9 comments

• 

  Striker

  2 years ago

  Nice work, keep it up & expand the football network
  
  
  http://spanishfootballsports.blogspot.com
  
  
  
  Peace
  
  reply
• 

  Johnathan Starling

  2 years ago

  Yes the chat was fun and a way to wake up. Look forward to doing that more.
  
  
  While I do not have Setanta, I have been able to find games that were broadcast there and must say, I WISH FOX SOCCER CHANNEL would do the same. Let the presenters on site do all the pre match build, raise the crowd noise to get the entire match experience, and posted scoring updates during the 3 pm kickoffs. I will say that I was happy with my Sirius coverage as well as I got two of the games that were on Setanta there and had no problems with my coverage.
  
  
  
  Here's to fun coming back to the weekends.
  
  reply
• 

  The WENIS Blog

  2 years ago

  Two days of it, and Setanta is 100% worth the money. Wish everyone could have it. Wish it were in HD!
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  This was also discussed on the other thread ...
  
  
  I have DirectTV/Fox+Setanta. I also have large DLP TV and at 7.45am watched Setanta live on the left (Arsenal game) and Fox's live Newcastle game. To me I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. I say that to put the following into context.
  
  
  
  I really could see little difference between either Setanta or Fox's picture. Both majorly SUCKED as they did through the pre-season. My gripe is that I can always turn off the commentators (they're all pretty useless), but I can't improve the picture. It all comes down to funding enough cameras, Good PAL to NTSC conversion, sufficient bandwidth across the Atlantic and sufficient bandwidth from your local/satellite/IPTV provider. Even then their may be other factors like is DirectTV using MPEG2 or MPEG 4 at this time, further bandwidth limitations and how good is your TV. I saw a big difference between my DLP TV and my LCD TV saw the same thing on a PC monitor which is also HD grade. The HD LCD TV seems to significantly magnify the problems particularly because of all the long shots. As my wife said “I can't really tell who's who on the pitch.”
  
  
  
  I believe that until there is a world cup-sized audience we're probably screwed. I already sent a complaint and questions to FFFI (upcoming on Tuesday 5pm PST) on this but I doubt I get a response.
  
  
  
  To be honest I'm not sure which of the above problems is biggest culprit but I suspect it's the European to US conversion.
  
  
  
  I'd really like to hear from anyone on the inside of the TV companies to comment on this post SO could know what could get it improved.
  
  
  
  Even if they took Sky's new HDTV feed and compressed down but kept the 16x9 format they could make a big improvement. For me 16x9 gives much more off the ball action and made the World Cup coverage brilliant. I could turn off the idiot ABC commentators who kept calling the bye-line then end-line, etc
  
  
  
  Regards, LA Chelsea Fan
  
  
  
  Looking forward to other people's comments on this.
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  I meant to say I watched both games at the same time on split screen to compare the quality
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  I am a Comcast subscriber so it's FSC for me and to tell you the truth despite all the talk I found the experience better. I did miss the live broadcast of the first match, especially since I was up at 5:00am Central Time to start following the big day online.
  
  
  Having the ability to follow most of the matches for the day on FSC was much better than following things on the internet at 9:00am. I should also say my new HDTV gave me a much better picture with the digital cable.
  
  
  
  I did subscribe to Setanta broadband and I am disappointed that they have very little on broadband over the weekend. The opening round of the cup on Monday will be nice.
  
  
  
  All in all a pretty happy guy.
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  LA Chelsea Fan:
  
  
  It's not the PAL conversion to NTSC (the reverse would have adverse effects since NTSC has less resolution). I would speculate that i is simply a function of compression shemes that render the "less watched" or higher up networks subject to the most compression (compare FSC with a retransmission of a broadcast affiiliate). Compression + LCD renders an awful image, which is why I will retain my tube TV until cable/sat companies change their evil ways.
  
  
  
  I am dissapointed that ITVN further degrades the images with their paltry allocation of 1 meg for Setanta's feed. Side by side comparisons of video from the ManU/Fulham match (FSC video courtesy of the EPL Review Show) really made apparent how I think it's rather absurd that ITVN charges the same fee as DirecTV - it was watchable but only because we are sick individuals when it comes to the subject matter!
  
  
  
  -(NY TV guy that may like Chelsea but rather not say)
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Ah, thanks for the enlightment re conversion, it makes sense. I wasn't aware that higher number channels got more compressed. Not sure on the LCD front. My LCD monitor NEC 20" TFT 16x9 LCD gives a beautiful bright HD picture, is ok on low channels, some high number like 607 speed, fair on other high number channels. Setanta, and a few south america showing sports action really suck, even compared to commercials and studio feeds. Good luck with the IPTV feed.
  reply
• 

  Gratefullawyer

  2 years ago

  i dont know after a couple beers with my eggs during the liverpool game the aresenal game did look fuzzy and by the time of the reading game.....my hd picture looked just so fine
  
  
  
  
  but it was still much better then no footy at all
  
  reply