Watching "Wildest dreams" right now I certainly wouldn't say the picture is better. In fact its average.
I suspect its the same encoder, they've cut the bandwidth to see if we notice.
Watching "Wildest dreams" right now I certainly wouldn't say the picture is better. In fact its average.
I suspect its the same encoder, they've cut the bandwidth to see if we notice.
Its a new encoder or at-least different video type slightly DVBViewer's on screen display reacts different to it, similar to how Luxe TV HD is.
Watching "Wildest dreams" right now I certainly wouldn't say the picture is better. In fact its average.
I suspect its the same encoder, they've cut the bandwidth to see if we notice.
Well lit scenes seemed OK, however the "performance review" scenes which were less well lit had what looked like camera noise.
It was certainly struggling with the noise and showed artifacts when viewed close up.
Not particularly noticeable from normal viewing distance.
Obviously without a direct A/B it's impossible to say what this looked like at the higher rate.
Well lit scenes seemed OK, however the "performance review" scenes which were less well lit had what looked like camera noise.
It was certainly struggling with the noise and showed artifacts when viewed close up.
Not particularly noticeable from normal viewing distance.
Obviously without a direct A/B it's impossible to say what this looked like at the higher rate.
I've got plenty of recordings. I should be able to benchmark something. eg Wallander.
Agree with you on the noise and artefacts.
My main test is the wow factor. Look at it from a distance and see if I can say to myself its a great picture. At the moment - Life of Riley showing- it isn't.
I've got plenty of recordings. I should be able to benchmark something. eg Wallander.
Agree with you on the noise and artefacts.
My main test is the wow factor. Look at it from a distance and see if I can say to myself its a great picture. At the moment - Life of Riley showing- it isn't.
Comments
Well, one has to ask why turn it down unless the freed up space is going to be used for something?
Perhaps that is wishful thinking of course!
This thread will now explode with theories as to whats coming, CH4HD or whatever!:D
.....and it will probably turn out to be nothing of the sort, but hey whats the harm in being optomistic?
Anyway I'm not getting my hopes up regarding new HD channels.
No they have not, that test was long removed and still not proven if it was from BBC anyway.
Well they were getting a lot of stick for the picture quality at one point.
Some of the criticism was justified, but IMHO it was never anywhere near as bad as some critics said it was.
It may be a software update, not necessarily new encoders, so costs are unknown.
Also I did speculate if the encoder work Andy Quested said was being done was driven mainly by the freeview HD platform.
AFAIK it will be operating at challengingly low bit rates.
Pure speculation though, just thinking out loud.
We just don't know if the free space will be used for anything at all, or could even be an SD channel!:eek:
Well 2:)
anyway Andy Quested is the man that will know the answers.
Andy? Are you out there?
what was this?
Txp# 8 11.856 V DVB-S2 MPEG4 HD SR 29.500 FEC 3/4
3853_______HD S2 Format Showing Shortened BBC HD Preview.
if not a second BBC HD on another tx..
Where did the OP get his information from?
It says the latest sample was taken at 17:36 this afternoon, but if you check the charts they only show data up to yesterday.
Anyone with DVB viewer out there to confirm?
Wow! Now theres service! Thank you.
I suspect its the same encoder, they've cut the bandwidth to see if we notice.
Its a new encoder or at-least different video type slightly DVBViewer's on screen display reacts different to it, similar to how Luxe TV HD is.
Well lit scenes seemed OK, however the "performance review" scenes which were less well lit had what looked like camera noise.
It was certainly struggling with the noise and showed artifacts when viewed close up.
Not particularly noticeable from normal viewing distance.
Obviously without a direct A/B it's impossible to say what this looked like at the higher rate.
I've got plenty of recordings. I should be able to benchmark something. eg Wallander.
Agree with you on the noise and artefacts.
My main test is the wow factor. Look at it from a distance and see if I can say to myself its a great picture. At the moment - Life of Riley showing- it isn't.
You could probably run 4 at a stretch
Can you define "wow factor"?