Almost as big a surprise as 13,692 turning up to Headingley for a knock out game against Wigan in SL as opposed to only 9,242 turning up to Headingley for a knock out game against Wigan in the CC, where both fixtures required the need to buy an extra ticket to attend.

My point stands.

Your point being exactly what ?

That you refuse to go to the game because....erm thousands of others can't be d either ?

The larger 13k attendance for the play-off game v Wigan, as opposed 9k for the Cup quarter-final in pouring rain, may have been because fans were eager to see if Leeds could qualify for a 4th consecutive Old Trafford appearance.

Where have you read that?




We have a 52, and it's incredible. I hardly ever watch anything that isn't HD now.

A point made irrelevant by the fact no-one shall be watching. Furthermore if your concern is the new fan watching for the first time, this is also not a factor. The only people who would be able to see that Davies and French are out of touch are already fans of the game.

Thing is that the BBC audience relates better to the old man and Davies than they do to a Northern hack and some white haired fellow they have never heard of.

Can we throw into the mix as well that one game was available to anyone with a TV on a free-to-air channel, while the other would have required the armchair viewer to have a Sky Sports subscription?

Perhaps that forced more people to get out and watch the play-off game in the flesh, although it wouldn't account for the full 4,000 difference on its own.

wasn't it reduced capacity for the cup game?

That's an overly simplistic way of looking at things. You need to factor in other things such as:

1. The CC game being broadcast by the BBC
2. Horrendous weather for the CC game and a sunny evening for the play-off game
3. Leeds having beaten the form team prior to the play-off game
4. The CC game having an early afternoon KO, affecting those involved in the amateur game, including me

I think it's more likely that a combination of the above put paid to a high attendance rather that the cup having lost it's appeal.

I used to think that too. When you first get it, if you flick between the two there seems to be little to no difference.

After you've been watching HD a while though, and you have to watch something that isn't you really do notice it.

Although, I'm convinced they're gradually and subtly deliberately reducing the quality of SD television to boost HD sales.

Have you ever seen those Sky stands in the White Rose (or wherever) that are showing a football match in split screen with half HD/SD. The SD part must be doctored to look worse surly? I've never seen a picture as bad as that on a modern TV!

Reduced to 10,000 because of the cricket on the other side of the North stand, which somewhat ironically, was completely washed out by the weather anyway.

As far as HD not looking much different to SD, you need to look at your set up

Changing the contrast, colour, Brighness and sharpness (even the back light for those TV's that have them) makes a massive difference to the quality of the picture. Most people dont realise and just leave it at the factory settings meaning they dont see HD in its full quality.

As for the games its self, if you go the big screen will stay on the correct channel all the time meaning you dont have to reach for the remote. Also the 1st half, although on BBC1, will not be shown in HD. The BBC have yet to show a game in HD and I cant see them doing it in the near future. Even the final last year just looked like upscaled SD.

That attendances for the CC regular rounds are embarrassingly low.

Only the CC Final itself generates a decent attendance.

Feel free to list a litany of excuses like... it was pouring with rain, it was cold, it's in the afternoon, it's on the BBC (despite almost everyone hating the BBC's coverage), it's due to the amateur RL masses not being able to attend because they are all playing on a Saturday... in order to back up any claim that the CC hasn't lost it's appeal during the regular rounds.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Well it's on BBC One HD. So they're lying for a start!

It's a well known fact that older Sky+ boxes allow your television to upscale the picture while the Sky+ HD box takes responsibility for upscaling the picture. Sky+ HD boxes set the picture to 1080i... HD channels are therefore output at 1080i, but they also output non-HD broadcasts or SD channels at 1080i which is unnecessary and results in a downgraded picture on all non-HD channels, hence the difference in SD picture quality between the two boxes.

If you want to watch a SD channel, it's best to watch it using an older Sky or Sky+ box.

Sky ain't stupid - by operating in this manner, the Sky+ HD box gives the comparative impression of just how much better HD is over SD when in reality, it's better but not that much better.

HTH

So is everything else thats on BBC1... It's called a simulcast.

Not everything shown on BBC is filmed or sent in HD. All they do is slightly upscale it but it doesnt look too different. Sky are the same. The Madrid masters has been on SkySports for the last week but hasnt been shown in HD once.

Oh, and while we are at it (and since we havve moved massively OT), why does American made HD content for sports look so much better than the UK stuff? Football on CBS looks loads better than the soccer shown on Sky over here and I watched a golf docu on ESPN a few weeks back and it looked amazing. Baseball from ComCast always looks brilliant too. I just dont get how compared to ours when it's supposed to be filmed by the same quality of camera.