3 ms·

How did you know that wasn't footage from 2005? Joking, but the sports channels have been broadcasting a lot of "classic" (and not so classic) sport events tha

How did you know that wasn't footage from 2005? Joking, but the sports channels have been broadcasting a lot of "classic" (and not so classic) sport events that I remember from as far back as a teenager, and the quality is so bad I can't believe we used to watch it. Pro tip: If all you see is the sport on the screen with no graphics (or the score/clock!) it's > 25 years old.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
I wondered about that too. I think the answer is, they weren't that bad. The recording was bad; but the live broadcast was pretty good. Not HD good, but not the noisy glitchy mess that they rebroadcast now.
mikestew 7y ago
the quality is so bad I can't believe we used to watch it. The quality wasn't that bad, the recording you're watching is. On the one hand, a friend of mine who's wife is apparently enjoying Columbo reruns, commented on the pancake makeup being quite noticable. Which I suppose it would be if pulling from the original tapes or whatever. On the other hand, my wife and I watched a few reruns of Taxi (late 70s) and I know if it looked that bad back in the day, I wouldn't have watched it. There might not have been a lot of lines of resolution, but SD TV looked better than many recordings would have you believe. And remember that you're probably watching on a TV three or four times larger than what was used to originally view it.
- cpwright 7y ago
  If I watch hockey on an SD channel vs. the HD equivalent channel it isn't a different recording, but it is very clearly worse than HD. The graphics in particular are fuzzier and it can be hard to read the clock/score vs. on the HD channel. The graphics are certainly be optimized for HD now; and maybe we would just have bigger overlays in the past to reflect the poor resolution (but with smaller screens, maybe not). Also, a CRT has a different amount of "fuzz" to it than a new LCD TV; so some details which look ugly now might not have mattered as much.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    If I watch hockey on an SD channel vs. the HD equivalent channel it isn't a different recording, but it is very clearly worse than HD. Of course it is, we collectively didn't spend the money on moving to HD because it's the healthy thing to do. Arguing that HD isn't superior to SD would be silly. Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. What I am saying is that if you were to go watch an old episode of Taxi on CBS All Access, it did not look as bad when it originally aired on a CRT as it does on CBS's rip from whatever source they used.
tmpz22 7y ago
Well, in 2005 Trae Young would've been 6 years old

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

I wondered about that too. I think the answer is, they weren't that bad. The recording was bad; but the live broadcast was pretty good. Not HD good, but not the noisy glitchy mess that they rebroadcast now.

mikestew 7y ago

the quality is so bad I can't believe we used to watch it. The quality wasn't that bad, the recording you're watching is. On the one hand, a friend of mine who's wife is apparently enjoying Columbo reruns, commented on the pancake makeup being quite noticable. Which I suppose it would be if pulling from the original tapes or whatever. On the other hand, my wife and I watched a few reruns of Taxi (late 70s) and I know if it looked that bad back in the day, I wouldn't have watched it. There might not have been a lot of lines of resolution, but SD TV looked better than many recordings would have you believe. And remember that you're probably watching on a TV three or four times larger than what was used to originally view it.

cpwright 7y ago
If I watch hockey on an SD channel vs. the HD equivalent channel it isn't a different recording, but it is very clearly worse than HD. The graphics in particular are fuzzier and it can be hard to read the clock/score vs. on the HD channel. The graphics are certainly be optimized for HD now; and maybe we would just have bigger overlays in the past to reflect the poor resolution (but with smaller screens, maybe not). Also, a CRT has a different amount of "fuzz" to it than a new LCD TV; so some details which look ugly now might not have mattered as much.
- mikestew 7y ago
  If I watch hockey on an SD channel vs. the HD equivalent channel it isn't a different recording, but it is very clearly worse than HD. Of course it is, we collectively didn't spend the money on moving to HD because it's the healthy thing to do. Arguing that HD isn't superior to SD would be silly. Good thing that wasn't what I was saying. What I am saying is that if you were to go watch an old episode of Taxi on CBS All Access, it did not look as bad when it originally aired on a CRT as it does on CBS's rip from whatever source they used.

tmpz22 7y ago

Well, in 2005 Trae Young would've been 6 years old