oh-- i almost forgot-- i think the OP is a little silly in that it really is incredible that we can get any live pictures and sound out of a combat zone AT ALL.
(so don’t bitch-- you could be waiting for the war newsreel to make it’s way to your local Bijou… IN A WEEK OR SO!!)
This is Exhibit A in why you need to pick the right codec for the job. Using a talking head style of compression for shots from a moving vehicle that has whole frame movement constantly is clearly not a good idea.
Not that clear pictures of dust are that much better or anything.
As a guy with more than some passing experience w/r/t battlefield communication bandwidth issues, I’ll just say that 56K would be a luxury compared to what most units usually get.
And I believe most of the news media are using Apple Powerbooks in the field, which suggests the footage is streaming Quicktime. Look for the four-second delay between when someone asks a question and the reporter in the field replies; that’s the Quicktime compression taking place.
I think that you still have to explain it to the likes of Sam Stone, techchick68, and Doctor Goo Fee… 'twould seem from their posts that not everyone understands gamer-speak.
I’ll try to make it easier, while maintaining the spirit of the OP: The original DOOM had better graphics than this war!
For what it’s worth, the OP is bloody hilarious. There’s not much to laugh about in this war, but that was damn funny.
It was so funny switching back-and-forth between CNN and Brown raving about such “historic footage” of what looked like some sort of vehicles running around (while the camera was itself moving) and ABC and Koppel doing a stand up from a stationary point with studio quality on a live remote minicam. Koppel did mention that they had a sat truck with them, though.
It’s nice to have the comic relief of comparing the throughput of different technologies used by different networks.
Will the commentary be as crappy as most commentaries? "Um, yeah, this was the part where we did that bit. Sgt. Smith was awesome in that role. OK, and here’s where this other thing happened. I really liked that. Oh, cool, explosions! Remember how we put in explosions? That was awesome.
{I don’t play much multiplayer FPS games. I know what aimbots are, but what is wallhacking?}
Hey, at least it’ll get those who are anti-widescreen (and they do exist, believe me) to quite whining about the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen!
Funny OP, but it does bring up an interesting point. Are there any reporters on the ground using any equipment that will capture higher-quality video of the conflict? While it is certainly amazing to have real-time footage of the war as it happens, I think its also important to have a historical document of the conflict. I’d hate to think that the record of this war is going to be a bunch of blocky pixels, especially when compared to the amazing war footage that was taken in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
I’d also like to point out that techchick has now been whooshed more often than downtown Baghdad.