Just checked out the BBC HD pq blog- plenty of people pointing out the pixellation on the group dance scene which was entirely predicatable with this fixed low rate- surprise surprise Andy completely ignores this:rolleyes:. Andy again is making the claim for 4Mbps - note this what Thomson Grass Valley quote as an example for their Vibe encoder- what Andy doesn't mention is that they are referring to the low point of a stat muxed bitrate - Eurosport HD may drop down to 4Mbps but it also goes up to 15Mbps in the French and German versions, and 20Mbps with the UK Eurosport HD! Obviously sport channels generally need a higher bitrate, but BBC will still show sports, and the majority of their content is 16:9 so they can't get bandwidth relief from black bars as the Sky HD Movies channels do. 9.6Mbps is simply not sufficient for this encoder with the material shown on BBC HD. People should not have to put up with clear and noticeable artifacts (i.e. pixellation/blocking) that actually make the picture look worse than a good analogue signal at times:(.
Just checked out the BBC HD pq blog- plenty of people pointing out the pixellation on the group dance scene which was entirely predicatable with this fixed low rate- surprise surprise Andy completely ignores this:rolleyes:. Andy again is making the claim for 4Mbps - note this what Thomson Grass Valley quote as an example for their Vibe encoder- what Andy doesn't mention is that they are referring to the low point of a stat muxed bitrate - Eurosport HD may drop down to 4Mbps but it also goes up to 15Mbps in the French and German versions, and 20Mbps with the UK Eurosport HD! Obviously sport channels generally need a higher bitrate, but BBC will still show sports, and the majority of their content is 16:9 so they can't get bandwidth relief from black bars as the Sky HD Movies channels do. 9.6Mbps is simply not sufficient for this encoder with the material shown on BBC HD. People should not have to put up with clear and noticeable artifacts (i.e. pixellation/blocking) that actually make the picture look worse than a good analogue signal at times:(.
Seems like all the complaints regarding the audio on SCD last night have also been ignored too - not even an acknowledgement, saying that it is Sunday night maybe there will be a response tomorrow.......
Seems like all the complaints regarding the audio on SCD last night have also been ignored too - not even an acknowledgement, saying that it is Sunday night maybe there will be a response tomorrow.......
Many people complained at the audio dropouts during the BBC "showcase broadcast" of "Last Night at the Proms" last weekend - which I am sure had vastly more money lavished on it than SCD! I known that one of my bosses (a classical music music fan) did!
AFAIK there has been been no response from the BBC about this either so far!
4Mbps is not a bad thing- a static screen with a logo could easily be compressed to that or less, Andy is just being disingenious by mentioning it, i.e. to make 9.6 look not so bad- totally missing out that the fact that 4Mbps is only mentioned by their encoder manufacturers in relation to the lowest point of a variable stat muxed bitrate so is completely irrelevent when talking about a fixed bitrate channel which is what BBC HD is.
4Mbps is not a bad thing- a static screen with a logo could easily be compressed to that or less, Andy is just being disingenious by mentioning it, i.e. to make 9.6 look not so bad- totally missing out that the fact that 4Mbps is only mentioned by their encoder manufacturers in relation to the lowest point of a variable stat muxed bitrate so is completely irrelevent when talking about a fixed bitrate channel which is what BBC HD is.
Many people complained at the audio dropouts during the BBC "showcase broadcast" of "Last Night at the Proms" last weekend - which I am sure had vastly more money lavished on it than SCD! I known that one of my bosses (a classical music music fan) did!
AFAIK there has been been no response from the BBC about this either so far!
I completely agree, many people are complaining about slight picture degradation on certain scenes but the audio problems are far more serious as they involve frequent and total audio dropout for 20ms at a time (in Last Night of the Proms anyway, but SCD, which I didn't see, sounds like a similar problem).
These audio issues definitely need sorting out, it is unarguably unacceptable and I challenge Andy Quested or Danielle to explain it... as they certainly cannot defend it.
at some point in the future - using the conent over quality rule, will HD (on any platform) look the same as SD?
There's a vast difference between good SD and bad SD. If you compare HD against some poor quality SD, the HD is much better. But compare HD to good SD, and the difference is much, much less.
at some point in the future - using the conent over quality rule, will HD (on any platform) look the same as SD?
There's a vast difference between good SD and bad SD. If you compare HD against some poor quality SD, the HD is much better. But compare HD to good SD, and the difference is much, much less.
That's correct. Sky Sports 1 could even be compared to upscaled it's that good.
So if BBC HD looks like good SD how does that sell a premium high definition product? No wonder Blu Ray is the future as the disc can't drop in quality. :eek:
So BBC HD is the worst well before any cheap channels jump on the HD ship? Unreal. :rolleyes:
So if you want good quality you pay a premium. What a cheek is that not saying buy Sky HD and the HD pack if you want real HD?
Its all very well people saying if you want good quality HD you have to pay for it, but do these people forget that even those of us watching Freesat ARE PAYING FOR IT as far as BBD HD is concerned, through our licence fee. So, considering WE ARE PAYING FOR IT, I expect it to be a good quality!
Its all very well people saying if you want good quality HD you have to pay for it, but do these people forget that even those of us watching Freesat ARE PAYING FOR IT as far as BBD HD is concerned, through our licence fee. So, considering WE ARE PAYING FOR IT, I expect it to be a good quality!
For a broadcaster like the BBC who have a split in Freesat with ITV they really should be doing better. A full HD ITV channel should have been long set up for Freesat too.
I'm not sure about HD DTT. There will be 4 channels in HD: C4HD, ITV HD, Five HD, BBC HD and some downtime for other channels. How long will it be 4 channels? I bet they will soon drop the bitrate it it will be 5 or 6 HD channels at about 4MB.
I don't think HD is a replacement as such for SD but a complementary product. If the eventual ambition is to phase SD out and have 500+ HD channels then they would be as well letting SD channels run at 10MB at the moment.
HD's obviously about quality. SD is perfectly acceptable I'd like to see some plan to where HD, 3D TV, Super HD, SD fit in down the line. Obviously anloague is going we know that. I don't think shopping channels, quiz deserve HD or even need it. We don't need plus one HD channels either.
I think Film4, E4, Comedy Central, Watch all these channels should be HD though.
For a broadcaster like the BBC who have a split in Freesat with ITV they really should be doing better. A full HD ITV channel should have been long set up for Freesat too.
Well the BBC don't even have a full HD channel, it's only part time. But ITV can't afford it - as simple as that.
Seems like all the complaints regarding the audio on SCD last night have also been ignored too - not even an acknowledgement, saying that it is Sunday night maybe there will be a response tomorrow.......
The picture quality was very poor with some parts totally breaking up.
I am not expecting high quality but just acceptable quality and the BBC are not delivering on that front.
If you want to see some stunning HD picture quality have a look at Lux HD. The difference between their HD & the BBC's is like chalk & cheese
If you want to see some stunning HD picture quality have a look at Lux HD. The difference between their HD & the BBC's is like chalk & cheese
As has been pointed out many times, Luxe HD isn't live, it's all precompressed and not in real time. Bit like the difference between broadcast TV and DVD quality - you can maintain better quality, even with a low bandwidth, if you don't need real time.
As has been pointed out many times, Luxe HD isn't live, it's all precompressed and not in real time. Bit like the difference between broadcast TV and DVD quality - you can maintain better quality, even with a low bandwidth, if you don't need real time.
It's should not be an excuse for poor quality. It is also unlikley that SCD is truely live. Most programes go out with something like a 1 minute delay this gives them a chance to bleep out bad language not too likely on SCD but they tend to do is as standard.
It's should not be an excuse for poor quality. It is also unlikley that SCD is truely live. Most programes go out with something like a 1 minute delay this gives them a chance to bleep out bad language not too likely on SCD but they tend to do is as standard.
Even so, as far as the encoders are concerned, they are still dealing with a "live" feed.
If you have a time delay you can pre compress so it is not live.
The fuzzy picture & breakup since the BBC changed the bitrate does not make sense. Lowering the bitrate makes compression faster. The fuzzy picture is just an excuse for poor quality. The picture quality is basically dictated by the number of pixels and if you did want in some scenes soft focus you do that with the camera
It's should not be an excuse for poor quality. It is also unlikley that SCD is truely live. Most programes go out with something like a 1 minute delay this gives them a chance to bleep out bad language not too likely on SCD but they tend to do is as standard.
Who's making excuses? - I was merely pointing out why Luxe is good quality, not why others are poor.
Being live is nothing to do with it, it's not a question of transmitting a minute or too behind 'live', that's still real time - it's a question of taking two or three hours to compress an hour programme - which obviously can't be done live.
As far as I'm aware, all HD channels are compressed in real time during transmission, apart from Luxe - which doesn't have any reason to.
As far as I'm aware, all HD channels are compressed in real time during transmission, apart from Luxe - which doesn't have any reason to.
Neither do the BBC except on Live Broadcasts. Most programmes are obtained and scheduled weeks in advance of being shown so could be easily pre-compressed even by 2 pass. Its only live broadcasts such as news bulletins, sport and election broadcasts and possibly Strictly, if live, that are going to be a problem.
Comments
So we have 4-6mbps to look forward to. Great.
Andy Quested responded:
We are investigating to see if it was a problem with the Dolby E signal or the conversion to Dolby D
AFAIK there has been been no response from the BBC about this either so far!
Totally agree.
I completely agree, many people are complaining about slight picture degradation on certain scenes but the audio problems are far more serious as they involve frequent and total audio dropout for 20ms at a time (in Last Night of the Proms anyway, but SCD, which I didn't see, sounds like a similar problem).
These audio issues definitely need sorting out, it is unarguably unacceptable and I challenge Andy Quested or Danielle to explain it... as they certainly cannot defend it.
There's a vast difference between good SD and bad SD. If you compare HD against some poor quality SD, the HD is much better. But compare HD to good SD, and the difference is much, much less.
So if you want good quality you pay a premium. What a cheek is that not saying buy Sky HD and the HD pack if you want real HD?
BBC HD really is a poor show. No wonder I don't watch it. I'd go as far as saying it's the worst HD channel on Sky. :mad:
That's correct. Sky Sports 1 could even be compared to upscaled it's that good.
So if BBC HD looks like good SD how does that sell a premium high definition product? No wonder Blu Ray is the future as the disc can't drop in quality. :eek:
So BBC HD is the worst well before any cheap channels jump on the HD ship? Unreal. :rolleyes:
Its all very well people saying if you want good quality HD you have to pay for it, but do these people forget that even those of us watching Freesat ARE PAYING FOR IT as far as BBD HD is concerned, through our licence fee. So, considering WE ARE PAYING FOR IT, I expect it to be a good quality!
For a broadcaster like the BBC who have a split in Freesat with ITV they really should be doing better. A full HD ITV channel should have been long set up for Freesat too.
I'm not sure about HD DTT. There will be 4 channels in HD: C4HD, ITV HD, Five HD, BBC HD and some downtime for other channels. How long will it be 4 channels? I bet they will soon drop the bitrate it it will be 5 or 6 HD channels at about 4MB.
I don't think HD is a replacement as such for SD but a complementary product. If the eventual ambition is to phase SD out and have 500+ HD channels then they would be as well letting SD channels run at 10MB at the moment.
HD's obviously about quality. SD is perfectly acceptable I'd like to see some plan to where HD, 3D TV, Super HD, SD fit in down the line. Obviously anloague is going we know that. I don't think shopping channels, quiz deserve HD or even need it. We don't need plus one HD channels either.
I think Film4, E4, Comedy Central, Watch all these channels should be HD though.
Well the BBC don't even have a full HD channel, it's only part time. But ITV can't afford it - as simple as that.
C4 are fortunate and had the help of Sky and look at what there output is fantastic. New shows in HD week by week.
I hope C4 jump ship and give us Film4 HD, E4 HD soon. :cool:
But where would the money for it come from?, if it happened they would probably be as subscription channels.
The picture quality was very poor with some parts totally breaking up.
I am not expecting high quality but just acceptable quality and the BBC are not delivering on that front.
If you want to see some stunning HD picture quality have a look at Lux HD. The difference between their HD & the BBC's is like chalk & cheese
As has been pointed out many times, Luxe HD isn't live, it's all precompressed and not in real time. Bit like the difference between broadcast TV and DVD quality - you can maintain better quality, even with a low bandwidth, if you don't need real time.
You may get C4HD if you are lucky!
It's should not be an excuse for poor quality. It is also unlikley that SCD is truely live. Most programes go out with something like a 1 minute delay this gives them a chance to bleep out bad language not too likely on SCD but they tend to do is as standard.
Even so, as far as the encoders are concerned, they are still dealing with a "live" feed.
Graham.
The fuzzy picture & breakup since the BBC changed the bitrate does not make sense. Lowering the bitrate makes compression faster. The fuzzy picture is just an excuse for poor quality. The picture quality is basically dictated by the number of pixels and if you did want in some scenes soft focus you do that with the camera
Yes it was you could even see Brucies lines on his face!!
Who's making excuses? - I was merely pointing out why Luxe is good quality, not why others are poor.
Being live is nothing to do with it, it's not a question of transmitting a minute or too behind 'live', that's still real time - it's a question of taking two or three hours to compress an hour programme - which obviously can't be done live.
As far as I'm aware, all HD channels are compressed in real time during transmission, apart from Luxe - which doesn't have any reason to.
You can see Brucies lines on the radio!
Neither do the BBC except on Live Broadcasts. Most programmes are obtained and scheduled weeks in advance of being shown so could be easily pre-compressed even by 2 pass. Its only live broadcasts such as news bulletins, sport and election broadcasts and possibly Strictly, if live, that are going to be a problem.