quote: CNN Live tonight 3-D shows. I'm supposed to be doing CNN tonight.... a live interview at 7 PM pacific time. I'm supposed to be going on between 7:30-7:55.... Jeff >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 09-20-2003 05:49 PM                     Somebody tape this so we can convert it to a Quicktime download for the warehouse.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-20-2003 05:53 PM                        I'll be watching my mailbox for the tape so I can convert it. I don't have cable though, so I can't tape it myself.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-21-2003 09:11 AM                     Anyone see this? It was pretty cool. Could have been a LOT better, though, but what do you expect from a short blip on a basic-cable news channel? It's no documentary... =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-21-2003 09:27 AM                     I mentioned in the chat room last night that I got a really uncomfortable feeling watching the interview. Poor what's-her-name started off by wearing the wrong 3D glasses and then went on to talk about how 3D packed an emotional punch in some movie only to be informed by Mr. Joseph that the film was never actually released in 3D. Oh, it was horrible! The expression on her face betrayed her inner monologue. First and foremost, she wanted to kill the researcher and then the producer of the segment. But just at that moment, she was busy mustering up the confidence to go forth with her next comment/question. And -- God bless her, she did -- it was the question with the tidbit about advancements in makeup. I still don't know whether she was right or wrong but no matter: our man Jeff blew it off (almost) entirely, opting instead to go straight for the shameless plug. I really wish news reporters/anchors wouldn't feel the need to brush up on every topic. We know they're only human; they can't possibly know all about every story that comes their way. HomeGirl would have been a lot better off if she had simply approached the interview honestly. I think Jeff ought to have been a little more "happy to be here" than he appeared. After watching that interview, all I wanted to do was curl up into the fetal position and find my "happy place." [Edit: I downloaded the interview and watched it a second time this morning and now I think Mr. Joseph was maybe just exhausted from his busy schedule of screenings and I misinterpreted his weariness for "impatience with Philistine."]  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-21-2003 02:21 PM                        Oh c'mon, it wasn't that bad. I am glad to see a 16:9 Quicktime. I wonder how that looked to people with regular 4:3 sets? Are there two different streams for CNN, one regular and one widescreen? I can only imagine being the editor and having to conform to BOTH standards.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 09-21-2003 03:18 PM                     The sides were chopped off for 4:3, and it didn't look very good on the air.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-21-2003 03:40 PM                  Where was it available in 16:9 in HD format? I got it in 4:3. Was this an edit to make it look cooler or was there more pic info actually available in 16:9? Also, quit UR bitching y'all. I think Jeff did a good job considering the Interviewer, the time constraints, and the fact he was on National TV, LIVE! JEEEZE! At least he didn't choke! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 09-21-2003 04:52 PM                     I think it is true 16:9. The LIVE slug and the bottom info is indented quite a bit. It actually looks quite awkward.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-21-2003 06:16 PM                  Paul, where, what service, and how did you see this in that format? 480 or 1080? >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-21-2003 07:01 PM                        It doesn't have to be HDTV to be 16:9. Regular NTSC can do it as well. And you forgot 720, Phil. If the sides were chopped off, the time and the CNN logo would have been partially cropped. There would have to be two seperate streams, as one cannot watch the same channel and get both versions, depending on if you have a widescreen TV or not. Check it out. The black lines represent the exact image width of a regular 4:3 television set. Look how much gets chopped off. It would be unviewable if it were done that way.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-21-2003 07:49 PM                  Joe: Yeah but then it would have been called "Letterbox"... I totally get it, that's why I asked the question. I only got it on DirecTV in NTSC and viewed it on my 16:9 HD 34" monitor. It was converted from 480i to 1080i. But I was wondering where the source was for the 16:9 "Letterbox" since I saw it in 4:3. I thought maybe Brad did an edit to the 16:9 format. Also, 720 sux! It should be sent directly to hell. Give me 480p or 1080i! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-21-2003 10:31 PM                        How could 720p possibly be worse than 480p? That makes zero sense. Perhaps your display does not natively support that format, and up or down converts it to 1080 or 480. If so, then yeah, it's gonna look like crap. Also, 480p is the same exact resolution as regular NTSC, only progressive. NTSC video does not need to be letterboxed to achieve 16:9. Many of the DVDs out there are anamorphic. The TV takes this image and stretches it to 16:9. Many camcorders shoot anamorphic images right in NTSC that are expanded into 16:9 on a proper TV. You can also have it blow up a letterbox image, but that sucks.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-21-2003 11:03 PM                  Oh Pleeze Joe! 720 is a bastard "wanna-be 1080" format...Like "My 480 dick is too small, but I wanna play with the big boys. I don't quite measure up, but I'm trying!" It was invented to appease those that could not afford to go "big-time" 1080 and very much a dead format! quote: Also, 480p is the same exact resolution as regular NTSC, only progressive. DUH! Gosh I NEVER knew that! I still say the BEST of both worlds is 480p and 1080i. And yes, Joe, I am very familiar with the fact that NTSC 525/60/59.94/29.97 was renamed 480i... Another marketing ploy! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-22-2003 12:33 AM                        I still don't understand how you see 720p being inferior to 480p. Doesn't make sense. More resolution=better picture quality. It's like saying "I prefer mono over stereo because stereo isn't 8 channel quality". I prefer progressive to interlaced, so based on what I've seen, I prefer 720p to 1080i. They should have an 1080p. 1080i is a pussy format that just can't measure up because it is too wimpy to go the progressive route.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.