Danielle Nagler Interview with Jeremy Vine on POV - Extended version on line
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mysv"]
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mysv"]
Danielle Nagler Interview
Originally Posted by Ratclia:
“Danielle Nagler Interview with Jeremy Vine on POV - Extended version on line
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mysv"]”
“Danielle Nagler Interview with Jeremy Vine on POV - Extended version on line
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mysv"]”
I'm not one who rants about changes in HD pic quality (my tv is too small), but two of her comments stuck out :
- there is no connection between bitrate and picture quality
- some people like the DOG because there are lots of channels and people want to know what they are watching
very tempted to swear here and /or make improper personal comments about her, I will resist and just say I never heard such garbage.
She is correct about the bitrate thing.
I can prove it to you if you like. I can encode something at 6Mbps with one encoder and show it to be awful. I can then encode something at 2Mbps with another and show that it's much better.
People get far too hung up on this bit rate = quality idea. It's like the megapixel debate. Some people like to think that a £50 12 megapixel camera from Argos takes better pictures than a decent 8 megapixel SLR.
I can prove it to you if you like. I can encode something at 6Mbps with one encoder and show it to be awful. I can then encode something at 2Mbps with another and show that it's much better.
People get far too hung up on this bit rate = quality idea. It's like the megapixel debate. Some people like to think that a £50 12 megapixel camera from Argos takes better pictures than a decent 8 megapixel SLR.
Originally Posted by swedish cook:
“- there is no connection between bitrate and picture quality”
“- there is no connection between bitrate and picture quality”
But, there is no absolute truth in higher bitrate = better quality, if the encoder is different.
What strikes me about the BBC HD debate, is that I've never seen anyone say the picture quality is worse, and then discover the bitrate is lower. It always comes about through someone discovering the recorded files are smaller, or seeing the artifacts that occur (only) when fast-forwarding.
FWIW, I'm quite happy with the PQ on BBC HD, and quite pleased with the free 'upgrade' I've received to my HDR (which can now store twice the HD content it previously could).
Where are the complaints about ITV's HD quality, which was *shocking* for the football this weekend.?
Originally Posted by swedish cook:
“- some people like the DOG because there are lots of channels and people want to know what they are watching”
“- some people like the DOG because there are lots of channels and people want to know what they are watching”
Yeah, just look at the amount of devices out there that can't bring up an info box telling you not only what channel you are watching, but what programme is currently on.
If people can't operate their TVs, then they should go and do something less challenging, like read a book.
Originally Posted by carvell:
“She is correct about the bitrate thing.
I can prove it to you if you like. I can encode something at 6Mbps with one encoder and show it to be awful. I can then encode something at 2Mbps with another and show that it's much better.
People get far too hung up on this bit rate = quality idea. It's like the megapixel debate. Some people like to think that a £50 12 megapixel camera from Argos takes better pictures than a decent 8 megapixel SLR.”
“She is correct about the bitrate thing.
I can prove it to you if you like. I can encode something at 6Mbps with one encoder and show it to be awful. I can then encode something at 2Mbps with another and show that it's much better.
People get far too hung up on this bit rate = quality idea. It's like the megapixel debate. Some people like to think that a £50 12 megapixel camera from Argos takes better pictures than a decent 8 megapixel SLR.”
Carvell unfortunately you are just wrong on this, you are talking about non live encoding- yes with a slow encoding you can make a good picture at a low bitrate, that is how they get acceptable picture on Luxe at 5Mbps and on the iplayer BBC HD at 3.5Mbps. Live encoding is a different matter entirely and BBC HD currently has the most restricted bitrate of all live channels in the UK.
Originally Posted by jzee:
“Carvell unfortunately you are just wrong on this, you are talking about non live encoding- yes with a slow encoding you can make a good picture at a low bitrate, that is how they get acceptable picture on Luxe at 5Mbps and on the iplayer BBC HD at 3.5Mbps. Live encoding is a different matter entirely and BBC HD currently has the most restricted bitrate of all live channels in the UK.”
“Carvell unfortunately you are just wrong on this, you are talking about non live encoding- yes with a slow encoding you can make a good picture at a low bitrate, that is how they get acceptable picture on Luxe at 5Mbps and on the iplayer BBC HD at 3.5Mbps. Live encoding is a different matter entirely and BBC HD currently has the most restricted bitrate of all live channels in the UK.”
Although BBC HD (broadcast) has 2-3 times the bitrate of either of the examples you've just given.
Still, you should be talking about real, visible issues, not theoretical ones. What live broadcasts are there on BBC HD? Strictly Come Dancing and football - to my eyes, there is no noticeable impact on Strictly, and for the football, not only can I not see an impact, the quality is FAR better than ITV HD.
I don't think I suggested that there is a direct linear relationship between bit rate and quality, but to say the two are not related is an out and out lie - and all posting here know that. Maybe she was trying to "simplify" a complex question for the masses, she failed.
If this "performance" is typical of the lady, she should go.
If this "performance" is typical of the lady, she should go.
Originally Posted by jzee:
“Carvell unfortunately you are just wrong on this, you are talking about non live encoding- yes with a slow encoding you can make a good picture at a low bitrate, that is how they get acceptable picture on Luxe at 5Mbps and on the iplayer BBC HD at 3.5Mbps. Live encoding is a different matter entirely and BBC HD currently has the most restricted bitrate of all live channels in the UK.”
“Carvell unfortunately you are just wrong on this, you are talking about non live encoding- yes with a slow encoding you can make a good picture at a low bitrate, that is how they get acceptable picture on Luxe at 5Mbps and on the iplayer BBC HD at 3.5Mbps. Live encoding is a different matter entirely and BBC HD currently has the most restricted bitrate of all live channels in the UK.”
What I said is still correct though. 5Mbps encoded live with one encoder could be better than 10Mbps encoded live with another encoder.
Originally Posted by swedish cook:
“- some people like the DOG because there are lots of channels and people want to know what they are watching”
“- some people like the DOG because there are lots of channels and people want to know what they are watching”
Ignoring for a moment the fact that anyone who can't bring up an info box to see what they are watching must be animal stupid, if it's the case that people actually like DOG's then she should be able to tell us how many complaints they receive about the absence if them during drama broadcasts.
And the fact that they think that Drama is so precious that it should be shown without a DOG but that all that very expensively shot and visually stunning wildlife footage isn't beggars belief.
Originally Posted by scarlet:
“Although BBC HD (broadcast) has 2-3 times the bitrate of either of the examples you've just given.”
“Although BBC HD (broadcast) has 2-3 times the bitrate of either of the examples you've just given.”
That means nothing, live encoding is a completely different case to non live slow multi pass encoding- that is why if they tried to broadcast BBC HD at the bitrate of BBC HD iplayer (3.5Mbps) it would be unwatchable.
Originally Posted by scarlet:
“What live broadcasts are there on BBC HD? Strictly Come Dancing and football - to my eyes, there is no noticeable impact on Strictly, and for the football, not only can I not see an impact, the quality is FAR better than ITV HD.”
“What live broadcasts are there on BBC HD? Strictly Come Dancing and football - to my eyes, there is no noticeable impact on Strictly, and for the football, not only can I not see an impact, the quality is FAR better than ITV HD.”
Blocking is clearly visible on fast movement, especially with multiple dancers on strictly, blocking was also clearly visible on the football whenever there was a lot of action.
Originally Posted by carvell:
“What I said is still correct though. 5Mbps encoded live with one encoder could be better than 10Mbps encoded live with another encoder.”
“What I said is still correct though. 5Mbps encoded live with one encoder could be better than 10Mbps encoded live with another encoder.”
Are you really suggesting there is a 50% difference in efficiency between modern up to date encoders- if there was the other encoder manufacturer would be out of business!
