On Sky, iPlayer content is stored on the hard drive and not streamed. If you set the output resolution to AUTO it displays as 1080i.
On the BBC web version, you get the option to download both SD and HD (if available) using the add on 'desktop' software.
As an example, last night's Syndicate in HD is 1.2gb via the BBC and 2.64gb via Sky.
You said all BBC THREE and FOUR content came out as 1080i, which is what I was disputing, things broadcast in 1080i may well be availiable in that form via Sky. I also think the downloads on the iplayer site may be compressed somewhat, the bitrate of streamed HD on iplayer is 3.4Mbps (720p).
On Sky, iPlayer content is stored on the hard drive and not streamed. If you set the output resolution to AUTO it displays as 1080i.
On the BBC web version, you get the option to download both SD and HD (if available) using the add on 'desktop' software.
As an example, last night's Syndicate in HD is 1.2gb via the BBC and 2.64gb via Sky.
Does not mean it is 1080i, its just being outputted upscaled by your Sky box, however if your correct and you can watch BBC Three/Four content on iPlayer in HD only on Sky, then Virgin/Freesat/Freeview viewers should start kicking a fuss
Does not mean it is 1080i, its just being outputted upscaled by your Sky box, however if your correct and you can watch BBC Three/Four content on iPlayer in HD only on Sky, then Virgin/Freesat/Freeview viewers should start kicking a fuss
I'm talking about HD content from BBC Three and Four that has been available via iPlayer up to the switch to BBC Two HD e.g Monday's Wodehouse in Exile (the final of BBC Four in HD).
Nothing since then.
If I set the Sky box to AUTO and the resolution was 720p it would be displayed as 720p.
Does not mean it is 1080i, its just being outputted upscaled by your Sky box, however if your correct and you can watch BBC Three/Four content on iPlayer in HD only on Sky, then Virgin/Freesat/Freeview viewers should start kicking a fuss
The only place I saw BBC 3/4 content in HD on Sky's iplayer was off the BBC HD area of Iplayer, so it was from BBC HD according to iplayer not BBC 3/4. I have no idea if this will change following the close of BBC HD and the launch of BBC2 HD. I hope so though as I would like to see some BBC 4 content in HD if its made available on regular iplayer.
I'm talking about HD content from BBC Three and Four that has been available via iPlayer up to the switch to BBC Two HD e.g Monday's Wodehouse in Exile (the final of BBC Four in HD).
Nothing since then.
If I set the Sky box to AUTO and the resolution was 720p it would be displayed as 720p.
Sky could have upscaled it before placing it on their servers for downloading, Im not saying its not 1080i native just that the BBC might give them the content in 720p (but in better quality than regular iplayer as its going direct to sky) and then Sky upscale that to 1080i.
There would be little way to prove this except maybe a very on a large HDTV and each line counted manually as the sky box would be outputting 1080i,
or put the sky's iplayer content on one TV and the broadcast one on another and compare, the TVs would still need to be large and it would need to be on a section of the program that was high in detail.
There would be little way to prove this except maybe a very on a large HDTV and each line counted manually as the sky box would be outputting 1080i
You are having a laugh. The easy way to prove it is to see if it's interlaced or not (i.e. 50 fps after deinterlacing instead of 25 fps). Obviously you'd need an interlaced program to test this.
Sky could have upscaled it before placing it on their servers for downloading, Im not saying its not 1080i native just that the BBC might give them the content in 720p (but in better quality than regular iplayer as its going direct to sky) and then Sky upscale that to 1080i.
I doubt that, too many conversions from i to p to i, it would end up looking like ****. Sky may well have 1080i straight from BBC, or record it themselves. Why don't BBC do it- presumably they can't justify the increased bandwidth/storage costs vs picture quality gain.
You are having a laugh. The easy way to prove it is to see if it's interlaced or not (i.e. 50 fps after deinterlacing instead of 25 fps). Obviously you'd need an interlaced program to test this.
I meant to tell whether its been upscaled from 720p to1080i as that would mean that even though its 1080i it only has 720p info in it. Im just thinking about how a interlacing program can be used on Sky's Iplayer content when its encrypted and cant be output in HD in an analogue form except for some old boxes, unless BBC iplayer content on Sky is not encripted.
I doubt that, too many conversions from i to p to i, it would end up looking like ****. Sky may well have 1080i straight from BBC, or record it themselves. Why don't BBC do it- presumably they can't justify the increased bandwidth/storage costs vs picture quality gain.
I didnt say they defiantly upscaled 720p I just said might, but your reasoning is logical ad i to p to i would most likely look odd.
About Sky recording it themselves, I cant see that as Iplayer content on Sky always has BBC DOGs, as just 'BBC' in blocks on all programs SD or HD on all channels content even BBC 1 and BBC 2.
Even when BBC HD still existed it didnt have the BBC HD logo, so im guessing Sky is given the content by the BBC as I cant see them adding BBC's DOGs to BBC iplayer content if they had recorded it themselves.
Well...depends what you mean by "slight black bars". Most BBC SD broadcasts have this because they are 720x576 and only the central 702x576 portion is part of the 16:9 (or 4:3 image). The outer 18 pixels should be cut off by the display, so often these outer pixels are blank.
It could be that when they encode iPlayer they are incorrectly encoding all 720 "columns" rather than just the 702 in the centre, and calling this whole area the 16:9/4:3 active image, which'd leave thin black lines either side sometimes.
Or your TV could just be set to 14:9 for some reason and it's not picking up the widescreen flag, but the black bars in this case would be quite a bit larger.
Sounds like they're encoding it incorrectly. My Panasonic TV's always set to 16:9, as 'auto' results in slightly zooming in the picture when watching SD footage from my TiVo (one of the original TiVos, connected via SCART) for some reason. Any Freeview HD content will be presented correctly whatever the TV was set to.
I meant to tell whether its been upscaled from 720p to1080i as that would mean that even though its 1080i it only has 720p info in it. Im just thinking about how a interlacing program can be used on Sky's Iplayer content when its encrypted and cant be output in HD in an analogue form except for some old boxes, unless BBC iplayer content on Sky is not encripted.
Upscaled from 720p50 to 1080i/25?? I find it hard to believe that Sky would convert a 1080i/25 source to 720p/50 to only then display it as 1080i/25 anyway. What'd be the point?
The file sizes derek500 quotes are entirely consistent with 1080i/25 broadcasts.
Even when BBC HD still existed it didnt have the BBC HD logo, so im guessing Sky is given the content by the BBC as I cant see them adding BBC's DOGs to BBC iplayer content if they had recorded it themselves.
One interesting thing to note is that the BBC DOG on iPlayer via Sky is in a different position to the web based versions (both via laptop and my LG smart TV).
It is strange how different providers seem to do things how they want. iPlayer HD on my new Panasonic TX-P50ST50B looks very good. Rivals broadcast HD to be honest, I was very impressed.
One interesting thing to note is that the BBC DOG on iPlayer via Sky is in a different position to the web based versions (both via laptop and my LG smart TV).
Im not saying its in the same position as any other DOGs just that the BBC decide what DOGs and where they go and then give the content to sky to put on their servers for the Sky version Iplayer.
Nowt specifically to do with this thread, but ......
I've been wondering for a while about your use of the verb 'to emit';
I once related here a tale of how I had the mis-fortune to 'radiate' the right sound but wrong picture of a 16mm kid's show - {mis-labelling by the film editor, honest!}.
I was asked about the use of 'radiate' rather than 'transmit' and explained in this manner -
I transmitted "Birth of a Rainbow" from TK24, my colleague transmitted most of an evening's shows from VT TX1, News transmitted from the SPUR,
Biddy transmitted Blue Peter from TC4 and the network director transmitted everything with a little held from all the guys in the transmission chain.
The word was too loosely defined, but radiate had a definitive single meaning, it was what was thrown out of that mast into the ether, what the viewer saw and heard.
Now I had thought, until today, that you use emit where I would have used radiate as an acknowledgement of multi-platform delivery {ugh!} - some of which (that interwebby thingy) don't rely on electromagnetic radiation.
But this quote separates the two technologies!
So, where am I with your meaning of 'to emit'?
As Andy seems not to be around perhaps I can throw a bit of light, though I'm well aware it could rapidly become a case of teaching Grandma about ovum evacuation. When I visited the BBC there was a clear distinction between emission encoders as doing the final compression prior to the signal leaving the premises, and contribution encoders sending higher bitrate versions internally. 'Emission' is used for the reason you give, i.e. it reflects multi-platform delivery. And Andy has just gone from the noun to the verb, though as far as I can remember I haven't seen it used that way before.
{I'm assuming you're not referring to Andy Quested, 'cos if you are I've got egg all over my face
whether it is Easter Egg or something to do with my late GrandMother we shall never know.}
North West Frontier on BBC TWO now, poor, scratched & faded SD even though a restored HD print definitely exists.
Released on blu-ray in the States last Summer, no UK release. Is a restored print available for UK broadcast?
And when did the BBC get this film? Sometimes films come in packages - you buy the rights to a couple of big films and get several others thrown in as part of the deal.
And if that deal was made several years ago, it is unlikely that they would have received a cleaned-up HD version. it is also possible that they had no say in what version was in that package.
Now there is an HD channel on which BBC regularly shows older films they should be making an effort to get new HD prints of such, not rocket science really.
Now there is an HD channel on which BBC regularly shows older films they should be making an effort to get new HD prints of such, not rocket science really.
Whilst I agree with that, would they have been "in the know" several years ago (or whenever that package of films was agreed)? Such things will come in time, but unless the money is there to re-purchase rights (if they exist) and throw away existing options (= wasting money), then it is likely to take time (as with everything connected with DQF, which was never going to be an overnight revolution).
Furthermore, I don't think that they can simply go out and buy the HD rights
1) If no such rights exist
2) If the rights are not being offered as part of an existing deal
3) if the film in question has not been made available in the UK/to UK broadcasters in a restored/remastered form
And when did the BBC get this film? Sometimes films come in packages - you buy the rights to a couple of big films and get several others thrown in as part of the deal.
And if that deal was made several years ago, it is unlikely that they would have received a cleaned-up HD version. it is also possible that they had no say in what version was in that package.
In my day - here we go again - although a movie was bought with the rights for a single or multiple showing(s) it didn't mean that we were necessarily stuck with the print supplied by the studio, distributor, rights holder, call it what you will.
There was a long established procedure, known as 'telecine testing' (later 'colour testing') whereby we techies would have access to the print long before the first transmission,
we would recommend to 'Purchased Programmes' whether we considered that print to be satisfactory for transmission, grading it according to the EBU scale
in rare cases we would reject a print, for whatever reason, and the purchaser would seek to source an improved one.
An example
the BBC bought to rights to multiple showings of Gone With the Wind, the supplied print was very poor to the point it was rejected - on the grounds that we couldn't get a good result
from real-time control over the output and we didn't use 'programmed control' routinely at the time, not for movies at any rate.
The local management proposed to send the print to an outside facilities house to have a controlled grading version pre-recorded for transmission -
the union (me) objected to this loss of work, put the matter into dispute and kept the pre-record work within the department [this was all pre-Birt]
that tape was the definitive TX version for a few showings,
later, when GWTW had become little more than an afternoon filler, a new version was used as 'lost' Technicolor matrices, or an inter-neg - I forget which - had been discovered in a salt mine in Utah
and that was the source, a US transfer, which became the worldwide master for television
whether it was a 525 - 625 conversion or a PAL original done in the States, I don't remember,
however, by that time US 'transfer houses' were using Rank Cintel 'digiscan' machines exported from dear old Blighty, running at either 24 fps or 25 fps, depending;
one of the 'graders' from a New York facilities house came over sometime in the late 80s to pick our brains, as it were; we spent a couple of days together,
no invitation was issued for a flight across the pond in the other direction, tho'!
Comments
Does not mean it is 1080i, its just being outputted upscaled by your Sky box, however if your correct and you can watch BBC Three/Four content on iPlayer in HD only on Sky, then Virgin/Freesat/Freeview viewers should start kicking a fuss
I'm talking about HD content from BBC Three and Four that has been available via iPlayer up to the switch to BBC Two HD e.g Monday's Wodehouse in Exile (the final of BBC Four in HD).
Nothing since then.
If I set the Sky box to AUTO and the resolution was 720p it would be displayed as 720p.
The only place I saw BBC 3/4 content in HD on Sky's iplayer was off the BBC HD area of Iplayer, so it was from BBC HD according to iplayer not BBC 3/4. I have no idea if this will change following the close of BBC HD and the launch of BBC2 HD. I hope so though as I would like to see some BBC 4 content in HD if its made available on regular iplayer.
Sky could have upscaled it before placing it on their servers for downloading, Im not saying its not 1080i native just that the BBC might give them the content in 720p (but in better quality than regular iplayer as its going direct to sky) and then Sky upscale that to 1080i.
There would be little way to prove this except maybe a very on a large HDTV and each line counted manually as the sky box would be outputting 1080i,
or put the sky's iplayer content on one TV and the broadcast one on another and compare, the TVs would still need to be large and it would need to be on a section of the program that was high in detail.
I meant to tell whether its been upscaled from 720p to1080i as that would mean that even though its 1080i it only has 720p info in it. Im just thinking about how a interlacing program can be used on Sky's Iplayer content when its encrypted and cant be output in HD in an analogue form except for some old boxes, unless BBC iplayer content on Sky is not encripted.
I didnt say they defiantly upscaled 720p I just said might, but your reasoning is logical ad i to p to i would most likely look odd.
About Sky recording it themselves, I cant see that as Iplayer content on Sky always has BBC DOGs, as just 'BBC' in blocks on all programs SD or HD on all channels content even BBC 1 and BBC 2.
Even when BBC HD still existed it didnt have the BBC HD logo, so im guessing Sky is given the content by the BBC as I cant see them adding BBC's DOGs to BBC iplayer content if they had recorded it themselves.
Sounds like they're encoding it incorrectly. My Panasonic TV's always set to 16:9, as 'auto' results in slightly zooming in the picture when watching SD footage from my TiVo (one of the original TiVos, connected via SCART) for some reason. Any Freeview HD content will be presented correctly whatever the TV was set to.
Andy has replied to my post with your question he said yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbcinternet/posts/HD-Test-Card-Special?postId=115762394#comment_115762394
The file sizes derek500 quotes are entirely consistent with 1080i/25 broadcasts.
One interesting thing to note is that the BBC DOG on iPlayer via Sky is in a different position to the web based versions (both via laptop and my LG smart TV).
Im not saying its in the same position as any other DOGs just that the BBC decide what DOGs and where they go and then give the content to sky to put on their servers for the Sky version Iplayer.
As Andy seems not to be around perhaps I can throw a bit of light, though I'm well aware it could rapidly become a case of teaching Grandma about ovum evacuation. When I visited the BBC there was a clear distinction between emission encoders as doing the final compression prior to the signal leaving the premises, and contribution encoders sending higher bitrate versions internally. 'Emission' is used for the reason you give, i.e. it reflects multi-platform delivery. And Andy has just gone from the noun to the verb, though as far as I can remember I haven't seen it used that way before.
Hope this is of some use.
{I'm assuming you're not referring to Andy Quested, 'cos if you are I've got egg all over my face
whether it is Easter Egg or something to do with my late GrandMother we shall never know.}
And when did the BBC get this film? Sometimes films come in packages - you buy the rights to a couple of big films and get several others thrown in as part of the deal.
And if that deal was made several years ago, it is unlikely that they would have received a cleaned-up HD version. it is also possible that they had no say in what version was in that package.
Furthermore, I don't think that they can simply go out and buy the HD rights
1) If no such rights exist
2) If the rights are not being offered as part of an existing deal
3) if the film in question has not been made available in the UK/to UK broadcasters in a restored/remastered form
There was a long established procedure, known as 'telecine testing' (later 'colour testing') whereby we techies would have access to the print long before the first transmission,
we would recommend to 'Purchased Programmes' whether we considered that print to be satisfactory for transmission, grading it according to the EBU scale
in rare cases we would reject a print, for whatever reason, and the purchaser would seek to source an improved one.
An example
the BBC bought to rights to multiple showings of Gone With the Wind, the supplied print was very poor to the point it was rejected - on the grounds that we couldn't get a good result
from real-time control over the output and we didn't use 'programmed control' routinely at the time, not for movies at any rate.
The local management proposed to send the print to an outside facilities house to have a controlled grading version pre-recorded for transmission -
the union (me) objected to this loss of work, put the matter into dispute and kept the pre-record work within the department [this was all pre-Birt]
that tape was the definitive TX version for a few showings,
later, when GWTW had become little more than an afternoon filler, a new version was used as 'lost' Technicolor matrices, or an inter-neg - I forget which - had been discovered in a salt mine in Utah
and that was the source, a US transfer, which became the worldwide master for television
whether it was a 525 - 625 conversion or a PAL original done in the States, I don't remember,
however, by that time US 'transfer houses' were using Rank Cintel 'digiscan' machines exported from dear old Blighty, running at either 24 fps or 25 fps, depending;
one of the 'graders' from a New York facilities house came over sometime in the late 80s to pick our brains, as it were; we spent a couple of days together,
no invitation was issued for a flight across the pond in the other direction, tho'!
Actually, I was, but mistakenly. Your question was to technologist and I misremembered, thinking it had been to Andy Q.