Let's Do Something About Sportsnet

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by AC

Something else that still bugs me about Sportsnet, is the super cheap HD cameras they use. They're dull, unsaturated, and have an ugly yellow/green hue.

Look at the difference between the camera SNET uses vs the one the Nashville team brought:


This was from last year, and little has changed:

This combined with what would appear to be some over compression makes me wonder how they can even call it HD. CBC and TSN were miles ahead of Rogers in terms of picture quality. It's amazing that they will spend so much on their set yet not get the basics like picture quality and sound right.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

This combined with what would appear to be some over compression makes me wonder how they can even call it HD. CBC and TSN were miles ahead of Rogers in terms of picture quality. It's amazing that they will spend so much on their set yet not get the basics like picture quality and sound right.

Yeah, the comparison between the TSN and SNET broadcasts in that 2nd image shows it. It's the exact same camera being used for both broadcasts... so why does ours look like dog ####?

[Joborule]

That is some weak sauce as well. Flames are getting jipped quality wise by Sportsnet.

[Flames89]

As an out-of-towner GameCenter (and previously CenterIce on Rogers) user, I have never encountered one sound delay issue.
Sub-par cameras are an issue for sure.
And the only guy that I despise is Healy. Cox is just smarmy smug. Kypreos is full of bluster, but I probably like him the best out of this motley crew.

[Resolute 14]

Noticed last night during the player interviews in the second intermission that the sound had fallen out of sync again. So much for the "digital ads caused it" argument.

[RedMileDJ]

Surely someone from Sportsnet reads CP and has seen this thread.

[PsYcNeT]

I've had to change my AVRs Sound Offset to ~80ms to sync up even remotely close to SNET.

Brutal.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Noticed last night during the player interviews in the second intermission that the sound had fallen out of sync again. So much for the "digital ads caused it" argument.

I had posted this earlier but I watched the Washington game on the SN Now app on my phone and the audio was in sync.

WTF Sportsnet?

[Jimmy Stang]

Does anyone have a contact at Sportnet/Rogers? Preferably someone tied to the local broadcast and not just a national "catch all" address? I wouldn't mind sending a polite email to someone just to have a conversation about it.

If so, PM is fine. We don't want to start a spam campaign or anything, but I could report back with any updates.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RedMileDJ

Surely someone from Sportsnet reads CP and has seen this thread.

No doubt. The better question is: Do you think they care? Only one thing speaks to a TV network: ratings. Poor quality is irrelevant to them if you're watching.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

No doubt. The better question is: Do you think they care? Only one thing speaks to a TV network: ratings. Poor quality is irrelevant to them if you're watching.

I would assume that as a business, they also do value customer satisfaction in general. If you were running Sportsnet and you knew that a large portion of your viewers were unhappy with the quality, you wouldn't care?

[Senator Clay Davis]

No, not at all. Especially not when they overpaid for the package by bidding against themselves. Sportsnet is going to nickel and dime every chance they get to maximize profit on this deal. They paid for rights, one would think (particularly Rogers shareholders), to make money.

Again if you complain and still watch, you are still watching. They charge advertisers based on the projected ratings. To Sportsnet, the "customer satisfaction" is whether or not you watch. If people stopped watching, then you'd have their full attention. But most people thought Sportsnet was second rate before this deal. That they still appear to be second rate isn't going to hurt them that much. But they have the only real thing they need, the actual content itself. If you wanna watch live hockey, boycotting Sportsnet pretty much means you aren't watching hockey.

[_Q_]

I think emailing the Flames is the only thing that might work. If enough people complain, maybe the Flames will at least look at other options the next time they go to sign a broadcasting schedule.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by AC

Something else that still bugs me about Sportsnet, is the super cheap HD cameras they use. They're dull, unsaturated, and have an ugly yellow/green hue.

So this is why every time I watch a game on SN, I find myself tinkering with my TV settings? The picture always just looks so desaturated and the muddy. It's really hard to get any decent color definition. Often times it doesn't even really look like true HD.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Question for folks as it relates soley to the Flames regional broadcasts. Is there a chance that the Flames themselves have a role to play in any of the quality issues that keep getting brought up in here, from sound to HD quality etc...?

What I mean is, how much of the quality that is provided (based on Roger's investment) is negotiated with the Flames when buying the rights? I'm sure the minimum standards on production value are part of the contract negotiation process, or maybe not?

But what I'm envisioning is a scenario where the Flames demand they are paid a certain price for the rights, and Roger's is letting them know what quality they will be able to provide at that price (based on costs of production to Roger's)? Anyway, not that it really matters, but wondering if the Flames have any role to play in accepting a lower quality broadcast to get the payment they wanted from Rogers.

Maybe someone close to the industry would know?

[Resolute 14]

It was never a problem when CBC or TSN were producing games. Just Rogers.

[Arya Stark]

Looks fine with other broadcasts like the Leafs and Canucks.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It was never a problem when CBC or TSN were producing games. Just Rogers.

Was that a response to my question? Might not be, but if so, it's not relevant. CBC and TSN have never owned the Flames regional rights, they owned National NHL broadcast rights, and the only times the Flames played on their networks were on the national broadcast rights (much more expensive property to buy as it reaches more viewers). It's the same reason why many of the comparisons and concerns being issued in here about Rogers getting the National rights were not proper comparisons because fans were comparing the Flames regional broadcasts on Rogers to the National broadcasts on TSN and CBC. Not a fair comparison or the same business deal that governs regional and national rights.

In the example given above in the Winnipeg game, TSN actually owns the Jets "regional" broadcast rights, where as Rogers owns the Flames. If that example is correct (and I assume it is) the HD production value the Jets are getting from TSN on their regional broadcasts are better than what the Flames get from Rogers. My questions was it that all strictly a Rogers decision, or do the Flames have a part in negotiating the quality of their broadcasts into the regional deals? I honestly don't know.

[Arya Stark]

Why would the Flames negotiate bad quality into a contract? That is a silly argument.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Why would the Flames negotiate bad quality into a contract? That is a silly argument.

The Flames should have the power though to enforce better HD and audio quality, considering they're gonna be in a partnership with Sportsnet for another decade.