[mwardy]

Originally Posted by bob0r

Then let us for one more time, very briefly, enjoy how HD should have been:

BBC.HD.Robin.Hood.S01E03.H.264.1080MBAFF.AC3.5.1-BBC.sample.ts

I don't suppose you have any other clips from later episodes do you? I've only regained access to BBC HD today and the first episode on is # 4. Typical!

[Grannygrunt]

I can't figure any of this out myself. Watched a recording I did of 'Lion Country' from ITV HD and the picture quality was absolutely fabulous. Sharp, detailed, just how I expect HD to be. It put the current BBC HD to shame and yet........what bit rate is ITV HD using?

GG

[nick202]

I'm wondering whether part of this is down to the BBC not being strict enough with producers about the quality expected for programmes being made in HD, and allowing a bit too much 'creative free rein' which in turn leads to wildly inconsistent picture quality. For instance, it was nigh-on impossible with Hustle on Monday to tell that it was in HD, whereas Silent Witness on Thursday looked absolutely stunning.

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by nick202

I'm wondering whether part of this is down to the BBC not being strict enough with producers about the quality expected for programmes being made in HD, and allowing a bit too much 'creative free rein' which in turn leads to wildly inconsistent picture quality. For instance, it was nigh-on impossible with Hustle on Monday to tell that it was in HD, whereas Silent Witness on Thursday looked absolutely stunning.

There is some confusion here betwen the final edited picure and the transmission method.

Many programmes have 'film' effects added. I have a theory that this is because a SD LCD screen has such a poor ability to show a standard studio picture compared with a CRT. SD with 625 lines was designed for 21" screens.

[White-Knight]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

JPEG is like MPEG, it throws most of the picture information away, so it's completely useless for demonstrating picture quality. PNG is lossless, so fine as a demonstration, but obviously it MUST be generated originally as PNG, no good converting it from JPEG, when the picture is already ruined.

A high quality JPEG is very hard to tell from a lossless original unless you start examining at zoom magnifications in small detail.

Look at this professional camera review (Canon EOS 7D stills camera). At the bottom of the page, under the heading "Real World Advantages" there's a JPEG side by side with a Raw Conversion. You have to go to extreme zomm onto the tree leaves to notice any difference and even then its not great.

So at normal non zoom screen grab resolutions, you're not going to see any difference provided you use a high quality JPEG outsetting such as 11 or 12.

[White-Knight]

"Life" 1st episode on BBC HD repeated - excellent quality.

However, take a look at The secret life of dog BBC HD

- the quality is terrible for most of the programme. Very soft and blurry - real SD quality.

Great prograame but terrible picture quality.

Even on iplayer the poor quality is plain to see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...fe_of_the_Dog/

[jgrgilbert]

Originally Posted by White-Knight

"Life" 1st episode on BBC HD repeated - excellent quality.

However, take a look at The secret life of dog BBC HD

- the quality is terrible for most of the programme. Very soft and blurry - real SD quality.

Great prograame but terrible picture quality.

Huh? I just don't get this. I don't remember seeing anything wrong with the picture quality on the Horizon dog programme. Definitely not soft or blurry. Maybe interlaced video looks poor on your set? Life is progressive, Horizon may have been interlaced.

[johnny7]

It may be worth noting what Andy Quested said here:

I do want to remind you a programme can contain 25% SD material or non-HD material (i.e. from equipment not classed as HD). Drama programmes are usually close on 100% but documentaries can easily reach the 25% limit

john