Way to Go ESPN!

weren't they just using the video feed from the host broadcaster?

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World Championships. I can't recall any
recent swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as far as being an all around
extremely professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and television production.
It provided some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming.

Steve Curtis

One big negative was the bad angle on the water polo. The reflections from the water made it almost
impossible to follow the play properly.

Don

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World Championships. I can't recall any
recent swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as far as being an all around
extremely professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and television production.
It provided some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming.

Steve Curtis

Colin Priest asks:

"weren't they just using the video feed from the host broadcaster?"

The broadcast production package presented to the television viewing audience by ESPN was first
rate regardless of any reliance on video feeds from other sources. The ESPN broadcast aired was
most likely more "polished" than the original video feeds.

Steve Curtis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World

Championships. I can't recall any recent swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as
far as being an all around extremely professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and
television production. It provided some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming. <<

Agreed. Only problem was annoying tendency of Susan Potter to interview the 2nd - 4th place
American, in lieu of interviewing the 1st place winner of the event (if non-American). Major
exceptions were Grant Hackett (who does a wonderful post race interview and is a great
representative for his country) and Inge de Bruijn.

presumably do speak English?

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

According to the Australian TV presenters, the host broadcaster supplied the world record lines, and
chose all of the camera angles, and did not supply any choice of camera angles to broadcasters.
Perhaps the host broadcaster was ESPN - does anyone know?

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Colin Priest asks:

"weren't they just using the video feed from the host broadcaster?"

The broadcast production package presented to the television viewing audience by ESPN was
first rate regardless of any reliance on video feeds from other sources. The ESPN broadcast
aired was most likely more "polished" than the original video feeds.

Steve Curtis

Colin Priest said:

weren't they just using the video feed from the host broadcaster?

I was wondering about this--what sort of feeds were available, and to what extent the local
broadcasters could edit them. The Japanese broadcast by TV Asahi was highly Japan-centric, focusing
on the Japanese athletes, even when they were not medal contenders. There were obiviously multiple
feeds that local broadcasters could edit as they wished.

I also noticed that TV Asahi's interviews were shown on other networks here, so I guess they were
obligated to share.

Other than the Japanese athletes, TV Asahi had prepared features on Ian Thorpe (who visits Japan
often and is a favorite here) and also on Natalie Coughlin, who they seemed to want to build up as
someone to follow. Unfortunately, Coughlin's illness shortcircuited her nascent idoldom in Japan.

In article l11Va.162680$ye4.109616@sccrnsc01 said:

One big negative was the bad angle on the water polo. The reflections from the water made it
almost impossible to follow the play properly.

Don

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World Championships. I can't recall any
recent swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as far as being an all around
extremely professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and television
production. It provided some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming.

Steve Curtis

Yes, I am sure they could have put a polarizing filter on the cameras to cut all or most of the
glare out. Nice to see as much coverage of water polo as we did, though.

William Clark

Chris said:

Colin Priest said:

weren't they just using the video feed from the host broadcaster?

I was wondering about this--what sort of feeds were available, and to what extent the local
broadcasters could edit them. The Japanese broadcast by TV Asahi was highly Japan-centric,
focusing on the Japanese athletes, even when they were not medal contenders. There were obiviously
multiple feeds that local broadcasters could edit as they wished.

I also noticed that TV Asahi's interviews were shown on other networks here, so I guess they were
obligated to share.

Other than the Japanese athletes, TV Asahi had prepared features on Ian Thorpe (who visits Japan
often and is a favorite here) and also on Natalie Coughlin, who they seemed to want to build up as
someone to follow. Unfortunately, Coughlin's illness shortcircuited her nascent idoldom in Japan.

Didn't ESPN show it live? If so, then there couldn't have been editing. There was no need to edit
anyway. I think the agreement is that the host broadcaster must provide sufficient coverage to
satisfy all broadcasters who take the feed.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Didn't ESPN show it live? If so, then there couldn't have been editing. There was no need to edit
anyway. I think the agreement is that the host broadcaster must provide sufficient coverage to
satisfy all broadcasters who take the feed.

martin

not Live. ESPN coverage is delayed by at least 24 hours. I cannot imagine swimming championships
shown live here in the US. Good quality program, although still not up to Australian standards.

Also, I hope Rowdy Gaines lose all his voice after those screaming. I understand that he is
passionate about swimming, and wanted to make swimming excited to watch. But his constant
screaming distracted from the enjoyment watching each swimmer's strokes. Swimming is not one of
those fake sports, like 'professional' wrestling, where you have to fake the excitement. I like
commentators who are informative and excited, but not over the top like Gaines (who is not that
informative either).

alexandria said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Didn't ESPN show it live? If so, then there couldn't have been editing. There was no need to
edit anyway. I think the agreement is that the host broadcaster must provide sufficient coverage
to satisfy all broadcasters who take the feed.

martin

not Live. ESPN coverage is delayed by at least 24 hours. I cannot imagine swimming championships
shown live here in the US. Good quality program, although still not up to Australian standards.

Also, I hope Rowdy Gaines lose all his voice after those screaming. I understand that he is
passionate about swimming, and wanted to make swimming excited to watch. But his constant
screaming distracted from the enjoyment watching each swimmer's strokes. Swimming is not one of
those fake sports, like 'professional' wrestling, where you have to fake the excitement. I like
commentators who are informative and excited, but not over the top like Gaines (who is not that
informative either).

How well I know. We had Swedish commentators here, and they were quite good, especially their live
interviews with the swimmers after the races.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: [email hidden] Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway

[email hidden] (Steve Curtis) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World Championships. I can't recall any recent
swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as far as being an all around extremely
professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and television production. It provided
some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming.

Steve Curtis

Anybody know if ESPN plans to sell a tape of the event? I don't have cable t.v. so saw not one
minute of it.

Eric

Actually, the coverage was pretty poor. Only an American network would think that sporadic rather
than predictable and regular coverage of a sport with daily finals was acceptable. Wrapping two days
together on tape meant the results were usually always well known, and covered extensively by daily
papers, by the time the tape aired, depriving the coverage of any semblance of excitement. Screening
times were all over the place. And most of the camera angles and moving world record lines are
"innovations" now years old, particularly in Australian coverage.

As to the after swim interviews......To comment that "Rowdy is going crazy in the commentary booth"
and other beside the point comments, slighted the value of these interviews. The story growing each
minute of the worlds was Micheal Phelps emergence into superstardom, and as a result his postioning
of the whole US team as Nu 1 going into the Olympics. Futher, few world championship in any sport
have experinced the sounds of records tumbling as this one did.

Perhaps ESPN coverage was better than it has been in the past, its just its still not that good.

Colin Priest said:

According to the Australian TV presenters, the host broadcaster supplied the world record lines,
and chose all of the camera angles, and did not supply any choice of camera angles to
broadcasters. Perhaps the host broadcaster was ESPN - does anyone know?

Highly unlikely. Much more likely to have been a spanish company.

--
Chris Lambert (web.trout-fish.org.ukweb.trout-fish.org.ukOpen ↗) A View To A Pie

[email hidden] (Larry Weisenthal) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kudos to ESPN for some outstanding coverage of the World

Championships. I can't recall any recent swim meet broadcasts that exceeded this one in quality as
far as being an all around extremely professional presentation of state-of-the-art technology and
television production. It provided some good ambassadorship to the sport of swimming. <<

Agreed. Only problem was annoying tendency of Susan Potter to interview the 2nd - 4th place
American, in lieu of interviewing the 1st place winner of the event (if non-American). Major
exceptions were Grant Hackett (who does a wonderful post race interview and is a great
representative for his country) and Inge de Bruijn.

Quoted message said:

presumably do speak English?

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Whenever coverage is pressed for time, the American media will rarely indulge foreigners. But it's
probably for the best, otherwise we might subject them to the moist eye profiles the networks deluge
us with during the olympic games. In which a few chosen foreign stars are turned into archetype
caricatures overcoming some obstacle.

I agree. If I didn't have a PVR to search for coverage, I probably would have missed most of it. And
while I respect Rowdy Gaines as an accomplished swimmer, he offered little in the way of "expert
analysis". I expect a former world champion and current coach to contribute more than "Look at him
go! He's unbelievable!" Where's John Naber when you need him?

[email hidden] (mckinnon) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Actually, the coverage was pretty poor. Only an American network would think that sporadic rather
than predictable and regular coverage of a sport with daily finals was acceptable. Wrapping two
days together on tape meant the results were usually always well known, and covered extensively by
daily papers, by the time the tape aired, depriving the coverage of any semblance of excitement.
Screening times were all over the place. And most of the camera angles and moving world record
lines are "innovations" now years old, particularly in Australian coverage.

As to the after swim interviews......To comment that "Rowdy is going crazy in the commentary
booth" and other beside the point comments, slighted the value of these interviews. The story
growing each minute of the worlds was Micheal Phelps emergence into superstardom, and as a result
his postioning of the whole US team as Nu 1 going into the Olympics. Futher, few world
championship in any sport have experinced the sounds of records tumbling as this one did.

Perhaps ESPN coverage was better than it has been in the past, its just its still not that good.