A Factor De-Res?
So what exactly is the story of The O’Reilly Factor in HD? When The Factor went HD in February, I noted that it seemed “off”. The next day TVNewser reported that The Factor would be full HD in “three months”. Well it’s well past that point and controversy still surrounds the HD status of The Factor. The latest chapter started last night when I received an email from J$…
When you watch The Factor in HD do you notice something? When Bill is talking with another guest in the studio, is there a difference in the sharpness of the picture when it’s a one-shot on Bill vs when it’s a one- (or even two-) shot on the guest(s)?
I watched the repeat and $ is spot on in his assessment. The discrepancy in HD quality is definitely noticeable. I called in a favor from a friend to get me some full HD screen grabs in max resolution so that I could illustrate it since if I shrunk these down to a nice manageable size, or put up my own grabs (SD grabs of HD pictures) it would be harder to spot. Both the above image and the below image will explode to full size when you click on them.
It’s no contest. O’Reilly’s image is definitely less detailed or sharp when you do the side by side comparison to the other feed. J$’s theory is that FNC is using a soft lens on O’Reilly. That’s possible but I’m not convinced that’s the only valid explanation out there. As far as I can tell I see no significant difference with O’Reilly’s appearance now and O’Reilly’s appearance back when HD launched on The Factor and I complained about a substandard level of of detail in the HD image.
But the question still remains: Why is O’Reilly so blurry?
July 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Oh Oh… pick me… pick me… I have a theory!
In this newfangled HD system of ours, there are a few “almost” HD’s out there. One of those “almost” HD’s is a process by which the 16:9 image is squished down horizontally to the size of a 4:3 image, and then expanded upon transmission to the cable/satellite providers. Doing this provides “almost” HD, and allows production companies to use standard 4:3 cameras, and not the more expensive 16:9 HD cameras. The video is still good, and at home you probably won’t notice much of a difference…
…that is… unless you have another image next to it…
My theory is that the O’Reilly studio show is what we call “morphed” (as in squished), except for on a two shot as seen in the screen grab. Odds are they need to uncompressed O’Reilly’s image to fit in the box shot, because the remote feed isn’t similarly morphed. If the remote camera is full HD, and the studio cameras are “almost” HD, there would be a noticeable difference between the two images.
That is my theory… as morphing… un-morphing… and double-morphing-with-wings… have recently become the bane of my existence.
July 14, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I buy that argument. It makes sense to me. What doesn’t make sense to me is why FNC’s highest rated show winds up using cheaper equipment than say Hannity or Beck?
July 15, 2009 at 12:42 am
I think O’Reilly was probably just too scary-looking in HD.
July 15, 2009 at 1:24 am
O’Reilly is always clear to me.
July 15, 2009 at 7:11 am
Different studios… and different formats.
I once visited the O’Reilly studio… well, the old studio, as I think you did too. The entire set couldn’t have been more than 8ft wide!
This is to say that O’Reilly’s program is more static… the set plays less of a role in it, it’s mostly just a taking head program. Hannity they try to spice up with big sweeping movements, the screens all over the place, and all the other dynamic visual stuff.
But really… when it comes down to it… I’m surprised you haven’t figured it out, Spud:
O’Reilly pre-tapes his program… he can’t use the main studio, because Shep is using it live! If O’Reilly was live-live, he’d be less blurry (well, if they moved his stuff into the main studio). That’s my theory!
July 15, 2009 at 8:19 am
Am I the only one who notices the makeup a lot more? I don’t pay for HD, but my stuff is compatible. Things look a bit different, but the main thing i notice is the men’s makeup. It didn’t seem to be as visible before. An odd shade as well. The Tony Snow clip from 2005 (pre-HD?) seemed odd as well. Maybe I just notice how poorly O’Reilly has aged.
July 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm
O’Reilly pre-tapes his program… he can’t use the main studio, because Shep is using it live!
FNC has more than one pure HD studio available. As you noted, the Factor set is small, and therefore moveable. You should see the Fox and Friends set. When I visited, there was a mass of set pieces sitting behind the cameras. The point: Move O’Reilly to another studio that’s pure HD or spend some money and upgrade your damn equipment! It’s FNC’s highest rated show and it’s using substandard equipment!!!!
July 15, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Things look a bit different, but the main thing i notice is the men’s makeup. It didn’t seem to be as visible before.
The other thing I have noticed about The Factor set is the lighting. It seems to emphasize a low contrast approach. That could affect makeup for men (moreso than for women obviously).
September 18, 2009 at 8:57 pm
[...] you say? “The Factor has been in HD for a long time now!” Yes, and no. As documented previously (and see imnotblue’s possible explanation in the comments), the Factor is in HD but [...]