I just put FX HD on now to look and the PQ on Law and Order is very grainy. Far worse than when that episode was on Sky One HD. This is via a Panasonic Plasma BTW.
I do not watch a lot on FX but would have certainly not been impressed if this is typical of what they air.
It never use to be this bad, true blood use to look stunning crystal clear but this season is nowhere near as good as it was. One of the best ways to see it is in dark scenes, they look soft and fuzzy where in the past the dark scenes still looked sharp
Compare this to ITV for example vampire diaries looks stunning even the dark scenes.
Also as I mentioned earlier E4HD is also on the same transponder and thats pretty crap PQ as well.
if the picture is truly more grainy - it means that the FX coders are more accurately coding the material than Sky One coders did .. i.e they are better coders.....
Thus you are seeing more of what the director wanted you to see- whether you like it is your issue!
Why on Earth would anyone want to make an HD programme look like it was shot through gauze over the lens in dim lighting so that it is this bad PQ that you notice rather than the plot?
If better encoders make HD look like grainy old SD then Sky are going to be dropping the HD sub soon as you would have to be puddled to pay extra to get a worse picture.
Why on Earth would anyone want to make an HD programme look like it was shot through gauze over the lens in dim lighting so that it is this bad PQ that you notice rather than the plot?
same reason why some choose one aspect ratio over another, it's all about creating a certain look and feel.
same reason why jackson has shot the hobbit in 48fps.
Why on Earth would anyone want to make an HD programme look like it was shot through gauze over the lens in dim lighting so that it is this bad PQ that you notice rather than the plot?
If better encoders make HD look like grainy old SD then Sky are going to be dropping the HD sub soon as you would have to be puddled to pay extra to get a worse picture.
Its to add an effect that does not work for the majority of people. A bit like shows like BSG that looked awful in HD.
Thankfully movie makers and showrunners are moving away from this now and realise people want crisp clear HD. Guess whoever is involved in walking dead are a bit "old school"
But if you saw the show on blu ray you would realise just how bad the broadcast in on FX. We should not be getting picture break up or smearing just becuase a show has grain. The problem is a combination of things, low bitrates, dark scenes and heavy grain.
Thankfully movie makers and showrunners are moving away from this now and realise people want crisp clear HD. Guess whoever is involved in walking dead are a bit "old school"
.
I'd rather that directors stuck to their guns and made their movies and programmes in a way that they believe in, rather than pander to what the ill educated, ignorant, lowest common denominator public think they want.
It would be the equivalent of Damien Hirst jacking it all in and making posters of "girl in tennis kit scratching her arse", or "bloke holding baby" a la Athena.
I have no problem with artistic licence but I doubt the Law and Order episode I saw on FX (see post above) was artistically directed to look this way. It was full of blotches on screen that meant the HD was simply not up to scratch.
No idea how or why, but having seen it before on Sky 1 HD (indeed all Law and Ordeer episodes shown in HD by Sky) then the FX version was immediately apparent as inferior and surely not how it was intended to look to the viewer - unless it was intended to look like it was hard to watch without seeing blotches spoiling the picture,
I have no problem with artistic licence but I doubt the Law and Order episode I saw on FX (see post above) was artistically directed to look this way. It was full of blotches on screen that meant the HD was simply not up to scratch.
No idea how or why, but having seen it before on Sky 1 HD (indeed all Law and Ordeer episodes shown in HD by Sky) then the FX version was immediately apparent as inferior and surely not how it was intended to look to the viewer - unless it was intended to look like it was hard to watch without seeing blotches spoiling the picture,
I think the blotches you refer to is a form of posterisation, I use to get a lot of that on house on sky1hd, like contours on a map.
I think the blotches you refer to is a form of posterisation, I use to get a lot of that on house on sky1hd, like contours on a map.
Posterisation is generally caused by poor processing of the TV, it can't deal with the step down shades of colour, something to do with the 8bit colour of digital TV. I understand it can occur on LCD too, better known as banding.
Artefacts on background colours normally breakup if it's down to poor bitrates, this is known as macroblocking.
Posterisation is generally caused by poor processing of the TV, it can't deal with the step down shades of colour, something to do with the 8bit colour of digital TV. I understand it can occur on LCD too, better known as banding.
Artefacts on background colours normally breakup if it's down to poor bitrates, this is known as macroblocking.
Yeah especially in the top of the range Sony TV that I have:rolleyes: They are well know for not being able to process images properly:eek:
And banding was the name given to a classic fault found in toshiba TV's due to inferior cheap panels, one reason why I would never ever buy a toshiba. It resulted in people seeing inch thick vertical grey bands on a panning image.
Posterisation is generally caused by poor processing of the TV, it can't deal with the step down shades of colour, something to do with the 8bit colour of digital TV. I understand it can occur on LCD too, better known as banding.
I get that with both my Panasonics, one LCD the other plasma.
Yeah especially in the top of the range Sony TV that I have:rolleyes: They are well know for not being able to process images properly:eek:
And banding was the name given to a classic fault found in toshiba TV's due to inferior cheap panels, one reason why I would never ever buy a toshiba. It resulted in people seeing inch thick vertical grey bands on a panning image.
You keep kidding yourself that all the artefacts you see originate from source.
Banding can affect any make of LCD, it's when the TV can't reproduce all the colours from the image.
My point was - though - that I saw the same Law and Order episode in HD on Sky One a while back and on FX the other day. Via the same TV. Law and Order is never great HD but the picture was clearly inferior on FX to Sky One. The latter was visibly HD. I had to check that the FX version was meant to be. So it was the transmission source responsible here IMO.
My point was - though - that I saw the same Law and Order episode in HD on Sky One a while back and on FX the other day. Via the same TV. Law and Order is never great HD but the picture was clearly inferior on FX to Sky One. The latter was visibly HD. I had to check that the FX version was meant to be. So it was the transmission source responsible here IMO.
Give up. Some of the regulars here will never accept any Sky-related criticism - no matter how accurate or constructive it may be.
My point was - though - that I saw the same Law and Order episode in HD on Sky One a while back and on FX the other day. Via the same TV. Law and Order is never great HD but the picture was clearly inferior on FX to Sky One. The latter was visibly HD. I had to check that the FX version was meant to be. So it was the transmission source responsible here IMO.
All these problems, picture break up, colour saturation, posterisation or any of the other PQ problems or inferior PQ issues are 99.9% always a transmission problem, some here that are blaming the TV and god knows what else is just laughable.
All these problems, picture break up, colour saturation, posterisation or any of the other PQ problems or inferior PQ issues are 99.9% always a transmission problem, some here that are blaming the TV and god knows what else is just laughable.
Saturation, a problem with digital transmission? Now THAT'S laughable.
I was checking this transponder on linowsat earlier and there is no reason why there should be any breakup or macro blocking on the channel because the minimum null packets never seems to drop much below 2Mb but FX only averages 7.5Mb.
I can only think the encoder is badly set-up, it certainly favours Eurosport, that averages 11.5Mb
I was checking this transponder on linowsat earlier and there is no reason why there should be any breakup or macro blocking on the channel because the minimum null packets never seems to drop much below 2Mb but FX only averages 7.5Mb.
I can only think the encoder is badly set-up, it certainly favours Eurosport, that averages 11.5Mb
It's setup that way, sports channels are given more bitrate than entertainment/movie channels.
There is a document I linked to on the first page that explains bitrate v channels.
Don't watch FX HD very much, usually only "Dexter" and "True Blood". The last series of "Dexter" looked rubbish compared to earlier ones and the current series of "True Blood" is definitely not as sharp as previous series. Just watched last Monday's episode and there were a couple of instances of picture blocking on fast movement, which I've never noticed before.
Don't watch FX HD very much, usually only "Dexter" and "True Blood". The last series of "Dexter" looked rubbish compared to earlier ones and the current series of "True Blood" is definitely not as sharp as previous series. Just watched last Monday's episode and there were a couple of instances of picture blocking on fast movement, which I've never noticed before.
Yes its the fast moving/panning scenes where you see the problems most, agree about dexter, I stopped watching it after 4 episodes and waited for the blu ray due to the terrible picture break up and smearing on FXHD. Shocking that one of the best channels for US drama has these problems, sky should really be addressing this problem. Surely some people from FX must watch these shows on sky hd boxes and see the problems. If it was me I would be complaining to the powers that be to get it sorted.
I understand that sports requires more but there is no need for 2Mb of null packets and allowing blocking on FX
As I understand it null packets are needed to keep the channels in line with the constraints (min/max bitrate per channel) as they are stat muxed multiplexers.
2Mb doesn't look unusual, especially if there's a sports channel on the transponder, the transponder with Sky Sports allows just over 2Mb, some transponders allow 2.5Mb. The 2Mb on FX HD transponder is probably because it has a sports channel on there.
Can't see anything that stands out to be honest - FX HD bitrate is as good if not better than most, it's on a transponder with 3 other channels that share 43.88Mb, it's seems to be better off than Syfy HD which shares it's transponder with 5 other channels each sharing 43.88Mb that's for sure.
No idea what the problem is, because I have seen no evidence of breakup/blocking/smearing etc on my equipment with the programme mentioned. I assume FX HD have a play out studio, would they not see a problem if it was in the transmission?
I've also noticed FX's bad HD quality mainly with NCIS after getting the HD pack I was looking forward to watching season 8 in HD but was shocked to see my dvd copy of season 7 looked better than FX's transmission.
Personally I find Syfy and Universal to be the sharpest in terms of HD quality. FX should test their own signal and see what the problem is I would hate to have to wait for Walking Dead to be aired on channel 5 before watching it
As I understand it null packets are needed to keep the channels in line with the constraints (min/max bitrate per channel) as they are stat muxed multiplexers.
2Mb doesn't look unusual, especially if there's a sports channel on the transponder, the transponder with Sky Sports allows just over 2Mb, some transponders allow 2.5Mb. The 2Mb on FX HD transponder is probably because it has a sports channel on there.
Can't see anything that stands out to be honest - FX HD bitrate is as good if not better than most, it's on a transponder with 3 other channels that share 43.88Mb, it's seems to be better off than Syfy HD which shares it's transponder with 5 other channels each sharing 43.88Mb that's for sure.
No idea what the problem is, because I have seen no evidence of breakup/blocking/smearing etc on my equipment with the programme mentioned. I assume FX HD have a play out studio, would they not see a problem if it was in the transmission?
I think the figures you are looking at are far different to the ones I see.
Average bit rates for the last 3 days;
Sky Arts 2 HD 9938Kb
E4 HD 9960Kb
FX HD 6752Kb
Eurosport HD 11751Kb
Comments
It never use to be this bad, true blood use to look stunning crystal clear but this season is nowhere near as good as it was. One of the best ways to see it is in dark scenes, they look soft and fuzzy where in the past the dark scenes still looked sharp
Compare this to ITV for example vampire diaries looks stunning even the dark scenes.
Also as I mentioned earlier E4HD is also on the same transponder and thats pretty crap PQ as well.
Why on Earth would anyone want to make an HD programme look like it was shot through gauze over the lens in dim lighting so that it is this bad PQ that you notice rather than the plot?
If better encoders make HD look like grainy old SD then Sky are going to be dropping the HD sub soon as you would have to be puddled to pay extra to get a worse picture.
same reason why some choose one aspect ratio over another, it's all about creating a certain look and feel.
same reason why jackson has shot the hobbit in 48fps.
Its to add an effect that does not work for the majority of people. A bit like shows like BSG that looked awful in HD.
Thankfully movie makers and showrunners are moving away from this now and realise people want crisp clear HD. Guess whoever is involved in walking dead are a bit "old school"
But if you saw the show on blu ray you would realise just how bad the broadcast in on FX. We should not be getting picture break up or smearing just becuase a show has grain. The problem is a combination of things, low bitrates, dark scenes and heavy grain.
I'd rather that directors stuck to their guns and made their movies and programmes in a way that they believe in, rather than pander to what the ill educated, ignorant, lowest common denominator public think they want.
It would be the equivalent of Damien Hirst jacking it all in and making posters of "girl in tennis kit scratching her arse", or "bloke holding baby" a la Athena.
No idea how or why, but having seen it before on Sky 1 HD (indeed all Law and Ordeer episodes shown in HD by Sky) then the FX version was immediately apparent as inferior and surely not how it was intended to look to the viewer - unless it was intended to look like it was hard to watch without seeing blotches spoiling the picture,
I think the blotches you refer to is a form of posterisation, I use to get a lot of that on house on sky1hd, like contours on a map.
Posterisation is generally caused by poor processing of the TV, it can't deal with the step down shades of colour, something to do with the 8bit colour of digital TV. I understand it can occur on LCD too, better known as banding.
Artefacts on background colours normally breakup if it's down to poor bitrates, this is known as macroblocking.
Yeah especially in the top of the range Sony TV that I have:rolleyes: They are well know for not being able to process images properly:eek:
And banding was the name given to a classic fault found in toshiba TV's due to inferior cheap panels, one reason why I would never ever buy a toshiba. It resulted in people seeing inch thick vertical grey bands on a panning image.
I get that with both my Panasonics, one LCD the other plasma.
My LG LED doesn't get it at all.
You keep kidding yourself that all the artefacts you see originate from source.
Banding can affect any make of LCD, it's when the TV can't reproduce all the colours from the image.
Similar here, seen it on my LG plasma and Sony LCD but not on my LG LCD (LED).
your Sony LCD can't be "top of the range" then
Give up. Some of the regulars here will never accept any Sky-related criticism - no matter how accurate or constructive it may be.
All these problems, picture break up, colour saturation, posterisation or any of the other PQ problems or inferior PQ issues are 99.9% always a transmission problem, some here that are blaming the TV and god knows what else is just laughable.
I can only think the encoder is badly set-up, it certainly favours Eurosport, that averages 11.5Mb
It's setup that way, sports channels are given more bitrate than entertainment/movie channels.
There is a document I linked to on the first page that explains bitrate v channels.
Yes its the fast moving/panning scenes where you see the problems most, agree about dexter, I stopped watching it after 4 episodes and waited for the blu ray due to the terrible picture break up and smearing on FXHD. Shocking that one of the best channels for US drama has these problems, sky should really be addressing this problem. Surely some people from FX must watch these shows on sky hd boxes and see the problems. If it was me I would be complaining to the powers that be to get it sorted.
I understand that sports requires more but there is no need for 2Mb of null packets and allowing blocking on FX
2Mb doesn't look unusual, especially if there's a sports channel on the transponder, the transponder with Sky Sports allows just over 2Mb, some transponders allow 2.5Mb. The 2Mb on FX HD transponder is probably because it has a sports channel on there.
Can't see anything that stands out to be honest - FX HD bitrate is as good if not better than most, it's on a transponder with 3 other channels that share 43.88Mb, it's seems to be better off than Syfy HD which shares it's transponder with 5 other channels each sharing 43.88Mb that's for sure.
No idea what the problem is, because I have seen no evidence of breakup/blocking/smearing etc on my equipment with the programme mentioned. I assume FX HD have a play out studio, would they not see a problem if it was in the transmission?
Personally I find Syfy and Universal to be the sharpest in terms of HD quality. FX should test their own signal and see what the problem is I would hate to have to wait for Walking Dead to be aired on channel 5 before watching it
I think the figures you are looking at are far different to the ones I see.
Average bit rates for the last 3 days;
Sky Arts 2 HD 9938Kb
E4 HD 9960Kb
FX HD 6752Kb
Eurosport HD 11751Kb
The others get nearly 50% more bit rate