Tosh, if the BBC listened to the public they would up the bit rate of HD material to something realistic like 12-13 mbps, the encoder change (the one they purchased anyway) can't support a 40% reduction in bandwidth and offer the same quality.
BBC, ITV 'learned how to use HD bitrates'
1 of 2
Originally Posted by loopie:
“Tosh, if the BBC listened to the public they would up the bit rate of HD material to something realistic like 12-13 mbps, the encoder change (the one they purchased anyway) can't support a 40% reduction in bandwidth and offer the same quality.”
“Tosh, if the BBC listened to the public they would up the bit rate of HD material to something realistic like 12-13 mbps, the encoder change (the one they purchased anyway) can't support a 40% reduction in bandwidth and offer the same quality.”
Where is this quote from?
I had SkyHD up until about April this year then cancelled it and sold my box. Bought a FoxsatHDR earlier this week and am appalled at how the BBCHD picture has degraded.
I can't see any details on people's skin for example anymore and a lot of it just looks like upscaled SD.
If this is on satellite, I can't imagine what FreeviewHD, with its limited bandwith is going to be like
I can't see any details on people's skin for example anymore and a lot of it just looks like upscaled SD.
If this is on satellite, I can't imagine what FreeviewHD, with its limited bandwith is going to be like
Originally Posted by loopie:
“Tosh, if the BBC listened to the public they would up the bit rate of HD material to something realistic like 12-13 mbps, the encoder change (the one they purchased anyway) can't support a 40% reduction in bandwidth and offer the same quality.”
“Tosh, if the BBC listened to the public they would up the bit rate of HD material to something realistic like 12-13 mbps, the encoder change (the one they purchased anyway) can't support a 40% reduction in bandwidth and offer the same quality.”
Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.
Originally Posted by Andrue:
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
I would argue that people who have paid out for a HD TV and Sky HD or Freesat HD do care quite a lot about picture quality. If they didn't why would they bother with the extra expense?
Originally Posted by Andrue:
“Tosh... Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
“Tosh... Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
Grow up. Most of the public can see the pixilation & smearing and assume it's just their equipment that is duff. Either that or they think their reception is crap.
They mean they learned how to run the bare minimum HD. BBC HD is pathetic now by far the weakest quality HD channel.
Clearly if you want proper HD they are saying sign up to Sky HD. ITV need to learn how to put programmes onto a live channel on the EPG.
Clearly if you want proper HD they are saying sign up to Sky HD. ITV need to learn how to put programmes onto a live channel on the EPG.
Originally Posted by linkinpark875:
“ITV need to learn how to put programmes onto a live channel on the EPG.”
“ITV need to learn how to put programmes onto a live channel on the EPG.
”
ITV need to learn how to stop Pan & Scan!
Originally Posted by Andrue:
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
Tosh, you mean adolescents are happy to watch TV on mobile phones.
And that's more an indication of their desperation to watch TV than any indication of PQ.
I was watching a programme on BBC1 on my Humax tonight and it was almost as good as a BBCHD image. Can't believe what they've done, it was a flagship for HD last time I had it - my parents even used to come round and watch certain programmes on it. I would tell them now not to waste their time.
Feel like I have wasted my money (not Humax's fault!)
Feel like I have wasted my money (not Humax's fault!)
It has become more difficult to see the difference between BBC1 & BCC HD but thats not all due to the bitrate/new codec on BBC HD, the picture on BBC1 has improved especially when showing HD footage thus closing the gap.
Having said that there are problems on BBC HD that arent being admitted
Having said that there are problems on BBC HD that arent being admitted
I too have noticed that the definition of BBC HD output seems to have diminished of late. Perhaps some BBC insider might like to comment?
I'd like to see an accepted standard for the minimum bit rate for an SD channel and HD channel, I personally think 12-13 mbps is about the minimum to do HD and offer a good picture quality for variable material which is live encoded.
The trouble is after showing us BBC HD using 16 mbps, 9-10 mbps looks very poor. If it's just a cost saving thing to reduce the bitrates, maybe several of the managers at the BBC could also take a pay cut as the recently released figures show they earn many times the salary of the PM!
Just my 2 pence worth, I doubt the BBC listen to us, just when we get used to the reduced bit rates, I've no doubt they will reduce them again, under the spin of more new encoders.
The trouble is after showing us BBC HD using 16 mbps, 9-10 mbps looks very poor. If it's just a cost saving thing to reduce the bitrates, maybe several of the managers at the BBC could also take a pay cut as the recently released figures show they earn many times the salary of the PM!
Just my 2 pence worth, I doubt the BBC listen to us, just when we get used to the reduced bit rates, I've no doubt they will reduce them again, under the spin of more new encoders.
They have, but apparently nothing is wrong and it's all our mis-judgment 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html
I can still see a difference between BBC HD and the picture I get over Freeview. It's not great but the extra detail is there. I haven't seen any marked smearing or blockiness on the HD output. The picture on last night's CIN concert was a lot better on HD than on SD.
Originally Posted by Andrue:
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
“Tosh. Most of the public is happy to watch TV on mobile phones and iPlayer. Most of the public wouldn't know a decent quality picture if they saw one.”
Couldn't agree more. I could count so many friends and family who couldn't give one about HD. Most people in fact.
Originally Posted by gamercraig:
“They have, but apparently nothing is wrong and it's all our mis-judgment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html”
“They have, but apparently nothing is wrong and it's all our mis-judgment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html”
BBC HD barely passes for HD. When I first got HD in 2008 it was still hit or miss on quality. This was way before the change.
Programming wise they have almost gave up on movies. The channel is still too "niche" for me but Top Gear and Eggheads is a step in the right direction. And there upscaling policy? Non existent? Why can't we have BBC One HD and BBC Two HD?
The worst thing you can do is have soft HD pictures. What have BBC HD done? Lost the detail. So now we have superb HD cameras and great film but no bitrate to show all the detail. All to cut costs we seen that when they ditched the multiscreen off Freeview.
Top Gear in HD was as good as BBC HD gets these days. Well below average for any HD I'm use to. But there's been a few let downs on C4 HD too. If they want to push HD cut backs can't come into it. Either show something decent in HD or just leave it to SD. The public want quality and HD is a quality product. Drop the quality and we might aswell send the HD boxes to a landfill site.
We know Sky will keep it's quality HD policy for years to come. It will be interesting to see how bad some of the FTA examples of HD get.
Originally Posted by linkinpark875:
“BBC HD barely passes for HD. When I first got HD in 2008 it was still hit or miss on quality. This was way before the change.
Programming wise they have almost gave up on movies. The channel is still too "niche" for me but Top Gear and Eggheads is a step in the right direction. And there upscaling policy? Non existent? Why can't we have BBC One HD and BBC Two HD?
The worst thing you can do is have soft HD pictures. What have BBC HD done? Lost the detail. So now we have superb HD cameras and great film but no bitrate to show all the detail. All to cut costs we seen that when they ditched the multiscreen off Freeview.
Top Gear in HD was as good as BBC HD gets these days. Well below average for any HD I'm use to. But there's been a few let downs on C4 HD too. If they want to push HD cut backs can't come into it. Either show something decent in HD or just leave it to SD. The public want quality and HD is a quality product. Drop the quality and we might aswell send the HD boxes to a landfill site.
We know Sky will keep it's quality HD policy for years to come. It will be interesting to see how bad some of the FTA examples of HD get.”
“BBC HD barely passes for HD. When I first got HD in 2008 it was still hit or miss on quality. This was way before the change.
Programming wise they have almost gave up on movies. The channel is still too "niche" for me but Top Gear and Eggheads is a step in the right direction. And there upscaling policy? Non existent? Why can't we have BBC One HD and BBC Two HD?
The worst thing you can do is have soft HD pictures. What have BBC HD done? Lost the detail. So now we have superb HD cameras and great film but no bitrate to show all the detail. All to cut costs we seen that when they ditched the multiscreen off Freeview.
Top Gear in HD was as good as BBC HD gets these days. Well below average for any HD I'm use to. But there's been a few let downs on C4 HD too. If they want to push HD cut backs can't come into it. Either show something decent in HD or just leave it to SD. The public want quality and HD is a quality product. Drop the quality and we might aswell send the HD boxes to a landfill site.
We know Sky will keep it's quality HD policy for years to come. It will be interesting to see how bad some of the FTA examples of HD get.”
I got it when it launched for the world cup in 2006 and the picture was great
Anyone know what the bit rate was when it launched
I'm watching something on BBCHD now and you wouldn't really know it was HD. If they used it in a shop it would be a poor marketing tool. There is just NO detail. The faces show no detail (sorry to repeat about the faces but I find skin texture is a good test of an HD image)
I remember before I had HD, it was maybe 2007 and I walked past a shop showing a BBCHD demo and I thought "oh my.....". If I saw the current quality in a shop window I would more likely think "meh!"
I wouldn't mind so much if the BBC owned up to the drop in quality and admitted it was to cut costs.
Am trying Star Wars on ITVHD in a bit, will be interesting to see how that fares.
I remember before I had HD, it was maybe 2007 and I walked past a shop showing a BBCHD demo and I thought "oh my.....". If I saw the current quality in a shop window I would more likely think "meh!"
I wouldn't mind so much if the BBC owned up to the drop in quality and admitted it was to cut costs.
Am trying Star Wars on ITVHD in a bit, will be interesting to see how that fares.
Originally Posted by gamercraig:
“I wouldn't mind so much if the BBC owned up to the drop in quality and admitted it was to cut costs.”
“I wouldn't mind so much if the BBC owned up to the drop in quality and admitted it was to cut costs.”
It's not to cut costs, BBC are still paying for bandwidth that used to be used by BBC HD (8.9Mbps) currently being used for.....nothing!
Originally Posted by gamercraig:
“ ... but apparently nothing is wrong ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html”
“ ... but apparently nothing is wrong ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...d_picture.html”
What is interesting in that link is the bitrate has come down from 20Mb to about 10Mb, the article and BBC are correct that bitrate is not the main issue, but if they run thier MPEG4 stream through a reference decoder and the image is good this is all fine.
What is being overlooked here, is the problem can actually be on the devices people own, the hardware needs to do MORE processing to decode a 10Mb stream than a 20Mb stream, maybe it is the decoders dropping frames or something as they are not able to process everthing on a 10Mb stream.
Also a 4Mb x264 image looks pretty good.
Originally Posted by jzee:
“It's not to cut costs, BBC are still paying for bandwidth that used to be used by BBC HD (8.9Mbps) currently being used for.....nothing!”
“It's not to cut costs, BBC are still paying for bandwidth that used to be used by BBC HD (8.9Mbps) currently being used for.....nothing!”
Oh dear, why does that not surprise me!
Originally Posted by pzboyz:
“What is interesting in that link is the bitrate has come down from 20Mb to about 10Mb, the article and BBC are correct that bitrate is not the main issue, but if they run thier MPEG4 stream through a reference decoder and the image is good this is all fine.
What is being overlooked here, is the problem can actually be on the devices people own, the hardware needs to do MORE processing to decode a 10Mb stream than a 20Mb stream, maybe it is the decoders dropping frames or something as they are not able to process everthing on a 10Mb stream.
Also a 4Mb x264 image looks pretty good.”
“What is interesting in that link is the bitrate has come down from 20Mb to about 10Mb, the article and BBC are correct that bitrate is not the main issue, but if they run thier MPEG4 stream through a reference decoder and the image is good this is all fine.
What is being overlooked here, is the problem can actually be on the devices people own, the hardware needs to do MORE processing to decode a 10Mb stream than a 20Mb stream, maybe it is the decoders dropping frames or something as they are not able to process everthing on a 10Mb stream.
Also a 4Mb x264 image looks pretty good.
”
Sorry, but just about everything you said there is wrong
. Firstly, a higher bitrate stream DOES require more processing power to decode, not less. Secondly, bitrate is indeed the main issue, the BBC has the lowest bitrate of any live encoded channel in the UK. When you refer to an HD file you may have that runs at 4Mbps, (iplayer HD files are 3.2Mbps) that is because they are not encoded live, but slowly, and likely with multi-pass encoding being used, live TV channels have to be encoded live and so cannot optimise the compression enough to reduce to those kind of levels seen on VOD content.
Originally Posted by gamercraig:
“Oh dear, why does that not surprise me!”
“Oh dear, why does that not surprise me!”
They have reduced the level of the satellite stream to roughly match the upcoming Freeview HD stream, however, since the Freeview version will be stat muxed, i.e. compressed with other channels, the quality will be better since it will be able to increase bitrate when needed.
1 of 2
