|
||||||||
Freeview resolution changes (for the Olympics..? I'd bet not!) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Freeview resolution changes (for the Olympics..? I'd bet not!)
As per this post in the Freeview changelog:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1054 BBC Three and Four facing 544x576 resolution whilst all the main channels are now down to 192Kbps joint stereo. I can imagine the BBC Four viewership are gathering their pitchforks and torches as the BBC Radio 3 listenership did when sound quality was reduced on DAB to 160Kbps. And I would wager money on the resolution and sound quality staying as it is after the Olympics have ended. Plus, DAB bitrates have also been reduced across many of the BBC's services to 112Kbps joint stereo (has the same happened on DTT?). Is this the beginning of the BBC matching the poorer quality pictures and sound of the commercial sector. If they're prepared to lower quality for the UK's biggest event in a very long time, I can't foresee quality improving afterward. And beyond the BBC, who will be the first commercial channel to go mono or 480x576? I can bet that'll happen sometime too - probably a shopping or "babe" channel. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
BBC Three and Four facing 544x576 resolution whilst all the main channels are now down to 192Kbps joint stereo. I can imagine the BBC Four viewership are gathering their pitchforks and torches as the BBC Radio 3 listenership did when sound quality was reduced on DAB to 160Kbps.
And I would wager money on the resolution and sound quality staying as it is after the Olympics have ended. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 7,514
|
But how else can you increase the number of streams on a mux ??
Here the BBC has decided to give as much content for the Olympics - which will not be there after the end of the paralympics so the world will return to as it was before Except for HD .....! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Can anyone confirm the current resolution of CBBC and CBeebies? CBeebies looks OK to me but I can't check it for sure at the moment. Is this because 302 will only be broadcasting after 7pm so only needs to steal bandwidth from BBC Four?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 429
|
Quote:
But how else can you increase the number of streams on a mux ??
Here the BBC has decided to give as much content for the Olympics - which will not be there after the end of the paralympics so the world will return to as it was before Except for HD .....! |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 5,204
|
Quote:
Can anyone confirm the current resolution of CBBC and CBeebies? CBeebies looks OK to me but I can't check it for sure at the moment. Is this because 302 will only be broadcasting after 7pm so only needs to steal bandwidth from BBC Four?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
|
Quote:
CBBC and CBeebies are using 544x576.
The generous BBC radio bitrates can't be dropped without affecting BBC ALBA. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,256
|
Also noted in Ray Cathode's changelog post - " At 2am the second 302 audio was not working."...
Just after 10am this morning, PID 706 appeared on the BBCA mux, so the channel 302 section now looks like this: Code:
PID found: 700 (0x02bc) [SECTION: Program Map Table (PMT)] PID found: 701 (0x02bd) [PS/PES: ITU-T Rec. H.262 | ISO/IEC 13818-2 or ISO/IEC 11172-2 video stream] PID found: 702 (0x02be) [PS/PES: ISO/IEC 13818-3 or ISO/IEC 11172-3 audio stream] PID found: 705 (0x02c1) [unknown] PID found: 706 (0x02c2) [PS/PES: ISO/IEC 13818-3 or ISO/IEC 11172-3 audio stream] |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
CBBC and CBeebies are using 544x576.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
The generous BBC radio bitrates
Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,751
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tghe-retford
Freeview resolution changes (for the Olympics..? I'd bet not!)
The reason for this is that there's more stuff crammed into the BBC A multiplex than normal. Before it was this: BBC One BBC Two CBBC/BBC Three CBeebies/BBC Four BBC News BBC Parliament* BBC 301* *544x576 So that's 5 full resolution streams and 2 lower resolution streams. During the Olympics we have this: BBC One BBC Two BBC Three CBBC*/BBC 302* CBeebies*/BBC Four* BBC News* BBC 301* *544x576 I'm not sure why so many streams needed changing to 544x576. Surely changing BBC News would've been enough to match the pre-Olympics configuration. Maybe they just want to get the very best quality on BBC One, Two and Three for the Olympics? If they use an average of 4 Mbps for BBC One & BBC Three (talking about video only), plus 3 Mbps for BBC Two, that leaves ~9 Mbps for the other 4 channels to share, which'd definitely require a resolution reduction to prevent blockiness. In any case, this is largely irrelevant for HD viewers and completely irrelevant for Freesat viewers. I can't imagine anyone that is discerning over image quality using Freeview unless they couldn't get a satellite signal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
I'm not sure why so many streams needed changing to 544x576.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,753
|
Quote:
Neither am I. Based on your list, there were seven streams before the changes and ... erm ... seven streams after the changes. What have I missed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 20,280
|
When did BBC News reduce resolution? Was watching overnight and the picture was grainy in comparision to the other day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Norwich, Tacolneston tx
Posts: 21,898
|
Why on earth would this be anything other than a temporary measure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,753
|
This got me wondering. When they generate a 544x576 picture, I assume it's usually down-converted from a 720x576 picture. Do the broadcasters have a higher quality source from which a 544 picture could be generated directly and reducing degredation?
Do you think Sky News goes straight from HD to 544x576? Another issue may be that receivers will have 720 the default resolution and for some 544 picture may be a slight botch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,774
|
Quote:
In any case, this is largely irrelevant for HD viewers and completely irrelevant for Freesat viewers. I can't imagine anyone that is discerning over image quality using Freeview unless they couldn't get a satellite signal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
|
Quote:
"Generous?!". I think the word you're looking for is "adequate". 320kbps would be "generous".
Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,751
|
Quote:
I'm discerning over image quality and I use Freeview. I don't use satellite simply because I don't want an ugly dish cluttering up the outside of my house. My TV aeriel is in the loft for the same reason. I also don't have random cables tacked all over the exterior walls of my house as many people do these days, I think it looks awful. Most people don't seem to care what the outside of their houses look like these days, it's depressing.
![]() My dish is very high up though and the cables are neat and run over the conservatory roof so not much of them is actually on the brickwork. If the dish would have to be on the front of your house I guess I could understand that position, even if it wouldn't bother me personally. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scouser in Chilterns
Posts: 711
|
My wife was watching the Olympic Ice skating the other night on Freeview within the Panny TV..
Most unusual for her . Despite recent Specsavers Annual visit .I kid you not..the picture at times seemed Blury.. She switched back to Plain old FreeSkySat and it was akin to watching HD for the first time.... My gardener has been most erratic with all this rain..the lawn looks so unsightly..but the flowers are so gorgeous .. that i very much doubt anyone looks above eye-level to see our Dish.. We do however like the Dinky elements needed for CP..I do hope you do not have those larger ones need for local stations! and we so hate those Plastic Doors which stand out a mile compared to aluminium ones..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
I'm discerning over image quality and I use Freeview. I don't use satellite simply because I don't want an ugly dish cluttering up the outside of my house.
No way I'm swapping Freesat for the Freeview lite that's now available.If you have a suitable garden, it's possible to hide a dish in a way that's impossible with an outdoor aerial. Sadly, that doesn't work out for us. There are other locations where a dish would be less obvious, but they're not as easy to access for maintenance and knocking snow off of it - so slap bang in the middle of the front of the house it is .I might spend much time looking at the TV compared to most, but I spend even less time looking at the front of my house. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
This got me wondering. When they generate a 544x576 picture, I assume it's usually down-converted from a 720x576 picture. Do the broadcasters have a higher quality source from which a 544 picture could be generated directly and reducing degredation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
BBC Parliament is usually a lot less demanding on bandwidth than a sports programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,751
|
Why would they convert from 1920x1080 to 720x576 then to 544x576? This isn't the days of analogue, they'd just use a digital video resizing algorithm that will do it in a single step whilst changing the pixel aspect ratio from 1:1 (square) to 1.88:1 (544x576 @ 16:9).
The downside of course is that maximum quality is achieved when you do deinterlacing before resizing. Resizing whilst the image is still interlaced is not ideal but kind of unavoidable since these days most SD channels are really simulcasts of their HD equivalents (assuming an HD equivalent exists). It's also the reason why a 1080i output from a Sky box, for example, isn't ideal either. The quicker we get rid of archaic interlacing the better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
|
Quote:
Even so, I'm still surprised they needed to downgrade so many streams to 544x576.
To go further and keep the 301 simulcast they would have had to lower BBC TWO resolution which was probably a step too far. More on my website under latest news. I will be watching on satellite.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:16.





No way I'm swapping Freesat for the Freeview lite that's now available.