mlb.tv

I've got the basic subscription, which gets me games at 400K. I know that the premium service gives you the option of six games at once, but my question is this: When you've got the full screen on one game, is the picture significantly better at 700K than it is at 400K? In theory it should be, but I'm wondering if it really is and thus worth the extra $30.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

If you have a high speed connection and that is the only way to get baseball for you, it's well worth it.
And yes, the picture is better at 700K.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

The difference in picture quality isn't significant, but for only $30 more, the premium service is well worth it. However:

1. The mosaic feature blows. I never use it.
2. Watching games in full screen sucks at either 400K or 700K.

The premium also provides home and away radio broadcasts. Not sure whether basic does.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

so if the mosaic feature sucks and watching games on full screen at 400 or 700 blows, why are you paying for it?

 

Re: mlb.tv question

Picture quality. I just don't watch in full screen, that's all.

It's 30 bucks. Not a big deal.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

The basic subscription only offers the home-team TV broadcast. I have a PC-to-TV converter and a 36-inch TV, so I'm thinking that a significant increase in picture quality would be worth it. I'm not sure if it is worth it if it is only slightly better.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

If you only watch games in full screen mode, you might be disappointed by the 700K. I can't see much difference between 400K and 700K in full screen mode.

When I mentioned home and away broadcasts, I was referring to the radio broadcasts, which come with the premium service. You do not get home and away TV broadcasts.

I watch the games in the regular WMP box. There, 700K is much sharper. But when you go full screen, the picture becomes washed out and pixilated.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

I get home and road radio options with the regular subscription.

I don't think full-screen views are meant to be watched with your eyes as close to the monitor as they usually are when you are using a computer. If you are a few feet away, it's not as bad. The same is true when I watch on my TV.

The best part of mlb.tv is that you get EVERY game with the exception of games blacked out either from local restrictions, with ESPN's Sunday night game or late Saturday night games blocked out because of Fox's contract. This is different from Extra Innings, which only shows televised games. I've seen several games that weren't televised, but they used the home team's stadium cameras and dubbed in the radio broadcast. I'm glad to be able to watch those games, but hate not having a score box.

I knew I was watching a feed meant for the scoreboard when I got a screen shot that informed me that I would get a discount at Hooter's with my ticket stub if the Padres scored more than 10 runs.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

Dunno if the premium is worth it -- I didn't spend the extra $30 -- but MLB.tv certainly is.

My computer at home is too old and slow to get a good video picture (it's more like a slide show of stills), but I can watch it at work with no problem. For me, most Braves games start at 4 p.m. out here so I'm at work already.

It's only April, and I feel like it's already paid for itself.

Never would have seen the end of Buerhle's no-hitter otherwise. ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNnews didn't switch to it, so I just brought it up on MLB.tv at work and we all stood around my monitor to watch the ninth inning.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

Anybody use mlb.tv on a mac? I've had trouble getting it to work. I thought I downloaded everything I needed, but I just get a white screen. I've had no problems on my PC at work.

 

Re: mlb.tv question

Have you installed Flip4Mac?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/wmcomponents.mspx

 

Re: mlb.tv question

On my laptop, Firefox crashes when I try to watch a game, so I use the Real Player. I use IE only as a last resort!