HD DVD Review: Top Gun

Top Gun, directed by Tony Scott and produced by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, debuted in theaters in 1986. The films stars Tom Cruise as a Navy fighter pilot sent to the Navy's prestigious "Top Gun" school to complete against other pilots to see who can become "The Best of the Best". Co-starriing Val Kilmer, Anthony Edwards and the steamy Kelliy McGillis, Top Gun is an action packed film full of some great mid air battle screens with the obligatory love affair between Mr. Cruise and Ms. McGillis.

At this point, do I need to go into any further detail on the plot? I didn't think so as I believe we all know about this film. This is one of those films that became Home Theater demo material and is one that I still have on VHS(somewhere), laserdisc and DVD.

But how does it look and sound in HD DVD?

VIDEO 4 stars out of 5
Overall, this is an excellent looking transfer even though it does not appear that a major restoration was done in preparation for the HD-DVD release. The transfer boasts excellent color reproduction, accurate skin tones and rich deep blacks that makes for a very pleasing visual experience. In fact, this is the best that I have seen the film look in the home environment and even betters the presentation in HD shown on HDNet Movies awhile back. Fans of this film will be very happy with how the film looks on this HD-DVD release.

My only quibble with the picture is some soft looking interior shots. The exterior shots in full sunlight look very detailed and sharp and the air action images really shine. Close-up shots are finely detailed as well, showing off every skin pore. It is the softness in the interior shots and less than perfect condition of the print that keeps the film from getting an even higher grade in my book. Overall, Top Gun on HD-DVD looks great and would be a welcome addition to any home theater film collection.

AUDIO 4 1/2 stars out of 5
This version of this film is chock full of various audio options including Dolby TrueHD 5.1 at 48 khz/20 bit, DTS-ES matrixed 6.1 at 1.5 mps, Dolby Digital Plus at 1.5 mps and French and Spanish Dolby Digital Plus tracks each of which clock in at 640 kbps. While all three English tracks are excellent, to my ears the TrueHD track is the clear winner. This mix of the film boasts powerful bass, clear and natural sounding dialogue and and overall rich sound that sounds great even at high levels.

In fact, one of the chief benefits of these new high resolution audio encodes encodes like TrueHD and PCM tracks on Blu-Ray is the smoothness and openness of the sound. The tracks retain this smoothness even at high listening levels and they lack the shrillness of the standard Dolby Digital tracks heard on standard DVD's. Believe me, this is one of those discs that you will want to crank up. The sound effects with the jet fighters flying overhead and whizzing forward and backwards on either side of you are fantastic and is what got us into the HT experience in the first place.

The dialogue was also well placed in the mix and is clear and easily followed even in scenes filled with jet noise and music all around you. Even though Top Gun was released in 1986, it sounds
fantastic on its debut in High Definition.

This release is highly recommended for all HT enthusiasts out there.

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

High-Def DVD Review: Nature's Journey

As described by its producer, R&B Films, Nature’s Journey is an escape to a mysterious inner universe where nature and imagination meet to form a realm of extraordinary beauty and involves a mix of location filming, subtle computer-generated imagery, erotic musical soundscapes and artistic graphic enhancements that draw you deep into the magical heart of our planet. Nature’s Journey was produced in High Definition by video artist John Banks featuring a 96/24 soundtrack by Michael Sterns.

In plain English, Nature’s Journey consists of nature footage filmed in 1080i high definition. The footage consists of shots of flowers, grass, trees and foliage, waterfalls, beaches, mountains and various landscapes, with some very effective subtle and not so subtle graphics superimposed over the video. Accompanying the video is what can best be described as an ethereal, mood “ new age” music track featuring various electronic keyboards by Korg, Yamaha and Roland along with various other sound effects. The music fits the video so that bright and sunny visuals receive an airy upbeat track whereas images of stormy or wintry weather are presented with more gloomy and ominous sounding tracks.

Why review such a disc? Well, these discs present an opportunity to evaluate the claimed advantages of the Blu-Ray format over HD-DVD. In addition to greater storage capacity, the BD spec includes a higher bit rate encode capability. Here, the BD disc is presented in VC-1 encoded at 37 Mbps the highest allowed in the BD spec whereas the HD-DVD disc, while also encoded with VC-1, is encoded with the lower highest bit rate permitted in the HD-DVD spec of 26 Mbps. The audio specs on both discs are also different with the BD disc having a DTS-MA lossless audio track (@ 5.3 Mbps average and 6.8 Mbps max) with the HD-DVD disc receiving “only” a DTS-HD track at 3 Mbps. Both discs also have Dolby Digital 5.0 encodes 48/24 @ 448 kbps and Dolby Surround 2.0 at 48/16 @192kbps. The question, do the increased BD specs provide for better audio and sound quality? The answers, sort of, are below.

VIDEO 5 stars out of 5

Let me say at the outset that the video presentation on both discs is remarkable. Both are reference video presentations. if you want to impress your friends with great HD, get one of these discs. The colors are fantastic with incredible and varying shades of green, subtle variations of brown and gray on rocks, and stunning waterfalls. The images are utterly three dimensional. The views through a forest are fantastic. The discs are filled with images of running water that look flawless without even a hint of artifacts. The images of nearby trees and grass reflected on the surface of the running water are flawless as is the shadow detail. Amazing stuff. The only flaw was some banding visible at the beginning of chapter 5. The banding was visible on both discs and visible on both component and HDMI outputs. Not having seen the master, I am not sure if the banding is on the disc or the result of the video processing on my display. Either way, it is very minor and in no way distracted from my enjoyment of the visuals.

Now on to the big question, namely whether the increased bit rate on the BD disc resulted in a noticeable difference in picture quality over the HD-DVD disc. At normal viewing distances, I would have to say no. I watched both discs several times and compared segments of the discs back to back. At 8 to 10 feet from the screen, they looked identical to me. At closer distances, namely 2 to 4 feet from the screen, on just a few scenes did I think that I may have noticed a slightly more detailed picture on the Blu-Ray version. I say I think because the differences I saw were very, very minor. What I thought I was able to discern were slightly sharper edges to some objects in some but not all scenes. However, I very much doubt that I would be able to identify which disc was which in a double blind test the differences were that minor. To spot any differences took a lot of viewing at very close distances. One could very well argue that working that hard to spot differences means that there were no differences at all. Frankly, at normal viewing distances, there were none.

AUDIO
4 stars out of 5 (HD only)
0 stars out of 5 (BD only)

At the outset I should note that other than on the opening menu, I was not able to get any audio out of the analog outputs on my Panasonic BD player. I was advised by Richard Casey, the Executive Producer at R&B Films, that the audio plays fine on all BD players with the exception of the Panasonic. Apparently, there was an issue in the way Panasonic implemented the BD java spec that interferes with the way that the player outputs the audio. Panasonic was made aware of this and I have been advised that a firmware upgrade will be available on Panasonic’s website in mid October (version 2.4) which will fix this issue. Until then, I will be unable to grade the audio on the BD disc. I guess the grade should be an incomplete in regards to the BD version.

On the HD-DVD side, the sonics were excellent, with an open and airy sound that fully enveloped me in the listening position. The sound was smooth without a hint of shrillness and was very easy to listen to even at very high listening levels. While I loved the video images, most of the music on this disc is not my cup of tea. However, it was well recorded and presented very, very well. The DTS-HD track was a clear upgrade over the Dolby tracks with a smoother and more open sound. Unless you have to, I wouldn’t even bother with anything other than the DTS-HD track.

SUMMATION

Clearly, a lot of care went into the preparation of these discs on both the audio and video levels. R&B Films should be commended for putting out such a high quality product. Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs deliver outstanding video performance and are highly recommended. Now, let the argument from both camps begin!

For more high-def news, please click: TVPredictions.com

NFL Week 3: Grading the HDTV Broadcasts

After last week's rather mediocre performance across the board by CBS and Fox, I was wondering whether we would notice an improvement this week (Sept. 23) in regards to PQ (picture quality). To my surprise, there was -- both for CBS and Fox. There were many games this week that I would rate a B+. However, there were no A's to give out. For those of you who think I am a hard grader and wonder what I would give an A to, I would give an A to the MLS game Saturday night on HDNet. That was a crisp and clear picture and how I would want all games to look.

As for Sunday (September 23), I would give a B+ to the following games:

Colts-Titans (CBS)
Chargers-Packers (CBS)
Vikings-Chiefs (Fox)
Niners-Steelers (Fox)
Dolphins-Jets (CBS)
Bills-Pats (CBS)
Bengals-Seahawks (CBS)
Jags-Broncos (CBS)
Giants-Skins (Fox)

All of these games had bright color, and sharp pictures with nice detail and no noise. They did not make an A grade as none had the the sharpness that in my mind deserves an A grade. While the close-up shots were generally very good, the long shots had a touch of softness that warrants a grade of B+.

The following games deserved a B:

Lions-Eagles (Fox)
Rams-Bucs (Fox)
Panthers-Falcons (Fox)

Close-ups were softer than the B+ games as were the long shots which were way too soft.

Pulling up the rear was the Cards-Ravens (Fox) which I gave a C-. It looked like a bad upconvert with a very grainy and noisy picture. I would have hated the Lions-Eagles game to have looked that bad!

All in all a very good week. Hopefully we will have a few A games next week!

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

Why I Left Comcast for Verizon

It is not surprising to see the report that Steve Burke at Comcast has acknowledged that the telcos (such as Verizon's FiOS) are making some inroads on their customer base. I am a long time Comcast subscriber who switched to FiOS in February. I am also one of many in my township that have switched, a lot more than I would have expected. Why? The reasons are
numerous.

First is price. Comcast was getting too expensive. I was able to increase my broadband speed and add a number of HD channels (with FiOS) and still save about $25 a month. The second and almost as important was the improvement in the quality of my picture both in regards to standard definition channels where there was a noticable improvement as well as an improvement in even the HD channels. As an example, I was shocked to see how much better Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia looked on FiOS compared to Comcast. Now that was a shocker.

Third, pure arrogance on the part of Comcast. Frankly, they thought they could increase rates substantially every year with impunity due in part to the lack of DBS competition in the Philadelphia market due to the lack of CSN Philadelphia on DBS. When the FiOS deal with our township was struck, I called Comcast a few times over two months to see if I could get a better deal. Despite the fact that I said I was contemplating switching to FiOS, they would not move an inch. The response was you will be back soon. Once FiOS ws up and running, off I went.

After I called to terminate Comcast, all of a sudden the deals were being offered. Too late.

Fourth, HDNet. For some reason that completely escapes me, Comcast refuses to add HDNet and HDNet Movies. I have them on my limited DIRECTV subscription and love them, although I was not happy with the PQ on those channels due to Directv's "HD Lite". On FiOS they look FANTASTIC. After nearly 8 months of FiOS, I am not surprised that Comcast is losing customers. The new deals they are constantly offering me. Deals on the triple play and then a "double play" with triple play rates. I almost next expect them to pay me to use their service.

Is FiOS perfect? No. They have been having some growing pains. Their roll out of new HD is way too slow. While it would be nice if they added some HD VOD, I don't miss it. It would be nice if they would add the software to stream HD content from the DVR to any HD box in the house. However, I have learned to be patient. Providing me with excellent PQ makes it a lot
easier to be patient!

For more high-def news, please click: TVPredictions.com

Thumbs Up For Torchwood In HD

For those of you who have HDNet, do yourself a favor and check out Torchwood, the BBC sci-fi production which aired for the first night last night in HD. The pilot episode was excellent, both in terms of picture and audio quality, as well as the plot. While the show is a hit in the UK, I have not seen it although it has garnered good press prior to its debut. This show looks like a keeper and one that I have added to the DVR list. Give it a look. Highly recommended. (Note: Torchwood airs Monday nights at 7 p.m. ET on HDNet.)

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

Verizon Should Reveal HD Plans

Given the plethora of HD announcements from DIRECT and EchoStar's Dish Network, I contacted Sharon Cohen-Hagar, Verizon's Director of Media Relations, concerning their plans for the addition of new HD channels in the upcoming months on their FiOS service. I specifically asked about TBS HD, CNN HD, A & E HD and the new Discovery channels. This is the response I received.

"We'll be adding a few more HD channels along with some special interest SD channels this quarter. Beyond that, we're planning a major expansion in our HD, sports and multicultural offerings that will track with the removal of analog content from our system. The rollout of these new offerings will begin next spring. While we believe that HD leadership-in both quality and quantity- is critical to the competitive marketplace, we also recognize that we have to appeal to diverse interests to achieve the targets we've set for ourselves, hence the inclusion of sports and multicultural programming in our planned additions. At the same time, we believe one of our core advantages lies in the quality of the programming we deliver, therefore we will not compromise the signal we receive from the programmers."

Despite a follow-up request, Ms. Hagar would not name the new HD channels that would be offered and would specifically not commit to the addition of TBS HD in time for the upcoming MLB playoffs. (TBS has the rights to first and second baseball playoffs.) Nor did she commit to it not being carried either. Given the announcements of new HD content from the DBS providers and the recent TBS HD Comcast announcement, it is my opinion that it would be in Verizon's best interests to make their plans for the carriage of the new HD channels public rather than hide behind vague statements and promised concerning carriage. As of now, we will know when they are added once they are added. Not a good way to increase your subscriber base IMHO.

For more high-def news, please click: TVPredictions.com

NFL Week 2: Grading the HDTV Broadcasts

Although yesterday was week 2 of the NFL season and hence week 2 of DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket (NFLST) coverage. (I was not able to watch the NFLST coverage last week as I was too busy watching the Eagles-Packers and Bears-Chargers games.) However, with the Eagles on Monday Night Football this week and our local CBS and Fox affiliates choosing to air games of little interest to me, I was able to check out all the games on NFLST this week, all the HD games that is, and I have taken the liberty to grade them all in terms of picture quality.

Overall, I must say that I was somewhat disappointed with the overall quality of the games. I will not lay this at the feet of DIRECTV as the games on DIRECTV as the games on DIRECTV looked about the same as they did OTA (antenna) here or via (Verizon's) FiOS. The games that were carried locally did look a tad better on FiOS than on DIRECTV, though, but not all that much better. I would not label any of the games as outstanding, hence none were deserving of an A grade. Sorry, I guess I am a tough marker.

However, none were close to the best HD football I have seen in the past, especially from CBS. The following games I graded as borderline B+:

Colts-Titans (CBS)
Packers-Giants (Fox)
Chiefs-Bears (CBS)
Raiders-Broncos (CBS)

All of these games had bright color and good detail but were just not as sharp as the best HD I have seen. Overall, I thought that their PQ (picture quality) was a tad too soft. Of these games, I thought that the Packers-Giants game on Fox looked the best, by a hair, over the rest which were CBS productions.

Entitled to B grades were:

Steelers-Bills (CBS)
Jets-Ravens (CBS)
49ers-Rams (Fox)

These games were a notch below the others noted above.

The next group I rated as worthy of a C+:
Saints-Bucs (Fox)
Cowboys-Dolphins (Fox)
Lions-Vikings (Fox), which were fuzzier than the rest with somewhat washed out colors, especially the Lions-Vikes.

At the bottom fully deserving of a D+ was the Falcons-Jags (Fox). The PQ there was so bad that it didn't look like HD at all, looking instead like a bad 480i upconvert.

Hopefully, the games next week will look better. Frankly, I expect better from CBS. I have to wonder whether the fact that they have increased the number of HD games they are producing this year has somehow had a negative impact on their PQ. I certainly hope not. However, this is an issue that needs to be monitored.

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

HDTV: The 'Bug' That Bugs Me

Does Fox's 'bug box' have to take up the entire top of the screen?

My biggest complaint with HD sports programming, other than occasional poor picture and sound quality, is the incessant use of graphics by the various broadcast and cable networks. For some reason unknown to me, the networks at times make it very difficult to see the actual game through all the graphics, which I will dub "visual pollution." You almost have to look around and between the graphics on the top and bottom of the screen to see the action on the field.

I have taken the time to formulate some rules I would like to see implemented by the producers of HD sports broadcasts when it comes to graphics. I hope you are all paying attention out there as I know some of you are reading this.

1. Graphics should be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Smaller is always better than bigger. Remember, this applies to on screen graphics only!
3. It is always better to place graphics at the bottom of the screen than at the top so they are not as noticeable to the eye.
4. Translucent is always better than solid colors.
5. Keep on screen time to a minimum.
6. Constant tickers are a no no.

Examples of obnoxious graphics in use currently that violate some or all of these rules?

Numero uno is that damn sports ticker used at ESPN and ESPN2. Quite frankly, it is totally unnecessary. It gives the same information to us over and over and over and over again. There is no need for this information to be fed to us constantly as it is now. Giving it to us at 28 and 58 minutes past the hour as they do on their NFL broadcasts is just fine. No more is needed. If you need the scores that badly, check out the web. That is what ESPN.com or even ESPNews is for. Keep them off my screen! The ticker takes up way too much of my screen and is distracting.

The colors on the ticker are also too bold. The only positive thing is that the ticker is on the bottom rather than the top of the screen. However, with all that space at the bottom of the screen wasted on the ticker, the rest of the graphics end up at the top of the screen leaving us with a maze to navigate through just to see the game! Maybe it is just me, but I tune in to see the game, not all the fancy graphics!

Next on the list is Fox and their "Fox Box", which in this writer's opinion, is one of the all time worst developments in the history of television. The Fox Box breaks all the rules. It is at the top of the screen and always in your primary field of view. It uses opaque and bold colors. It is way, way too big. Why does it have to extend all the way across the screen? Why not make it half the width and height it is now? Even worse, why is the space above the box shaded in? Is that part of our fancy widescreen sets useless?

My God, Fox even had snow falling above the box during a Patriots-Packers game a couple of years ago. To add insult to injury, when the snow piled up high enough, those crafty graphics engineers had a nice little snowplow come across the top of the box and clear off the snow. How quaint! Enough already Fox!

How about NBC and their Sunday Night Football telecasts? AT least they have their box across the bottom of the screen. However, they have joined in with the crowd and have the box extend all the way across the screen -- and also sees the need to shade in the space under the box. Their box is also too colorful.

CBS used to get it right but no more. Last year they went with new blue graphics which add nothing to the game. They are at the top of the screen but thankfully, near the corners. However, CBS has seen fit to have added a bar that extends all the across the bottom of the screen much like ESPN's ticker, which gives us a continuous stream of information about the other games, the scores, time remaining in those games and statistics of select players playing in those games. This is presumably to satisfy fantasy football geeks.

So, who does it right with sports? Glad you have asked. No one gets it right nationally. Regionally, one that gets it right is Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia. While I would prefer their box to be at the bottom of the screen rather than the top, it is black and white in color and is very narrow and takes up about a quarter of the width of the screen. It also carries only the information relating to that particular game. The result being that the box is hardly noticeable
and does not distract from your view of the action on the field. For scores, they come in periodically to display those for only a minute or so after which they are gone, thankfully. Their graphics and their implementation are clearly designed by someone who likes to watch sports rather than a graphics engineer who is more caught up in what he or she can do with their equipment rather than how they can add to our enjoyment of the game. Well done! I just wish that the rest can learn a lesson from them!

For more high-def views and news, please click: TVPredictions.com

Stop Stalling On Digital TV!

Reading the recent articles and comments concerning the digital transition and the ability of the DBS providers to carry the OTA channels that wait to the last minute to switch to digital, I must wonder about the two main issues involved.

The first concerns the actual switch by the various broadcasters to digital. Why in God's name aren't ALL OTA channels digital by now? The fact that they aren't is a disgrace. Remember, the owned and operated stations of the major networks in the largest markets of the country were required to have their digital signals up and running in November 1998. Yes, 1998! It is almost 9 years later and some stations are still not ready? Delay the transition for another year to pamper these stations? They were supposed to be all digital in 2006. That was delayed 3 years.

Enough is enough. I have a simple solution for those stations that can't make the February 17, 2009 cutoff, surrender your license. Let someone who cares operate your channel. Having Congress delaying matters even further will result in more delays and more delays. Why stop at 2010? Why not 2011, 2012, etc. Get on with it. Stop the delays. Keep the 2009 deadline and force these operators to abandon their analog spectrum or abandon their license to broadcast. Enough already!

As to DIRECTV and Dish Network not being able to get these stations on if they flashcut and wait till the last minute to go digital, I say nonsense. How difficult will that be? It is likely that any stations waiting that long will be small independent stations in small markets. They involve signals that DIRECTV and Dish pick up via an antenna in each market. Those same antennas will be used to pick up the digital signal also. How difficult can it be to reset their equipment to recognize the digital signal by that same antenna and run it through their system? Probably not that hard at all. Could it be that DIRECTV and Dish really don't want to be bothered with carrying these channels anyway, which are likely more trouble than they are worth to each provider? Why not use this issue as an opportunity to get a waiver from the FCC to drop these channels altogether, claiming that they can't get them on in time? Maybe this is what DIRECTV and Dish are up to with their recent pronouncement? After all, you don't see cable complaining about this issue.

My recommendation to the Congress and the FCC is this: Stand your ground! Stick with your deadlines and force the issue. It is the only way to work through the issue and get the transition completed.

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

Transformers On HD DVD: Sound Good to You?

A large segment of the Home Theater crowd has been anxiously awaiting the (high-def DVD) release of Transformers since the day it was released in theaters. Many were very disappointed with the Paramount HD-DVD exclusivity announcement on August 27th as they would be able to purchase the disc on Blu-Ray. Now the HD-DVD crowd is upset with the announcement yesterday (Sept. 5) that the HD-DVD release will not have a Dolby TrueHD track and will have Dolby Digital + only at 1.5 mps.

The stone throwing has already started on the Internet forums. Even the BD fanboys are getting into the act claiming, with no proof whatsoever, that their is no lossless encode due to the lack of space on the HD-DVD, ignoring the fact that there are longer movies released on HD-DVD with TrueHD tracks. As I do not work for a movie studio, I have no idea why some releases have lossy or lossless encodes. I am sure there are a number of factors that go into this decision, with capacity only one of them.

Me? I will wait for the final product is released before I pass judgment on the sound quality. Too many HT enthusiasts and audiophiles get too caught up in the specs. There is more to real world performance than specs. Look at audio. I have many a component with great specs that sound awful and visa versa. Remember all the great specs withb the release of the CD way back when. Only one problem, the LP counterparts sounded better. So much for specs.

How about HD? One keeps hearing how 1080p is better, if your set is not 1080p yada yada yada. No way a HD DVD player outputting 1080i into a 1080p set can look as good as one outputting 1080p! Wrong. They should look the same, provided the scalers are good. Viewing
distance is a factor here also.

What does that have to do with Transformers on HD-DVD? Given that none of us will have the chance to actually experience the audio track in the studio, how would we possibly know whether a TrueHD track will sound better than the DD+ one? Maybe it won't! In fact, an insider on AVS Forum known as Film mixer, who actually works mixing films, claims that the DD+ track on the HD-DVD Dreamgirls release sounds the same as the film track he heard in the studio. Maybe, just maybe, Paramount knows more than us and feels that the DD+ encode they have done sounds transparent to the master.

If it does, does it really matter what the encode is? Let's relax guys and wait until we hear the track for ourselves in October. If you hate it, bitch about it then but at least wait till you hear it before you pass judgment.

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com

NBC Sports In HD: I Can't 'Weather' It

Well, football season is upon us with numerous games to watch in HD glory on the pro and college level and numerous networks. Football in HD has been described as a "killer app", one that will and has sold HDTVs to numerous households. After watching football in HD, you will cringe everytime you have to sit through football in SD which, thankfully, is becoming far less common than it was just 2 years ago.

For the most part, the major networks are doing a great job in their HD productions. For the most part, CBS is my favorite as I find their picture and audio quality to be top notch, with a very colorful and sharp picture with outstanding 5.1 audio. After CBS, I would rank Fox and ESPN next. While their picture is very good, it just does not have the clarity and the noise free picture that I see from CBS. Never the less, they both produce an outstanding HD experience in their own right.

However, bringing up the rear, by a wide margin, is NBC. Their sports coverage is downright awful, so much so that they should be embarrassed by what they are putting out. The image looks fine until the images on the screen move at which point the picture is a total mess of pixelation. On a smallish TV, it may not look so bad but 42" and above, it is awful. A case in point was this weekend's Notre Dame-Georgia Tech game which was a pixelated mess and unwatchable. It almost made me thankful I don't have a 65" screen.

Why does the picture look so bad on NBC vs. the other networks?

It can't be the quality of the cameras or the technicians working the game as they are top notch and I am sure have pride in the product they send to the network for distribution. I am also confident that the problem isn't the feed from NY (network headquarters) to the affiliates. The problem lies with the Weather Plus subchannel broadcast by the NBC affiliates. Simply put, the Weather Plus subchannel robs the primary digital signal of the bandwidth it needs to produce an acceptable HD picture, especially in programming with fast motion such as football. It is inadequate but NBC just doesn't care about the quality of the product. They would rather have a low resolution weather channel take up space on their over the air signal, a channel that has almost no viewers anyway, especially when their is compelling programming on their main channels such as college or pro football. If NBC truly cared about quality, they would ditch the Weather Plus channel and give us a full bandwidth HD channel. (Note: Most NBC owned and operated stations broadcast the Weather Plus subchannel on their digital spectrum.)

Let's go NBC, get in the game! We want the best looking HD possible. Dump the Weather Plus channel. It is best viewed on your various affiliate websites anyway as the quality of the product is so bad. I just don't understand NBC's preoccupation with the weather anyway. It seems that their local news broadcasts are weather channels themselves with a little news thrown in. When I want the weather, I will first turn to the radio, then the window and then to the Internet. The Weather Plus channel on the tube is the last place I will look.

NBC, if you must continue with the Weather channel, at least turn it off during HD programming, especially with marquee sports matchups. Football Night in America should be in full HD, not reduced bandwidth crap-o-vision HD we have been getting for the last couple of years. BTW, you audio needs work as well as the volume is so low, at least on WCAU-DT in Philly, that is is hard to year. Please, get with the program and deliver what your competitors are delivering, and SOON!

For more high-def news and views, please click: TVPredictions.com