Why is the quality of TV Telecast....

[nballa]

In terms of picture so much better when matches are played in Australia/NZ/England? The overall crispness and the ambience of the image is soo pleasing to the eye. Whenever i watch telecasts of matches in the subcontinent the coverage is great but the picture is soo dusty and hazy. what do you attribute it to? look of the stadia? pollution levels? humidity? overall cleanliness and color scheme of the stadia? It sure ain't better cameras. Sometimes i secretly wish all WCs were played in AUS/NZ for TV purposes.

[Serani]

England has green grass. Its awesome.

[Nova]

I agree. Matches in the sub continent have that dull look. It must be the quality of broadcast...may be they should boost the saturation levels in photoshop before telecasting..:cantstop:

[EnterTheVoid]

Compare 1. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=196422 to 2. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212489 3. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=106523 ---- I used a $ 200 camera. Nothing too fancy. I think the murkniess is due to pollution.

[Desi Cartman]

IPL's picture quality is great. Its in HD , its wide screen .. camera work isnt bad either. Neo sports is another story though :mad:

[Nova]

Well Nimbus Sports are the guys behind the scenes.

[lonestarranger]

@OP : Your observation is spot on. Maybe the grass angle?

[nballa]

IPL's picture quality is great. Its in HD ' date=' its wide screen .. camera work isnt bad either. Neo sports is another story though :mad:[/quote']

Well Nimbus Sports are the guys behind the scenes.

well its not about the quality of the pictures. the quality of the telecast itself may be great. but i'm taking about the overall pleasing aspect of matches held in aus/nz. maybe its the skies and the surrounding neatness or the meticulously cut grass.

[nballa]

@OP : Your observation is spot on. Maybe the grass angle?

it might be. also the blue skies and maybe the surrounding buildings lend to the overall picturesque quality.

[DomainK]

You are correct in your observations. I think the quality of surface also makes a difference as the grass is 70% of what we see on a TV screen. They lave lush green outfields and we have dead grass and large patches of red soil in places- another reason why our fielders dont learn diving.

[Pak_Forever]

I am assuming that it all has to do with the air pollution in sub-continent countries. Places like Abu Dhabia and Dubai are warm like sub-continent, but still they have similar sort of clean pleasing viewing experience like Aus/NZ due to clean air.

[Desi Cartman]

I dont know what you guys are talking about, The building/stadium is different and so is the crowd or the banners and atmosphere but the digital telecast ok the play itself is as good as from UK or Aus. There is more smog , fog etc in the sub-continent ( & even insects the other day) but thats India and every country is different that way. Its like watching cricket from eng\nz in overcast conditions is different to watching something from Aus where its always sunny during summers.

[IKnowU]

err It also depends on the quality of the cameras they use. What the chance that sub continent broadcasters just live of the basic cameras while the other countries broadcasting companies invest in some decent cameras. This goes the same with bollywood movies, Ive never supa dupa awesome quality bollywood movies as opposed to a hollywood movies.

[Sachinism]

err It also depends on the quality of the cameras they use. What the chance that sub continent broadcasters just live of the basic cameras while the other countries broadcasting companies invest in some decent cameras. This goes the same with bollywood movies, Ive never supa dupa awesome quality bollywood movies as opposed to a hollywood movies.

I don't think they use basic camera's. Each camera used costs $500,000 each

[Holysmoke]

Compare 1. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=196422 to 2. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212489 3. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=106523 ---- I used a $ 200 camera. Nothing too fancy. I think the murkniess is due to pollution.

Well, you used a 200$ camera, and I used a 2mp phone camera.

[thevortex]

The way the grass is cut, spectator seating position and also the lack of smog - they all contribute to the difference in telecast. Also cooler climes in general also contribute to the difference in picture. The sunlight intensity and duration matters to a great extent as well. Perhaps the Kotla on an overcast day may camouflage itself as a Test match taking place in England or Australia. But not for long.

[Sir john]

very good pictures by crew:giggle:

[DaFan]

In terms of picture so much better when matches are played in Australia/NZ/England? The overall crispness and the ambience of the image is soo pleasing to the eye. Whenever i watch telecasts of matches in the subcontinent the coverage is great but the picture is soo dusty and hazy. what do you attribute it to? look of the stadia? pollution levels? humidity? overall cleanliness and color scheme of the stadia? It sure ain't better cameras. Sometimes i secretly wish all WCs were played in AUS/NZ for TV purposes.

Because these nations have hot Blondes, always pleasing to the eyes. :eyedance: ________ vaporizers

[Online]

because the grass is always greener on the other side

[thevortex]

On the contrary you can always make out the difference between, say, Sharjah, and Australia or New Zealand. You dont get the kind of soft pictures with vibrant colours from anywhere in Asia. Online may have been rhetorical, but I will not be surprised if that turns out to be true. That the grass is literally greener over there producing that overall soft and vibrant effect in the pictures.