April Magazine comment on HD quality not helpful

[The_Lhc]

the_lhc:Clare Newsome:the_lhc:
Andrew Everard:Don't tell me - Robert DeNiro...

...'s waiting, Talking Italian (Talking Italliaaaaaaaan!).

I had no idea you were a fan Andrew!

Bananarama still big in Switzerland, then, the_lhc?

I've no idea, I've never been to Switzerland. Been to Austria a couple of times, I didn't notice any particular favouritism towards 80s girlbands and it was the 80s the first time I went.

Sorry Clare, I've just twigged what you're getting at!

Ahahahaha.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Clare Newsome:the_lhc:

Andrew Everard:Don't tell me - Robert DeNiro...

...'s waiting, Talking Italian (Talking Italliaaaaaaaan!).

I had no idea you were a fan Andrew!

Bananarama still big in Switzerland, then, the_lhc?

Well you're not likely to hear much Clash at the moment.

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:

Andrew Everard:Ah yes, but that's the_lhc for you...

Oh, was he talking to me? I thought he was talking you!

I was

 

[Andrew Everard]

Oh, right. I look forward to seeing where this is going, but I stick to my original point that this entire thread is based on your misquote and/or misinterpretation of what we said

 

[sonycentre]

I also think that our eyes get used to hd pictures now,for me bbc-hd still looks good as it always has.Im watching blood and oil,and the colours,and depth look fantastic to me.you cant compare bbc-hd or any hd channel for that matter when comparing with blu-ray.sky,freesat,cable hd is of course 1080i,blu-ray 1080p.Nuff said.

 

[The_Lhc]

sonycentre:I also think that our eyes get used to hd pictures now,for me bbc-hd still looks good as it always has.Im watching blood and oil,and the colours,and depth look fantastic to me.you cant compare bbc-hd or any hd channel for that matter when comparing with blu-ray.sky,freesat,cable hd is of course 1080i,blu-ray 1080p.Nuff said.

Nuff said nothing! Nobody WAS comparing BBCHD with blu-ray!

 

[Anonymous]

sonycentre:I also think that our eyes get used to hd pictures now,for me bbc-hd still looks good as it always has.Im watching blood and oil,and the colours,and depth look fantastic to me.you cant compare bbc-hd or any hd channel for that matter when comparing with blu-ray.sky,freesat,cable hd is of course 1080i,blu-ray 1080p.Nuff said.but of course , you can compare different hd channels , i think that itv hd looks the best with football , and some movies ive recently seen have looked good , better than the handful of movies ive seen on bbc hd , although bluray quality differs quite a bit too of course , ive just watched "a few good men" on bluray and ive yet to see better blacks ...great movie too imo..

even with tom cheese on toast cruise..

 

[daveh75]

maxflinn:
sonycentre:I also think that our eyes get used to hd pictures now,for me bbc-hd still looks good as it always has.Im watching blood and oil,and the colours,and depth look fantastic to me.you cant compare bbc-hd or any hd channel for that matter when comparing with blu-ray.sky,freesat,cable hd is of course 1080i,blu-ray 1080p.Nuff said.but of course , you can compare different hd channels , i think that itv hd looks the best with football , Compared to what though, BBC HD ?

Both BBC HD and ITV HD are low res/low bitrate channels.

Compare them to Sky's HD offerings,and well they dont compare imo.They can both look decidedly ropey...

 

[swiftmick]

Intresting reading the input from everyone on the forum regarding BBCHD.

However, dont you find it a little strange that when any BBC programs are advertised on the BBC1 or BBC2. They also inform you that the same program can be viewed on BBCHD but in very small writing? Like an afterthought? If I worked at the Beeb, I would make sure the BBCHD content was pushed to the forefront.

 

[The_Lhc]

swiftmick:Intresting reading the input from everyone on the forum regarding BBCHD.
However, dont you find it a little strange that when any BBC programs are advertised on the BBC1 or BBC2. They also inform you that the same program can be viewed on BBCHD but in very small writing? Like an afterthought? If I worked at the Beeb, I would make sure the BBCHD content was pushed to the forefront.

I guess the satellite/cable market is still relatively small, compared to terrestrial viewers, now that FreeviewHD is going live I guess we may see it given more prominence.

 

[daveh75]

swiftmick:
Intresting reading the input from everyone on the forum regarding BBCHD.

However, dont you find it a little strange that when any BBC programs are advertised on the BBC1 or BBC2. They also inform you that the same program can be viewed on BBCHD but in very small writing? Like an afterthought? If I worked at the Beeb, I would make sure the BBCHD content was pushed to the forefront.
Not really,seeing as Danielle Nagler views BBC HD as a "showcase" for HD rather than an actual channel...

 

[Anonymous]

daveh75:maxflinn:
sonycentre:I also think that our eyes get used to hd pictures now,for me bbc-hd still looks good as it always has.Im watching blood and oil,and the colours,and depth look fantastic to me.you cant compare bbc-hd or any hd channel for that matter when comparing with blu-ray.sky,freesat,cable hd is of course 1080i,blu-ray 1080p.Nuff said.but of course , you can compare different hd channels , i think that itv hd looks the best with football , Compared to what though, BBC HD ?

Both BBC HD and ITV HD are low res/low bitrate channels.

Compare them to Sky's HD offerings,and well they dont compare imo.They can both look decidedly ropey...

ive never seen sky sports hd (will soon) , maybe its just my imagination , but i do feel that the footie looks better on itv hd than the beeb hd ..

 

[Alsone]

Andrew Everard:

That there has been a bit-rate drop is not alleged, but real, the BBC saying that new encoders have enabled it to maintain quality while using lower bitrates.

What is alleged by some is that this has led to a lowering of picture quality, and frankly having watched a lot of the rugby over the weekend, plus Tropic of Cancer and the latest episode of Prof Brian Cox's superb series, I just don't see that lowering of quality.

With the greatest respect Andrew if you've not seent he quality drop, then you've been watching too much Sky tv.

The quality drop has been marked.

Granted some programmes have managed to maintain quality, probably down to subject matter and the way its been shot and post processed, Tropic of Cancer is certainly one of the better ones. However, many others are so bad that they don't even look HD and some others look HD but very poor.

Raymond Blanc's Kitchen Secrets is one very good example of BBC HD that doesn't even look HD except on macro shots of the food. The general kitchen shots and shots of Raymond preparing the food look extremely blurry and SD in appearance.

Countryfile on Sunday 21st March also looked poor. The ice climbing was absolutely terrible quality. The punchy colours of the climbers jackets provided brief spells of relief from a picture that was blurry and extremely undetailed. In shots of rock next to ice, not detail or grain could be seen in the rock whatsoever. The ice was a white blur and close ups of the faces of the participents were blurry. Similarly the story on the missing bridge and the farmer with Jon Craven that followed afterwards, had blurry undetailed faces. I didn;t watch any further but just switched over and watched Zathora a Space Adventure!!!!!

Also on the 21st March, Leicester vs Coventry suffered from terrible motion blur and close ups of the players revealed blurry and detail less faces.

Another interesting fact is that I understand from other's posts on the BBC HD forums the EBU (European Broadcasting Union) recommend a minimum bit rate of 12mbs for HD on the latest encoders compared to BBC HD's 9.8mbs bit rate.

Also recently SES Astra became involved indirectly when they made a statement that HD broadcast on their satellites at below 12mbs results quality in complaints about softness:

http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/03/12/ses-astra-says-hd-quality-suffers-when-bit-rate-is-cut/

 

[Andrew Everard]

Have to say I think M Blanc's series has looked fab throughout. And as for the Countryfile example, I guess even some HD progs must have segments shots in SD - the thought of hauling HD cams up a rockface for a prog that must get a very small audiience...

 

[Alsone]

The problem I had with Raymond Blanc's kitchen secrets were contained in the 1st episode - I haven't really watched since, but in that episode the close ups of the food were in indeed HD quality. although there was a lot of dodgy camera work in there with cameras struggling to get focus (hunting) (either the result of autofocus (in which case why was it on auto) or some very poor camera work by the crew). However, the general picture shots in the kitchen were soft and blurry including the close ups of Raymond's face.

As for the Countryfile programme, I would point out that in Lost Land of the Jaguar, the BBC used domestic camcorder sized HD cameras to shoot the programmme in HD throughout even in the densest jungle and although I wouldn't hold this programme up as a shining example of BBC HD at its very best (I do think there are much better examples), it does never the less show that the BBC do have small compact HD cameras at their disposal which really makes any excuse of we couldn't lug large cameras up the mountain a non valid excuse, The bridge report at the bottom also had no camera portability problems but was still terribly soft and blurry.

Also whilst you can pick holes in my methodology of taking photos direct from a screen, these pictures were taken back to back using the same tripod steadied camera, Humax HDR and my THX II calibrated Pioneer 428XD Kuro.

Click the tumbnail to expand (then zoom icon to go larger still):

On the top is BBC HD (possibly Wildest Dreams HD or some other natural history programme - I forget on this one), on the bottom channel 5 SD - megastructures).



Another example: from Wildest Dreams BBC HD vs Channel 5 Megastructures:



And another set:



Admittedly not all BC HD is this bad and some of it is still excellent. It is however very variable depending on the type of content and how well it seems to encode.

However, there is no way that even the very best of SD should better the worst of HD and as you can see above, in some programmes that is exactly what has happened in my opinion.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I wasn't making excuses, merely suggesting a possible reason.

 

[Anonymous]

just been looking at some nonsence on bbchd "over the rainbow" actually looked stunning to be fair...

 

[Anonymous]

Yesterday morning I (boldly because it can take a while to get right again) took phots of my TV picture settings then factory reset to the unit to the defaults. Using Sky movies I spent probably an hour teasing and adjusting the parameters to set the picture exactly as I like it which to cut a long story short turns down much of the 200hz capability of my Samsung to take away the awful shot on video feel that the factory supplied settings can have then carefully examined my original settings against new then reviewed a BBC HD image.

Startlingly I found I had put the settings very closely indeed back to my preferred arrangement (unscientific, but loosely demonstrating repeatable testing) and guess what... the BBC HD image was still very ordinary,

Increasingly I believe that many of the other HD channels are going the same way. It is not my eyes or my TV.

I suspect that this is a cost issue but who is making the money here. I am guessing it is Astra but there must be all kinds of factors that should be investigated and reported on.

 

[Anonymous]

If you click on the news section on the ' AUDIO T ' website you will find that they have also noticed the drop in picture quality on the bbc hd channel. There is a link to a online petition on there to get the bbc to restore the bandwidth to the level it was before august last year.

 

[Alsone]

Notts Forest vs Cardiff CIty was pants over the weekend.

The still picture was actually quite good, but the slightest pan and the motion blur was so bad you couldn't make out individual players faces or read names on the back of shirts. Some of the worst motion blur I've ever seen on BBC HD. I turned over to another programme within 5 mins of kick off.

Also, Countryfile, Sunday evening, when searching for the water vole in the boat, the faces were soft and blurry - so bad in that setcion was below the quality seen from many SD offerings.

Tropic of Cancer (India) was another bad offering from Sunday. Again very blurry.

 

[Anonymous]

When did BBC drop the broadcast quality of BBC HD?

I've just watched 10 minutes of "Into the Storm" which I've had on my Sky HD box since Nov 09 and not got round to watching. The quality is tremendous and clearly different to stuff I've seen on BBC HD lately such as Heroes and Jonathan Ross. I've been a bit uneasy about HD quality lately, but not sure why until I stumbled across this thread. It explains a lot.

Andrew, I'm not sure how you haven't noticed the drop in quality, it's definately happened from what I can see. I'm probably more critical now than I was since I went up to 50" from 42".

 

[daveh75]

DaveGrohl:When did BBC drop the broadcast quality of BBC HD? Beginning of august '09.

 

[Andrew Everard]

DaveGrohl:Andrew, I'm not sure how you haven't noticed the drop in quality, it's definately happened from what I can see. I'm probably more critical now than I was since I went up to 50" from 42".

Probably just goes to show how little TV I watch, then...

 

[Anonymous]

At least you've had the chance to read Aprils edition. The May edition is now out and as a subscriber i've still not recieved Aprils edition even after my monthly reminder to haymarket. I've yet to recieve my mag since I subscribed last April before e-mailing haymarket. Tut tut tut. They promised they'd send it from December 2009 in a brown envelope but this has not happened...

Anyone else had these issues?