[u006852]

Originally Posted by scoobiesnacks

I've got plenty of recordings. I should be able to benchmark something. eg Wallander.

Agree with you on the noise and artefacts.

My main test is the wow factor. Look at it from a distance and see if I can say to myself its a great picture. At the moment - Life of Riley showing- it isn't.

Can you define "wow factor"?

[remlap]

Life of Riley is taking the Single Camera approach a little crazy isn't it so many changes.

Or is that multi camera trying to be like single.

[MrEco]

I've just checked the recorded stream with MediaInfo against a recording from last week and the number of AVC reference frames has changed from 2 to 4.

The ecoder settings have definitely been changed although that could be done with the 'old' encoder.

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by u006852

It is interesting that they have forked out for new encoders if there was no reason to it though



Well they were getting a lot of stick for the picture quality at one point.

Some of the criticism was justified, but IMHO it was never anywhere near as bad as some critics said it was.

It may be a software update, not necessarily new encoders, so costs are unknown.

Also I did speculate if the encoder work Andy Quested said was being done was driven mainly by the freeview HD platform.

AFAIK it will be operating at challengingly low bit rates.

Pure speculation though, just thinking out loud.

We just don't know if the free space will be used for anything at all, or could even be an SD channel!

Some programmes were good. Others weren't as good as they could have been. Anyone who'd viewed Luxe HD knew that BBC HD could have been a lot better at times.

Also, it's in the BBC's own interest to improve quality for a lower bit rate as less bandwidth = reduction in transmission costs, either that or you can save the bandwidth savings up then use them to transmit at a higher rate on the new codec for fast moving programmes such as sport.

The other thing you can do, is use the cost saving to help transmit another channel. It would be great if the BBC were going to add more HD, however, I can't see it myself at the moment.

BTW, I thought wildest dreams tonight had a very good picture on BBC HD.

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

BTW, I thought wildest dreams tonight had a very good picture on BBC HD.

White-Knight - What sort of set up have you got? I'm on a freesat Panasonic plasma

[White-Knight]

Pioneer 42" 428XD Kuro Plasma connected via HDMI.

Here's a picture I put up yesterday to show the external hard drive I have. Plasmas off the picture as wasn't the intended photo subject but I'm sure it helps answer the question:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4830/cimg0791a.jpg

[Paddy C]

Well, they have left space after BBC HD on the Freesat EPG before putting BBC ALBA in, maybe they are planning a BBC HD 2 at some point, but certianly not anytime soon. Of course you could spend all year guessing why the reduced rate, another HD channel, another few SD channels (FIVER/FIVE USA etc.) It's more than likely nothing but it won't stop people guessing!

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Pioneer 42" 428XD Kuro Plasma connected via HDMI.

Here's a picture I put up yesterday to show the external hard drive I have. Plasmas off the picture as wasn't the intended photo subject but I'm sure it helps answer the question:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4830/cimg0791a.jpg

Thats not an average Tv is it?



I am now watching "Who do you think you are?" with David Mitchell. Picture I'd give B rating. The occasional wow factor. It can't cope with movement though (sea shots).

[zarqy]

Some further notes to the video and audio side of things, on analysis I noted the audio bitrate for 2.0 ac3 is now at 192 instead of the previous 384 , 5.1 audio is still at 384 and video appears to be switching between mbaff/fields instead of the previous consistent mbaff.

z

[Andy Quested]

New encoders up and running today (around 02:00 this morning) but there is a bit more work to do to get the full network up. There should be no significant change in quality, many programmes should look better in fact. We are looking at ways of dealing with the noise issue on some programmes and formats (e.g. Super16 and cameras/recorders using less than 50Mbs).

More details to follow later

Andy

[Snoods]

Hmmm interesting, i can no longer watch BBC HD in DVB Viewer using the Microsoft native decoder in Windows 7.

It was all i needed until now. I will mess about with it tomorrow and see if i can get it working again.

Constant blocking of the picture is all i get now.

I can see me having to dust off the old Cyberlink codec again to maybe get it working again.

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by scoobiesnacks

Thats not an average Tv is it?



I am now watching "Who do you think you are?" with David Mitchell. Picture I'd give B rating. The occasional wow factor. It can't cope with movement though (sea shots).

No it was widely regarded as the best tv on the market - exceptional colour reproduction - unbelievable colour punch and detail whilst still retaining natural tones on more subtle surfaces such as faces. The pioneer copes with movement perfectly except strangely enough fast moving programmes titles as found at the end of a programme. Stick it on football though and no blur.

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by Andy Quested

New encoders up and running today (around 02:00 this morning) but there is a bit more work to do to get the full network up. There should be no significant change in quality, many programmes should look better in fact.
Andy

Thanks for the update Andy

V. pleased to hear we have new encoders

I'm hoping for a big all round improvement in all picture quality though. Not just "no significant change" (I take it you mean worsening)

I didn't want new encoders just to slash the bandwidth again.

There were lots of artefacts tonight.

Very happy to bear with you though while you tweek the new system

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Some programmes were good. Others weren't as good as they could have been. Anyone who'd viewed Luxe HD knew that BBC HD could have been a lot better at times.

Also, it's in the BBC's own interest to improve quality for a lower bit rate as less bandwidth = reduction in transmission costs, either that or you can save the bandwidth savings up then use them to transmit at a higher rate on the new codec for fast moving programmes such as sport.

.

I've no idea but is bandwidth really that expensive on a satellite holding 200 channels? What's the cost difference for 1 extra 1mbps?

[tghewett]

I now get jitter on static-ish scenes, e.g. David Mitchell talking on Who Do You Think You Are? when that never happened previously. It also happens sometimes with cross-fades. This is with a Sony BDP-S350 Blu-ray player playing back a recording authored to DVD as AVCHD format.

Those frames seem to jump back and forth a bit. Shots with more continuous movement are perfect.

[Scrapanatchi]

for BBC it wouldn't it be about 0 since they have allready bought the entire transponder?

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by remlap

You could probably run 4 at a stretch

Well over 10 if they use YouTube HD bitrates...

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

Well over 10 if they use YouTube HD bitrates...

Don't give them ideas..

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by remlap

BBC HD New Encoder?

Is BBC HD using a new encoder its currently running at 9.7 Mbit used to be 16ish if I remember right.

That's a 40% cut in bandwidth folks

More discussion on here:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/hd-tv...width-too.html

[Boatman]

Hope this isn't a silly question but with the reduction in bitrate will I be able to store more HD programmes on my HDD?

[u006852]

Yes you will.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Andy Quested

New encoders up and running today (around 02:00 this morning) but there is a bit more work to do to get the full network up. There should be no significant change in quality, many programmes should look better in fact. We are looking at ways of dealing with the noise issue on some programmes and formats (e.g. Super16 and cameras/recorders using less than 50Mbs).

More details to follow later

Andy

Thanks Andy,

Just some feedback.

When watching "Who do you think you are" last night compression artifacts were clearly visible.

Specifically a scene where david Mitchell was on a boat, 30 mins in. Not specifically on the water, but mainly noticeable on his face and hills in the background.

Also the scene immediately after where he is sat on the quay. There are several fades. These fades really struggled.

Watching Live At The Appollo on the preview loop showed noise/artifacts on his jacket and floor.

Also compared the Nick Cave sequence on the preview loop to a recording I had made some weeks back. I have to say I struggled to tell much difference between the two.

So, is noise in original source affecting this encoder more than the original, especially with the lower bitrate?

[Boatman]

Linowsat now showing reduced bitrate at an average of 9722.

[Everything Goes]

Broadcasters are always keen on reducing bandwidth in order to save money. A lot of SD Broadcasts are pretty awful. The Picture Quality of SD Broadcasts should be the same quality as a DVD but quite often look more like a VCD instead. So its no surprise that a similar story should happen to HD. So maybe in the not to distant future we will have HD Broadcasts looking like DVD?

[sherbey]

Luxe HD always looks pretty good, and it works at 10Mb/s.