Is it possible that they're starting to get it ? And will the contagion spread ?

[Michael Whitaker]

I wouldn't know the types of filters and the lens differences between still cameras and TV cameras.

In many old movies, the night scenes were filmed in daylight with filters to make it appear dark, so, I'd imagine that filters that make the grass greener are merely another version of the same technique.

Pat - I understand the well known technique of making the entire picture appear darker to simulate night, but I can't quite grasp the idea of using a filter to enhance one color without it affecting everything else in the frame. I'll look into it and see how it might be done. You seem to imply that you have inside knowledge... are you positive that the broadcast of The Masters is color enhanced? Again, I'm not challenging your claim... just professionally curious.

Back in the '90s when I was in the sports broadcasting business the University of North Carolina radio network got caught enhancing its men's basketball broadcasts by "sweeting" the crowd noise with recorded sound effects. They justified the technique by claiming the crowd sat so far back from the floor that the appropriate level of cheering did not reach their effects mics. The real reason... they just wanted to produce an "exciting" sounding broadcast. Perhaps, if CBS is "sweeting" the video, they are doing it for the same reason.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker:

That exchange you just had with Pat Mucci is classic Mucci modus operandi. Basically he has no idea if they use filters on TV cameras to make grass look greener but that'll never stop him from acting like he does without actually answering your questions. And when he realizes you suspect he doesn't know his next step is to make a bet with you.

Tom - I'm giving Pat the benefit of the doubt. Because of my background, it's an interesting topic to me. I was a bit surprised, however, that he was so pissy at first and made a snide remark about my "extensive experience." I thought that was a bit unfortunate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker:

That exchange you just had with Pat Mucci is classic Mucci modus operandi. Basically he has no idea if they use filters on TV cameras to make grass look greener but that'll never stop him from acting like he does without actually answering your questions. And when he realizes you suspect he doesn't know his next step is to make a bet with you.

Pat doesn't have much knowledge to start with and what he says he has is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. But all of us probably need to go somewhat easy on him---the poor guy is so out of it he actually walks into swimming pools in South Beach with his clothes on and his cell phone, wallet and so forth in them to speak to 7-8 intoxicated, topless, thonged bimbos on a wet-and-wild sorority weekend. For God's Sake, the poor man might've drowned if his wife had not waded in and saved him.

TEPaul,

There was an abundance of more than ample sets of flotation devices/objects that I could have grabbed onto to save me from drowning.

My fear was that I wouldn't let go of them for days.[/color]

Does that sound like someone who knows if TV cameras have filters to make the grass look greener? 

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker,

Based on your extensive experience would you like to make a wager on the issue with the winnings going to GCA.com ?

I'm ready to accept your wager.

[Mike Sweeney]

Michael Whitaker,

Based on your extensive experience would you like to make a wager on the issue with the winnings going to GCA.com ?

I'm ready to accept your wager.

Okay, let's make it real. Patrick will not leave Jersey in the summer so Sweeney, Whitaker and Mucci at Hidden Creek this summer and I will take Moore as a partner! 

[jeffwarne]

Augusta just doesn't get it.
That's why they can't give tickets away.
last i checked no one goes there anymore-it's too crowded

It's rye grass-it's green-get over it

Enjoy it

[Mark_F]

In many old movies, the night scenes were filmed in daylight with filters to make it appear dark, so, I'd imagine that filters that make the grass greener are merely another version of the same technique.

Patrick,

It isn't really the same thing. 

If a scene is filmed in daylight with the intention to make it appear night, the whole scene is affected, so one filter suffices.

As Michael states, you can't filter one aspect of colour without it affecting the other colours.   

A filter may enhance the green part of the colour spectrum, but it would be at the expense of other parts of the colour spectrum - blues, I think - which would become lighter.

A polarizing filter would remove glare and reflections, enhance the contrast and deepen colours to some degree depending upon the angle of polarization,  but I wouldn't imagine it would be consistent throughout the entire telecast. 

Perhaps this is what you mean.  A  polarizing filter isn't really trickery, more of an essential piece of kit for outdoor photography/filming, but it is only going to work if there is light to be polarized, i.e. it won't work as effectively on overcast days.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael Whitaker,

Based on your extensive experience would you like to make a wager on the issue with the winnings going to GCA.com ?

I'm ready to accept your wager.

Okay, let's make it real. Patrick will not leave Jersey in the summer so Sweeney, Whitaker and Mucci at Hidden Creek this summer and I will take Moore as a partner! 

To paraphrase The Sundance Kid:

"You just keep thinkin' Sweeney. That's what you're good at." 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Ferguson,

You're partially correct.

Polarizing filters accentuate the deeper colors (green being one of them)

Michael Whitaker,

What shall we wager ?

Mike Sweeney,

Who invited you ?   

And, Who invited your playing partner ?
You realize that I retain the right of first refusal, don't you ?.

[Michael Whitaker]

What shall we wager?

Pat - With all due respect, you offered the bet. All I will say is make it easy on yourself.

I'm off to the fair city of Charleston to rendezvous with my wife who is returning from two weeks in London. We'll pick this up in a couple of days. 

[Doug Siebert]

I wonder if anti-environmentalist bias might get in the way of the push towards less lush and more F&F conditions.  Since the F&F conditions are achieved by using less water, less chemicals and is better for the environment, some golfers who like the green might equate this movement with environmentalists trying to change the sport.

That's not just an idle thought, I played with a good friend from college last summer who I hadn't seen for years, and we were comparing notes about trips to Scotland and Ireland and he really honestly believed that those courses would be better if they watered them more so they were green!  I tried all forms of logic with him:

1) the type of grass/soil over there makes staying green very difficult - he saw how it greened up after a lot of rain the last few days he was there so he maintains it would be possible to keep them green.

2) those courses have always been that way, and seem to be staying in business despite that - he says because something has always been that way doesn't mean they couldn't be improved

3) its more fun to play where the ball bounces and rolls unexpectedly and takes some time to determine the outcome of a shot - he maintains that it reduces the role of skill and increases that of luck

4) finally, I brought up that it is better for the environment to use less water and chemicals

That last one really got his goat, he'd somehow turned into quite a little Neoclone over the years, and made it into a political thing believing the evil environmental lobby had brainwashed me simply because I mentioned that this was better for the environment!  He maintained that if water use exceeds supply in a region then the market would correct for it by increasing the cost of the water and that is the only thing that should dictate that courses use less water.

I told him I wasn't saying that we should pass laws banning green courses, just that if golfers didn't insist on lush emerald green courses that it would be better for everyone.  But I fear that I've permanently made him an enemy of brown courses and turned it into a political battle for him to neatly pigeonhole alongside unrelated stuff like taxes and terrorists!  It probably didn't help that when he used this as a springboard into political discussion that I disagreed with him on the political viewpoint behind his position -- I'm more of a libertarian so while I think that a golf course should be free to use whatever water they want, ideally they would have to pay for it in full without any subsidy (including water drawn from a common resource such as an aquifer) and be forced to bear any external costs associated with runoff from their property.