CBS using 'low res buffering artifacts' to censor protesters.

Is anyone watching CBS? It's really crazy, because they're censoring the image of the protesters, by pretending the image feed has low bandwidth and has created tons of artifacts naturally, HOWEVER, as soon as they want to show something, or the reporter speaks(because prior to this the artifacts are so bad, you can't even make out the reporters face) the image quality pops to 1080p!!!!!

Maybe it's just me, but this seems blatantly wrong the way they're censoring this footage. And it's super obvious....they've switch to the 1080p off of lecrap filter like 3 times already.

Edit: I'll try to add footage example tomorrow

Here's an idea.
Try changing the channel.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

They don't want their video to be used as evidence against the protesters.

Standard propaganda tricks in play.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
Looks fine here, waving and pointing into the empty grandstands.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

"This poison tastes awful. Maybe the next bite will be better!"

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

They don't want their video to be used as evidence against the protesters.

Makes sense to not want to waste the money they paid them to protest.

CBS who ? Network or local ? No thats not what their doing, their using Bonded Cellular to feed the video, it does not work well when the cell lines are full, it takes 8 to 12 cells to get the job done. It's just the fact of their to cheep to hire a Sat Truck..

Don't ask how I know this...lol

This is a segment of the broadcast I was talking about I found. Sadly, not one of the best contrasting examples of it 'fixing' when they want to show something specific.

More
WATCH: Vandalized limo engulfed in flames, @jeffpeguescbs reports, as protesters and cops clash near parade route cbsn.ws...

Trumps Limo is perfect quality the entire time.

That's because showing the protesters pooping in their hands and throwing it at cops is neither helpful to their cause nor appropriate for tv.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Trumps Limo is perfect quality the entire time.

(raises hand) Um, one's a fixed location feed where they had time to set up the relay link, the other's a roving camera using a cell phone feed?

Do I win?



THIS ^^ has a lot more bandwidth than a cell phone linked minicam. If you go back and re-look all your 'censored' bits, I suspect you'll find that they're generally where you would expect a low-bandwidth feed, that is, real time and not near the van. You'll see better ones where they carry the drive back and send it delayed. Or are near enough to a fixed van with the antenna up and the link established that you can relay it through the van. Mystery solved!

originally posted by: MysticPearl
That's because showing the protesters pooping in their hands and throwing it at cops is neither helpful to their cause nor appropriate for tv.

I'm all for specific censorship that's appropriate if that technology exists, however this method seems like a preliminary distortion, that could ultimately make room for any narrative the report then wants to give. People leaned in and tried to correct him as he was reporting from within the crowd, it was moments after this directly that the report became 'ultra blurry'. Again what is the purpose of 1080p high definition camera's for journalism, if we're going to allow the images to be blurred to enormous blocks beyond recognition and accept just anything we're told?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Trumps Limo is perfect quality the entire time.

(raises hand) Um, one's a fixed location feed where they had time to set up the relay link, the other's a roving camera using a cell phone feed?

Do I win?

You proved you can purposefully use this knowledge of bandwidth to control the Image? I'm sure that's possible to cap it with an app.

As in you won, because you showed how they did it, but on purpose.


To phrase it another way, you proved why it looked bad, explain why it was 1080p at other moments? Just a random bandwidth increase? The coverage was in a pretty limited distance.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
People leaned in and tried to correct him as he was reporting from within the crowd, it was moments after this directly that the report became 'ultra blurry'.

The nature of most modern video compression is that it tries to send only the bits of the image that are changing a lot. If the image is fairly static, this works well. If the entire image changes, say, a flash picture, lightning, or the camera pans suddenly, or everyone leans in to the frame, then the compression engine has to send the entire frame over and over as the image changes. It only has so much bandwidth to do so, and the compromise is that only the chunky bits go. So it 'pixellates'.

Guys stop, there is nothing here, its about bandwith, compression and forward error correction...

a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, I get a lot of that. My issue is that at moments where clarity helped the narrative of the reporter, pan and zoom was suddenly amazing 1080p.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
As in you won, because you showed how they did it, but on purpose.

It's not like they can get a lot more out of a cell phone rate data link.

To phrase it another way, you proved why it looked bad, explain why it was 1080p at other moments? Just a random bandwidth increase? The coverage was in a pretty limited distance.

For your example of 'why does the President's limo look detailed and the crowd shots taken at a distance in real time using a phone data link do not', the answer is still correct. One has a fast link, the other does not. They are combined at the studio. They don't both share the same signal path. So you wouldn't EXPECT the fixed location shots to be crappy. And you would expect the roving real-time stuff to be. If you had great roving shots, they're either delayed and coming off the hard drive in the camera, or they're going wifi, or they're near a truck. But crowd reaction stuff in real time isn't going to be.

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, I get a lot of that. My issue is that at moments where clarity helped the narrative of the reporter, pan and zoom was suddenly amazing 1080p.

You see that on the weather channel all the time..

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, I get a lot of that. My issue is that at moments where clarity helped the narrative of the reporter, pan and zoom was suddenly amazing 1080p.

Watch and you'll see he held still for a split second and there wasn't a lot of flashing or panning or background change.

a reply to: Bedlam

Still does not explain why the quality is not consistent. It doesn't just get bad, it get's really bad. Then it doesn't just get good when needed, it gets really good, and can zoom and pan without issue.