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

[Anonymous]

chefsmusic:
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 .

It depends what you watch. I don't watch much sport, and for movies alone a tenner will get you a decent blu-ray on amazon or wherever, build up the ole' collection, which is of course superior to skyHD. Documentaries are lovely in HD but my understanding is that an awefull lot of NG, disco etc is not native HD anyway. So I'm sticking with V for the foreseable, especially now with NG HD and hopefully more of the docu channels to come anyway, as I doubt the pipeline HD channels will be sky premium.

That said, if I had sky I'd pay for HD just because, (it's new tech and you always always pay a premium), but having given it some thought there's little tantilising enough for me to jump over. And I'm annoyed at BT so the V package works out well.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

The first two series of Life on Mars and the second series of Ashes to Ashes have been my favourite British Drama series for many years. I had assumed they were not on BBC HD as they were shot in SD. I am shocked the BBC didn't screen them in the best format they could - this seems to contradict their own policy on HD Broadcasting!!

It's frustrating enough that Top Gear is only shot in SD despite the amazing location camera work and fast moving subject matter, that something is shot in HD and then not broadcast in it is unforgiveable in my opinion.

 

[kena]

I agree that anything shot especially a "prime slot prog " in HD should be broadcast in same , perhaps thats another question for the suits at the BBC, are they deliberately only filming in HD for the Blu-ray Revenue with no intention of showing it via their charter medium?

 

[david123456]

We were on holiday when the BBC changed their encoders and I didn't realise at first what had happened. When we got home I thought that there was something wrong with my Sky HD box because the channel 143 BBC HD picture was so poor, soft and grainy. Firstly, I phoned Sky but they said that there was nothing wrong from their end, they simply weren't interested. Next I contacted the BBC and they didn't say anything about the change of encoders but claimed that my television settings must be wrong. But I hadn't changed anything?!? Then I read the post here about the BBC encoders etc and things finally made sense.

Since that time I contacted Sky again and this time they seemed much more aware about things saying that a lot of customers have been contacting them about this. The lady I spoke to at Sky effectively claimed that the BBC virtually turned it's back on HD content because it is too expensive to produce/broadcast. Slashing their bit rate by 40% does make me feel that she has hit the nail on the head.

So what do us viewers have now? Previously BBC HD was outstanding and a joy to watch, showing off HD equipment superbly. Quite honestly though now it's rubbish. BBC HD looks soft, grainy and at times is nearly as bad as SD content. BBC HD has lost it's Mojo! Personally I feel that the BBC has done this because it then keeps back the best stuff for HD Blu-ray releases etc, thus increasing their potential earnings. Whatever their reasons this has ruined the BBC HD channel and I am not holding my breath for a return to the prior quality.

 

[Anonymous]

I was peeved to read this thread having just invested in a satellite installation and the Humax Foxsat HDR. However this evening I was watching Dragon's Den and decided that reading the Humax manual might be a good idea after all. On checking I found that even though I was on BBC HD the Humax was not feeding 1080i. When I changed this the results were very apparent and much more satisfying. I flicked to the football on ITV HD and was similarly impressed. Subjectively SD images on Freeview are slightly sharper and have more natural colours than on Freesat, so unless I discover yet more knobs to twiddle on the Humax I'll be sticking to Freeview for my SD viewing.

I can't compare with transmissions before the reported HD changes because I haven't had the kit long enough, but based on this evenings experience I am pretty happy with my investment.

 

[daveh75]

The picture quality of the football on ITV HD was particularly good tonight,even the studio footage,pin sharp in fact.Sadly though it isnt alway's the case with ITV.

Still the PQ was much better than the actual quality of football being played

 

[Anonymous]

smithdom:

I was peeved to read this thread
having just invested in a satellite installation and the Humax Foxsat
HDR. However this evening I was watching Dragon's Den and decided that
reading the Humax manual might be a good idea after all. On checking I
found that even though I was on BBC HD the Humax was not feeding 1080i.
When I changed this the results were very apparent and much more
satisfying. I flicked to the football on ITV HD and was similarly
impressed. Subjectively SD images on Freeview are slightly sharper and
have more natural colours than on Freesat, so unless I discover yet
more knobs to twiddle on the Humax I'll be sticking to Freeview for my
SD viewing.

I do not have the Humax box but several people with it have reported that the Humax box seems to work miracles with a problematic HD signals. Another person on the BBC HD blog with contacted Humax, and they confirmed that it improves the picture quality, removing artefacts and noise for instance.

Re SD , sadly the terrestial Freeview SD resolution is higher than the Freesat SD one (for ITV at least, the rest I cannot remember) , so your "stick with freeview" conclusion for SD would seem valid

 

[Gerrardasnails]

scoobiesnacks:
smithdom:

I was peeved to read this thread
having just invested in a satellite installation and the Humax Foxsat
HDR. However this evening I was watching Dragon's Den and decided that
reading the Humax manual might be a good idea after all. On checking I
found that even though I was on BBC HD the Humax was not feeding 1080i.
When I changed this the results were very apparent and much more
satisfying. I flicked to the football on ITV HD and was similarly
impressed. Subjectively SD images on Freeview are slightly sharper and
have more natural colours than on Freesat, so unless I discover yet
more knobs to twiddle on the Humax I'll be sticking to Freeview for my
SD viewing.

I do not have the Humax box but several people with it have reported that the Humax box seems to work miracles with a problematic HD signals. Another person on the BBC HD blog with contacted Humax, and they confirmed that it improves the picture quality, removing artefacts and noise for instance.

Re SD , sadly the terrestial Freeview SD resolution is higher than the Freesat SD one (for ITV at least, the rest I cannot remember) , so your "stick with freeview" conclusion for SD would seem valid

My Dad has the Humax box and an older but very well regarded Sony 32 inch, connected by very good component cables. It's not even close to my set up.

As for those that are saying BBC HD now looks rubbish - that IS rubbish. I agree, it's clearly not as good as before but it still looks pretty darn good.

 

[tvmog]

I wouldn't say that the BBC HD picture is actually rubbish, but compared to what it could (and did) look like it is.

I watched the programme about British fashion last week, and the only on screen indication that it was an HD broadcast was the channel ident in the corner.

Comparing the simulcast transmission of "Tomb Raider" last night the difference in picture quality was marginal at best. The same applied to last weeks "Frankincense Trail"

The BBC's claim that the new encoders produced results "equal or better" is frankly laughable. I've yet to come across an internet post asking why the picture quality looks so much better.

In my opinion much of the Ch4HD upscaled non HD material looks better than most of the BBC HD output.

 

[daveh75]

Have to agree the pq isn't rubbish, but it's not as good as it should/could be and we're definately being short changed!

To add insult to injury ITV HD are at it as well now, they haven't slashed bit rate's but they've reduced the resolution down to 960x1088.From what i can gather 1280x720 is the minimum resolution considered to be HD.

Does make you wonder what is going on with broadcaster's at the moment.

 

[matengawhat]

watching tomb raider last night through a 720p projector on a 106 inch screen the hd channel was def an improvement over the sd one but interested to read all this that it could be so much better

 

[tvmog]

matengawhat:watching tomb raider last night through a 720p projector on a 106 inch screen the hd channel was def an improvement over the sd one

I guess at that size the differences will be far more noticable, however on a 37inch HD ready Panasonic there were times when I would have been hard pushed to distinguish between the two.

 

[murg]

Hi All,
just caught up with this "BBC slashes bit rate news" I was on the verge of getting freesat. Theres no way im doing that now. It seems to me that the platform was struggling when it was producing top class pq, how can they expect it to survive now they are offering negligable HD content and reduced picture quality. Seems like whether we like it or not sky is the only real option for hd viewing. Well done BBC!!!!! could have been great.

 

[John Duncan]

(sigh)

Freesat is not going away. It's a statutory obligation.

 

[daveh75]

JohnDuncan:(sigh)

Freesat is not going away. It's a statutory obligation.And it wouldn't matter if it did anyway,Freesat is just an EPG. You can receive any FTA broadcast's with pretty much any receiver be it Freesat,Sky or any generic FTA receiver, You just wouldn't get the Freesat EPG.

 

[Anonymous]

BBC HD have now implied the PQ is fine on their blog

Quote Andy Quested:

You surely cannot be saying the picture quality of Crash or The Last
Days of the Lehman Brothers was poor. Both looked very good - clean,
clear, natural pictures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html?page=2#comments

 

[tvmog]

Haven't watched the Lehman Brothers yet, but last nights new "comedy" Home Time looked no better in HD than its simulcast on BBC2. Apart from marginally less picture noise the sharpness and detail were virtually identical. If this is to be the future of BBC HD they may as well give up and invest the money in developing some writing talent - god knows they need it.

 

[ericdowner]

It strikes me that the whole issue of HD on Freesat, and the BBC's plans for it in particular, is one that exercises the minds of many on this forum. Perhaps it would be a good idea if WHFS&V could run an interview with the appropriate representative from the BBC (and/or other suitable persons/organization). There are clearly a number of questions that many would like answering. After all, the plans of many regarding the acquisition of HD equipment will be conditioned by such information. Much like the Broadband speed issue, definition of what constitutes 'HD' quality content is central to the whole debate. If as some suggest, HD is being downgraded so that it is little better than SD then the Beeb have some explaining to do, and the sooner the better. How about it WHFS&V? Fancy the challenge?

 

[Anonymous]

The best possible picture quality has made way for space saving, therefore, compromised quality is the new mantra at the beeb...

Some of the programes look acceptable, whilst others are clearly poor. Would be rather nice though to have the best possible picture quality on display as a showcase to all other broadcasters... Seems that it's not on the cards however.

 

[Anonymous]

BBC HD has published its full response to the complaints here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/picture_quality_on_hd_a_respon.html

 

[aliEnRIK]

My personal opinion is theyve messed up on the encoders used. If theyd decided on a decent one to begin with then the bitrates could be FAR lower

Ive personally seen bitrates average around 3 Mb per second in hidef (films with lots going on too) with absolutely no pixellation and the quality is awesome using x264 encoders (Used in MKV files etc). VERY hard to distinguish between them and the original bluray versions on my 42" Pioneer

They need a new industry standard to cope with the amount of channels they want to broadcast

 

[Andy Clough]

The BBC says it can find no technical problem with the new encoders. Latest update on this story here.

 

[jacobmorrison]

Interesting quote from Ms Nagler at the beeb:

"No HD channel as a general rule will offer the same quality as bluray,
any more than standard definition television offers the same quality as
DVDs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html

A situation which serves the purposes of the BBC marketing department. Such a shame, and disputable to be honest. Watching True Blood on FXHD the picture quality was every bit what I'd expect from BlueRay. Only the HD sound was missing, although the broadcasts on FXHD were impeccable Dolby Digital mixes.

 

[The_Lhc]

And that would be a perfectly acceptable response if people were asking for Blu-Ray quality, they aren't. They're simply asking for the quality that they had when the channel was launched.

All you get from the BBC on the subject now are total non-sequiters, the comment about there being no technical problem with the encoders for example completely avoids the issue at hand, the decoders are working fine, yes, and the picture quality STILL isn't as good as it used to be.

 

[Anonymous]

What is the point in having an HD channel which blatantly isn't. I watched Gavin and Stacy this week and it looked to me like SD. Sometimes I think BBC 1 or 2 in SD actually looks better than the HD channel. I have been watching for nearly three years now and it HAS got worse recently in PQ. I dont really care why it is worse than it was, but surely someone at the BBC has a decent HD TV and watches it off air and not before it has been transmitted? With so many complaints surely they should be admitting that there is a problem and not blaming all us "geeks" for not having our TVs set up properly. We are probably the only group of viewers actually qualified to comment about what is going on and we care about quality.If they are now saying an average picture is ok for HD then maybe they should pull out of it and give more money to Johnathon Ross.

As a retired BBC cameraman I am particularly upset about this ,as I know the detailed effort that goes into producing the programs by all the staff. Please will someone at the BBC listen to what we are saying and get it sorted.