View Full Version : First episode video quality
djdawson
07-17-2009, 04:44 AM
While watching the first episode of HD Nation, which I really enjoyed and think will be a great show, I just couldn't stop noticing that all the scenes with Robert and/or Patrick seemed to have slightly blown out highlights. This seemed especially noticeable on Patrick's shirt, but both their faces seemed to look rather unflattering as well, mostly Robert's forehead and Patrick's cheekbones. I suppose part of the problem could be their makeup or lack thereof, but that doesn't explain Patrick's shirt. The problem seemed sorta like all the HDTV's in stores that are set to "vivid" mode, which is especially ironic given the hosts' strong feelings about HD image quality.
Did anyone else notice this, or am I all wet?
vegan
07-17-2009, 06:44 AM
I noticed as well. It couldn't have been caused by something actually on them, because there was also a crazy halo around them. Gave me flashbacks of being at work (motion picture restoration).
judaz
07-18-2009, 11:32 PM
While watching the first episode of HD Nation, which I really enjoyed and think will be a great show, I just couldn't stop noticing that all the scenes with Robert and/or Patrick seemed to have slightly blown out highlights. This seemed especially noticeable on Patrick's shirt, but both their faces seemed to look rather unflattering as well, mostly Robert's forehead and Patrick's cheekbones. I suppose part of the problem could be their makeup or lack thereof, but that doesn't explain Patrick's shirt. The problem seemed sorta like all the HDTV's in stores that are set to "vivid" mode, which is especially ironic given the hosts' strong feelings about HD image quality.
Did anyone else notice this, or am I all wet?
...can only agree... How can you make a show about HD video, when the quality of the actually show is poor?
___________________________
Yeah, and bring back systm
vegan
07-19-2009, 08:49 AM
...can only agree... How can you make a show about HD video, when the quality of the actually show is poor?
___________________________
Yeah, and bring back systm
Well, the reason is obviously bandwidth and the costs surrounding it. Resolution is just one contributor to how good video will look; you can make HD look like crap if the bitrate is low. If you have to keep filesizes low, and you still want to be able to call it HD, that's what you sacrifice.
I don't think Rev3 cares about bandwidth. If they did, then the disable auto-play feature wouldn't continue downloading massive amounts of data every time a show page refreshes.
Thankfully, my internet connection is faster then what the show files are offered up at, otherwise I would notice the impact. For someone who doesn't have a "all you can eat" type service as I have, the impact can be devastating.
I've mentioned this in posts at least twice, but Rev3 appears not to be concerned about the wasted bandwidth or the hardship this can place on their viewers.
kilroyperrywinkle
07-19-2009, 04:00 PM
Bah, we gotta be a bit more forgiving of this kind of stuff...
It happens. Some setting on the camera, or in the video conversion screws up the contrast (or something). It was so obvious its not like they didnt notice, either it happened too far down the production line that they decided it wasnt worth reshooting or... meh who knows? Pat will probably make some joke about it next week and that'll be the end of it.
It was still very watchable and some of the best tech talk I've heard from Rev3 in a long while. Very packed full of info and very well articulated (if a bit brightly lit).
Its the content of the show that's important, even if it is about HD... We fans have got to get off the complain train (oh yeah, I said that) and just enjoy the show.
lindqvist
07-19-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't think Rev3 cares about bandwidth. If they did, then the disable auto-play feature wouldn't continue downloading massive amounts of data every time a show page refreshes.
Thankfully, my internet connection is faster then what the show files are offered up at, otherwise I would notice the impact. For someone who doesn't have a "all you can eat" type service as I have, the impact can be devastating.
I've mentioned this in posts at least twice, but Rev3 appears not to be concerned about the wasted bandwidth or the hardship this can place on their viewers.
They get paid by their advertisers for the downloading of massive amounts of data every time a show page refreshes is what, I suspect...
lindqvist
07-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Bah, we gotta be a bit more forgiving of this kind of stuff...
It happens. Some setting on the camera, or in the video conversion screws up the contrast (or something). It was so obvious its not like they didnt notice, either it happened too far down the production line that they decided it wasnt worth reshooting or... meh who knows? Pat will probably make some joke about it next week and that'll be the end of it.
It was still very watchable and some of the best tech talk I've heard from Rev3 in a long while. Very packed full of info and very well articulated (if a bit brightly lit).
Its the content of the show that's important, even if it is about HD... We fans have got to get off the complain train (oh yeah, I said that) and just enjoy the show.
I would guess that they didn't catch it before they were done shooting, and when they did, they didn't find it critical enough to warrant them bringing Mr Norton and Mr Heron in for shooting episode 1 all over again some other day, probably also delaying the release of the show...
Unless it was actually something that could be fixed easily in post-production... I have no idea
djdawson
07-19-2009, 05:50 PM
I would have expected them to do a short test segment to verify things like lighting, makeup, and post-production processing were all OK. If this had been a live show it would have been more understandable, but for a studio production I'd have expected better quality, especially on a show specifically about HD. Don't get me wrong - I really like the show and the hosts, and I will definitely continue to watch it, but since this was the first episode I thought it might be useful to provide a bit of feedback so future shows can be improved.
peter-gandalf
07-19-2009, 08:03 PM
Yea its a lighting issue. They could try putting a scrim in the light to kill some output or add more diffusion to scatter the light so it isn't so focused. They could also use a larger source which will be less blaring and wrap around the two hosts better and then just stop down the lens in the camera bit.
With a limited lighting package it may be hard to light the background and fair skinned people adequately since the light skin is going to reflect much more light and look blown out. Video cameras don't have a great dynamic range either so that doesn't help much either.
I'm a cinematographer so I'm not just talking out my ass here.
zecane
07-19-2009, 08:13 PM
Hopefully they'll have it fixed for the next episode :)
jh32488
07-19-2009, 08:38 PM
i notice the lighting issues all across the revision 3 shows. seriously rev3. huge fan. i support you through netflix, your store, adagio, etc. im sure the money you make can buy some diffusion or silks or something. its way too harsh. on a diggnation episode i believe the lights were reflecting from their sunglasses like crazy and it was way too harsh. take a note from the film riot lighting episode atleast. and get some 3 point lighting going. not head on. i saw the arri lights in the sunglasses so i know you got nice stuff. maybe flood it out alot more.
judaz
07-20-2009, 02:28 PM
The point was kind of that they kill Systm to make a show about HD, and just that show, shows an episode with bad quality the thing that the show was suppose to be about...
Ironic or what?
______________________________
Bring back Systm!
They get paid by their advertisers for the downloading of massive amounts of data every time a show page refreshes is what, I suspect...
As finally explained here (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=538095&postcount=7), completed downloads. Apparently if you go to an episode page and click the download link, not only are they getting paid for the completed download you just finished, but the other completed download that took place in the background. Even going there to only read the show notes has the potential for a completed download. Kind of skews the actual numbers a bit.
Anyone with a metered account, and there are a lot of people who still receive their Internet service that way, should go to the episode page, start their download and get off that page as soon as possible. Certainly their download will go quicker (not downloading something twice). Their monthly quota won't be reached as quickly. Keeps Rev3 honest. :)
serafina
07-20-2009, 06:57 PM
As finally explained here (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=538095&postcount=7), completed downloads. Apparently if you go to an episode page and click the download link, not only are they getting paid for the completed download you just finished, but the other completed download that took place in the background. Even going there to only read the show notes has the potential for a completed download. Kind of skews the actual numbers a bit.
Anyone with a metered account, and there are a lot of people who still receive their Internet service that way, should go to the episode page, start their download and get off that page as soon as possible. Certainly their download will go quicker (not downloading something twice). Their monthly quota won't be reached as quickly. Keeps Rev3 honest. :)
I'm not really sure what you're complaining about here. First off, registered members can disable autoplay. Go to your account settings (http://revision3.com/account) and click "change preferences". But if for some reason the video plays, just press pause - like mentioned earlier, we keep track of completed views, not partials. Jim Louderback rants about that very issue here (http://louderback.com/2009/the-lies-must-stop/)
First off, disabling autoplay does not stop the video from downloading, it only stops the video player from playing the video.
Second, although the video player hides the download from the viewer, the fact is the video continues to download until completed.
Third, when someone downloads a video and remains on an episode page (say to read the show notes), they are effectively completing a download twice.
Forth, not everyone on the planet has a 30Mbps 'all you can eat' Internet service. If you happen to be someone that pays for the bit, you might be a little upset that unbeknownst to you someone is wasting your monthly allotment.
Fifth, I find it ironic that Mr Louderback, as you put it, "rants" about about an issue when his own company contributes to the problem. Admittedly, in a different way. Terribly so? No. Never the less, skewed metrics. And, even if completed downloads for the web video player isn't counted as revenue, it's still a tremendous waste of bandwidth, money and time.
kilroyperrywinkle
07-21-2009, 06:41 AM
How dare a company do everything it can to make money... grr I hate things... grrr...
How dare a company do everything it can to make money.
Is that any company, or just Rev3?
judaz
07-22-2009, 07:29 AM
First off, disabling autoplay does not stop the video from downloading, it only stops the video player from playing the video.
Second, although the video player hides the download from the viewer, the fact is the video continues to download until completed.
Third, when someone downloads a video and remains on an episode page (say to read the show notes), they are effectively completing a download twice.
Forth, not everyone on the planet has a 30Mbps 'all you can eat' Internet service. If you happen to be someone that pays for the bit, you might be a little upset that unbeknownst to you someone is wasting your monthly allotment.
Fifth, I find it ironic that Mr Louderback, as you put it, "rants" about about an issue when his own company contributes to the problem. Admittedly, in a different way. Terribly so? No. Never the less, skewed metrics. And, even if completed downloads for the web video player isn't counted as revenue, it's still a tremendous waste of bandwidth, money and time.
30Mbps ? Who uses such a slow speed? *loL* Sorry. I fell sad fo a lot of americans that cant get a decent connection speed of 100/100Mpbs, an on top of that a Cap on the download amount. Is it the 80's? ..
But saying that I agree that if you do have a CAP on your connection, and you unfortunaly live in an area that only offers slow connection speeds, autoplay sux, and if you turn of auto-play and the video still downloads in the background you have every right to be annoyed. Its a waste of bandwidth
______________________________
Bring back Systm!
masterq
07-22-2009, 05:04 PM
30Mbps ? Who uses such a slow speed? *loL* Sorry. I fell sad fo a lot of americans that cant get a decent connection speed of 100/100Mpbs, an on top of that a Cap on the download amount. Is it the 80's?
30Mbps is 3x faster than the max I can get in my area and my upload != my download. At least I'm not capped or throttled whatsoever.
vegan
07-22-2009, 05:09 PM
30Mbps is 3x faster than the max I can get in my area and my upload != my download. At least I'm not capped or throttled whatsoever.
Yeah, I have 10Mbps, too, and even that is blazingly fast compared to what even most broadband users have. These days, they shouldn't be allowed to call 1Mbps "broadband".
masterq
07-22-2009, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I have 10Mbps, too, and even that is blazingly fast compared to what even most broadband users have. These days, they shouldn't be allowed to call 1Mbps "broadband".
Actually, I just checked and my cable company does now offer 30mbps but for $90/month and only 2mbps upload. My cable company invented cable tv (yes...really) and was also the first to have premium content (HBO, and again, yes... really), but seem to lag waaaayy behind when it comes to internet
http://www.secable.com/wilkes-barre/packages-internet.html
mikec
07-22-2009, 05:40 PM
30Mbps ? Who uses such a slow speed? *loL* Sorry. I fell sad fo a lot of americans that cant get a decent connection speed of 100/100Mpbs, an on top of that a Cap on the download amount. Is it the 80's? ..
!
Your profile doesn't say where you live but please look at a map of the US and compare it to many other countries. (for size) When I worked for a cable company, the system I worked for had over 2,000 miles of trunk cable for a system that basically covered one county. (population in that area was about 600,000) The cost and time needed to upgrade that one system took millions of dollars and years.
serafina
07-22-2009, 06:59 PM
First off, disabling autoplay does not stop the video from downloading, it only stops the video player from playing the video.
Second, although the video player hides the download from the viewer, the fact is the video continues to download until completed.
The player caches the video, yes, as is the case with every other embedded video on the internet.
Third, when someone downloads a video and remains on an episode page (say to read the show notes), they are effectively completing a download twice.
"Twice" according to their ISP, yes, but again - it doesn't count to us as a "view" if you don't actually view the video.
Forth, not everyone on the planet has a 30Mbps 'all you can eat' Internet service. If you happen to be someone that pays for the bit, you might be a little upset that unbeknownst to you someone is wasting your monthly allotment.
Unfortunately, this is an issue that people with very limited internet plans have to deal with all across the internet. If you have a limited amount of bandwidth, then you need to watch how often you visit any website with embedded video, not just Rev3.
Fifth, I find it ironic that Mr Louderback, as you put it, "rants" about about an issue when his own company contributes to the problem. Admittedly, in a different way. Terribly so? No. Never the less, skewed metrics. And, even if completed downloads for the web video player isn't counted as revenue, it's still a tremendous waste of bandwidth, money and time.
No. Again, the problem Jim is ranting about is websites defining a "view" as when someone watches 3 seconds of a video, which Revision3 does not do. Caching the video before it plays does not affect our metrics. What you're complaining about and what Jim's post is about are two completely different issues.
I believe the term "Broadband" is typically used to describe anything wider than 256 Kbps. Having started with acoustic-coupled and later being amazed by 300 and 1200 baud modems, 256 Kbps was a lot at one time. :D
For the most part Internet services here suck. Not to say that all other countries have it better, but there are countries with much better Internet services, then here. Last time I looked we were like 15th in the world.
Depending on where you live, services offered to a residential user ranged from crappy Dial-up to 60+ Mbps. When I lived in the SF Bay Area the best Cable offered at that time was 8 Mbps and DSL 6 Mbps. I went with DSL because of the quality of the ISP (reseller of AT&T DSL) as appose to Comcast Cable which was horrible. At the same time parts of Florida were testing their 30 Mbps Cable services. So much for living in the heart of Silicon Valley.
DSL, for the most part, has a max offering of 6Mbps (although theoretically higher). You could only get the max speed if you happen to live close enough to the CO or a RT, and have clean phone lines. The further you are from the CO or RT and the dirtier the line, the lower the speed. If you happened to fall in between service tiers, say 4 Mbps, you had to decide whether you wanted to pay more for the 6Mbps service and not get the full benefit. Or, pay less for the 3Mbps service and not get the full potential of your line. There was no middle ground.
New services like ADSL2 and others promise twice "DSL" speeds, but they do by combining multiple phone lines. Distance and other factors that hindered DSL, still hinder ADSL2. And, it's not cheap. Perhaps around $90/month, plus the cost of having to maintain two phone lines.
Cable companies, OTOH, are placing caps on their users claiming that their systems are being overloaded by a small percentage of users. While it is true that a small percentage of users use more than the majority, it should also be noted that some of these Cable companies haven't spent the money needed to keep up with demand by improving their systems in years. And, yes, the cost of improving the network is expensive. But they continue to sell their offerings as unlimited.
Another type of Internet service is Satellite, such as Hughes Network. Typically used in rural areas where the only alternative is Dial-up (generally going over poor phone lines), it is very pricey and comes with lots of restrictions. A 5 Mbps max connection runs around $350/month. Plans and prices go down from there.
I used the 30 Mbps value in my post because that's what you would need in order to maintain two simultaneous transfers from BitGravity without seeing any impact. And, certainly people with 10 Mbps service would be impacted by two transfers. Regardless of your service, it's a waste.
My actual service is 20 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up, but I'm not just thinking about myself. While I'm impacted by this too, I'm thinking about others who use Dial-up, Cell service, Satellite and/or Cable, which have caps and other restrictions, such as overage penalties, regardless of where the person is located in the world.
The player caches the video, yes, as is the case with every other embedded video on the internet.
However, the size of Rev3 videos are not typical of every other embedded video on the internet.
"Twice" according to their ISP, yes, but again - it doesn't count to us as a "view" if you don't actually view the video.
Then why waste the bandwidth caching the video?
Unfortunately, this is an issue that people with very limited internet plans have to deal with all across the internet. If you have a limited amount of bandwidth, then you need to watch how often you visit any website with embedded video, not just Rev3.
There is no visible indication that the video is being cached. Most players show the caching, while Rev3s doesn't. Not that showing the caching would be even close to a solution.
A real solution would be for those that have autoplay disabled not cache the video. While those that have autoplay enabled cache the video. If I have autoplay disable, isn't that a really good indication that I'm not interested in the embedded video? So why would I want to download the whole thing and why would Rev3 want to waste the bandwidth forcing even a little bit of it down a users throat?
No. Again, the problem Jim is ranting about is websites defining a "view" as when someone watches 3 seconds of a video, which Revision3 does not do. Caching the video before it plays does not affect our metrics. What you're complaining about and what Jim's post is about are two completely different issues.
As I said, "And, even if completed downloads for the web video player isn't counted as revenue, it's still a tremendous waste of bandwidth, money and time".
ratabora
07-22-2009, 10:14 PM
A real solution would be for those that have autoplay disabled not cache the video. While those that have autoplay enabled cache the video. If I have autoplay disable, isn't that a really good indication that I'm not interested in the embedded video? So why would I want to download the whole thing and why would Rev3 want to waste the bandwidth forcing even a little bit of it down a users throat?
I believe this has been talked about before in the IT team, I can always bring it up again. Regardless, we're always looking for feedback on the site...and if you really want to voice your concerns and guarantee they'll be heard by the IT team, try using the revision3 support forum.
Other than show notes, is there any reason you couldn't just subscribe to the RSS feed of the show?
judaz
07-23-2009, 02:55 PM
Your profile doesn't say where you live but please look at a map of the US and compare it to many other countries. (for size) When I worked for a cable company, the system I worked for had over 2,000 miles of trunk cable for a system that basically covered one county. (population in that area was about 600,000) The cost and time needed to upgrade that one system took millions of dollars and years.
I live in Sweden, ( the fourth largest country in Europe, so ok, its not the US but its still terrible terrain up north to dig fiber into) ... The bigger cities more and more are offering 100/100Mbit (and now even smaller towns like mine) and some have done this for years. ..and No cap of course, the company that tries that will loose all their customers for sure
...its not only size and money, its also motivation :o)
kilroyperrywinkle
07-24-2009, 09:08 PM
Wow. Mic really needs to let things go...
I'd hate to be the telemarketer who calls his house, or ticket counter lady who tells him he's going to be charged 40 bucks for his extra luggage, or riding shot gun with him when someone is driving too slow in the left lane... my goodness...
Seriously Mic, don't like how a private company does their business? Already complained once?
Then let... it... go...
kilroyperrywinkle
07-24-2009, 09:09 PM
Is that any company, or just Rev3?
No that was sarcasm...
mikec
07-24-2009, 10:10 PM
I live in Sweden, ( the fourth largest country in Europe, so ok, its not the US but its still terrible terrain up north to dig fiber into) ... The bigger cities more and more are offering 100/100Mbit (and now even smaller towns like mine) and some have done this for years. ..and No cap of course, the company that tries that will loose all their customers for sure
...its not only size and money, its also motivation :o)
How many "bigger cities" do you have? According to Wikipedia there are roughly 9.3 million people in your country. According to the 2000 US census, there are 67 cities with at least 250,000 people here. (If you add in the towns around the other cities, that number would be greater.)
At least here we have many miles of fiber running in and through existing tunnels, like the ones trains and autos use, making it easier to run the cable.
Where I live, the US telephone company Verizon is running fiber down the streets so that they can offer a service called FiOS. Because of FiOS, the local cable company, Comcast, just increased their speeds. Now I have also heard that at least one city has refused to allow Verizon permission to run their fiber because they do not want the streets dug up. (That city also gets a fee from Comcast for every subscriber. I do not know if Verizon pays anything.)
No that was sarcasm...
As was my reply.
I believe this has been talked about before in the IT team, I can always bring it up again.
Thank you ratabora, riz and others for fixing this problem.
judaz
07-25-2009, 09:51 PM
How many "bigger cities" do you have? According to Wikipedia there are roughly 9.3 million people in your country. According to the 2000 US census, there are 67 cities with at least 250,000 people here. (If you add in the towns around the other cities, that number would be greater.)
At least here we have many miles of fiber running in and through existing tunnels, like the ones trains and autos use, making it easier to run the cable.
Where I live, the US telephone company Verizon is running fiber down the streets so that they can offer a service called FiOS. Because of FiOS, the local cable company, Comcast, just increased their speeds. Now I have also heard that at least one city has refused to allow Verizon permission to run their fiber because they do not want the streets dug up. (That city also gets a fee from Comcast for every subscriber. I do not know if Verizon pays anything.)
kind of my point....more people..more money to be made...and more money to use to build fiber. :o)