The Daily Ping

FROM: Paul
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 8:45:20AM

Is it just my connection, or do the video clips on the site do nothing? For me they show up as slideshows that feature maybe two still images. That's some technology, that!

FROM: OldFezziwig
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 9:20:07AM

I kinda liked the EyeVision. Yes, it was choppy and a little blurry but it was better than the boring camera angles they usually show. I agree that it probably wasn't worth the money they spent but hey, it's not my money so what do I care!?!?!?!
I believe they rushed the debut of EyeVision to "one-up" the XFL which will start in Feb.
-Fezz
www.oldfezziwig.com (anyone remember Electric Co.?)

FROM: mecawilson
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 9:32:08AM

Oh man! I loved that crap! Anything to make that game more enjoyable, the better (sourgrapes since my Vikings got bitchslapped the game before).

Agreed, it was grainy, but when they gave a top level view of a replay, then spun around to see the QB's vantage, then to the receivers POV and again on his run after the catch, I was impressed.

Then again, I was impressed by the Velvetta/chili dip I made...

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 9:58:07AM

Paul -- the RealVideo worked OK for me...

OF and MC -- glad you guys dug the EyeVision... I guess it wasn't a total waste of money if people actually enjoyed it. I do agree with you, though, OF, that the NFL may be a little nervous about the XFL and the new look they're bringing to the game and how it's broadcast.

FROM: Paul
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 10:53:51AM

It looks pretty neat, but then I'm not watching it on TV.

FROM: Robert
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 12:00:53PM

Matt and I agreed that it sucked royally. It was totally useless and the graininess of the picture gave the impression that they were manipulating footage from the 70's.

As far as sports broadcasting technology is concerned, this rates far below the glowing hockey puck.

FROM: Monica
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 12:32:56PM

I don't think ANYthing is worse than the glowing comet-like hockey puck.
BLEH! ew ew ew horrible!

FROM: liz
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 1:36:08PM

i hated the eyevision, too... i was all excited about it. but it looked like some 1986 style cgi or something. like atari.

FROM: Matt
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 2:04:02PM

Where do you guys hear about this stuff? you said it was heavily hyped, yet I didn't hear a thing about it until Robert and I were subjected to it's crappiness.

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 2:29:39PM

Matt -- I had heard it on various news reports and on the radio. They didn't hype it in a commercial sense, but the PR wheels were spinning and 11 o'clock news broadcasts were well informed. :)

FROM: Robert
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 9:04:07PM

Does anyone else remember that stupid first base camera from the MLB All Star Game a few years back? That was dumb, but at least it stayed put.

FROM: Paul
DATE: Monday January 29, 2001 -- 11:38:22PM

New camera idea: a steady camera mounted on a camera mount!

FROM: samm
DATE: Wednesday February 19, 2003 -- 1:53:28 pm

i think eyevishion was great!!

FROM:
DATE: Wednesday February 19, 2003 -- 1:53:55 pm

FROM:
DATE: Monday February 24, 2003 -- 1:08:06 pm

eye is good you all are stupid

FROM: two tone
DATE: Wednesday February 25, 2004 -- 2:22:58 pm

eye vision is only a small part of the Virtualized Reality technology that has been in development since 1993. It future looks bright in the High Definition world, as tweening and interpolation are perfected. Also the ability that Virtualized Reality adds perfectiveness in Officiating calls in sporting events. So in conclusion yes eye vision sucked becasue of it's lack of HD for the super bowl, but it's technology has and is being upgraded to top notch and will be moving in on multiple sporting events soon

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Wednesday February 25, 2004 -- 2:57:26 pm

That made about as much sense as The more using the more powerful feelings!