[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by u006852

I haven't but I do have recordings on my Humax HDR of old and new and no obvious difference is noticeable.

I can still see the 25 and circa 26MHz gratings just the same.

However a static image is a not a good way to compare old and new encoders.

Its the way it handles the motion/changes in the picture thats important and many other variables such as how the noise reduction is working.

I agree of course but the above discussions involved a digital photo of a paused frame as justification of the poor performance of the new encoder. Even less valid in my opinion at least the pixels are the original and not processed by the camera software.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by ProbablyMike

Hi,

Very new to anything HD having got my Humax Freesat+ box about 3 weeks ago, and disappointed to find that the BBC are cutting back on the quality.

Obviously can't comment on the picture before the new low bandwidth, but noticed something very bad on one of the BBC HD idents, the one where kids are fishing.

Just as the fade at the end starts the water all changes colour for a split second, looks like when saving a photo as a .gif image with 256 colours.

Fades and mixes are a known problem with the new encoders and create blocking.

See here from post 68 onwards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...y_and_dol.html

[u006852]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I agree of course but the above discussions involved a digital photo of a paused frame as justification of the poor performance of the new encoder. Even less valid in my opinion at least the pixels are the original and not processed by the camera software.

Indeed.

IMHO offscreen photos are really only useful for demonstrating gross picture defects.

Anything subtle, or transient / related to motion will probably be lost.

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by bignoise

BBC HD is free on Sky, you don't have to pay for it.

You can't get anything on $ky without paying $$$ for it. Why do people still keep coming out with this nonsense?

If you mean BBC HD doesn't cost any extra over the basic subscription then that is not the same as what you wrote above.

[GaseousClay]

^^^ gives Ray Cathodes post a lift

[JeffG1]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

One from the old encoder

http://www.4shared.com/file/87140911...view00001.html

4shared wants to set so many cookies with different addresses (about 6 before starting then 1 or 2 every other picture) that I just gave up, I'm afraid. Nice quality pics though (the ones I saw).

[Jarrak]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

You can't get anything on $ky without paying $$$ for it. Why do people still keep coming out with this nonsense?

If you mean BBC HD doesn't cost any extra over the basic subscription then that is not the same as what you wrote above.

Which is patently wrong, of course you have to buy the hardware but how is that different to Freeview or Freesat?

You do not need any form of subscription to watch BBCHD on SKY hardware and if you do have a subscription then cancel you can continue to watch BBC HD.
Now if you want to watch BBCHD via VirginMedia then you do have to pay an ongoing fee.

[JeffG1]

Originally Posted by Jarrak

You do not need any form of subscription to watch BBCHD on SKY hardware

Maybe not, but you can't record anything, and what use is a half-baked solution?

[Jarrak]

Originally Posted by JeffG1

Maybe not, but you can't record anything, and what use is a half-baked solution?

You mean like selling single tuner Freesat HD boxes?


No argument buying SKY+HD to watch just the "free" HD channels with no PVR functions doesn't make a lot of sense, it would be cheaper to buy a single tuner Freesat solution or save up for a Freesat HD PVR.
However the point being that BBCHD is a free channel on satellite and no matter how you watch it you pay for the receiver and that's it.

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I agree of course but the above discussions involved a digital photo of a paused frame as justification of the poor performance of the new encoder. Even less valid in my opinion at least the pixels are the original and not processed by the camera software.

Whereas I agree in principle Graham, all methods have their flaws. A PC screen grab only shows what the DVB card has decoded (we know pc 's and the new coding have problems) whereas an off the air photo, whilst not 1st in quality, does show the difference as see via a sat box.

If you have any doubt about the camera, I've actually being doing a whole series of these over on the BBC HD forum so a valid comparison can be made shot to shot.

Have a squint at this comparison, Wildest Dreams vs Channel 5 megastructures back to back from the same camera and settings.

The difference is vivid and even more so compared to last nights Planet Earth shots which were clearly the noisiest yet.

Wildest Dreams vs Ch5 Megastructres (not particularly good SD):

TO VIEW AT FULL SIZE, CLICK LINK THEN "FULL SIZE" ICON BELOW THE PICTURE. THIS THEN OPENS IT IN A NEW WINDOW.

THEN CLICK ONCE MORE ON THE PICTURE IN THE NEW WINDOW AND IT SHOULD ZOOM TO 100%.

http://img159.yfrog.com/i/comparison1.jpg/

http://img49.yfrog.com/i/no2h.jpg/

Now if you compare either of those to the Planet Earth shots I posted earlier, you'll understand what I was getting at.

Also, to answer your other point, the grain on the Planet Earth photos is there on the screen directly viewed eye to screen from sat box, not in camera generated.

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Which is patently wrong, of course you have to buy the hardware but how is that different to Freeview or Freesat?

I did not mention Freeview or Freesat, I just objected to the phrase "BBC HD is free on $ky" and it isn't. Nothing is free on $ky. Nothing is free on $ky. How many times do you have to say it?

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Whereas I agree in principle Graham, all methods have their flaws. A PC screen grab only shows what the DVB card has decoded (we know pc 's and the new coding have problems) whereas an off the air photo, whilst not 1st in quality, does show the difference as see via a sat box.

If you have any doubt about the camera, I've actually being doing a whole series of these over on the BBC HD forum so a valid comparison can be made shot to shot.

Have a squint at this comparison, Wildest Dreams vs Channel 5 megastructures back to back from the same camera and settings.

The difference is vivid and even more so compared to last nights Planet Earth shots which were clearly the noisiest yet.

Wildest Dreams vs Ch5 Megastructres (not particularly good SD):

TO VIEW AT FULL SIZE, CLICK LINK THEN "FULL SIZE" ICON BELOW THE PICTURE. THIS THEN OPENS IT IN A NEW WINDOW.

THEN CLICK ONCE MORE ON THE PICTURE IN THE NEW WINDOW AND IT SHOULD ZOOM TO 100%.

http://img159.yfrog.com/i/comparison1.jpg/

http://img49.yfrog.com/i/no2h.jpg/

Now if you compare either of those to the Planet Earth shots I posted earlier, you'll understand what I was getting at.

Also, to answer your other point, the grain on the Planet Earth photos is there on the screen directly viewed eye to screen from sat box, not in camera generated.

It's not a PC grab, it's a single frame from a hdr .ts file so should be identical to the actual transmitted data. The only PC involvement was to extract the frame. I don't have any dvb-s cards just the hdr.


Try taking a picture with your digital camera at it's lowest iso setting and again with the same resolution but with the highest iso setting. Blow them up on the screen at 1:1 pixels size. The high iso image will be full of noise generated in camera.

[Jarrak]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

I did not mention Freeview or Freesat, I just objected to the phrase "BBC HD is free on $ky" and it isn't. Nothing is free on $ky. Nothing is free on $ky. How many times do you have to say it?

Perhaps if you clarified for those who might be confused or are simply not upto speed on how Dsat services work after all there are still people that ask why are there pay channels on Freeview simply because a single brand name/trademark has become dominant.


Instead of getting upset of people saying that BBCHD is a free channel on SKY it would make more sense to simply correct them that BBCHD is free on satellite, job done

[White-Knight]

I'm not saying there won't be any camera generated noise but the noise you see on the Planet Earth photos was the noise actually seen on screen.

..and there is a benchmark here Graham. There's a whole series of photos taken from the same screen with the same settings eliminates camera differences as its the same for all the shots, and the differences are clear - Ch5 SD is ahead of BBC HD Wildest Dreams (at least in some shots) and Planet Earth (the selected shots) is some of the poorest material ever seen on screen never mind HD!!

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

I'm not saying there won't be any camera generated noise but the noise you see on the Planet Earth photos was the noise actually seen on screen.

..and there is a benchmark here Graham. There's a whole series of photos taken from the same screen with the same settings eliminates camera differences as its the same for all the shots, and the differences are clear - Ch5 SD is ahead of BBC HD Wildest Dreams (at least in some shots) and Planet Earth (the selected shots) is some of the poorest material ever seen on screen never mind HD!!

Even with the same settings manual exposure, fixed iso etc digital cameras process different picture content differently all use a degree of noise reduction and jpeg compression itself will produce a different output depending on how different adjacent pixels are. The nearest you will get to the original is to use a RAW mode if the cameras advanced enough to offer this, these give much bigger files because of the reduction in camera processing. Not saying that you are wrong about the pictures just that this way of showing the difference is not going to be 100% reliable. Even your TV settings will affect the picture. I have tried every setting possible using My Nikon D90 and the resulting pictures look nothing like the actual pixels taken directly from the transmission stream. Try taking a picture of the HD test card and compare it with the direct one.

[the_viasat_guy]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

I did not mention Freeview or Freesat, I just objected to the phrase "BBC HD is free on $ky" and it isn't. Nothing is free on $ky. Nothing is free on $ky. How many times do you have to say it?

Oh boy you're just digging a hole deeper and deeper

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Perhaps if you clarified for those who might be confused or are simply not upto speed on how Dsat services work after all there are still people that ask why are there pay channels on Freeview simply because a single brand name/trademark has become dominant.


Instead of getting upset of people saying that BBCHD is a free channel on SKY it would make more sense to simply correct them that BBCHD is free on satellite, job done

Nearly correct. BBC HD and all BBC services are FTA on satellite.

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I have tried every setting possible using My Nikon D90 and the resulting pictures look nothing like the actual pixels taken directly from the transmission stream. Try taking a picture of the HD test card and compare it with the direct one.

The shot you get Graham is worse than the actual picture because of the scanning and interlacing. However, it does still allow a comparison between shots as the scanning and interlacing artefacts affect all shots taken from the screen. It might not be terribly scientific but it does allow rough comparison.

[davemurgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

I did not mention Freeview or Freesat, I just objected to the phrase "BBC HD is free on $ky" and it isn't. Nothing is free on $ky. Nothing is free on $ky. How many times do you have to say it?

No matter how many times you say it - it is still utter b**ls**t. It is a FTA channnel and is completely free on any digibox regardless of source/make of that box. Your own infantile use OF $ky for Sky makes your own statement meaningless - everything and nothing is free on $ky because it doesn't exist.

[emdee]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

http://img159.yfrog.com/i/comparison1.jpg/

The BBC HD shot there doesn't have the Humax graphic sharp?

[ProDave]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

I did not mention Freeview or Freesat, I just objected to the phrase "BBC HD is free on $ky" and it isn't. Nothing is free on $ky. Nothing is free on $ky. How many times do you have to say it?

Channel 4 HD, fiver, five USA and Sky 3 are free on sky.

they are not available on freesat.

[seancanderson]

Has anyone noticed the freezing on Tomb Raider tonight?

Awful quality!

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by emdee

The BBC HD shot there doesn't have the Humax graphic sharp?

That was one of the earliest ones which was hand held. After some criticism I used a tripod on my later comparison shots. There probably is a slight camera shake on the 1st one but I don't think you can point that out as the difference between the 2 shots as the difference between the BBC HD and CH5 SD shot is like night and day.

[White-Knight]

Superb

Superb

Superb

Well done BBC HD.

Tonight's Wildest Dreams was simply superb. Superb sharpness and superb clarity. In fact some of the best I've ever seen on BBC HD. The animals looked as if they were in your living room in some scenes.

If I was to absolutely nit pick, there was a little noise visible in one or 2 dark scenes but I can quite easily ignore that if that's the price to pay for the sharpness in the the general footage. I can live with a little occasional noise on a night scene, I can't live without the sharpness on general footage. Keep these settings unless further problems emerge eg motion.

The picture tonight was BBC HD demo material.

10 out of 10.

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Superb

Superb

Superb

Well done BBC HD.



The picture tonight was BBC HD demo material.

10 out of 10.

You're getting me confused, one minute you're saying its good, the next its bad. Don't take that as a criticism though.

I missed Wildest Dreams, but I have just switched on now and I notice a change on Life of Riley

It was very soft last week I recall, this week it seems sharper.

The trailer for Tudors seems only slightly sharper.

The trailer for Planet Earth seemed good, but not excellent.

On the downside, I am seeing more concentrated compression problems in the background of Life of Riley. From your setup I wouldn't expect you'd get that on a Pioneer, it would filter it out.

I think they've adjusted the pervasive softness that appeared in the past couple of weeks, that I believe they introduced in the last couple of days of the athletics

Can someone do a bitrate check?