Eastenders - HD looks like SD
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/db333abf90b076f2fc8c35124dbc3acd.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 17 Forum Member
What is up with the HD broadcasts of Eastenders? It looks the same as it did the weeks before the Christmas episode! Have they not seen the picture quality of Corrie or Hollyoaks?
This is meant to be a 'flagship' BBC program and it certainly has no Wow factor when it comes to the picture. Whether your a fan or an occasional viewer (like me) surely nobody thinks the switch to HD is any better - it looks marginal to me.
This is meant to be a 'flagship' BBC program and it certainly has no Wow factor when it comes to the picture. Whether your a fan or an occasional viewer (like me) surely nobody thinks the switch to HD is any better - it looks marginal to me.
0
Comments
I have been watching EastEnders on BBC1 HD since xmas day and last night had to watch it on BBC1 (due to that being the one i recorded by mistake)
and noticed a big differance.
Someone in the soap forum compared scenes in HD and SD and you can see a differeance
The sound quality is much better and the Picture is very clear and has quite a bit of colour in it too.
At times the SD had fuzzy dots during the odd scene
but with HD there's none of that and the show looks good
I looked at that thread in the Soap forum and the comparison pictures were taken off of iplayer !
Yes there was a difference as you would expect on a PC or Mac when it is recalibrated but on my 40 inch Sony Bravia TV it looked very poor HD compared to the sharpness that the other soaps I mentioned. Have they not used they best cameras or it still upscaled SD?
On the TV is another story, It's nothing in comparison to Corrie or Channel 4 Soaps.
With respect to 'loopie', I don't agree it's a simple matter of limited bandwidth, as the Christmas Day episodes of Doctor Who and Strictly were more than good enough for my jaded eyes!
It's in the production not the bandwidth. If bandwidth was a problem, Upstairs Downstairs would not look as good as it does.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/picture_quality_on_bbc_hd_a_vi.html
Actually, as you can read in the above link, Stephen Baily (Acting Head of Distribution Technology), stated that 'cost of bandwidth is not a significant factor in reducing bit-rates. This was not the reason BBC HD bit-rates were reduced'. Indeed, the BBC actually wasted money by buying the bandwidth on Astra then slashing bitrates from 19Mbps to 9.7Mbps leaving the 'spare' bandwidth broadcasting null packets, i.e. empty space. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/02/the_arrival_of_freeview_hd.html?postId=92749757#comment_92749757
One of the areas covered in the aforementioned long-running dabate, and raised by the viewers visit to BBC TV Centre, was the issue of production techniques, styles, and types of cameras, however, as trevorharris says:
For more background to this long-running issue see here: http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/
john
ITV1 HD broadcasts two of its four regions in 1440x1080 and Corrie looks as good* as on the 1920x1080 versions.
* if you analyse an indivual frame, you may see a difference, but the difference between Corrie and EE is evident in a two second glance!!
I watched the HD broadcast of EastEnders on BBC-HD last night and it was better quality than the earlier broadcast on BBC1-HD. Are they using a reduced quality for BBC1-HD compared to BBC-HD?
They're the same bitrate. It's the resolution that's different. Granada and Central are 1920x1080 and London and Meridian are 1440x1080.
If thats the case, why don't they look super fat?
Edit: Said skinny, got my h and w mixed up!
They'll squish the 1920 width to 1440, Then broadcast it, And then your box will unsquish it back to 1920.
When I started watching HD ( about 12 months ago ) it was jaw dropping wow but now its what I would expect a picture to be on a HQ SD broadcast. OK I may be getting used to it and I dont have a blueray to match it too but it would not supprise me that the broad casters are doing this to squeeze every drop out.
Problem here imho how do you measure the quality of the product ? After all its a bit subjective as its changes from person to person plus mb is not a good measure either.
T
It does look better than upscaled, but I don't feel it's anywhere near the HD quality that I'm used to watching.
Hope you're reading this thread BBC.
p.s. Your subtitles were out of sync on yesterday's HD broadcast of EE. It was fine on SD. I had to record a repeat...
There is a poll about BBC HD picture quality here:
http://hdcampaign.kk5.org/
I was told in reply that the BBC said it was HD so it was.
This seems to be how the BBC are successfully pulling the wool over many eyes.
It is patently obvious how poor it is to anyone who has been watching HD for years (including the previously excellent BBC HD channel - which was so good at launch in 2006 that Sky had to up its bit rates when the beeb for free were showing up the £10 pm commercial channel).
Those days are long gone as whatever the BBC might try to pretend their view of what constitutes HD is several notches down from what it would be if there were subscribers at stake,
This is what would be true with Sky if the people wanting an end to the £10 pm sub get their wish.
No sub = no incentive to spend money maximising your PQ for fear it will drive people away.
The BBC has a captive but technically 'free' (licence fee arguments aside) audience so if they supply what might tacitly qualify as HD thats it,