Mustn’t-See TV Is Even Clearer Against HDTV

The moment the San Antonio Spurs and the New Jersey Nets stopped playing basketball Sunday night, people rose to their feet in raucous applause, confetti fell from the rafters and champagne corks popped all over the place.

Free at last! Free at last! A once-cherished American pastime was free at last.

It was touch and go for a long while, but the NBA survived its Finals. NBA Commissioner David Stern had to be horrified as ABC and the country gave his sacred cows the NHL treatment -- the people didn’t watch, the Finals became a punch line and ABC, in full-on panic mode, embarrassed everyone involved by turning halftime into the Talk Show Green Room From Hell. Lisa Marie Presley? KC and the Sunshine Band? Joel Siegel?

What, no Carrot Top and Richard Simmons?

On the bright side, that which does not kill you is supposed to make you stronger. Already, Shaquille O’Neal is working out with a personal trainer, trying to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And, say this much for the Spurs and the Nets: They put on such a bad show they forced fans to seek out alternative sources of entertainment.

Last Wednesday, I had the option of watching Game 4 of the NBA Finals at home or driving in rush-hour traffic to spend $12 to watch a high-definition broadcast of a match between two of the worst teams in Major League Soccer, Colorado and D.C. United, on a 40-foot high IMAX screen.

Naturally, I went with the soccer.

The match ended in a scoreless draw, which was kind of depressing until I noticed that San Antonio’s Malik Rose rippled the net just as often as the Rapids and United did. Rose was 0 for 9 from the field. New Jersey won, 77-76. That’s the trouble with this sport -- not enough offense.

I knew I made the right choice, because there would be more chances to watch the Spurs and Nets dent backboards. And, besides, the TiVo was running.

(Stern is lucky that TiVo, though an advanced piece of electronic equipment, is not discerning. Beware the day when you select Game 4 of the NBA Finals to be recorded and the machine fires back, “Oh, come on now, can’t you think of anything better?” In a hurry, I set the machine to record the game in “best quality.” An ironic choice, I realize now, but I was running late.)

The soccer, on the big screen, in high definition, was illuminating. Everything is clearer and crisper in high definition -- you could see the logo on a player’s shinguards through the white socks covering them -- but the biggest difference was the variety of camera angles.

One camera shot was right on the sideline, maybe knee-high. A ball is played out to the right fullback and it looks as if you, the viewer, are receiving the ball. A corner kick curls in and you feel as if you’re preparing to head it. One overhead shot hovered above the midfield, giving you a low-flying bird’s-eye view of a play developing. On a free kick, an aerial camera angle almost puts you in the shoes of the player lining up the kick, sizing up the defensive wall and the corner of the net available to you.

There were fewer back-and-forth cutaway shots and more extended single-camera shots, adding to the sense that the viewer is playing a video game, only with real-life players.

The match was broadcast by HDNet, the high-definition television network owned by Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban. Via e-mail, Cuban said these camera angles are “exclusive to HDNet” because the greater resolution of the picture “means that for longer shots you are going to be able to see everything that is going on because everything is in focus, as opposed to regular TV, where the lack of resolution means that you can only keep one point of action in focus.”

Combining the greater resolution with a wide-screen format “gives the viewer the ‘you are there’ perspective,” Cuban said.

“There is also a significant difference in how the games are presented by the director in the truck. In traditional sports presentations, because there is a limited field of focus, there are constant cuts following the ball and players. The camera has to chase them around the field or court.

“With [high definition], you can’t do that. Not only because it’s not the best way to present the game, but because of the window-like appearance of the picture, viewers actually get motion sickness from the camera jumping around.”

Everybody watching the Spurs and Nets on old-fashioned analog TV knows the feeling.

High definition is best suited to fluid, continuously moving sports such as soccer, hockey ... or basketball. Suddenly, the NBA finds itself needing some help. High definition is out there, but then again, so is the idea of reseeding the NBA’s final four, and nothing’s happening.

How do you get the technology to the people at prices they can afford?

Cuban acknowledged that remains a key obstacle. He optimistically noted that “HDTVs are dropping in price by about 2% per month. You can find HDTV monitors for as low as $700, and for those needing a quick fix, even a $99 PC monitor will work.”

Despite the just-completed ignored-and-out finals, Cuban said he believes the NBA is “in good shape. Sometimes you get caught off guard in how much promotion you need to do to stand out and let people know where and when to watch our games.

“There is such a saturation of entertainment choices, we can’t expect coverage in the newspapers and sports media to generate enough excitement to propel TV ratings. We have to take a page from the opening of movies, or the promotion of TV events.”

Instead of doing it the other way around and having Mike Tirico and Siegel spend halftime of Game 6 hyping the can’t-miss -- pardon the reference, Spurs and Nets -- flicks of the summer.