BBC HD has new encoders but slashes bit rates by 40% at same time

[tvspecv]

watch the k1 fighting then tell me how good the bitrate is!

does this go same with the freesat aswell?

i didnt know this just found out by readiong the forum but i did notice the quality was rubbish. i think its cause they`re going to start showing movies on this channel sad so sad....

 

[Sorreltiger]

Eurosport HD shows a lot of upscaled SD material. I imagine that the K1 comes under this category. The athletics is genuine HD or 'Native HD' as they call it!

 

[daveh75]

tvspecv:does this go same with the freesat aswell?Freesat,Sky,and Virgin will all be affected by it yes....

 

[Anonymous]

@Daveh

I thought Virgin get their own feed by cable? or at least thats what I read somewhere

 

[Anonymous]

World Athletics right now - Lots of artefacts and smeering on the blue track and green field whenever a wide angled camera pans or moves

 

[daveh75]

scoobiesnacks:
@Daveh

I thought Virgin get their own feed by cable? or at least thats what I read somewhere

Pretty sure it's received via satellite for them too.Could be wrong though...

 

[Andy Clough]

Have put in calls to the BBC, Sky and Virgin this morning re HD bitrates. Waiting to hear back, then will run a News story online with the details.

 

[Anonymous]

scoobiesnacks:World Athletics right now - Lots of artefacts and smeering on the blue track and green field whenever a wide angled camera pans or moves

BBC have reported these same issues too but say the problem is at the source end ?!

 

[Anonymous]

Sorreltiger:As mentioned in the blog, during the World Athletics Championships it will be possible to make a direct comparison between BBC HD and Eurosport HD. I believe that Eurosport has one of the highest bitrates. I had a quick look this morning and thought that the BBC picture was, if anything, better. Other opinions would be welcomed!

A quick look doesn't work in my experience. I think the only way to compare HD pictures is to record the two different sources (ideally the same scene if you have twin recording capability) and then replay 2-5 times, focusing on the same area of the picture.

At first I couldn't tell the difference , but after I while I could see the differences in quality with the lower bitrate.

On the BBC HD blog, two different people have now benchmarked the same programmes recorded before and after the bitrate cut and both reported a deterioration in quality in the new lower bitrate, despite the new encoder.

I estimated the reduction in quality is between 10-20%. Not a lot, but bear in mind this is on top of previous bitrate cutbacks - BBC HD used to broadcast at 20mbps like Eurosport does now.

Source: BBC HD Blog - picture quality thread

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:Have put in calls to the BBC, Sky and Virgin this morning re HD bitrates. Waiting to hear back, then will run a News story online with the details.

thanks

Let me predict some possible stock answers from the BBC HD team that we've seen so far on their blog, and see if you get any of the same responses:

1. "People have their TV setups wrong" (my tv is set up exactly the way they recommend)

2. "The problem is in the source material" or "It was filmed with a soft effect"

3. "Bitrate isn't that important to picture quality" (really?)

4. "The new picture is holding up well to our competitors" (note though this doesn't actually say the picture is better on BBC HD)

5. "The EBU target figures of 14-16mbps for broadcasting 1080i are out of date." (So why is BBC HD being transmitted using 16mbps in Sweden on Canal Digital and just 9mbps in the UK on Freesat/Sky?)

6. "The old bitrate is unsustainable" (the reason why its unsustainable hasn't been given as far as I know, one can only assume its cost related. However this seems to contradict with what's advertised on the BBC HD website:

"The BBC HD channel's commitment to the highest possible quality means that ... we will choose the standard that delivers the best possible pictures."


The implication of "unsustainable" is that the BBC cannot provide
full HD picture quality. By "quality" I mean a bitrate in the upper
quartile of comparable channels - like Sky One at 15mbps. It implies
that the only way to get a decent HD picture is with Virgin or Sky HD.

Finally, I thought this was an insightful viewer complaint on the BBC HD blog:

"There is a very old saying in HiFi and that is "A system is only as
good as the weakest link". For Hifi systems that was often the bell
wire that was used for the loadspeaker cable. Well that is how I feel
about the 9Mbit/s H.264 is like using bell wire to connect to £10,000
pair of speakers. Many peoples systems are capable of displaying a far
higher quality than is being delivered"

 

[Andy Clough]

Full response from the BBC on this now published here.

 

[8009514]

Well I've just read the BBC response, and I'm trying to think what complaints the BBC would have received which are unrelated to picture quality and were fixed by the new encoders. Got me beat at the moment!

 

[Andrew Everard]

Perhaps it was that the old encoders kept repeating Cranford over and over again...

 

[daveh75]

8009514:Well I've just read the BBC response, and I'm trying to think what complaints the BBC would have received which are unrelated to picture quality and were fixed by the new encoders. Got me beat at the moment!IIRC they've had issue's with sound quality....

 

[Anonymous]

daveh75:tvspecv:does this go same with the freesat aswell?Freesat,Sky,and Virgin will all be affected by it yes....

Thanks Dave75

I started a thread about my new Sky HD box as I assumed this problem would not affect Sky.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:Full response from the BBC on this now published here.

Andy,

Thats a quick result. They obviously listen to What Hi Fi's views.

Shame the BBC seem to be ignoring the fact that the bitrate cut has had an impact though. I can't help but think it must have an impact to be running at two thirds Sky's capacity - BBC HD at 9 mbps versus 14-15mbps (for Sky One)

A lot of the programmes look very soft and I don't think its they way they were filmed in most cases.

I hope you'll consider running this subject in the main magazine. I think the topic of bitrates and viewers being short changed on HD quality is a growing issue on all platforms.

Update - On the BBC HD blog the technical problem that they are fixing (referred to in the article) is confirmed as seemingly very narrow issue related to a mix / fade issue. This does not give high hopes for any improvement in quality as a result of the bitrate issue

See posts #76 and #300

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html

 

[Anonymous]

Andy,

Can I suggest these follow up questions to the BBC , as I detect some deflection tactics in the BBC's respond.

1. Other than the mix / fade issue, are there any other picture improvements you are considering right now? We take it as given that you are always open to improvements, but is there anything specific being considered to improve picture quality now that you have new encoders?

2. How do you respond to widespread internet forum postings that BBC programmes like "Coast" and others don't look like good HD anymore? There are two independent user benchmarks posted on the internet of the same programme recordings before and after the bitrate cut. Both report poorer picture quality since the bitrate cut - how do you respond?

3. Why is HD bitrate to quote you "unsustainable" for the BBC? It doesn't seem to be for other channels who sustain bitrates between 20%-100% higher than BBC HD. Does this mean that paid TV HD channels will generally have a better bitrates and hence better picture quality than BBC HD? Are you saying that BBC HD can not meet the picture standards of other HD competitors?

4.Do you consider 9mbps - the new reduced bitrate for BBC HD - a benchmark for broadcasting 1080i at the moment? The European Broadcast Union's benchmark for 1080i is 14-16mbps. Why are other HD channels running at higher bitrates? Sky for example is at 15mbps for Sky One HD and is using stat mux so it can vary bitrates at times of greatest need as the picture varies in complexity. Why is BBC HD itself available in Europe at 1980x1080 at 16mbps but only 1440x1080 at 9mbps in the UK?

5. Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to increase the bitrate for BBC HD rather than cut it which has happened two times in succession? Are there further bitrate cuts on the cards? Cutting bitrates further is a stated objective by BBC management - is this right?

6. Is improving picture quality to the highest quality , best possible standard an objective for the BBC HD channel? In your statement yesterday you stated that you are targetting the picture quality
of the old encoder as the benchmark standard rather than trying to improve the picture quality. Would you consider that this seems to be a missed opportunity given you have just spent licence fee money on new encoders, if you did not use the encoders to improve picture quality?

 

[PJPro]

This whole thing is scandalous and makes me hopping mad!

 

[Naxos]

Me also. Having watched "Coast" and "Dragon's Den" (the latter not the most demanding of HD material, surely?), and some of the athletics, I feel we are definitely being regally shafted, and I'm so disappointed with all the evaseiness the Beeb are showing. If I can see a difference on my Panny 37", I feel sorry for you guys looking at much bigger screens.

 

[Anonymous]

Having just invested in a Humax PVR and a satellite installation (bought via Argos for £107, and a very tidy job) I too am a little miffed that the jump in quality that I was looking forward to appears to have been downgraded.

I am not advocating an extra charge for BBC HD, but if the BBC had the means to levy a charge to those equipped to receive HD how much would people be prepared to pay? The maximum would have to be less than Sky HD, but I wonder how much they would need to cover the costs involved with HD production & transmission?

Until we know that there is a clear majority equipped to take advantage of HD then those not so equipped could be forgiven for thinking that they should not subsidise the 'better off'. I just checked and you can still buy a B&W TV licence (£48 vs £142.50 for colour). This is a long established principle of differential charging according to reception capability. Enforcement is another matter - can detector vans even detect anything other than CRT?

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
Sad news for TV viewers, but great for the Blu-ray lobby. I'm watching BD boxsets of Mad Men at the moment, and the picture and sound quality excels.

We're going to follow this up with broadcasters and get some official comment.

Thats very true. Speaking as someone who likes to leave it a couple of years between watching films I never bought many DVD's, but if you want the best for film there's no choice, which is why I've gone a bit mad recently (bought more BR discs in 12 months than DVD's in the last 10 years)

I doubt we'll see anything approaching blu-ray quality until at least the next generation of decoder boxes, and I don't mean new models on the horizon now, but new or heavily revised compression formats.

 

[Clare Newsome]

It's not just movies, but TV boxsets, too. For example, BBC didn't show Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes on BBC HD, but that's how they were shot - and the Blu-ray versions look and sound great.

Even better are the US TV releases, where the HD quality can be breathtaking. Lost is a stand-out example, plus I'm currently watching the Mad Men Blu-ray boxsets (Series 1 and 2), and not only is the picture quality superb, but the sound is DTS Master HD Audio.

 

[Anonymous]

I knew I had another point thanks- the U/C sound, of course, for which the same as I said above applies.

Thats pretty shoddy the BBC not evan broadcasting thse shows on their quasiHD channel. Is there a reason, other than to maximise blu-ray sales? They've come in for a lot of flak of late for all sorts of reasons, most of which I've ignored as being largely petty, but if the British BROADCASTING corperation aren't going to BROADCAST something to maximise market sales I'm really pondering the validity of their TV tax funded status.

 

[Clare Newsome]

I've given up second-guessing which programmes the BBC does/doesn't choose to show in HD. It's so damn galling to have a top-rated drama like Ashes to Ashes - shot in HD - shown on BBC1, while BBC HD is showing relatively niche programming.

 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately i have the set up sony full hd tv and denon surround amp although no hdmi connections on amp.

I am restricted to watching bluray movies as i cannot afford sky hd,which is awesome on most movies.

but i am thinking it doesnt seem worth getting hd as the cost doesnt seem to warrant it.

I have a great set upfor what i have spent .