|
||||||||
Royal Wedding Picture quality, which channel is better? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
Quick thought--on 'veil', which is an identical frame, there does seem to be more detail on ITV. The very different contrast/saturation levels have to be because of different decoding paths though, don't they? Perhaps we can compare notes via pm anon. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
Before anyone jumps on comparing stills again, yes, it seems these are from highlights shows which complicates matters, and they are different frames so, assuming the encoders produce identical behaviour when fed the same images, then if they treat different frames differently then the comparison is void anyway.
Still interesting though. But if the topic is 1920 v 1440, a comparison with a 1440 ITV feed would work from a more level playing field. The frame grabs were made using Splash Pro The file name is simply what I called the file. Basically I wanted to replace the original massive files using AV2HDR (thank you Raydon ). I have also burnt the BBC version to blu-ray, still totally stunning (tsmuxer gui + imgburn).I could burn the ITV footage but would need to convert mpeg1 layer 2 audio to ac3. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 671
|
I ended up watching BBC1 HD, as ITV 1 HD picture/sound was out of sync.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
I ended up watching BBC1 HD, as ITV 1 HD picture/sound was out of sync.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
Cool; I'm about to disappear for the evening so can't say much atm. But there seems to be something wrong with your 'service' shot--not at original scale?
Quick thought--on 'veil', which is an identical frame, there does seem to be more detail on ITV. The very different contrast/saturation levels have to be because of different decoding paths though, don't they? Quote:
Still interesting though. But if the topic is 1920 v 1440, a comparison with a 1440 ITV feed would work from a more level playing field.
, I did this before with Monte Carlo and Bust on ITV1 HD London/Granada and some people said the extra detail in the 1920 might be down to the encoder difference! Below we can see exactly the same differences between 1440 BBC One HD and STV HD Granada, it's simply a fact that 1440 loses fine detail and brilliance of shiny objects vs 1920 HD:Will & Kate singing STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD clearly more detail on their faces and hair, more detail on Kate's lace and on the embellishments on William's uniform, look at the RAF badge in particular, the buttons are also more brilliant Edward & Sophie singing - STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD more detail on the uniforms of Edward & Duke of Kent, on Camilla's hat Charles & Camilla singing - STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD more detail in Charles hair and uniform, Camilla's hat and jacket wide alter shot STV HD vs BBC One HD - more detail everywhere, in figures, background on STV HD Will & Kate vows - STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD there is sharper detail in their hair & faces- even the sweat on William's forehead looks more realistic! More detail in the uniform and veil, the jewellery, buttons and medals looks more brilliant Will & Kate vows 2 - STV HD vs BBC One HD - as above, and more detail on Harry's uniform and Mr. Middleton's hair All at the alter- STV HD vs BBC One HD - more detail in clothes of main figures, esp. look at the embellishments on William & Harry's uniform, detail on front of Kate's dress & Mr. Middleton's tie Richard Chartres - STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD there is clearly more detail in his beard, much sharper. Gold leaf detail is sharper & more brilliant, gold fabric detail on lectern is sharper. Elton John & David Furnish STV HD vs BBC One HD - vertical detail in Furnish's tie completely lost in BBC One HD |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
TBH looking at the alter shots, I don't think its anything to do with saturation, it looks like a colour balance difference to me. STV has a cooler balance and BBC a warmer balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
TBH looking at the alter shots, I don't think its anything to do with saturation, it looks like a colour balance difference to me. STV has a cooler balance and BBC a warmer balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Andover, Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3,624
|
I do prefer STV's cooler colour balance - it looks a lot more natural. I usually turn my monitor's colour temperature down as soon as I get them, as they are mostly far too blue - BBC HD from those pictures looks like it has the opposite problem, of it being too red...
On all levels I would vastly prefer to watch the STV picture than the BBC one, judging by those stills at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
I do prefer STV's cooler colour balance - it looks a lot more natural.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
|
GRRRR annoying invisipost leading to a double post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
|
Quote:
Edward & Sophie singing - STV HD vs BBC One HD - on STV HD more detail on the uniforms of Edward & Duke of Kent, on Camilla's hat
I picked the above comparisons at random and have examined both closely at 100% in two overlapping browsers, without knowing which was which. In view of your comments, I tried to identify the STV version, which I eventually thought I could do, with great difficulty, eyes to the screen. I thought i detected one tiny difference in the hat detail where I thought it was slightly greater, and the contrast was slightly greater too. But no, it turned out to be the BBC version! The long and short of it is that on those two screen shots, at 100% size, there is no significant difference between the two and at that point, I have given up. Maybe I just picked the wrong screenshot pair. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
I think some of you are seeing what you want to see, I really do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
|
Quote:
Why only look at one- it took me a few hours to do these comparisons, maybe if you really want to be objective you should look at the others too? The difference is pretty clear to be honest, particularly in the things I point out, the simple fact is there are details that are completely lost in 1440x1080 vs 1920x1080. I'm not sure which hat you are referring to, but Camilla's hat clearly has a lot of detail in the fine lattice structure that completely disappears in the BBC version.
However, I noticed several things that seem to me to be more natural and more pleasing on the BBC screenshot, which is why I wondered if some of you are looking for those parts of images where ITV/STV comes out best and not looking for the converse. For example, I see the detail and objects on Princess Anne's hat as slightly more natural looking and having slightly more "sparkle" on the BBC version. And on the guy with the red tunic (Duke of Kent?) the material looks smoother and more natural on BBC than STV, which clearly has a bit of what reminds me of background sensor noise on a digital camera. On the BBC screenshot, this is barely if at all discernable. I think both screenshots have minor plus and minus points, but overall, I think the differences are insignificant. It isn't all about absolute resolution, as i know you know. By the way, I should mention that I am viewing the images on a CRT monitor, not sure if that would make any difference or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
Quote:
I do prefer STV's cooler colour balance - it looks a lot more natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
I think that you'll find this is a much cleaner picture, to illustrate the point:
(You can get it larger by clicking the magnifying glass icon): http://img7.imageshack.us/f/stvhdthe...eddingadj.jpg/ I've adjusted it to make it far more neutral and cooler. However, the "richness" has been lost. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
|
Quote:
...the simple fact is there are details that are completely lost in 1440x1080 vs 1920x1080. I'm not sure which hat you are referring to, but Camilla's hat clearly has a lot of detail in the fine lattice structure that completely disappears in the BBC version.
Quote:
For example, I see the detail and objects on Princess Anne's hat as slightly more natural looking and having slightly more "sparkle" on the BBC version. And on the guy with the red tunic (Duke of Kent?) the material looks smoother and more natural on BBC than STV, which clearly has a bit of what reminds me of background sensor noise on a digital camera. On the BBC screenshot, this is barely if at all discernable.
I'll have a look at the other screenshots later on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,771
|
Quote:
Not much fussed about the wedding, but interested to know what the pic quality will be like between BBC HD and ITV HD.
I wonder if the Beeb will increase their bit rate today to make it look better Lynowsat(if your reading this), I need your help end of day to see what the BBC HD bitrate peeks at. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
However, I noticed several things that seem to me to be more natural and more pleasing on the BBC screenshot, which is why I wondered if some of you are looking for those parts of images where ITV/STV comes out best and not looking for the converse.
. I simply made the screenshots to demonstrate that 1920 shows more fine and sharper detail than 1440, which I think they show it does. It may well be that STV HD images are slightly more compressed through jpg compression or from the actual stream, unfortunately I can't check that as I made the screenshots live, I understand mwardy may have an ITV1 HD 1920 sample so perhaps he wouldn't mind uploading this?Quote:
For example, I see the detail and objects on Princess Anne's hat as slightly more natural looking and having slightly more "sparkle" on the BBC version. And on the guy with the red tunic (Duke of Kent?) the material looks smoother and more natural on BBC than STV, which clearly has a bit of what reminds me of background sensor noise on a digital camera. On the BBC screenshot, this is barely if at all discernable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Andover, Hampshire, UK
Posts: 3,624
|
Quote:
In fact, on further examination of that screenshot pair STV http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/e...2911-11-04.jpg and BBC http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/e...9_20110430.jpg I can now say unequivocally that I prefer the BBC version. You only have to examine the Duke's red sleeve and the Duchess's face where it overlaps his sleeve - STV looks simply awful in comparison even at 100%, and this really jumps out at you under magnification of 2 to 4 times. I'd gladly exchange STV's slightly greater detail (in some places) for the more natural and digital noise/artifact-free BBC screenshot.
I'll have a look at the other screenshots later on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
I understand mwardy may have an ITV1 HD 1920 sample so perhaps he wouldn't mind uploading this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
TBH, I think you have missed my point a little
. I simply made the screenshots to demonstrate that 1920 shows more fine and sharper detail than 1440, which I think they show it does. It may well be that STV HD images are slightly more compressed through jpg compression or from the actual stream, unfortunately I can't check that as I made the screenshots live, I understand mwardy may have an ITV1 HD 1920 sample so perhaps he wouldn't mind uploading this? |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
|
Quote:
as suggested before, you do you get more detail with ITV1 HD Granada/STV HD but slightly more artifacts.
The big question is, which is more important, slightly more detail or slightly less artifacts? I think the answer will very much depend on who you ask. As you may have guessed, I would choose less (fewer?) artifacts as that is what I find to be the single most annoying thing about SD TV broadcasts in the UK - by a long way - and I tend to notice it on HD broadcasts too, if it's there to see. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,494
|
@jzee that would be consistent with the higher resolution. As I've said before if you increase the resolution you increase the number of pixels and so to fit it into the same transmission space you have to compress it harder which in turn then tends to make it softer and introduce more artefacts.
That sounds very much like what you've observed. I think if STV were to increase bit rate, then in turn you'd end up with a far superior shot with more detail, more sharpness and less artefacing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire England
Posts: 86
|
Agreed BBC one HD seemed to me to be as good as I remember the pre bitrate reduction HD and the DD sound was magnificent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
I guess when the BBC switches to 1920x1080 and allows an average bitrate of up to 16Mbps using the current encoders then they'll be nothing left to complain about.
![]() I guess in reality they're playing the same game as they've done for the last decade on various digital platforms: looking at the increase in quality they could deliver, and deciding to (reserve space to) launch new services instead. I think they're also cared that the idiots at a certain accountancy firm (who sometimes are called upon to assess the BBC's services) would describe using sufficient bitrate to avoid coding artefacts as "wasteful", their argument being that no commercial station feels the need to do so, therefore the BBC isn't maximising value by doing so. (I'm not joking - I've lost the link, but there was a scathing review of the BBC's wasteful use of 256kbps for mp2 audio and 720x576 for MPEG-2 video on Freeview, when other channels used 192kbps 544x576 - the review suggested that BBC Three and Four should switch to this immediately to stop wasting capacity). Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32.




). I have also burnt the BBC version to blu-ray, still totally stunning
, I did this before with Monte Carlo and Bust on ITV1 HD London/Granada and some people said the extra detail in the 1920 might be down to the encoder difference! Below we can see exactly the same differences between 1440 BBC One HD and STV HD Granada, it's simply a fact that 1440 loses fine detail and brilliance of shiny objects vs 1920 HD:
.