BBC HD: Picture Quality and Dolby Research
Post categories: hdtv
| 11:17 UK time, Thursday, 6 November 2008
Over the months we have had many comments about the BBC HD channel on this blog, other chat rooms and directly to the BBC HD team.
Not all of them are negative in fact many of them are very positive.
Whenever I see negative technical comments I do always look at the issues.
Only last week hobwell spotted the 5.1/2.0 switching had stopped some time during the evening. I hadn't watched the stereo programme concerned and I didn't see the comment until 18:30 the following day but I watched the channel start and as I knew the first programme was stereo I was on the phone to the duty engineers in a few minutes. We had the problem fixed, put out an on air apology very quickly and I posted some comments in Danielle's DOG Blog!
(Dolby labs picture from deltamike on flickr)
Other comments on quality do take some investigation.
As a slight change to my usual commentary I wanted to share some of a reply I gave recently to a more general complaint about picture quality on the BBC HD channel.
It also allows me to introduce Rowan de Pomerai, a BBC Research graduate who is working with me for the next few months on a project to improve Dolby E sound on BBC HD.
Rowan has his own blog so you can keep up to date with his project and his thoughts there!
Here is an edited version of the response to the complaint:
"Thank you for your comments about the quality of programmes on the BBC HD Channel...
I want to assure you we do take picture quality very seriously and use a rigorous quality check before any programme delivered on tape is transmitted. Whenever we can we also work with studio and outside broadcast companies to make sure live programmes meet the highest standard too.
You mentioned Amazon was "colour merging". I am not sure what you mean by this but I have not seen anything similar on my home display. I have spotted one other post that compares Amazon to the Sky 1 series "Ross Kemp on..." saying the latter has much higher picture quality.
I have watched both series in HD and must say they are similar in several respects, they both have very good HD content mixed with standard definition material and some sequences that have obviously been shot under very challenging conditions.
I agree some of the low light and night sequences in Amazon are not up to the standard of the majority of the programme.
Programmes like Amazon will always have sequences where conditions mean no matter how good the broadcast technology, domestic cameras that are always much smaller and less conspicuous will be used to reduce risk to the crew with a resulting loss in picture quality.
We are always looking at new technologies that will improve the picture quality in challenging environments but it will take some time before it is uniformly high. In the mean time programmes must limit the amount of standard definition or low quality high definition to 25% of their duration.
Your comment about the Tudors is one I cannot understand or agree with. I still have the series on my PVR and watched quite a bit before writing this. The Tudors is extremely well shot, has very little if any video noise and is beautifully colour balanced.
If this programme looks poor on your television could I ask you to re-check your settings? I would recommend turning the sharpness setting to zero, not to use any of the preset picture modes and to turn off, or reduce to zero all picture enhancement options. I would also recommend turning the contrast setting of your set top box to medium or low before adjusting the brightness and contrast on your display.
If you are looking at some of the chat rooms commenting on the quality of the BBC's HD Channel you will have seen threads discussing our transmission bit rate. The channel's bit rate has remained constant at just over 16Mbs since early last year. I don't often recommend external websites but you might find this one interesting.
I am always watching the channel and do make recommendations to any programme that has variable or substandard sequences to see if we can improve it. All programmes have to meet the technical standards of the channel before they can be transmitted but occasionally even we are caught out by a problem that does not come to light until the actual transmission.
The quality of some several recent programmes has been outstanding. The Goldfrapp Electric Prom was one of the best I've seen, Tess Of The Durbervilles was beautifully shot and from the sections I've seen Little Dorrit should be stunning.
The range of programmes made in high definition will continue to increase over the next few years and we will explore what works and what is just not worth it until high definition is the normal mode of operation.
Many of our high definition programmes use the 25 frame progressive standard (film style). I know some people do not like this and think it degrades the resolution of the picture, while others think it contributes to the quality and style of the programme. This mode does actually have more resolution than the 25 frame interlace standard. Amazon, Silent Witness, Tess, in fact virtually all drama, Natural History and many documentaries use this standard.
Cranford, Silent Witness (right), Tess and other dramas are also using the latest large image format cameras. Theses cameras use a single image sensor that is about the same size as a 16:9 35mm film frame and gives the image a very shallow depth of field. A shallow depth of field will put all but the key subject out of focus and allows a director to use focus as a story telling tool. Again some people think high definition pictures should be pin sharp from the nose of a person in close-up to the trees on the horizon, others find all this visual information distracting and a drama director will use focus to point you to the action they want you to watch.
Here lies another point of confusion; sharpness is not the same as resolution. A picture can be very sharp but contain very little detail. This is especially true in standard definition where electronic sharpening is added in cameras to make the image seem clearer. We do not encourage the use of electronic sharpening in high definition cameras and prefer images to look more natural.
I am currently working on an issue we (and other broadcasters) are having with the Dolby E signal that's used move up to eight channels of audio in the space of two. I have a research graduate from BBC Research working with me, this is very exciting as it is an opportunity not only to deal with problems but to delve deeply into the underlying technology and maybe make improvements that all broadcasters can benefit from. Rowan has his own blog and he will be posting comments on the project when he can - here is the latest.
To finish, there are many comments praising the quality of the HD Channel's quality. I am also aware of the many threads berating the channel's lack of quality, I do read them all and try to address some of the concerns in my blogs and as they come up.
If you would like to read more about BBC Research you can find them here
Yours sincerely...."
As I said at the begining of the letter we do take comments seriously and try to address complaints and enquiries. I hope this sparks off a lively debate and look forward to your thoughts on Rowan's work.
Andy Quested is Principal Technologist, HD, BBC FM&T.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I know it's subjective, but the BBC HD channel seemed to lose it's "wow factor" after the trial finished last year.
It always seemed to look light-years better than any other channel; in fact, it was the BBC HD demo that convinced me to get Sky HD. Now, in comparison to others it looks distinctly average.
If you're saying that nothing technically has changed at the BBC, then it must simply be that the other channels have upped their game.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm one of the 'some people' who remain unconvinced that motion portrayal at 25Hz is adequate. You say that film mode has higher resolution, but surely this is only true for stationary pictures. As soon as there is motion you must have motion judder and/or a drastic reduction in resolution, depending on how the exposure time for each frame is set. Also I hate the film effect subjectively - I find it gives a feeling of detachment or a dream-like effect, whereas proper video gives a feeling of 'being there'. Film effect is fine when used sparingly, say for a dream sequence or a flashback - just not for the whole time. Whilst realising that I am banging my head against a brick wall here, I note that there have been some documentaries with proper motion such as Atom, Alexei Sayle's Liverpool and The Story of Maths, so maybe there is an opposing force even at the Beeb.
One more small request - those of us using certain receivers (mine is a Humax) find that BBC HD is not flagged as widescreen and so comes up as pillarbox, and has to be manually switched. I know this is arguably a receiver problem as it should assume all HD is widescreen, but is there any chance you could set the flag at your end?
Complain about this comment
The problem with 25Hz Progressive pictures is they appear jerky on LCD TV's.
Higher spec sets have interpolation technology to overcome this jerkiness.
This can then introduce a shimmering halo affect around moving objects if the background has a lot of detail in it.
I find interlaced pictures preferable for this reason.
Andy, what is your opinion on the black level in programs?
Little Dorrit & The Tudors both look more gray than black to me. Other programs like SCD are however fine.
And yes, I have my TV correctly adjusted.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy - thank you for your detailed bog.
I take accept your statement:-
'Here lies another point of confusion; sharpness is not the same as resolution'
I think I have misunderstood this myself at times.
I was one of the posters who was disappionted with parts of 'Amazon' - but you explain the reason for that also.
However, I can't believe that (although off-air now for 6 months) you didn't mention the less than great picture on the J Ross Friday Night Show.
I also agree with 'digital_elysium' that a year ago the picture looked 'better' - and I do think the lowering of the bit-rate hasn't yet been made up for by better encoding.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
You have not addressed the question of perceived reduction of BBC HD picture quality from the heights of the best during the HD Trials. What did change was the bit-rate from 19 to 16 Mbps!
Complain about this comment
A quick answer to some of the questions:
DavidJRob - the exposure time for a both interlace and progressive should be identical usually 1/50th or in film terms 108 degrees.
There is no difference in resolution of individual frames but the faster the movement in the interlace image, the lower the resolution of the final frame when the two halves are reassembled.
With a 25-frame progressive image the faster the movement the greater the “judder”.
Frame rate is not a technical issue. The decision to us 25i or 25p is entirely editorial.
smithap66 - My plasma has no motion interpolation so shows the image as we transmit it. If you do have a shimmering halo affect around moving objects have you tried adjusting the back light level? With any compression system there will be artifacts and it sounds like they are being amplified by to display. I have just check the Tudors, Little Dorrit and Barbara (from my PVR) and the black levels are close to screen black and if they are sat up it’s a very small amount.
Daveac – unfortunate events meant we didn’t get the chance to demonstrate the changes. But as for the bit rate issue, in May 2007 we installed new encoders that improved picture quality (as demonstrated by the improvements noticed between Wimbledon 2006 and 2007) and have not moved since. We are always looking at newer more efficient transmission encoders though.
Finally digiai-elysium Bill-Taylor and daveac - why can’t others catch up with our quality!!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
i 2nd Bill-Taylor's comment, reducing the bitrate from 19mbps to 16mbps isn't giving the viewer better quality at all, why is BBCHD on cable in mpeg2 17.6mbps 1920*1080i, why not mpeg4 with same bitrate and resolution, surely you can get virgin to roll out a software update to enable their players to play mpeg4, mpeg4 gives a greater colour range, better compression, less blockiness etc. In reality 17.6mbps ~ 13mbps mpeg4 which just isn't good enough.
Jools holland often looks like it has grain added, like jonathon ross used to have which you appear to have fixed. Like with the movie "300" the director added grain into the film, seems like you do this for some shows but it looks REALLY bad.
Regarding Amazon...
I saw in some of the shots it showed the guy filming with another camera and the camera was only a 720p camera, why on earth arent you using 1080p cameras for 100% of BBCHD footage? they have been out for years! That will be why the quality doesnt seem to be the best. Its not like 1080p camera's are bigger and bulkier to carry around or anything, why use 720p and upscale, we pay a license fee for a reason, to get the best quality available at the time.
We still havent had Stephen Fry on BBCHD, yet its out on bluray in 11days, why on earth is this? If you have stephen fry in HD why not air it? I'm sure you could put it in the place of some Planet Earth or Robin Hood old repeats.
Do you plan on airing BBCHD in 1080p in the forseeable future?
Why do you air BBCHD audio in 384kbps on satellite and 448kbps on cable? Why not both in 448kbps? If it is that Sky boxes cant decode 448 cant you get sky to issue a software update to be able to decode it? Why is satellite only gettin 1440*1080 resolution when cable gets 1920*1080?
Please air BBCHD on cable and satellite in:
448kbps audio
1920*1080i MPEG4 19mbps
and only use 1080p or 2k/4k cameras and not 720p at all.
Thanks.
p.s this blog is having some downtime it seems, page hasnt been working properly for about 15mins. Please give us the ability to edit own posts too, at the very least 10mins after posting as people make mistakes, missing words, typos etc.
Complain about this comment
Andy, can you explain the motion blur noticed on some programs. Bonekickers was a prime example.
Deliberatly slow electronic shutter speed to lessen the judder effect of 25p?
Complain about this comment
Read with interest your comments Andy Quested, good to hear someone with some 'clout' and tech knowledge at BBC is watching the same programmes as us!
So, is there any chance you could chase up who ever is supposed to be sorrting out subtitles of freesat HD please!
And also do something about the 'abismeow' subtitles on many news programmes Look East local news is one of the worst.
A live programme I can understand,it going wrong but when the report is obviously recorded and perhaps was even shown earlier in the day but still goes out later wrong, has to be unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
Andy: I accept the others do not match BBC HD picture quality. I still think the reduction in bit-rate has not been compensated with the new encoders. Many thanks for your contributions and BBC HD.
The BBC should be the Gold Standard, just being better than the rest is not enough. You should aim to provide what the technology can deliver and shame the rest to match it. BBC HD should be a showcase.
Complain about this comment
Why isn't the BBC using DVB-S2 on satellite?
It would mean more bandwidth would become avaliable.
It would mean that no SD channels could no longer be shared on the transponder but it opens up the chance for the BBC to have a second high definition channel.
In the short term the BBC could rent out room for another HD service until the arrival of BBC HD 2 which will come sooner or later as live HD sports events begin to clash and more programming becomes avaliable in HD as the BBC moves towards its 2010 target of everything being made in HD.
Complain about this comment
Again Andy, thankyou very much for your highly detailed and informative posts. Sometimes BBC HD can appear to be a little 'unloved' and it's nice to know about the effort going on.
Without wanting to be rude might I suggest to samuel1984 that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Firstly, it's not the BBC's responsibility to upgrade Virgin's network or equipment. Andy can confirm or deny, but I believe the BBC pass an uncompressed fibre feed to VM which they then do with as they please. Also, if you knew as much about this technology as you'd like people to think you do, you'd know that there's more to MPEG4 than a 'software upgrade'.
Secondly, 720p HD cameras have been out for a while. Do you have any idea with an organisation the size of the BBC how much internal procedure slows things down? "No, I'm sorry, cancel all HD programs until every camera is up to some internet bloggers arbitrary standards".
I do think that us Virgin Media users tend to be very demanding because BBC HD is our *only* live HD option (It's referred to as "The Shiny Channel" in our house!). Could you or Danielle enlighten us at some point as to how material gets passed to VM for HD VOD? Like will we every see Spooks: Code 9 (which I liked, even if nobody else did!) or Torchwood in HD:VOD?
Oh, and thanks for the link to Rowan's blog.
Complain about this comment
"Finally digiai-elysium Bill-Taylor and daveac - why can?t others catch up with our quality!!!"
Indeed. But it's kind of like the "is my train moving, or is that other train moving?" conundrum.
Is it just that other companies have come up to the quality of BBC HD, or is that BBC HD has descended to their level?
Complain about this comment
Like others here I would like to register a vote against 25p. For me, it's the flicker that this adds to any movement in the picture that I find annoying. The issue here that that perception of flicker varies over quite a large range due to differences in Flicker Fusion Threshold between individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
The problem with this is that if the Producer or whoever makes the decision to use 25p doesn't notice the flicker, they cannot possibly know how annoying it is for someone who does notice it. I hate the "filmic" effect that is added to many programmes for the same reason.
On a more "artistic" note, I feel that 25p and the filmic effect distances the viewer from the action. If Producers use 25p to make video look like film, it fails miserably. If you want it to look like film, shoot it on film.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the recommendation to my website , Andy!
Unfortunately I just measure and I can't watch the most HD-Channels, because they are scrambled.
So I'm realy happy that I can receive BBC-HD here in Bonn. I'm looking forward for this friday night with Jonathan Ross and Jools Holland. I enjoy the brilliant picture in my home cinema with a 1080i DLP beamer on a 3.5m screen.
Like some others I also expected a little bit more PQ from Jonathan Ross but I noticed an increase over the last shows.
By the way, very interesting blog from the BBC. I miss something similar from the german public broadcasters ARD and ZDF.
Oliver
Admin of www.linowsat.de
Complain about this comment
I'm struggling to relate this blog to Danielle's recent blog where she says..
Quote "There are still elements affecting picture quality along the broadcast chain that we are working on ...I hope that, as we address them, the picture quality will improve across the channel. "
I'm fine with the bitrate but I do think the picture quality is poor. Maybe its the encoding you are using? Take three examples from the past week.
1. I watched Britain from the Air and the picture had loads of artefacts on moving grass shots.
2. Any scene that involves movement , smoke and lights also fails the HD quality - Strictly come Dancing often has problems when the camera pans rapidly - watch the lights on the ceiling - I see artefacts if the camera moves quickly. And the overall studio picture is poor.
3. My third example is the Coldplay scene on the HD Preview . Its grainy and just looks a mess
My overall conclusion - a complex picture with movement doesn't work on BBC HD.
Now all this could be my TV but why do some still scened programmes (like Antiques Roadshow) look ok , and other HD TV channels look better than the BBC?
The bottom line is same TV, same settings, other HD channels just look far better most of the time.
Complain about this comment
@Linosat
I think you'll find Johnathon Ross is cancelled and its not the picture quality that caused it . His dirty mind has resulted in him being suspended for 12 weeks.
Complain about this comment
Well thank you for finally getting onto picture quality Andy. I would like an answer on DVB-S2 and have asked before. There are only two worthless BBC variants on the transponder so I don't see why BBD HD can't go S2, kick those off the transponder and up the bitrates.
Before you misunderstand my post I would like to say that technically, I think BBC HDs output is brilliant. The only programmes I have ever criticised were the infamous FA Cup semi final in 2008 (which was rectified for the final), the rugby and other live events such as I'd do anything. The Tudors and most of the others you mentioned are stunning. I own blu-rays, I've watched plenty of stuff in HD on tv. For me one of the joys of high definition is you can watch a film or something else and actually see the style and effects used and think how did they do that and what were they aiming for? I have seen stuff with deliberate grain, deliberate softness coupled with stunning colour and others that have insane sharpness. I have seen some older films in blu-ray and there has been a ridiculous amount of whinging about some of them.
The halo affect around people as you call it happens. It happens on blu-ray too so don't feel too bad about it (some people notice it more than others). Playing around with settings and even 100Hz doesn't remove it sometimes. Some tvs are worse than others.
However, I must take you up on your point about bitrates. You say you have updated the codecs in May 2007. We are aware of this. You have updated your bitrates, so has Sky :-). You seem to be saying that 16Mbs is an acceptable level without justification. I disagree fundamentally with this. There are two sets of well known sports channels that have similar bitrates. One set is praised, the other regarded as about the worst picture quality in the known world. So much so that there is an oft repeated myth that it has low bitrates (it actually has high standard def bitrates). We know one set of channels has slightly better but similar production techniques to the other channel. Therefore we must speculate it is the codecs. You have a similar problem. BBC HD is simply average on your current codecs that are inferior to the ones Sky uses. Simply repeating that you have high bitrates won't wash as we know your codecs aren't the best so you have to pump out at a higher bitrate. Sky rams 3 HD channels down some of it's transponders that are equal picture quality to yours. You have two BBC variants and 1HD channel on a transponder. Sometimes on some days the bitrate is pumped up on the other HD channels. So I am saying BBC HD doesn't compare so well. If you want to be regarded as equal you'd need more like 20Mbs. Other people feel the same.
While we're on the subject of bitrates I would like to bring up a related point. Multiplex B on freeview is to be handed over for 3 high definition channels by Ofcom from November 2009. I have read some of the Ofcom documents and it makes it clear that the resources would be split more or less equally in theory. Depending on who you believe with DVB-T2 a reconstituted Mux would have 31 or 35Mbs. It will also be MPEG-4. BBC HD uses about 16mbs. 35/3 = a lot less than 16Mbs. Your thoughts? The cynic in me says that as no one has explained this that the bbc would eventually write some new codecs for satellite and work on all the terrestrial stuff and that the bitrates would get beaten down and beaten down to a poorer picture quality to fit on freeview. That or freeview would be inferior to satellite.
Complain about this comment
@ropies
The BBCs stated position is that it aims to cut the bitrate of the HD channel further so I concur with your concerns.
(source - avforums, a BBC email reply to a complaint posted to the forum clearly stated the intention to further to cut the bitrate for "efficiencies")
Complain about this comment
efficiences my ass, more like to reduce the bandwidth needed for virgin to their oversubscribed full to capacity network which throttles you for more hours of 9am-12pm then doesnt throttle you. Which the govt would stop letting these companies screw with it's customers.
Complain about this comment
@digitalscoobiedoo thanks, I don't read avforums broadcaster related sections much. I'm aware there are others disgruntled on there certainly.
Samuel1984, as has already been said here and elsewhere virgin media have MPEG-2 because the V+ and more importantly when it was the tvdrive from telewest was MPEG-2. It was chosen for reasons to do with telewest's plans of which there is information out there. These plans have little to do with the post merged company so look a lot more strange than they did at the time.
I forgot to mention I thought Britain from the Air was bad. Great concept of a programme. Far too much pixelisation.
Complain about this comment
Andy:
Just finished watching Strictly...
Thanks to all of BBC HD.
Reduced DOG is ok. PQ impressive!!
Please keep fighting for more resources for BBC HD as a flagship for BBC Technology and innovation.
Complain about this comment
We have had BBC HD for about a week together with other HD channels on free to air. We have noticed that the BBC channel alone has a habit of losing visual and audio for about 3 seconds from time to time. This was particularly noticeable on the remembrance parade this morning. It seemed to me that this happens when there is a camera switch. Can anyone throw a light on this?
Complain about this comment
johnrydal. I have checked and there is no record of service interruption (i don't get the full report until tomorrow though). Can you tell me which service you have (Sat or Cable) and if Sat what set top box
Andy
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy. The service is satellite with a Technomate TM-6900 HD COMBO free to air receiver.
Complain about this comment
Hi johnrydal. This is not a Sky or Freesat unit so i do not know how compatible it is with our service. We have had no other reports of this fault over the last week. If it continues please let me know but i think it you will need to contact the retailer.
Andy
Complain about this comment
no horizon in hd tonight:( there was a horizon about 2 months ago in hd, dont have a clue why this 1 aint in hd:(
BBCHD is way too inconsistent. Jools holland full show on tues sometimes, sometimes not.
Its like you are using a twister wheel to pick what to show on BBCHD.
Complain about this comment
What's the BBC position on switching to DVB-S2? It would provide more bandwidth for BBC HD.
The BBC could allow Astra to sub let out space to two other HD channels until the BBC needs more bandwidth for itself, it could fit four on a DVB-S2 transponder but it could instead boost the BBC HD bitrate instead.
Complain about this comment
using DVB-S2 and having 2 channels would be great, but its clear for us to see that BBC isnt making its most popular shows in HD due to cost e.g Top Gear, Spooks etc so i doubt they'll want to make another channel. I shall have to dream of BBCHD1 & BBCHD2 in 20mbps.
Complain about this comment
Yes,
Isnt it about time that bbchd stared expanding it's content with some of the more popular shows including those mentioned above?
Danielle, what is the BBCs official future policy toward HD?
To keep it as a limited channel broadcasting only a select range of programs, or to migrate all program making to HD?
If migration to HD is the policy, then how are you going to broadcast it?
Complain about this comment
Have just joined this discussion area and finding it fascinating. I have had BBC HD on Sky for about 1 year and apart from the constant filling of air time with repeats such as Robin Hood, Candleford, etc the content is very good and the picture quality awesome on my Sony Bravia 40 inch. I look forward to the BBC expanding programme material to the full 9 hours instead of this awful "Preview"
I notice that people here talk about 2.0 and 5.1 sound. I have 5.1 surround sound but cannot see how I can see whether it is being transmitted on BBC HD unless I have the surround system switched on. All programmes appear to show they are 'S' for stereo on the Sky HD EPG programme information. Other channels show the sound as DS or DD. Can anybody help me understand ?
Complain about this comment
The BBCs policy on HD seems to be use as little bandwith as possible to make the pictures look as poor as they can to save money (my view).
Everyone knoes the bitrate needs to be increased to 20mbps but it wont happen as the BBC dont give a toss in my view. The BBC looked amazing when it ran at 20 MPBS but as soon as the Bitrate dropped the quality dropped with it.
Andy and Danielle will try and fob you all off with excuses about production and so forth when they both know full well its down to the encoders and reduced bandwith.
remind me what we pay our license fee for again????
Complain about this comment
Andy: Do the BBC have any plans to use 720p for high action HD?
Complain about this comment
Re my previous post (no.2 on this page), I notice that the issue of 'no widescreen flag' has been fixed. If you did that Andy, thanks very much!
I would also be interested in a reply to Bill Taylor's question (no. 33) about 720p. There appear to be no progressive transmissions to the UK on any channel, which in view of the fact that no natively interlaced HD displays are available, does seem odd.
Complain about this comment
Dear DavidJRob Thanks for the post, we did check the switching - we found nothing wrong but reset it just in case.
And to you and Bill-Taylor - although 720 is HD for transmission, the international standards say it's not for programme exchange. Most of the HD programmes we make are 1080p25 (recorded, post produced and delivered 1080psf25) so are at the highest possible quality. Other programmes are 1080i25 so we have them in the archive at a standard that the rest of the world accepts as HD.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy: Thanks for the reply.
It was my understanding that 720P/60 is used by USA for HD sport as it is better at high motion. It was discussed during the launch of HD as the partner to 1080i depending on the prime object of the programming.
Can you comment on some of the Wildlife programmes broadcast by BBC clearly showed 720p cameras being used.
Thanks again to all involved in BBC HD.
Complain about this comment
Dear Bill-Taylor
The Varicam has an "exemption" from the rule as it is still the only camera able to shoot NHU programmes in the way a simple Super16 film camera does. We clearly state the this camera will not be allowed as soon as a 1080 version is available.
I cannot comment about the US and Sport more than to say NBC is 1080i29.97. Th US has been pushing very hard for 1080 to be the standard for all international event and programme exchange as well. I do know several US broadcaster are looking closely at 1080p59.94.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Many thanks for responding
Complain about this comment
"All programmes appear to show they are 'S' for stereo on the Sky HD EPG programme information."
The 'S' is for subtitles NOT stereo!!
BBC HD, like Sky, don't flag a stereo programme.
They do however, use DD for DD 5.1, even though technically every programme on an HD channel is in DD - albeit a lot of the time DD2.0 (stereo).
Complain about this comment
Andyquested, your and Bill Taylor's comments about varicam are interesting. I was wondering whether there was some kind of list of wildlife programmes shot on this. The reason I ask is there has been a lot of speculation in the past about programmes like Blue Planet and Life in Cold blood and yes/no/sort of answers speculated about whether they were shot in HD.
Complain about this comment
Dear ropies
Blue Planet & Life in Cold Blood were not HD. The list of HD NHU programmes shot on the Varicam is now very large and is still growing. It would be safe to assume just about every wildlife programme shown on the channel has used the Varicam for some if not most of the HD shooting. We will continue to use the Varicam for some time as there is no viable 1080 alternative yet.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Yes, I am aware they weren't described as HD. The reason I asked was Blue Planet is available on virgin media on demand as "HD" and is allegedly upscaled. It looks so good I've always wondered whether it was shot fully in SD or some better equipment in between. Thanks for your answer though, many of these things do look pretty good.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see that Test Card W is now included in the preview loop, albeit only for 90 seconds. I did request this back in 2006, so everything comes to he who waits!
It would be useful to know what resolution the frequency gratings correspond to. Currently I am getting the first 3 gratings with a trace of the 4th, this on a 1366x768 screen.
For anyone wanting to check this out, the last few items leading up to the test card currently are:
Little Dorrit
Britannia
Kids' Quiz
Anne Frank
Gardeners' World
Joanna Lumley
Burt Bacharach
The Streets
TEST CARD
Complain about this comment
Dear DavidJRon
I am preparing a new blog now and there is another sync check test signal to come as soon as Rowan has completed tests on the reserve broadcast chain
Full details of how to use them both soon
Andy
Complain about this comment
As others have suggested, can we have a scheduled test card so that it can be recorded and played back as required? Thx
Complain about this comment
Dear BikeNutt
Unfortunately not at the moment. The position depends on the "off air" time of the channel. You should be able to record it if you start a manual record 1 hour (better make it 55 mins for safety) after the channel programmes finish for about 15 mins.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Thanks Andy - didn't think to do a manual record (Virgin V+). Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Andy - I've noticed for quite a while now that there is a 'pop' from the surround speakers whenever there is a change from 2.0 to 5.1. It's not loud enough to damage the speakers but it is very noticeable and quite annoying. Is there anything that can be done in the broadcast to mask this? (I'm assuming it's not my equipment as there has been discussion on the topic of 2.0 to 5.1 before) Thx.
Complain about this comment
Dear BikeNutt
I will check - mine was clean last night but can you let me know what set top box you have, what AV amp and how you connect between the two. Also one this we have noticed, if we are not switching cleanly the change from 3/2 to 2/0 on an AV amps front panel is about 1/2 a second after the transition, if the domestic equipment is causing it the change is on the transition.
Last thing, we record all the output - can you remember a particular junction that popped?
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy - it's a Virgin Media V+ STB connected to a Marantz SR5002 via HDMI (both video & audio). I apply 30ms of delay to get the lip sync perfect.
It happens at the beginning and end of any programme broadcast in 2.0 on changeover to/from the HD logo intro thingy (don't know the technical term for it). Thx.
Complain about this comment
Just checked a recording of last weeks Apparitions and it did it then as an example.
I'm starting to think it may be my equipment after all though as the 'pop' does does not increase in volume even if I crank the amp volume up to 'silly' levels. Does this make sense?
Complain about this comment
@ DavidJRob - Thanks for listing the stuff before the test card. I switched on this afternoon and The Streets was playing. I did a manual record just as it finished so I now have a neat 2 minute recording of the test card which I can keep without wasting HDD space! Thx
Complain about this comment
Hello Andy,
As a yet-to-be HD viewer would you please list the main standards used by the BBC when transmitting in HD now and how/when this might change in the future. Having looked at the HD Freesat satellite receiver specifications it seems 720p and 1080i are the only ones supported. Yet many TV Displays are now sold with 1080p as well. I would like to know whether a TV receiver with 1366x768-720p/1080i will match the HD transmitted formats for some time into the future. Presumably the only 1920x1080-1080p HD signal source at present is that from Bluray DVD players and games consoles? I am anxious to avoid buying equipment which has standards not required for off-air/cable reception. Also can you say whether the VirginMedia cable HD signal is degraded over that received from a HD Freesat receiver? Apologies for taking you back to basics like this but very little concrete technical information seems to be available generally. penworx.
Complain about this comment
Dear penworx
I am sorry not to answer quickly. I am writing the next blog (mentioned by Danielle) and finishing testing the test signals.
Just a couple of very quick answers. 1080 and 720 are both considered to be HD as far as transmission standards bodies are concerned. All set top boxes and HD Ready TV can handle both standards even if they say 1080p.
Below about 42" (with current display technology) it is debatable if full 1920 x 1080 display panel has any benefit the scaling technology is more important. 1366x768 displays are 16:9 so scaling is proportional to the aspect ratio of the image.
I always say "buy the display that suites you" look at HD in both interlace (sport) and progressive (film and docs) AND watch SD on it too - especially if it has a built in Freeview tuner.
There should be little difference between BBC HD on any broadcast platform. Virgin receive a direct feed of the HD signal from our play-out area. They use MPEG2 so the pictures may occasionally look different but it shouldn't be significant. The set top box, display and the connection between then can affect picture quality significantly.
We are still working on the specifications for the terrestrial HD service, but again no service should look significantly different. You could say the later the service is specified, the more we know and the better the design!
Hope this helps
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy wrote:
"...look at HD in both interlace (sport) and progressive (film and docs)..."
I don't quite understand this statement. First, shouldn't it be the other way round (progressive is better for sport because more resolution is delivered on fast movement)?
Secondly, how can we look at progressive when there are no transmissions?
Complain about this comment
Just thought, did you mean progressive @ 25Hz? If so, I'm not sure whether most displays would recognise this as progressive. Would they not treat all 1080@25 as interlaced? Or is there a progressive flag in the transmission?
Complain about this comment
Dear DavidJRob
We use a format actually called psf (progressive segmented frame). It splits a progressive frame into two - each has the same temporal information but different vertical information. So a progressive image captured by a camera at 25 frames a second is split into two fields.
This process sits a progressive image in an interlace signal. We hope one day to transmit the 25 frame flag so TVs can reconstruct the frame (do the opposite of the process in the camera) - but not yet!
You were correct to assume 25fps progressive - it will be a while before 50p is a viable TV format
Andy
Complain about this comment
Ditto the comments earlier about 25p vs 50i. I find the stuttery motion of 25p quite irritating, as if the picture is faulty - and this is far worse on a large screen in HD.
(And yes, I find fast pans and movement even more objectionable in the cinema!).
Different eyes see differently. I also find DLPs unwatchable - I can see the rainbows easily, while other people can't see them at all.
50i HD doesn't have to look like trash - it can have smooth movement _and_ high production values, good lighting, sensible colour grading etc. I wish BBC HD carried more of it!
I realise it's an editorial decision - but I'm guessing you tell the same people not to add bags of fake grain for artistic effect, because it'll mess up the encoding - it would be nice for someone to pass on the message that 25p film-like stuttery movement upsets some viewers.
Cheers,
David.
Complain about this comment
Dear 2Bdecided
If you think about 1080p25 vs 1080i25 you will realise the p version has half the motion so is a lot easier to encode! It also has full resolution so more details than the i verison
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy. Have just discovered this blog while googling lip sync issues that I've been having. Great blog! The BBC HD service has easily had the best lip sync since I started receiving an HD service from Sky a couple of weeks ago - it's been pretty much faultless, and tonights programme The Medicis: Makers of Modern Art was a joy - superb pictures and sound! Some of the HD content from Sky has had awful lip sync problems, especially on Sky Sports HD1, where the sound persistently lags behind the picture. Do you or anyone else have experience of this issue? Are there any internet forums that I can look at?
Complain about this comment
Dear MarkyMark47
Thanks for your kind comments they are much appreciated. I hope to have the next blog up either tomorrow or early next week that goes through the line up of your TV using the Test Card and the yet to be transmitted AV sync test signal. If you hang on I think it will cause a lot of comment and links to other forum discussions!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy,
I just have a question regarding HD frame rates, blu-ray is mastered at 1080p/24, my new 1080p lcd can except this frame rate "24fps Compatible. Enables the display of a 24 frames per second input at the native frame rate of the TV (50/100 Hz".
So my tv is doing a frame conversion? i thought to get 25fps from a 24fps source the framerate has to be speed up by 4.1%.
I bought a full hd tv and a blu-ray for the 1:1 pixel mapping, the quality of the pictures are impressive but im not to happy with the 24fps frame rate especially regarding characters during a scene, i can see a trail as they move especially around there heads, is this error called edge enhancement? which some people seem to call the "halo" effect. If i set my blu-ray to output 1080i/60 the errors seem to be not quite as noticable or am i going mad?
Complain about this comment
Hello Andy,
Thanks for your reply blog#54 to my inquiry. Your statement "Below about 42" (with current display technology) it is debatable if full 1920 x 1080 display panel has any benefit; the scaling technology is more important" got me thinking. If at sizes below 42" (diagonal) the display pixel size is small compared with the smallest transmitted image element then surely this must be equally true of larger display sizes. Blog#52 above mentions the new 16:9 Test Card which presumably must contain the smallest elements and if these are larger than the pixel size (which for a 32" display is 0.5x0.5mm approx. actual size) then what improvement is available by using yet smaller pixels? Perhaps you could also say a little more about what to look for in the scaling technology and the effect it has on perceived picture quality. Many thanks and Happy Xmas, penworx.
Complain about this comment
Dear penworx
Now - you open a can of pixels here! By "current display technology" I point at not only new technologies (OLED etc) but at the steady improvement to existing LCD and Plasma panels. Some of my BBC Research colleagues could speak (and often do to me) for hours on the subject.
I will try to get one of them to contribute - that is if Nick allows it!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Glad to see films are now on BBC HD. So have hooked my Freesat box to the Hi-Fi.
Watched ‘Sin City’ First impressions were pretty good. Great PQ. However, there appears to be some kind of audio compression, as the dynamics appeared restricted. This in comparison to my DVD audio output.
Is this the case? Or maybe it’s all down to my freesat box?
Complain about this comment
Dear delphiplasma
Thanks for your post. Just like penworx in post 63 you open another dynamic range can here.
There are many complaints to the BBC about dynamic range and TV does have to limit the audio to a fairly small one.
We cannot transmit anything like the dynamic range of a DVD.
There is a parallel here with the pictures. One thing we decided to do from the start of the channel was to show movies in the aspect ration they were made in when we either had it in the library or could get a copy from the distributor - and we have had complaints about the black bars!
I am looking closely at a similar option for the audio (not the full cinema mix but maybe closer to the DVD) but we must find a way of transmitting a TV level version within the same signal.
Andy
Complain about this comment
@ delphiplasma.
"Watched ?Sin City? First impressions were pretty good. Great PQ. However, there appears to be some kind of audio compression, as the dynamics appeared restricted. This in comparison to my DVD audio output."
Perhaps if BBC HD had broadcast the filim with a DD5.1 soundtrack as the EPG suggested it would be, rather than in stereo, it would have sounded better?
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Just some feedback on the new encoders.
Watching Wildest Dreams the well lit scenes seemed OK, however the "performance review" scenes which were less well lit had what looked like camera noise.
It was certainly struggling with the noise and showed artifacts when viewed close up.
Not particularly noticeable from normal viewing distance.
When watching "Who do you think you are" last night compression artifacts were clearly visible.
Specifically a scene where david Mitchell was on a boat, 30 mins in. Not specifically on the water, but mainly noticeable on his face and hills in the background.
Also the scene immediately after where he is sat on the quay. There are several fades. These fades really struggled.
Watching Live At The Appollo on the preview loop showed noise/artifacts on his jacket and floor.
Also compared the Nick Cave sequence on the preview loop to a recording I had made some weeks back. I have to say I struggled to tell much difference between the two.
So, is noise in original source affecting this encoder more than the original, especially with the lower bitrate?
Complain about this comment
"Many of our high definition programmes use the 25 frame progressive standard (film style). I know some people do not like this and think it degrades the resolution of the picture, while others think it contributes to the quality and style of the programme".
I am also one of those who very much dislike the 25p frame rate. And think 50i or 50p is much better.
In fact the BBC's own white paper shows that low frame rates give much lower motion resolution and negate any improvment in the spatial resolution of television. Here is the BBC white paper that is calling for much higher frame rates: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf - I find the 25p to look fake, juddery and jerky and much lower quality, as well as much lower in temporal resolution.
Complain about this comment
Dear HD1080
Thanks for the post. Ever since HD started frame rate has always been considered to be an editorial and not a technical issue. Actually a 1080p25 acquired frame has more resolution than a 1080i25. It is true that the vast majority of HD programmes are produced using the 1080p25 format and I assume this will continue until cinema moves from 24p to a higher frame rate!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy - Some more feedback on the new encoders - Watching tonight's repeat of 'Coast', about 21 minutes in there was a scene where they were writing in the sand with stones - there were all sorts of weird compression artifacts in the shadows on the sand which weren't there in the first showing on Tuesday (presumably using on the old encoders). Looked to me like the new encoders are really struggling...
I noticed dodgy fades and transitions on last nights 'Who Do You Think You are?' as well.
Complain about this comment
@tagmcclaren
I agree with your comments about Preview, Wild Dreams and Who you you think you are. I saw the same quality problems on another tv
To put this in context Eurosport HD is running at 19550. BBC HD is half that.
Complain about this comment
"Actually a 1080p25 acquired frame has more resolution than a 1080i25"
Don't both have exactly the same resolution, assuming there is no filtering. I know 1080i25 has 540 fields per second but in 1 frame both will have the same amount of lines/resolution (ie. 1080 lines). I know that half the lines in the 1080i frame will be from a different moment in time (which is why 1080i gives better motion, and doesn't look jerky/juddery and actually looks better on todays LCDs) but it's still the same resolution in each frame.
Can you please tell me when we will have 1080p50 Freeview HD decoders and broadcasts? Have you read the BBC's white paper on high frame rate television I linked to above, and if so, do you agree with the points raised in the paper/what are your views, and when do you think we will have high frame rate television (eg. 100fps or above), seeing as, as the paper suggests, the higher the frame rate, not only does it look better and give more motion resolution, but is relatively easier to compress as there is less frame-to-frame variation and temporal aliasing than normal and so will lead to higher compression ratios.
Have you read the article entitled "Act Now for 1080p50" in which the project manager of the EBU recommends the use of 1080p50, and states it will not require higher bitrates than 1080/50i?
http://tvbeurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1790
What are the BBCs views this and when will we have this TV format? Thank you.
Complain about this comment
When I said "1080i25 has 540 fields per second" I meant "1080i25 has 540 lines in each field" ie. 1/50th of a second (I'm sure you know what I mean :)). It would be good if these blogs had an edit option. :)
Complain about this comment
More Feedback on the new encoder - The fade to black from the BBC HD ident before 'Spanish Flu - the forgotten fallen' tonight was very blocky.
Complain about this comment
Dear jordanrowland
I have asked some of our coding experts to look at fades but this coder is better than the older one (which also had an audio issue - now resolved)
Andy
Complain about this comment
I've posted a complaint on the picture quality to BBC Points of View. Other people are already chipping into the discussion - please join the debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=6819732
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy - thanks for that - Is it useful for us to provide examples of where/when we're seeing issues or are general observations more useful?
On the old encoder we used to see rows of fine horizontal lines on fades to black, on the new encoder it's more like blockiness we see on Standard definition digital TV.
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo
Re your comment on the Summer Fixtures blog - I am reading comments but they mostly lack example. Jordan has provided useful feedback for me to look at and pass on.
Complain about this comment
My initial impressions are that any source material that has noise (camera or whatever) are really making the encoder struggle.
Just gone to a well lit scene in Spanish flu from a poorly lit and noisy one and the issues I see disapear.
Complain about this comment
Dear tagmclaren
Thanks for the post - there is another explanation for visible noise. Do you remember the Angel Falls shot from Planet Earth that was used as a "Great Moments" promo? Everyone remembered it from the series but when it was shown after the previous coder update there were complaints the coders were degrading the pictures - actually the shot is very noisy due to a technical issue in the helicopter and the coder up-grade passed the noise instead of "mushing" (new coder technical term) it into the picture.
Reggie looking good at the moment
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy- I would point out wood grain on the desk in the office in Spanish Flu - the lead actor's office scenes in the first 15 mins of the production when they are sitting down talking to each other . Noticeable artefacts at quite a normal distance for me I'm afraid (ie I don't have to go close up to see the problems)
Complain about this comment
Another one for you - Rick Stein's dark navy shirt in the market scenes tonight had artefacts.
Complain about this comment
Reggie seems generally fine.
I'm sure this isn't my imagination, but I see flickering from time to time. Seems to happen randomly, no obvious reason. I did see it whilst reggie was pruning the bush, across the house.
Another observation, don't know if it's my imagination.
Over the past few months I had increased the fine detail (sharpness) control slightly on my video processor. I do use very low levels BTW.
With the new encoder I have reduced it again as if the picture is very slightly sharper.
Also the colours seem more natural. Again could obviously be a figment of my imagination! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Reggie was pretty similar to the original broadcast a few months ago - I did spot that in the opening animation, the characters on the railway platform appeared to 'fade in' in stages, rather than smoothly - I'm sure they faded in smoothly in the original broadcast. It's a small thing I know, but it adds to the general impression that the new coder does not cope well with fades.
Complain about this comment
Dear tagmclaren - I didn't see any flickering but can't say I was looking hard at that point - re your other points, the images should be sharper, one thing MPEG4 coders do is soften images as they start to struggle so you should see that less with the new one. HOWEVER the balance between artefacts and softness is critical. I would expect an improvement in colour coding too.
Dear jordanrowland - I sent a note this evening about mixes/fades.
On a general point, has anyone checked to see if AV sync via the test signal is still the same? I had to change a display at work today by 20ms but as I couldn't remember the original number I don't know if someone else had changed it. The new coder converts from Dolby E to Dolby D internally so we have lost an external decoder/encoder from the chain. On pre change tests everything was fine but there is nothing like an on-air test to prove the point!
Last thing - Tom Jones is looking very good. But looking at the power lines in the wide shots I can see a combination of compression aretfacts and interlace aliasing both virtually invisible with the previous coder because it softened the pictures. What is really interesting is the compression artefacts look like a combination of transmission, play-out, post and acquisition codec concatenation - I may need to recommend a bit of filtering!!!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo - thanks for the POV post:
"I do not trust BBC HD to get this right because I've had the channel for a while now and the constant message from the Technical team is that "it must be your tv settings, it looks ok to us" (no doubt while they are watching on £4000 tvs.)"
No - I have a 50 Panasonic plasma and two 22 UMC (1920x1080) TVs at home and several different size (32" up to 65") Sony, Samsung, Panasonic LCD/Plasma TVs at work (and access to a very interesting 32" CRT - but I only tend to watch broadcast HD on this).
I still have to get people to remove the SCART lead from home set-ups and tell then that the "vivid" setting is only to be used for doing toast
Andy
Complain about this comment
@Andyquested
Excuse my frustration but to give with one hand (new encoder) and to take away with the other (cut bitrate) just isn't fair imo. A bit more bitrate would not be the end of the world, it can't harm the picture. Cutting the bitrate must harm the picture.
Complain about this comment
Can someone say when 1080p50 Freeview HD decoders will be made available please? Do we need to wait till the expected life of the first lot of Freeview HD decoders is over till the 1080p50 ones are available? And how long do you think that will be? 3-10 years or less?
Complain about this comment
Andy can you please confirm the situation with the football tomorrow. Can you please let us know the plans for the match in regards to bandwith. 1 day left and its rather important considering its teh first game. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Wednesday, why would it be different?
Complain about this comment
Andy, Performed a sound sync test from a recording made on the 6th.
Set up Humax HDR > Panasonic TH42PZ80 plasma. Using plasma speakers.
Picture leads sound by 26ms
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/7Vm2p9xF8PV2eQgNZXNNww?feat=directlink
Humax HDR > DVDO ISCAN VP50pro > Tag AV32RDP AV amp. Using surround spk.
picture leads sound by 9 ms
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/NPRZF1ALccPLp_ga9tgYZg?feat=directlink
Note the video processor sends 50p to the plasma and inserts 68ms delay. No account made for plasma input lag.
So, no real change when going through the AV amp from the previous encoder.
However when inputting directly to the plasma there seems to have been an increase of around 10 ms??????
Note there has been an over the air firmware update to the plasma since the last time I tested.
Complain about this comment
Dear tagmaclaren - thanks for this. I have just had confirmation the transport stream is showing around a 1ms AV difference i.e. 19ms tighter than the EBU recommendation! As the new unit in fully integrated I expect it to be far more stable and fairly immune to "finger trouble"!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I can also cofirm jordanrowlands observation about the characters on the railway platform.
This may be related to the flickering I have observed.
Complain about this comment
Why would what be different??? The bandwith for the football??? Its obvious is it not??
Surely BBC HD are not going to premier the launch of championsip football in HD using a mere 9mbps??? its clear the quality will not get anywhere near stunning at that rate.
Surely they will up the rate for sport???
Complain about this comment
Dear wednesday83
Thanks for your comments over the last 24 hours! I assume you watched the Tom Jones session last night and saw how good the pictures looked and how tight the AV sync was - this bodes well for the football tomorrow. My concern for tomorrow is the MPEG2 link back to Television Centre
Andy
Complain about this comment
So in other words Andy BBC HD are going to lanch the football and not increase the bandwith???
A question for you Andy, why do you think sky up the bit rates for Sport???
Also who is in charge of deciding what bit rates are used???
Complain about this comment
Wednesday,
Why don't you take an objective approach to this change and like the rest of us report back observations and highlight problems.
Apart from the issues people have highlighted, so far it seems that there has been little change and some things ARE actually looking better.
Note my comments about colour and sharpness.
Also why has it been dropped?
Andy?
Is it to save bandwidth and therefore cost? (I would have a tantrum)
Is it to allow more HD channels on the transponder? (one can only hope)
Is it to allow more SD channels on the transponder? (again a tantrum)
Wednesday, I am sure you are aware of the issue with space on the transponder and Astra 2D.
Complain about this comment
Yes I am aware of space issues with transponders, but at the end of the day whats the point in HD channels with bandwith is just going to be so low.
Do honestly believe football can look good on 9MBPS??? Not a chance in hell.
Ive often admitted some things look good on BBC HD. Dragons den looks fantatsic. Ive no issue with slow paces well lit shows.
And going back to the space issue, theres no other BBC HD channel as of yet so why not launch the new encoder with stunning quality and get people talking posotively about BBC HD again.
Ive been watching the BBC HD loop today and to be fair quite a lot of it looks quite good. But its not as good as it could and it certainly struggling with fast movement.
Complain about this comment
Does it have to be another BBCHD channel?
There are rumours going around, but they are probably not true.
Yes, if nothing useful was going to be done with the freed up space I would agree with you. Hence my question to Andy.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
You mention the mpeg2 link. Any reason not to have moved to mpeg4 for contribution links?
Complain about this comment
Dear tagmclaren
Interestingly at high bit rates the difference beteen MPEG4 and MPEG2 is very small. MPEG4 contribution coders are still fairly new and we are still testing (with the EBU) but MPEG4 comes into its own as bit rates drop. Remember contribution links may actauly have more than one code/decode in the path and there may be other digital processing in studios or post prodution - we know what happens with MPEG2 and can manage the process to minimise errors. You should start to see MPEG4 contribution coders by the end of the year though.
Ever since the channel launched we have been saying the bit rates were unsustainable but we would maintain the quality of the channel as the technology allowed us to reduce it. I have also maintained that bit rate is not the critical tool for quality. We have problems with contribution coders running 70-100Mbs and camera and editing codecs at 100-190Mbs and that's the sort of bit rate you would need to guarantee atrefact free images - I'm not sure you could find affordable domestic decoders at those rates! So we have to use other tools to get over the issues at lower bit rates. Several people have noticed some of the pictures are better and i site again the Tom Jones session demonstrating the improved image quality - also it was interlace, very busy and post produced so placed a high demand on the coders.
On my 50" you could see the sweat dripping onto the shirt toward the end of the session and on the 21" the images were very clear, clean and i can only say looked "very good".
One other thing to remember - the BBC HD Channel is not stat-muxed therefor the bit rate is the bit rate! Wednesday83 keeps commenting on Sky Sport bit rate where the actual bit rate varies frame by frame as will the shared mux DTT HD channels.
Andy
Complain about this comment
"You should start to see MPEG4 contribution coders by the end of the year though"
"...the Tom Jones session demonstrating the improved image quality - also it was interlace, very busy and post produced so placed a high demand on the coders"
Will the new MPEG4 contribution coders be 3G ones, capable of 1080p50. Also, would 1080p50 be easier for the encoders to encode than interlaced? The project manager of the EBU seems to think so.
Complain about this comment
I don't know the technical terms for the picture quality, but I was just flicking through channels and stopped on "Doctors" on BBC HD. The picture didn't even look high definition, and when it zoomed in towards a person the different shades of colour on their neck went really blocky. Overall, from normal viewing distance, I had the impression of watching an HD picture through a lace curtain!
Complain about this comment
Dear paul_geaton - on the way home so didn't see it. Jam and J looks very good though
Andy
Complain about this comment
Why are my questions about 1080p50 continually ignored while everyone else's questions get answered? Isn't 1080p50 & 3G the future of broadcasting?
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I'd also appreciate an answer to tagmclaren's point as to the motivation behind this move (cost or another SD channel).
Also, is there any flexibility on your part to relook at this change and review opportunites to improve the picture? Would you be prepared for instance to up the bitrate to Sky levels for a day or two to see what it looks like with the new encoders so we can see the result?
I did watch Tom Jones and it was average imo. Certainly it couldn't cope with wide panning shots of the crowd. Simple steady shots , yes where ok but overall it just looks average.
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo - I have left a comment on the Summer Fixtures blog re your last post.
ReTom Jones - It is a shame you thought it was average, I'm afraid you may be a viewer we just have to admit that we cannot reach the standard you want at the moment. I will take your point though.
You say it could cope with the panning shots but there was no blocking or softening of the image during the pans was there?
Also are you watching Gardener's World at the moment?
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear HD1080 - I am not sure what answer to give you. 1080p50 will be used in production at some point (when it's viable and afordable) but without another update of home equipment I am not sure it will take off. Maybe it will need another handle - 3D, big screen, iPlayer events or somthing we haven't thought of.
Andy
Complain about this comment
"but without another update of home equipment I am not sure it will take off".
But Freeview HD set top boxes are not yet on sale, so the sooner it is made a standard, the better, since it will be a lot harder to start broadcasting in 1080p50 if everyone owns Freeview HD boxes not capable of 1080p50. Hans Hoffman the project manager of the EBU has said similar things in the article entitled "Act Now For 1080p50" in which he says it will not require higher bandwidth than 1080i25. Surely it will be much better if it is made the standard before lots of people own Freeview HD set top boxes rather than after many own them, to avoid compatibility problems later on.
It will also future-proof any content produced, as well as giving higher quality even when broadcast at reduced resolution. It will also make standards conversions easier.
Complain about this comment
Dear HD1080 - I can only point you to others for comment. As I have said we hope to use 1080p50 in production as soon as it's viable and affordable. Your terminology and comments about Mr Hoffman suggest you are either in (or retired from) the industry and your guess of future domestic technology will be as informed as mine
Andy
Complain about this comment
And many people, including me, already own HDTVs capable of receiving and displaying 1080p50 - as well as 1080p60. For any people who don't - the set top boxes could output at whatever lower resolution their TV set is capable of receiving (eg. 1080i or 720p).
Complain about this comment
"Your terminology and comments about Mr Hoffman suggest you are either in (or retired from) the industry and your guess of future domestic technology will be as informed as mine".
Actually I'm not :) I just like HDTV a lot and want the best quality pictures with the highest spatial and temporal resolution.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Just watched Tom Jones and thought the pictures were very good.
No obvious blocking on the crowd pans was visible here.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Caught the end of gardeners world, no complaints, however looking at Hotel Babylon, it somehow looks quite different from what I remember (no recording to compare).
Not sure how to articulate the difference, but it seems quite lacking in detail / resolution.
Complain about this comment
From series two onwards Hotel Babylon has looked very soft. I think it might be an artistic decision...
Complain about this comment
...It also didn't have any sound for the first two minutes or so. Oddly enough, I think this improved the programme (can you tell I'm not a fan?) :)
Complain about this comment
9.09 Hotel Babylon, kitchen scene where she was holding a baby. White background full of artefacts. Whole kitchen scene terrible. I actually came into the room at that point and assumed I'd left it on BBC 2.
Andy - I think it would be very easy to meet my quality stds. Just raise the bandwidth a bit - Why not for heavens sack? This isn't a race to the bottom. I'm not aware of any technical awards for lowest bandwidth.
A rubbish channel like Sky one has 50% more bandwidth than you are using - that's a fact. And right now, I'm all for switching to Sky.
Complain about this comment
Andy
I noticed your question re Tom Jones. Blocking was evident to me on the crowd shots from the camera pointing out of the stage to the audience. Not the one in sky doing the wide, very slow pans out.
Characteristic of the camera on the stage doing crowd shots was occasionally it moved quite fast. Maybe it was on a track. Look at the faces of the girls on poeple's shoulder's. There was blocking. So the hypothesis is it can't cope with speed and detail, and that in my mind is a bandwidth issue.
Complain about this comment
The Fade to black prior to Gavin And Stacey was blocky again. Looks like it's the speed of fade that causes problems, there were slow fades to black in Gardener's World and they looked OK.
Complain about this comment
Speed=Bandwidth
What's the betting on lots of football complaints tomorrow?
Instead of spot the ball I am looking forward to spot the grassy artefacts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m5ph4
Complain about this comment
Andy: Will the new encoders result in the return of 5.1 sound to live broadcasts?
Complain about this comment
Dear Bill-Taylor - the new encoders offer the same (but integrated E to D transcode) service as the old so 5.1 whenever we can get it
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalsoobiedoo
This is where I have to disagree with you - speed does not equal bandwidth. Well if you want artefact free images just using bitrate then start at 100Mbs!
Good pictures come from good tools - good motion prediction and noise reduction being two of the very important ones. At the moment we are not using noise reduction because it is a compromise between sharp but occasionally blocky pictures and non-blocky but softer pictures - you have to get it right.
I think a lot of people will be watching the football tomorrow but not for the reason intended!!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
You need a bitrate of around 15 I think. Why do I think that ?- it's the median transmission rate in the UK HD industry. BBC HD is at the lowest end of transmission quality right now. I think only Sky HD Comedy is lower. And that's not funny..
Are you predicting the football's going to be good looking then? On the lowest bitrate for sports in the UK?
Earlier in the evening:
Wonderboys - Fine. But it only took up 4/5 of the screen so I expect that saves some compression
Comedy Roadshow Manchester. First guest comedian after Mcintyre- his navy shiny suit has artefacts, the floor is "moving" and later in the same show when the woman comedian is on , the background is a mess.
Just before Comedy Roadshow the trailer for Dragons Den, the coins that are laid on top of each other in the bottom half of the screen , the bevels are breaking up. Multiple blocking in this area.
Complain about this comment
I think many people will be watching the match to have a laugh at two things. Firstly laugh at Newcastle but also to have a laugh at an HD channel run by a bunch of comedians.
I watched Middlesbro vs Sheff UTD on Sky Sports 1 HD tonight and thought it was stunning.
Whats the betting BBC HD gets nowhere near.
Im guessing Andy Quested has already typed up his excuse - Im betting he blames the stadium.
Complain about this comment
And we still have had no answer as to why the bandwith cannott be upped for things such as Sport.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I Have had another close look at Tom Jones.
Again I am struggling to see much in the way of obvious blocking at a normal viewing distance. I have even tried taking the video processor out of circuit to see if there are any differences in this respect, but none found.
If you get up close to the screen, within a few feet, sure I can see various compression artifacts, but I prefer to watch the tv on the sofa ;-).
One thing I did notice. On some of the overhead crowd shots, looking at some of the waving flags, they were not moving smoothly. They were moving in steps!
I wonder if this ties in with the flickering I have seen and the issue jordanrowland and I highlighted on the Reggie opening animation.
Digitalscoobie, may I ask what STB/TV you are using? If we are seeing radically different things maybe there is a reason for. Maybe my humax has a form of block/mosquito noise reduction for example? Do you have a Panny plasma with IFC?
There are a lot of variables.
Complain about this comment
123# Andy thanks for the reply.
I thought there were known problems with 5.1 live sound on the old encoders and assumed this was behind the lack of it recently!
Will live sport be commissioned with 5.1 sound?
Do the BBC HD team value the additional dimension 5.1 sound adds to the HD experience?
Complain about this comment
@tagmclaren
I do have a Panny plasma. IFC is switched off though
Complain about this comment
Andy, scoobie
Just had an interesting experience. In my local John lewis and spotted two Panasonic plasmas, TX46/50 g10b, showing the preview loop. They were using their own internal freesat tuners.
I watched close up for some time and unfortunately I could see lots of blocking and artifacts on various sequences.
This is not consistent with what I am experiencing at home.
Using a humax hdr freesat STB and panasonic TH42pz80 plasma (taken the video processor out) I have just watched close up the same sequences from a recording I made on the 6th.
The blocking and artifacts were far, far less evident.
Yes, it's a smaller screen, but it is full HD and I am confident it will resolve these sorts of defects in the picture.
From what I have just witnessed, it is obvious that the end user experience may be varying greatly.
If I was suffering the PQ at home that was on show in JL, I too would be throwing my toys out the cot!
Where the issue lies I am not in a position to comment. If the plasmas I saw today are more "transparant" and showing the PQ for what it really is, I don't know.
If that is the case then I will very happily stick with what I have!
Is it my Humax STB behaving differently to the Panny in built tuners?
OK, not a scientific test but hope it may be useful.
Complain about this comment
More flickery transitions at the start of the live football (SD sequence showing Bobby Robson tributes at St James park before back to studio).
Complain about this comment
The camera "apature" changes make the encoder struggle. As the brightness level goes up down blocking seen. Consistent with the fade / mix problems I presume.
Complain about this comment
Andy: I do not like to HD Football picture quality. The main camera position shows blurred picture when panning that snaps into focus when the panning stops. This did not happen with the old encoders when the bitrate was 19Mbps.
What is the real reason for not having adequate transmission bandwidth?
Complain about this comment
Hi Tagmclaren - I was going to make the same point about the apeture changes between sunlight and shadow. Checked against the BBC One SD picture and that is coping much better with the change between sunlight and shadow. (Must resist making comment about even 19Mbps couldn't make that away strip look OK!)
Complain about this comment
I think Andy may have to put a tin hat on.
I find the players are blurring far more than expected* when running across shot (*I would expect it to do this to certain extent even at high bitrate)
Complain about this comment
Also on the pans the grass seems to get "noisy"
Complain about this comment
I think Andy may have to consider removing the HD DOG on this football picture quality of face successful prosecution under the Trade's Description Act
Complain about this comment
To be honest, it's coping with the grass a bit better than I thought it would. I guess that these are some of the most testing conditions for televised football (i.e. half bright sun, half shadow). I tend to find football under floodlights produces the best pictures.
Complain about this comment
Just a shout to everyone who wants to enjoy some quality hd football. Sky Sports 1 tomorrow has Coventry vs Ipswich.
As for the football on BBC HD now, its very good when the camers still. But has we all know, at such low bit rates it cannott cope with fast movement and panning.
No Doubt Andy will be on with the excuses soon.
Complain about this comment
This combination of encoders and transmission bit rate can not cope with the dynamics in the live picture.
I hope we are not seeing the compromise necessary to achieve "HD" on the bandwidth that may available on FreeView!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
AndyQ is the BBC's HD Technical Specialist, we need him to fight our corner! When he gives up we will know the Management has won and will have to hope Sky do not go down the same route.
Complain about this comment
I'd have to agree with others here. There's lots of motion smearing - more than I'd expect (or want), and camera exposure tweaks are producing most disturbing flashing and blocking on my Panasonic TH-42PZ81. The exposure adjustments seem to occur in abrupt steps rather than smoothly - is this a function of the transmission compression, or the camera controls themselves?
Complain about this comment
Andy, I don't follow football but I think that, all in all, the PQ at the moment isn't too bad. It certainly seems better than some of the programmes that were on earlier today, and last night. If it was in 5.1 sound I might even turn the sound up too. Now if you could manage a similar quality for the Autumn Rugby Internationals I wouldn't complain because, let's face it, it is lots better than SD. When you've removed your "tin hat", climbed out of your trench, and read all of these comments, would you please ask Danielle to respond to the collation of unanswered questions that I posted earlier this afternoon on her latest (Summer) Blog. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
@ tagmclaren
thanks for the insight. I too have been into John Lewis and totally agree I saw the same problems with the preview screening of BBC HD on the Panny's.
I have the first series Panny Freesat, a 46PZ81, not the G series you looked at, which I would assume is actually a better picture than that which I have now.
I also have a Vantage HD recorder, but I use it for recording not general viewing. I'll try a test of using the Vantage tuner for general viewing to see if that improves the picture. I'll try recording the preview maybe and compare it to the freesat tuner
From what I've read about the Humax box however it would not surprise me if it is smoothing the picture a lot for you as I think its pretty sophisticated.
Complain about this comment
@MikeHD
Interesting to read your comment as I have a 46 PZ81 and am getting similar effects to you ie
- Motion Smearing
- Occasional flashing
- Blocking / artefacts - especially noticable on the grass.
Anyone else getting sparkling on peoples hair occassionally? Maybe its reflections of sweat? Quite bizarre thing to see. Not seen that before.
Complain about this comment
I have tried the football watching with two different tuners - a freesat one and a non freesat one. Both had blocking/artefacts with movement.
@ tagmclaren
I have eliminated the freesat Panny tuner being at fault. I tried a different Vantage tuner feeding into the Panasonic and the blocking / artefacts was if anything worse with the non freesat tuner.
Given we both have similar Panny screens but you are using a Humax box that leads me to conclude its the Humax that is giving you an acceptable picture.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The football today was a very poor effort with little overall sharpness except in the close up. I've had HD since 2006 and the wow quality went today. Reducing the bitrate is detracting from a high quality channel and they doing themselves no good at all.It's not a patch on Sky HD sports. The Proms seems much improved but it still lacks sharpness in the wider angle shots. Colour and sharpness is good on the close up.
The BBC need to get back to the excellence of the early days if they are serious about promoting what this technology can offer.
Complain about this comment
@ 150 - The BBC seem to have given up on the HD channel so I doubt it will happen.
The fact they wont up the bandwith for sport is shocking. The BBC should be providing the very best quality it can.
Theres no reason at all why it could not have upped the bandwith to something like 14 instead of 9.
Complain about this comment
bfg, to me it's very clear. As a corporation, the BBC isn't at all serious about promoting what this technology can offer. If they were we'd have at least Sky levels of bandwidth now and Top Gear would already be celebrating ending its first year of HD programming with a glorious Aston Martin finale, beautifully shot in exquisite high definition and accompanied by evocative music in full surround sound.
No, instead I think the BBC is trying to see how little they can get away with spending on what they seem to see as a nuisance new technology. They give me the impression that they hope that if they bury their collective heads in the sand for long enough then HD TV might go away, thankfully, and save them a fortune.
I'm with Wednesday83 when he suggests that the current BBC HD management aren't up to the job. At least, they don't seem to be publicly putting up much of a fight with their penny pinching accountant colleagues.
Danielle, please, please, prove me totally wrong. Up the bandwith, you know you should. PQ for Haydn this week isn't a patch on Handel last week, and I know that can't be anything to do with the production.
Complain about this comment
Hello all back again - daughter to ferry, rabbits to clean and telly (two football matches and the Proms to watch). It looks like you've been busy while I've been off-line but I'll start with the most interesting post:
131. At 4:57pm on 08 Aug 2009, tagmclaren
I spotted this yesterday pm but it was on a programme so I popped out again pre TX this afternoon and it was not good. Coming home I reset my Panasonic to "Dynamic" (Contrast 100% Colour, Brightness and Sharpness around 50%) and got exactly what tagmclaren described - I also set my Sky box to high contrast. By just adjusting my TV's contrast I could get a watchable picture but it was crawling with atrefacts and blocking. Resetting back to the testcard levels (Contrast around 80% Colour and Brightness about 50% and 0% Sharpness) all but the very noisy pictures are clean but as I said to jordanrowland we do have a mix/fade issue to resolve.
Now the football - I started today with a dollop of Southampton/Millwall on Sky Sorts 2 HD then on to the MOTD HD - the first thing I will apologies for is the racking (camera aperture as some of you have said) and the mix/fade issue. I will be seeing what we can do to help that as soon as possible both from a camera set-up pov and with the coder - and no wednesday83 throwing more bits at it will make no difference we had it at 16 and 19Mbs BUT it was masked by other issues.
After half time the sun made it's way over to the far side and the racking changes reduced to a minimum and (as I have both games on my Sky PVR) we stood up well to the Sky coverage - and yes I have gone back and forward between the two.
Background crowds (when not burnt out) showed similar but different smearing, there was no "popping" in and out of focus of the grass on small camera movements but there were differences in the smearing on faster pans but still smearing on both.
Close-ups were identical and very good and so was the studio. It was in 5.1 bill-taylor and paul_geaton although I will check the dial-norm level on Monday as it seemed a bit quiet but did match the stereo on BBC1. Paul, if you didn't get 5.1 let me know also Danielle is on holiday for the next week or so.
On to the Proms - all I can say is that it looked excellent
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy. I usually find your comments to be objective, but I cannot accept your statement about the PQ of the BBC's football coverage today being on a par with Sky's earlier coverage. I thought it lacked detail and sharpness, and there were lots of issues around faster camera pans, where I saw a lot more smearing than on Sky. There were also some very odd sort of "horizontal lines" at times, I find it hard to find the proper words to describe it. I've never seen anything like that on Sky Sports HD. I accept that it's not all about bandwidth, but I thought this was pretty poor even allowing for the difficulties caused by bright sunlight and shade.
Complain about this comment
Andy, thanks for the long post. You asked me to let you know if I didn't get 5.1 for the football, well to be honest as I said at #145 I had the sound muted but as I was typing it up on my laptop the display on my AV processor was clearly showing just a stereo signal. Of note, it switched straight over automatically to showing a 5.1 signal when I turned over to the Proms after watching the excellent Top Gear finale rerun on BBC3.
Just for clarification, when you said "we had it at 16 and 19Mbs" is that what you were actually transmitting it at for the football? If so, you must have turned it back down to 9Mbs, at least after the Proms finished, because as I said in #152 (from where I'm sitting) I could clearly see that the picture wasn't as sharp or detailed as last week's for the "Birth of British Music" programme.
I hope Danielle is enjoying her break and that she comes back refreshed and ready to tackle some big issues.
Complain about this comment
The football tonight wasn't much better than SD on BBC1.
Put the bitrates back to what they used to be. It was never like this for the World Cup or Euro 2008.
Complain about this comment
With the BBC branching out into Championship footy on HD, do you have any plans to show the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final on HD. You managed to show some 6 Nations RU, so i was hoping Rugby League would get the same treatment.
A Hopeful RL Fan
HW
Complain about this comment
If that football was at 16mps (if I'm understanding that right) then that doesn't say much for the new encoders, because they can't deal with movement from what I'm seeing.
Heros later in the evening, just flicked onto it, clearly had artefacts on a close up shot of a blond's face when she turned slightly , visible from normal viewing distance.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie, I took Andys comment to mean that these sorts of problems were there but masked by the old encoder at 16mb/s. Not that yesterday was run at 16 mb/s.
Andy, thanks for your comments. BTW the footy sound was not 5.1 here.
Although I take your point regarding the plasma set up, I confess to being a little dubious as to this being the major cause.
Although I did not check the settings, the picture did not strike me as being set to retina searing "shop" mode.
I will take the opportunity next week to look again and check / adjust the settings and report back.
Complain about this comment
Where I was watching (bedfordshire), the live WBA v Newcastle game was definitely stereo and not 5.1.
Complain about this comment
Sorry all - watching too much telly yesterday on three different systems - the Sky match and the Proms were surround and MOTD Live was 2.0
Andy
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Andy: IF you can not get the BBC to reconsider you will have to send the camera men and women back to school so they work within the limitations of the technology the BBC have chosen to deploy. Maybe Danielle can brief the BBC Management why the BBC can not have what Sky and Eurosport can do with the money allocated to BBC HD!
I am disappointed that the BBC have abandoned the High Definition concept and have to over compromise. Maybe you should consider your position and tell them what you really think about what BBC are doing (or not doing).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andy
Like tagmclaren, I am unconvinced that plasma set up is the major cause. When I saw your setup comment above I checked the settings on my panny. They are exactly the same as those that you recommend:
-Contrast around 80%, Colour and Brightness about 50% and 0% Sharpness)
-Viewing mode Normal (ie not dynamic etc)
So I'm unconvinced when you say the problem is not at the transmission end.
Complain about this comment
digitalscoobiedoo, we all know what the problems were caused by in the footy, Sadly Andy wont admit and will stick to the story that its everyone elses TV sets and nothing to do with bandwith or procuction. Its the way BBC HD work now. take no responsibility and do not admit we have made mistakes.
Even if they admited the bandwith levels are not good enough but thats all they want to spend, at least then they have been honest with us. Its the fobbing off that makes everyone angry.
Complain about this comment
I've been reading this and the HD "blog" (how I hate that word!!) for a while now and am moved to comment having seen yesterdays matches on SkyHD and BBCHD.
There was (IMO) a marked difference in the picture quality between the two and much as it pains me to say it, the BBC lost out to it's rival. I appreciate that being publicly funded, the BBC has to spend the licence fee in the best way possible. That said, I've had HD capability for over 2 years now and have noticed a drop in the picture quality of the BBC's output.
I also have the capability to pick up other satellite transmissions - when BBC first started with HD it was comparable to some of the stuff on E1080 and the German channels on 19E. It seems that now, the foreign channels have maintained their PQ whereas the BBC appear to have dropped theirs.
I do hope that the drop is not to satisfy the DTT-HD viewers (as and when this becomes available), if the network can't support high bit-rates then give them a downscaled feed - it is a matter of record that the BBC give Virgin a dedicated feed, so why not Freewiew?
Having said all that, I don't think that the personal criticism leveled at Andy or Danielle (on the HD site) is warranted - they are not obliged to post on sites like this and I'm sure many find that having access to the people that make it happen a great plus - lets not lose that, eh chaps?
Complain about this comment
There has been a drop in quality of BBC HD and the reason staff at BBC HD are getting some stick is because they will not admit this. Some people there just blame TV sets when clearly it is not. we just want honesty from staff at BBC HD and a willingness to sort out the problems instead of hiding behind excuses.
I genuinely believe that BBC HD need some new management and staff in. Nothing against the staff currently there other than we have seen a drop in quality since been in charge and no willingness to improve this.
Complain about this comment
This time last week, I was congratulating the BBC HD team for a good weekend's entertainment. Not only was there a better variety of entertaining and quality programmes at last, but the Picture Quality in e.g. the Birth of British Music and Wallander seemed to be pretty acceptable to me (even if others with greater access to the competition didn't agree). One week on and I'm considerably less happy at how things are panning out, notably on the PQ front where both of these programmes are, admittedly from a purely subjective perspective, much worse. I wish I had a scientific way of comparing last week's PQ to this but, unfortunately, I can only go by what my eyes are telling me.
After Ray-B's words of caution I rather regretted my jumping on the band-wagon and clammering for management Heads to Roll. However, Ray, I just came across a copy of my first ever post to Andy, 9 months ago (which I don't think is still available on the site itself). I replicate it here, now, because I think it is all still valid and, actually, it backs-up wednesday83's arguement that the current BBC HD management haven't seemed to achieve a lot during their tenure.
(Hi Andy, my first comment is that you should make it easier for people to find the Blogs from the BBC Home page. Now I've got here, I can see some good explanations for some of the inadequacies (in the BBC HD service that I've complained about) but also that other contributors, far more technical than me, back up my impression that BBC HD picture quality is, in many cases, not as good as it might be. Now with the benefit of reading your Blog I'd like to elaborate on them. I still can't understand why you keep repeating the preview, on a rolling loop. It doesn't even seem to be a preview as most of the programmes have already been on, i.e. the Tudors and the Olympics, etc. Instead of showing "preview" clips, you could at least repeat the whole programme for those who've only recently got Freesat. I agree with all the comments about the DOG and am very pleased to see that you're listening to them and, at least, compromising. But you could go further and get rid of it altogether; I can't see anyone supporting it. Some of your programmes are excellent, like Little Dorrit and (just for the picture quality) Antiques Roadshow (which I've never watched before), but in general the variety of your programming is still rubbish. In the evenings, it’s mostly situation comedy shows, which are just dire (Lead Balloon last night being the exception, that was great). I still can't believe you don't show more films; why ever not? And why, having gone to the trouble of making something like Little Dorrit in HD, don't you record it in 5.1 surround sound too. That should be the standard. It’s annoying when 5.1 just pops up, filling my room with sound, between shows and then reverts to normal stereo when the programme comes on. Also, you should have Top Gear, F1 and Rugby in HD. Regards, Paul Nov 08)
Looking back has anything actually changed for the better, not really; has anything got worse, yes picture quality. After 3/4 of a year, perhaps Wednesday83 might have a point.
Complain about this comment
Historically the BBC have been pioneers of high quality broadcasting. FM radio, stereo, 625 line tv, nicam, and pal colour tv. All technically superior systems. But then they introduced DAB which now gives us the worst radio system in the world in terms of quality. Some of the stations in MONO!!!. Now with DTT we are seeing more and more channels squeezed into multiplexes resulting in a lower picture quality than analogue. The digital dividend is coming at a very great cost of quality. Now its HD which is suffering from massive bit rate cuts. It is quite clear that the old BBC's attention to technical quality is being erroded.
I had previously been a supporter of the BBC licence fee but now I cannot see how to justify the money being spent on delivering a technically inferior product. The licence fee should be abandonded and the BBC should be privatised.
It is quite clear that Sky has taken over as the provider of technically superior products. The introduction of 3D next year could seal the fate of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
One technical question why does BBC HD use DVB-S instead of DVB-S2 which would enable higher bit rates?
Complain about this comment
@ 170, I actually think Anologue looks better on my 42" Toshiba than most terresrial channels via sky and freeview.
For me there has to be a legal limit set for quality that companies can use for SD and HD. For me its no more than 3 channels per transponder with Sports channels allowed no less than 16mbps of bandwith and non sports channels no less than 12 on the new encoders.
For SD they should have to broadcast at full reslution with no less than 5mbps.
The problem is that there is no limit and companies such as BBC and ITV (SD coverage is just a joke) get away with what the hell they like in regards to quality.
Its time viewers took action and started voting with their remmotes.
Lets show these companies that us viewers (who pay the peoples wages at BBC) are no longer willing to accept second best any longer.
Complain about this comment
Apologies for my typos in post 172. very tired.
Complain about this comment
Can I please ask people on this thread to stay on topic and remain civil. While you're entitled to your opinions about picture quality, as RayB-UK says personal criticism of Danielle and Andy is not particularly constructive, and if taken too far can be a breach of the House Rules.
Complain about this comment
Andy, I think the biggest problem so far is that you've steadfastly avoided the question as to *why* the bandwidth has been reduced. I can think of a few answers:
1) It's been reduced as part of some target exercise. In anticipation of DVB-T2, you're using the existing BBC HD viewership to test whether the new encoders are actually good enough at such a low bitrate.
2) There's some financial arrangement that has you on a target to free up bandwidth on the transponder.
3) ?????
Picture quality issues aside, could you please fill us in as to which of the above is closest to the mark?
FWIW, I also appreciate the lines of communication in to the BBC that these blogs give. Don't see Sky's technical staff getting anything like this anytime soon!
Complain about this comment
Andy, scoobie,
Some interesting information from Humax.
"The HD and HDR have some facilities for artefact reduction (including block noise) and mosquito reduction. Some contour removal as well as motion adaptive de-interlacing.
I can't comment on to what degree this happens because it would spoil the magic."
This may confirm my previous suggestion as to the reason for some of the differences we are seeing. Dependant on how severely the noise reduction is implemented of course.
Complain about this comment
@tagmclaren
Interesting and thanks for the confirmation, that's what I thought. Interesting that Humax have designed a recorder that assumes artefacts in the source.
I now have a benchmark recording as of last night. Assuming it recorded successfully I now have the same episode of Wallander recorded on the same hard disc Vantage PVR recorded at two seperate time intervals - once as at December 08 -the original transmission and the other transmitted last night.
I will compare the picture quality between 08 and 09 new encoders and report back objectively.
Complain about this comment
New one, possibly related to the flickering issue - Is anyone else getting dropped/skipped frames on 'Doctors' this evening?
Complain about this comment
Please ignore my previous comment about the skipping frames on Doctors...I re-booted my Sky box and the skipping frames seem to have gone away.
Complain about this comment
Just discovered this blog and I thought the bit rate must have been reduced. This is because i record BBC HD directly onto my iMac via a FireDTV S2 box and eyetv 3 and one hour has suddenly dropped from around 9gb to 6gb!!
Whilst i appreciate that bit rates are not the be all and end all of discussions surely you must be curious to see how the new encoders work at the old higher bit rates - then the football might surpass Sky as opposed to merely "standing up well" - which is damning with faint praise if you ask me...
One query - whenever I stream my eyetv BBC HD recordings to my PS3 it defaults to the audio description track and cant be switched to the main DD soundtrack - anyone know why this is?
Complain about this comment
Andy for BBC sports coverage of championship football can you please confirm whether SIS live are still providing the OB facilities and the broadcast link back to the BBC is that done by BT by fibre optic like Sky or are you uplinking from the grounds by satellite using a sat uplink truck like BBC's resouces/SIS live Ob 21 ?
Complain about this comment
If anyone at the BBC ever reads this, check out this link to see what you are doing by dropping your bit rate!!! Is this another example of unique funding I wonder...
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/t/73544.aspx
Complain about this comment
I'm no technical expert about these matters, but I've noticed such a change in the quality of the BBC HD channel over the last few days that I've been compelled to sign up to this blog thing and post a comment. We only got Sky HD at Christmas and that was the first time (apart from in a shop) that I was able to experience the quality of HD and particularly BBC HD. We have a new (bought at the same time) Panasonic 42inch 1080p plasma with an expensive HDMI cable going from the Sky HD box to the TV. From the beginning it was obvious that of all the HD channels we received (we got all of them except Sky Sports), the BBC HD channel was notably better, at least in my opinion. Even my mum, not exactly a technical aficionado thought so! This was also seemingly confirmed when taping BBC HD onto Sky+; a 1 hour BBC HD program taking up to 6% of the 160GB hard drive, while a comparable program on Channel4HD or a Sky HD channel would take up to 4% or less. However, over the last few days things really do seem to have changed! For the first time that I can remember, programs on Channel4HD and the Sky HD channels actually seem to look BETTER than on BBC HD. This was particularly evident when watching Rivers on Sunday night at 9PM on BBC HD. We had watched the previous episode the previous Sunday, and there was such a difference in quality that even my mum thought that the picture didn't look as good! The background just didn't have the same level of detail that I remember seeing previously on watching BBC HD programs. The best way to describe it is that while it still obviously is HD, it would seem to be 'only just' in my opinion, if that isn't too harsh. In fact when I checked how much space it had taken on the Sky+ Hard Drive, instead of the usual 5-6%, it was now just 3%! The difference in quality was so great that at first I wondered if this was affecting all HD channels on Sky, was there some sort of technical glitch occurring? However thankfully this would appear not to be the case. It's just the BBC HD channel. The problem is, that of all the HD channels, not surprisingly we watched the BBC's the most, and it would be a real shame if this lower quality became the norm, especially having seen what it used to be like! Maybe on a smaller HD screen (say 32inch and below) you don't notice the difference as much but at 42inch we really have.
I can only hope that the picture improves again and also that this post wasn't too long, it is my first!
Peter.
Complain about this comment
#183 Thanks for the post. Unfortunately I do not think enough of us will complain for the BBC HD team to react. It is no longer a technical trial seeking what can be achieved, but a main channel where costs are a major driver. They may also need to offer the same poor performance across all of their delivery platforms (current and planned)
Such a shame!
Complain about this comment
Dear Sidisacat
For HD broadcasts we currently support the Freesat HD, Sky HD and Virgin V+ platforms and only test for compatibility against those receivers.
Our satellite transmissions are compliant with H264 High Profile, Level 4.0. Not all software decoders are "High Profile" compliant and cannot be guaranteed to continue receiving our services as we continue to upgrade our coders.
We currently recommend viewers use a Freesat HD, Sky HD or Virgin HD receiver for reception of BBC HD broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
Dear all
At 14:55 the first of a series of upgrades went on air and we are talking to the manufacturer about other requirements. I will keep you up to date with upgrades as they come through
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Can you explain what these upgrades are? (summary)
Thx
Complain about this comment
Dear BikeNutt - the first looks at the way the coder deals with fields and frames over transitions (mixes and fades)
Andy
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy - Thanks for the info about the coder upgrade - I'll watch the repeat of 'Who Do You Think You Are' (on now) as there were a series of fades from archive photos back to live action towards the end of the programme that it just didn't cope with at all last week.
Jordan.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy - Just had the fades that jumped out at me last week ... Still a bit jumpy - However,not wishing to dwell too much on the negatives, I am noticing an improvement in the detail of things in-shadow over last weeks showing. David Mitchell's hair actually looks like hair this week!
Complain about this comment
I am watching Coast right now. Helicopter shots are giving artefacts, and depending on the helicopter's speed , the more you get. Watch the grass. From a distance the picture looks average.
Over previous days
Dragons Den - artefacts on the brick wall behind the dragons
Dan Crunshank - widespread artefacts on the wall when he was descending into a tunnel
Jam and Jerusalem - Artefacts on a grey dell laptop in close up shot , it's grey case filled 1/4 of the screen. The camera panned and artefacts across the laptop's case were visible from normal viewing distance.
Complain about this comment
I've just watched 'Who Do You Tink You Are, and so have now seen a more 'straightforward' programme than the live football the other day. That was poor, but it was demanding content and I was prepared to make allowances.
So on 'average' programming - no complex content, no fast action? I have to say that, for me, the 'HD-ness' is gone. It looked OK-ish, apart from the fades and dissolves, which were steppy and hideous. But it just wasn't HD. The fine details were gone. The textures on peoples faces that made you feel what they felt, that made you feel you were there and part of the scene, were gone. The picture qualities so often espoused and enthused about by Daniella were gone. This must change. This was not why I bought an HD Plasma TV.
Complain about this comment
I've completed a benchmark comparison between the same episode of Wallander from last Sunday (with the new encoders) to the original transmission of December last year. For both transmissions I recorded the original feed on a Vantage HD satelitte recorder which doesn't play around with the picture to "improve it"
Its taken me about an hour to do this so bear with me.
Firstly I'd say the difference in picture quality is close, maybe 10-20% in it between December last year and last Sunday's broadcast.
Still scenes I found very hard to make a comparison.
Both transmissions showed flaws in quality in the scene where he nearly crashes into a lorry falling asleep at the wheel - close to the start. I couldn't measure the difference effectively here in quality.
I eventually settled on a scene when he discovers a girl who has taken an underdose. Just before he discovers the girl, there is a scene with a lot of detail in it, leaves, weeds, and a small house with detailed brickwork. I focused on the definition/clarity of the brick work.
Neither transmission impressed me greatly, but there was a winner, In both transmissions the house and its brickwork looked VERY unreal, PC like quality. I was quite surprised by this digitised effect.
In the scene he walks up to the house and the camera pans in slowly. I focused on how many bricks I could see in certain area around a window. In BOTH transmissions most of the time showed the bricks as a fuzzy moving mess.
As he got closer to the house though the bricks came into clearer definition.
On the December 08 transmission I could see about 90% of the brickwork clearly defined as distinct bricks rather than a fuzzy mess at his closest point to the house
In last Sunday's tranmission I could only see about 70-80% of the brickwork defined.
My conclusion is:
- There isn't a 40% degredation in quality, the new encoders have a lot of capability (the difference in the size of the two programes file is 4gb)
- However, the picture is slightly worse than it was before between 10-20% on scenes that have a medium demand on the encoder.
I wasn't able to find a scene that placed high demand on the encoder in Wallander because I got bored after a while. A lot of the programme is quite slow paced, slow panning camera, closeup face shots. If anyone can remember a really demanding scene from the programme (something like a landscape helicopter shot) then I could take a look.
Complain about this comment
#193. Scoobie, thanks for the efforts to do the more scientific and objective analysis of the Wallander, before and after, PQ which I wished for in #169. 10-20% reduction is a lot and explains why the "wow factor" and "HD-ness" has also disappeared from BBC HD for me as well.
Actually, this evening after Desparate Romantics finished we switched to watching a standard DVD (Casino Royale), played on my Apple PC, through my normal TV (via HDMI). I know it shouldn't be but the DVD picture seemed to be an improvement, in fact in many respects it was lots better.
Complain about this comment
One thing that has surprised me that it seems the BBC did not seem to do much research into the impact of the encoder change and bit rate reduction. The BBC has left the public to do the comparisons. The BBC research dept may consider something like the recent EBU tests.
http://hdmasters2007.com/pdf/Presentations/HDM2007_Hoffmann-EBU.pdf
This uses the TSCES method for assessing subjective picture quality and produced some very interesting results. It would be very usefull if these tests could be made with the new encoders.
Does any one know what these new encoders are. There is alot of talk about Tandberg but the EN8090 has been around for several years now.
Complain about this comment
My (admittedly basic!) understanding of the technology is that MPEG-4 coding offers the potential for the same picture quality with a bit-rate reduction of 30% compared to MPEG-2. Starting from 16.5Mb/s this would bring us down to 11.5Mb/s. The problem is, we've gone down about an extra 20% from there.
The Hoffmann EBU paper shows what the expected result of reducing bit-rate is - a fairly linear decline in overall picture quality. This pretty much equates to digitalscoobedoo's estimated '10-20%' decline in quality on Wallander. That paper is a few years old now, and we can hope that technology has moved on since then.
So I would say that this result is no surprise to the BBC team. The question is, is there more to be wrought from tweaking the settings of the coders?
Andy?
Complain about this comment
Andy any update on how BBC get the Championship football back to BBc is it via fibre like Sky or via Satellite ? Just wondering as you said previously about the feed being mpeg2 and i thought BT broadcast fibre was mpeg4
Complain about this comment
Does anyone actually know how much bandwith costs? With the BBC adament it wants to use such low bandwith rates and have such low quality on picture, it would be interesting to see just how much money the beeb are saving at the expense of quality.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Thanks for your comments #188.
From my observations the update you mentioned has only made a marginal improvement in regards to blocking on fades and mixes.
I recorded WDYTYA and the scene with David Mitchell by the quayside with multiple fades still had plainly visible blocking.
Have you also turned on some noise reduction?
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy Sky Caddie here replying to #88 on BBC Summer Fixtures.
I have been away to Paris for a few days so could not reply earlier.
Yes I have checked my set up and it is the same as it was before you dropped the bit rate by 40% and started with the new encoders so I assume the poor quality picture last Thursday morning were down to the the new encoders and low bit rate.
Picture quality at the moment seems OK but I agree with most people's comments that the WOW factor has now gone.
I cant comment on the football as my PVR failed to record it but a friend commented on how the crowd was not as clear as the SKY game the night before, the picture seems to have lost it's depth.
All the info I have found on the net seems to indicate that higher Bit rates means higher quality. This link indicates that BBCHD is now not the highest quality picture.
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/satellite_hdtv_bit_rates.php
It now comes after most Sky channels, Eurosport and even the new ESPNHD I will be interested to see the quality of ESPNHD first Premier game on Saturday.
Also the 2 HD camcorders below can record at different quality levels the lower the bit rate the lower the quality here also.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/LEGRIA_HF_S100/index.asp?specs=1
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/LEGRIA_HF_S100/index.asp?specs=1
To be honest I have Paris footage shot on the Panasonic which is as good if not better than the BBCHD picture.
We still await your blog post on the new encoders and why the bit rate was dropped a massive 40% when everyone was asking for it to be increased, Surley new encoders with the bit rate at 16 Mps would mean a better picture but instead you seem happy with the same standard of picture as before. Why have new encoders if the picture is no better ??
Also why drop the bit rate ?? Is it to squeeze more HD channels in or just a cost issue, no one has yet let us know.
Everyone is saying the picture quality seems to be worse surely we cant all be wrong. We dont want just good we want Excellent. We dontjust want the same we want better.
Complain about this comment
I think the main reason for doing it is to make the quality more equal to what is going to be on freeview. Ofcom is planning to put 5 HD channels on Multiplex B which will give very inferior picture to that on freesat . If the BBC left the high bit rate every one would go for freesat and freeview HD would have to be abandoned.
If it was a question of cost the BBC would change to DVB-S2 to get more bandwidth for free.
It will be very interesting to compare the Athletics world championship on BBC and Eurosport HD next Saturday. Eurosport has a bit rate of 19663 kbit/s more than double that of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Some great theories on these Blogs, e.g. "the main reason for dropping the bandwidth is to make the quality more equal to what is going to be on freeview", or, "the DOG is embedded in the picture so that any ripped programmes can be readily identifiable as being sourced from the BBC".
They sound like they might be true to me. I'd love to get official confirmation from Danielle or Andy though. I guess they can't spend their time denying every crackpot theory but it would be nice if, from time to time, they'd acknowledge if someone comes near the mark.
Perhaps, with luck, we'll get a Blog from Danielle when she's back from leave that sets the record straight on all the key issues for HD TV lovers. And, keeping on topic, the PQ for 12 Monkeys tonight was pretty poor from where I'm viewing. Though, having now read the Hoffman presentation from the 2007 hdmasters (thanks Trevor) I'm not at all surprised.
Complain about this comment
I think the theory of bringing all the BBC HD forms inline with freeview is the most likely outcome, altho dont expect the BBC HD team to admit this. The BBC is very Politically Correct accross all forms from Tv to radio. I suppose they do not want to discriminate viewers who are only able to view by free view.
My response to this is if you can only afford to have HD via free view thats fine, but why the hell should the rest of us have to suffer with second rate pictures because of this???
BBC HD management need to get a blog together, apologise to its viewers and then sort out the problem by increasing the bandwith. Sadly it wont happen.
Maybe there was other reasons, but i cant see what they would be.
Complain about this comment
In my previous post, I said that I hoped that this was not the reason for the drop in quality, but it seems that opinion now is that it could well be the case.
Along the same lines as #203, I don't see why early adopters of the HD format should be made to pay (in quality terms) because those that have hung on for Freeview HD "deserve" the same PQ as those that have invested (potentially) hundreds of Pounds in a service that has evidently deteriorated over time.
As previously stated, if the BBC can provide a dedicated feed (presumably at an agreed total bit-rate) to the cable suppliers - why can't they do the same for "freeview" at a rate with which consumers equipment can cope, leaving those of us that have taken the time, trouble and money to invest in the new format to enjoy our TV in the manner to which we had become accustomed?
Complain about this comment
Isnt Freeview HD going to be 720p?
Things wont get that bad will they on satellite?
I've learned never to assume conspiracy when cock-up is usually the answer.
I'd hope that the new encoder is bedding in and that the BBC are trying out various live tests in order to find the best settings.
Complain about this comment
@Scorf2008
I always go with cock-up theory too versus conspiracy or complexity.
I suspect some accountant or manager said we'll pay for the new encoder by proving it can cut bitrates, and thus bring down transmission costs. Now someone will probably have to eat their words. Or perhaps Siemens promised something they clearly can't deliver.
I wonder if it's a concidence that this is all happening in August when people are on their holidays . Maybe its to give it time to bed in before the new Autumn season?
Rick Stein tonight - close up shots ok (less demanding of course) but a panning shot had artefacts visible from my couch. Similar on Glastenbury which seemed to having trouble with the black curtain at the back of the stage.
Complain about this comment
I have found another candidate for the encoder and that is the fujitsu IP-9500.
http://www.fujitsu.com/us/services/computing/peripherals/video/ip-9500.html
The BBC has 2 HD channels on its transponder. I wonder if they have reduced the bit rate so they can give ITV HD space.
Complain about this comment
wednesday83 and others - while I'm not an expert in these matters and have no inside knowledge of HD, encoders or bit rates, broadly speaking the BBC does try to be "fair" (not politically correct) to all licence fee payers across the board and not unfairly promote one platform over another.
This was easy in a world where there was only one terrestrial, analogue TV service.
In a world of lots of different platforms, many of them not owned by the BBC, sometimes BBC people have to make difficult and complex decisions and everybody doesn't get everything they want all the time.
Some of your comments seem like fairly wild speculation. In my personal experience it's never a conspiracy, not very often a cock-up, and usually a decision about prorities, often a difficult and sensitive decision.
So keep your comments civil please!
Complain about this comment
Well thats fair enough, but you cant be surprised by "wild speculation" when there is no apparent reason given for the dramatic cut in the bit rate, other than the introduction of a new encoder.
A little more open-ness, whether it be "here's why we did it", or "I'm not allowed to say why we did it" would be welcome.
Complain about this comment
Dear Scorf2008
Thanks for understanding. I have said in the BBC blog we need to reduce the unsustainable bit rates for HD transmission or it will have no future or will only be available to those willing to pay for and able to get super premium services. We are continuing to work on the setting for the new coders and the pictures are overall better than before.
The Proms last Saturday, Tom Jones and Gardener's World were all stunning. The racking in the football highlighted a mix/fade issue that has always been there but got worse but that is being given the highest priority.
We are also working on noise reduction to help where the original material is noisy - remember I have the advantage of being able to look at the master tapes as well as the transmitted signal so know when it's a coder issue or a noise issue.
I will continue to post and discuss PQ issues with everyone who has a reasonable point of view and understands that the BBC is there for all
Andy
Complain about this comment
I think we all welcome your comments, Andy. I find your insights onto the world of digital broadcasting truly fascinating.
Indeed I wish we had comments on changes to the SD encoders like we do with this one HD encoder.
A new encoder for BBC HD, we can all agree, was overdue, and once fully configured this will be a step forward.
It surprises me that you are not operating VBR on the new encoder, is this planned? This would alleviate some of the problems with live sport, as this would surely see more bitrate being allocated automatically.
If the rumours are true and ITV HD is going to be sharing space with BBC HD, it seems crazy not to have them statmuxing against each other.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Thanks for some insight into what's going on.
You said "We need to reduce the unsustainable bit rates for HD transmission or (BBC HD) will have no future."
Let's be clear BBC HD is now in the lowest quartile of HD transmission bitrates in the UK, at 9mbps, lower than ITV even, who are not well known for their picture quality. BBC HD is putting sports out in HD when all other sports channels are in the upper quartile between 15-19. And at the same time its running adverts about "stunning HD pictures". It doesn't add up to a quality service.
Your position also seems to contradict with this policy taken from 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." By cutting the bitrate by 40% you cannot possibly achieve the "best possible pictures"
I think the overarching purpose of the HD channel should be picture quality and you seem to be saying "we just can't afford it so we've compromised." The implication is that the BBC , with all its funding, 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.
What do you mean by "the BBC is there for all?" Do you mean you are having to free up bitrate for other services like signing? If so, please just tell us. The problem with a general statement like "the BBC is there for all" is, as you know, you cannot please everyone so I'd argue its meaningless. In choosing to please, say the audience who need signing, you are excluding the people like me and the others on here who want a decent HD picture as part of the licence fee. Its leading me to conclude that the BBC is not for me and I must move to Sky HD to get a decent HD picture.
Regarding the current picture quality I can only think that your "stunning" is my "average". Take these points:
- Those three programmes (Proms, GW and Tom Jones) that you keep citing are undemanding programmes for HD transmission - would you agree?
- Across the span of the programmes on the channel the picture quality is average. That isn't my view, its the view of the vast majority of posts I read on this forum and elsewhere on the net. Have you not noticed that very few people argue the picture quality is great and those with comparable services like Sky or Virgin HD tend to say its bad?
- The general view is also that the picture has got worse in the past week
- I have benchmarked the picture using recordings pre and post the change of the same programme at it is a worse picture in my opinion.
- Of the three programmes you cite I would only consider that Proms had anything that was close to "stunning". Gardeners World had artefacts on the brick wall due to lack of bitrate. Glastonbury had faults too.
- BBC HD hasn't responded to the numerous examples that have been posted in the past week of average looking programmes which have artefacts (Coast, Who do you think you are?, Rick Stein etc).
Personally I just cannot see the point of the channel if its primary purpose is not picture quality.
What bitrate are you giving to Virgin Cable viewers? There are posts suggesting the BBC HD picture quality is better on the Virgin service. Why should freesat viewers get a lesser service?
I think it's far too easy to say "the BBC is there for all." That implies there are no other alternatives. What other options has management considered that would allow you to increase the bitrate? I'd suggest for instance taking the cost out of something else to do with the HD channel eg programme budgets. Is bandwidth that expensive? Perhaps you could educate me.
As for me, I've come to the conclusion the only way to get a decent HD picture is sadly to go to Sky HD so I expect these decisions you are making will cost me £400+ per annum.
Thanks ,
Scoobie.
Complain about this comment
"- Those three programmes (Proms, GW and Tom Jones) that you keep citing are undemanding programmes for HD transmission - would you agree? "
Actually Gardener's World is likely to be one of the most challenging programmes for any codec to compress, it's basically full of high-detail random motion in just about every shot and interlaced, which is just about deadly for any codec and this one is holding up rather well. (I know of someone who uses a shot of a field of wheat to demonstrate encoders going wrong at training sessions). It's a shame in many ways that 'Strictly Come Dancing' isn't on at the moment, since that would be a very good stress test on the codec. The pictures should be uncompressed from the studio so free from artefacts but all those sparkly dresses and fast motion should be enough to test any codec to destruction.
Comparing bitrates really is meaningless unless you know all the other variables involved. So comparing ITVHD or Sky Sports's bitrate to the BBC's is meaningless (in terms of picture quality) unless you know all the variables involved are. For instance, Sky Sports HD is encoded at 1920x1080, while BBC HD is encoded at 1440x1080 (a sensible decision as up until recently 90% of HD sources, on any channel, are likely to originate as 1440x1080) this means that for same level of compression, Sky Sports is going to need more bits than BBC HD. And its not as if the the previous BBC HD encoders were perfect. They really struggled with credit crawls against black at 16.5Mbps (quite often you'd get tiny splats of magenta or green squares for a single frame where it forget to encode part of the image), for instance.
Having spent the last hour and a half watching BBC HD, I'd say 99% of the picture quality issues I could see where happening higher up the programme chain than the final encoder (e.g. the detail enhancement on Britannia was set to high during the shoot).
Steven
Complain about this comment
Andy: Thanks for the information. BBC HD is not for all so I assume the BBC need the bandwidth for other uses, or you have to have the same picture quality on all HD delivery mechanisms.
The thanks is not a barbed attack on you, but now we know why, it is clear to me that resistance is futile and I concede defeat. Thanks for all you have tried to do and best wishes for your future.
Please pass this on to Danielle when she comes back from holiday
Complain about this comment
@SteveBagley
I'm not saying that bitrate is the "be all and end all". But it is a useful indicator on commitment and investment in picture quality and a major contributing factor to quality. If it wasn't then why don't we cut the bitrate to 5mbps like Lux tv?
I have been campaigning for new encoders and am pleased to see there introduction. But to cut bitrates by 40% at the same time is to give with one hand and take away with another.
I take your point that Gardeners World isn't easy. But it isn't good picture quality either (and hasn't been on the old encoders either).
I take your point that Sky Sports HD is uncomparable to BBC HD bitrates - their bitrates being variable for instance,hence better than BBC HD.
Irrespective of the technical detail BBC HD is in the lower quartile for quality I'd say, Sky Sports is in the top quartile. Same with Sky One.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I do feel your responses are totally inadequate. Just to say "we need to reduce the unsustainable bit rates for HD transmission or it will have no future or will only be available to those willing to pay for and able to get super premium services". It does not actually say WHY the BBC has made this decision. It is already the case that the only way to get good HD pictures is to pay for them. The BBC is meant to be a public service and does have some responsibiliy under the freedom of information act to answer these sort of questions.
I still don't have an answer to why the BBC does not switch to DVB-S2 and get a 30% increase in capacity for free. Infact if the new encoders are Fujitsu they already have a DVB-S2 modulator built in.
It does seem to me that this decision does mark a fundemental change in the BBC culture. The BBC was once the bastion of technical excellence but now is now decending into mediocrity. I guess the rot started with the decrease of bit rates on DAB which now gives us the lowest quality radio service in the world. It now seems television is going the same way. Many will ask if the TV licence is worth it when they have to pay extra to get a decent picture quality.
Complain about this comment
Andys claim that the bandwith been used was unsustainable just proves one thing - the BBC HD team are putting costs over quality.
Everyone can see that 9kbps is just not good enough for a top quality picture. The standards at BBC HD have totally dropped and its as if the staff there do not care at all.
To produce a football match on 9kbps is a disgrace. The channel is now a disgrace and the fact no one is doing anything about upping the bandwith sums up BBC HD at the moment.
Wheres my lisence fee refund??? Oh sorry I just remembered I still have it even tho we are getting a sub standard HD service at the moment.
Why is 12kbps too much to ask for??? Its the minimum that should be expected.
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTING WHAT IS HAPPENING.
Complain about this comment
Where is the governing body when you need them???
Complain about this comment
Wednesday83, I think you mean Mbit/s not kbps.
Complain about this comment
sorry I did mean Mbit/s not kbps.
So then, when do we think BBC HD is going to go down to around 6Mbit/s then?? Andy did mention in a post recently that he believes you can get a good HD picture on such low bandwith. Maybe this was a hint at whats to come??? BBC HD already has the lowest bandwith, maybe they will try and sink the channel even further???
Complain about this comment
Andy, as I've mentioned on another forum I personally have yet to see any problem with the new encoder although I've only watched a couple of programmes. I watched part of the Chelsea match and saw no problems and overall from what I've seen I've thought there has been a picture improvement.
Maybe this is a tv issue with some handling the new decoded signal better than others. It has to be said here that I'm very lucky to have a very expensive plasma widely regarded as the best tv on the market so its quite possible mine handles the new compression better than many more run of the mill tv's as I let my tv do the upscaling.
Heroes which is a re-transmission looks much more like HD to me this time around - one of my original complaints with this series was the lack of HD detail and softness. There's looks to be a definite improvement on heroes with the new encoding although I would say it's one programme that could still be better but maybe its at the producers end not yours.
Coast (Cornwall episode) was very disappointing. Flat lifeless colours (for HD) and some very soft and detail less scenes inter spaced with some clearly HD scenes. Something went seriously wrong here as overall quality was appauling. I'm not sure this was the broadcast encoding though, could well have been the post production handling as on a positive note, there were no artefacts or anything to suggest compression problems.
BTW, I'm not talking depth of field on Coast here Andy, as a semi professional photographer and home HD film maker I know the difference between the two. To me though anything in focus in HD should be razor sharp and colours should be punchy, that's what HD is about and what makes it so fantastically lifelike. That's why Heroes has been in the past (previous transmission) disappointing (still is on colour) and why coast was so appaulingly poor.
Complain about this comment
From Daniels blog (might get missed as the blog is old) a quick request from me:
Any chance we might get Seaside Rescue in HD?
Given the stunning scenery and sea, colourful rescue boards, RNLI boats and RNLI / Lifeguard uniforms and the Navy aircraft and airborne flight scenes it seems to me it would be ideally suited to HD.
Also, how about a 1 hour or 45 minute programme? I know you had the 1st programme at 1 hour this year but all the others have been 1/2 hour. Sometimes they can be over just too quickly.
Finally, as I said elsewhere, in response to this:
"If I recall correctly the BBCs policy is to have the a Platform Neutral stance on Picture Quality. This means that the Picture Quality should look the same on Freeview & DSAT. Freeview has limited bandwidth so the lowest common denominator wins."
and this:
"Both Freeview and Freesat PSB HD channels (BBC, C4 & ITV) are likely to launch together at an average bit rate of ~11Mbps. Satellite needs more error correction and more robust constellations so Terrestrial would be better quality for the same bit rate"
I have to say:
This is a stupid policy to adopt. Lets ruin one service to make it match another.
As I've said before, the 2 services aren't the same content wise so why not differentiate them on quality and amount of HD content?
That then gives people a choice - Freeview for those who are quite happy to receive a simple to set up tv service with cheap to purchase boxes and aerials.
Freesat for those who can't get Freeview or who are enthusiasts and want the ultimate in quality and are prepared to invest in more expensive equipment to receive it.
The 2 services aren't the same so why do Freesat / BBC Trust keep pretending they are?
It would be far better to acknowledge their differences and use each one to its own strengths - Freesat to its bandwidth and potential quality / ability to carry large amounts of HD, and Freeview to its cheap and easy availability, than to dumb down the quality of public service broadcasting on one simply so it matches the other.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy
Thanks for the updates.
The picture quality does seem to be improving from last Thursday's low so keep up the good work.
There seems to be lots of issues with the new encoders, artefacts, light transistions, noise etc etc lets hope these can be overcome.
Where these encoders trialled before they went live?
Can you confirm a few issues please
1. Will Freeview HD be 720P and will it use MPEG4?
2. Is BBCHD at the moment transmitting in 1080i MPEG2?
3. Are they any plans to transfer Satellite and Cable to MPEG4?
Thanks
Complain about this comment
I have been watching the World Athletics for nearly an hour now on BBC HD and in all that time the picture has been jumpy and jerky as if frames are being missed out. Why has no-one spotted this and either fixed it or apologised for it. It's simply not good enough.
Complain about this comment
Well right now you can compare BBC HD with Eurosport HD with the World Athletics Championships. For me the best time to compare is during the race. What do people think?
In answer to SkyCaddie all of Ofcoms documents refer to 720p for freeview HD. We assume it is at 50 frames per second. The BBC transmits 1440x1080i on satellite. Both satellite and freeview uses mpeg4 AVC more commonly known as H.264. I think that Virgin uses mpeg2.
Andy has mentioned noise reduction as a way to reduce bit rate but I think this is a bit of a red herring. The aim is to reduce the bit rate while preserving the same visual quality. If you have a look at this report
http://www.yuvsoft.com/pdf/Video_Denoiser_Comparison.pdf
you will see that this is a very difficult thing to do. I am not aware of any realtime denoisers which have achieved this aim. All denoisers add artifacts which reduce the visual quality of the video. If you know of any good denoisers please let me know as I have alot of noisy video I would like to denoise.
The film industry uses a specialist company to restore their films for blu-ray. This is very expensive and cannot be done real time even with banks of hundreds of computers.
Blu-ray uses up to 40 Mbit/s which just shows how low the BBC has sunk.
Complain about this comment
"In answer to SkyCaddie all of Ofcoms documents refer to 720p for freeview HD".
I've read other Ofcom documents that do mention other resolutions, they even mentioned 1080p50 (though their site isn't fully available right now). Here's one site that mentions it:
http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/02/12/freeview-hd-wont-be-1080p/
Article quote:
"We’ve just heard that Freeview HD won’t transmit in 1080p full HD went it goes live...
Instead of a video codec that supports full HD, regulator Ofcom has plumped for MPEG4 4.0 compression, which is only 1080i, for the Freeview HD service due to launch in the UK later this year...Looks like we’re stuck with less than perfect HD telly...".
I thought that the Ofcom source mentioned they intended later boxes to be compatible with 1080p50. It's a shame the initial Freeview HD boxes won't be compatible though, especially since it will take no more bandwidth to transmit in 1080p50 than in 1080i25, and Ofcom actually recommends 1080p50. It would be good if the BBC could confirm exactly what is happening in this area with Freeview HD though.
Complain about this comment
Andy: Will live sport be commissioned in 5.1 sound in the future or does the management view this as not value for money?
Complain about this comment
In reply to 224 (ShaunRowland) above - I haven't seen any dropped frames on the Athletics coverage - but if you're on Sky HD, have you tried rebooting your box? I had problems with dropped frames last week on BBC HD, but powering the box off and back on sorted it.
Complain about this comment
Re: Post 228.
Looks like I may have been unfair on the Beeb. Was comparing BBC2 with BBCHD and the jerkiness was only apparent on the HD channel so assumed it was a problem with the Beeb's feed. However noticed later I was getting the same jerkiness on Sky Sports HD so re-booted the box and that seems to have cured it so apologies all round.
Complain about this comment
Just had a look at Linowsat.co.uk and the BBC HD mutiplex has 2 extra SD channels BBC East (W) and BBC Cl. These are taking up 4.096 Mbit/s each. I cannot remember if they were there before may be someone can help. This would explain why they cannot change to DVB-S2 as most SD recievers don't support DVB-S2.
We still don't know WHY someone at the BBC is so intent in clobbering HD. We need to find out who made this decision.
I have just been watching the Chelsea/Hull match and I switched over to BBC HD to find they were showing BBC HD preview and not the World Championships as advertised. Eurosport HD is still showing very good pictures. What went wrong?
Complain about this comment
@trevor
It started at 10 and is taking a break. Back on at 5pm.
Would be interested in your comparison of picture quality as I dont have eurosport
Complain about this comment
The Channel Islands and BBC East streams have been on that transponder for ages. They'll need to be shifted elsewhere if a conversion to S2 is on the cards.
Complain about this comment
Dear all
The above posts need some replies.
1. The HD Channel shares it's space with two BBC 1 services as trevorjharris says. These were there before BBC HD and are MPEG2 S1 services. At the moment this means we cannot use S2 for the HD service and as nwhitfield suggests there will have to a reshuffle at some point.
2. SkyCaddie - DTT or Freeview HD will be MPEG4 (as DSat) and (at the moment) should be 1080i25 (as DSat)
3. Bill - am trying my best to get surround from as many venues as possible but it's not always available.
4. trevorjharris - we have to do in about 4 seconds what the Blu Ray people get "more' time to do! But Blu Ray bursts to those rates, they are not sustained. Also re your Athletics comment, I think you've seen not only are we standing up to the PQ of others - we are on occasion better (except the mix/fade problem) .
There is still more work to do though - trevorjharris, noise reduction is a tool to improve quality for a given bit rate and itself is not a bit rate reducer. Last - I will leave wednesday83 to sort his Kbs and Mbs!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I disagree that athletics stands up as a good HD picture. And usefully there can't really be any debate or deflection about camera set ups etc. I am sure that the host broadcaster will have got the setup right.
On BBC HD there are LOTS of artefacts and smearing on the blue track and the green field whenever a camera pans or moves. And I'm not close to the picture by any means.
On a more general point , I really don't think its customer focused for the technical department to tell us how good the picture quality is. We are the viewers and the licence payers - you should I suggest be asking us what we think of the picture quality.
I also notice throughout this blog you tend to avoid any response when specific criticisms of specific programmes that just don't stand up in HD are posted (eg Rivers, Coast, Hotel Babylon). Football is an exception, where we've had a partial acceptance of a problem.
The reality is that BBC HD has a pervasive picture quality problem. You are attempting to run at a bitrate that is lower than other channels and is always going to result in a second rate picture.
Complain about this comment
@alsone
Coast had plently of compression problems on my tv.
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo
Thank you for the post - When we get it wrong I say so - in fact some of my blogs have focused on nothing else but our errors. I was answering post 225 from trevorjharris about a quality comparison between two services - I am watching on two different TVs (Plasma and LCD) on two platforms (Sky and Freesat) and across two channels - so it does take a few seconds to switch across all the options!
As for your comment about our costumer focus - I have always taken your comments seriously and sometimes my delay in replying is because I have gone back and checked. We continuously ask about PQ not just here but in audience surveys and we will continue to improve the service.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the answer on Freeview HD Andy.
How do you manage to get a Job watching HD all day on different TV's sounds good to me.
I hear Danielle knew about the new encoders, lets hope when she views the Picture Quality she starts banging some heads together and gets it sorted.
Complain about this comment
Just want to thank Eurosport HD for stunning picture quality on the Athletics. The BBC coverage yet again suffered from the pathetic bit rates.
Can you please give us a reason Andy as to why the bit rates cannott be upped a little to around 12 mbps??? Its not a massive increase and would obviously make your channel look better.
If this level is unsustainable can you please explain to us why this is the case???
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
The reason its "unsustainable" is they need to spend most of their money on new idents and trailers for the HD channel. Trailers which boast about the picture quality. But, the problem is because they've spent so much money producing trailers, they have no money left for HD transmission so they have to cut the picture quality. Bit of a vicious circle if you ask me. Anyway, that's my latest theory folks :)
Complain about this comment
Andy:
1. Post 210 refers to a blog where you discuss these 'unsustainable' bitrates. On the assumption that you explain there why they are unsustainable, can you provide a link please? Or if you don't, can you please specify whether they are unsustainable for financial, or for perhaps other strategic reasons, such as ITV HD wouldn't be able to fit on the same transponder as yours if you went above 9 mbps (for example)?
2. re. post 233: You are of course right that blu rays don't sustain 40 mbps, but as you well know, as no doubt does the OP, they do sustain a much higher bitrate than the current BBC level (say double it, and some). And it was a cheap shot at wednesday83 in my opinion.
This is not to get hung up on bitrates per se--we have of course to be open to the fact that better encoders can do a good job with lower bitrates--but rather to point out that there is a deafening silence here (as far as I can see) on a couple of things related to point 1. First, why was this particular bitrate chosen, when near-universal user opinion here is that it is too low by a significant margin and sacrifices quality? (I don't have access to HD atm so can't voice an opinion.) Might parameters change again (for better or worse) or is this it for the next ten years? And second, though you quite reasonably said that detailed reports of degradation were required, apart from the issue of the fades there has been no response to any of them. Why not?
Relatedly, on point 2, I'm afraid that from where I'm reading these answers range from the evasive to the casuistical. *Please do not take this personally*; I'm very alive to Nick Reynolds' comment above about sensitive and difficult decisions, and it seems to me your answers are those of someone who has been put in a difficult position and can't talk about the very things that have motivated most of this discussion. I imagine it must be very wearing.
Obviously people are getting very heated about this issue, but I'd say it's only because they care about the BBC. It's a case of the world turned upside down for it not to set the technical standards for others to aspire to, and the idea that the licence fee isn't enough to secure that just makes it seem that one of those sensitive decisions has been badly made.
So can someone please give us an open and transparent explanation of the specific reasoning behind these latest developments? We'll all feel so much better!
Tia.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy
Thankyou for your replies. I am absolutly astounded that DTT is to be 1080i25 as that make the situation even worse. All the Ofcom studies and information have indicated that DTT will be 720p50. Ofcom is planning to put 5 HD channels on multiplex B which means that each channel will on average get less than 7 Mbit/s. If 1080i25 is used that will give DTT viewers an even lower picture quality than 720p50 would have done.
It is clear that alot of people were disatisfied with the picture quality before the latest cut and that was why they were calling for the BBC to get some better encoders. For the BBC to make this massive cut in picture quality demostrates that the BBC is just not listening to the viewers. Many of us have spent thousands of pounds on our equipment only to find that the BBC is not able to deliver the quality our equipment is able to display.
Complain about this comment
"If 1080i25 is used that will give DTT viewers an even lower picture quality than 720p50 would have done."
1080i25 won't give a lower quality picture than 720p50, depending on picture content. If the picture is constantly moving very fast, and it's a low bitrate, I can see that 720p50 would probably be better, but if there's less movement (eg. NEWS24 or even 24/25fps films/programmes), 1080i25 would be better and should give the highest quality, even at low bitrates, and many people have full HD TVs nowadays.
Of course I'd still much prefer 1080p50. Perhaps the broadcast resolution of a particular programme could be decided on based on available bitrate, how it was originally recorded, and amount of camera movement/how easy it is to compress? Though would that be unworkable in practice - ie. would Freeview decoders be able to switch between say 720p50 and 1080i25 (or 1080p50 when available) without the picture glitching/pausing for too long? eg. could the Freeview HD decoders be outputting at one resolution to the TV (whatever the TVs res is, and upscaling/de-interlacing as necessary), but decoding whatever the source was even if the source switched resolutions without glitches/pauses on the TV?
Complain about this comment
@ 241, I totally aggree with your last paragraph and i'd imagine so do many other BBC viewers.
In regards to free view HD, what is the blummin point??? Its a total waste of bandwith and the quality will be so bad its pointless. Free View HD has no future. Scrap it and concentrate on what you currently have.
BBC viewers want answers and BBC HD just will not answer them.
Complain about this comment
Freeview HD is the future. Selling off the UK's TV frequencies like Ofcom are doing is what is a waste of our TV bandwidth. If they weren't selling off the bandwidth, the quality of Freeview HD would be much better than otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#240 HD_fan428 commented with: "Andy....please give us an open and transparent explanation of the specific reasoning behind these latest developments? We'll all feel so much better!" I say, well said Sir, and I think you speak for us all there!
Perhaps the reason why we've not had that already is that Andy is just not empowered to answer all the specific queries on this and other Blogs. So, maybe we will just have to await Danielle's return from holiday when, no doubt, we will be treated to an all encompassing Blog responding to us with answers to not only the bandwidth/PQ issues addressed in this blog but also to all our other recent questions on scheduling, content and the future of HD television transmission from the BBC.
When we get that, although we may not like what we hear, it will at least give us an explanation and stop us wildly speculating as to the possible causes of some apparently dubious decisions from a department that has stated an aim to deliver the highest possible quality.
Andy, is there any chance of letting us know when she's back to work (is it, maybe, next week)? Also, as it seems to me that those within the BBC HD Department may actually be hamstrung by higher management and thus prevented from implenting certain sensible solutions, is there a higher authority to whom we can register our views? I mean it's very difficult to find an email address of someone, at say the BBC Trust, where I can direct my thoughts and concerns about their policies. I thought I'd found the answer to getting my voice heard by someone who can actually do something when I stumbled on these Blogs but, like Bill-Taylor at #214, I now concede defeat here and would be pleased to redirect my efforts somewhere else.
Complain about this comment
Dear wednesday83,
I'm not sure how to answer now. Like you I watched the athletics and I can only repeat what I said earlier:
"I think you've seen not only are we standing up to the PQ of others - we are on occasion better (except the mix/fade problem)"
You have also made your thoughts about HD on the UK's most popular digital format very clear now and I can't see I can add more to that debate.
Andy
Complain about this comment
#233 Andy: thanks for reply on 5.1 sound!
Keep up all you do for HD and contributing to BBC and other blogs.
Complain about this comment
Dear Bill-Taylor
Thanks and I will - one thing for you though, if your background is broadcast sound do you want to start a debate on generating surround sound from stereo sources and the implications of doing it?
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy, Like Bill-Taylor I really appreciate your efforts, particularly so since you have often responded quickly to my comments here. So that said, would you care to make any comment on my #245? Or, if not, just to answer my 2 questions. Is Danielle back next week? How do I contact the BBC Trust by email?
Complain about this comment
Andy:
Sorry, my background is in real-time computing, so little knowledge on broadcast technologies.
My interest in 5.1 sound is the user experience. I enjoy live performances for the immersion value. I value true 5.1 sound and feel it provides another dimension to the HD experience - from crowd and atmosphere at live events to the truly magnificent music experience. Well done it adds to all HD experiences.
I accept it requires a lot of effort to do it properly, in technology and the human skills of the sound engineer/ artistic director.
Complain about this comment
Again, like Bill-Taylor I love surround sound and it is 50% of the reason why I got Freesat to access BBC HD. I'm a later-comer to HD technology and my major investment had already been in my Hi-Fi sound system. Hence my disappointment when I found that most of the programmes on BBC HD weren't actually in 5.1, perhaps naively when making the investment I'd expected they all would be. The awesome potential comes through clearly between programmes with your 5.1 trailers and, now that PQ seems to have been sacrificed on the grounds of cost, perhaps sound quality could get some additional focus.
Complain about this comment
I've been reading these posts with interest, as I too enjoy viewing great content with the best possible HD PQ. I think some of the posts have been way too negative, and some seem over-personalised - hence the recent moderator comments. Regarding the reduction in bandwidth, I think it's far too early to give a definitive opinion about what effect this will have in the medium term. More time is needed to fine tune the new equipment before we really know that reduced bandwidth has led to an overall reduction in PQ. There is no simple equation that states reduced bandwidth = reduction in PQ. Personally, I haven't seen enough BBC HD content since the new technology was introduced, but the PQ on the football last week was a real disappointment - certainly nowhere near as good as the Five Nations rugby a few months ago. However, I thought "Rivers" last Sunday looked pretty good. I think that people tend to overstate the quality provided by other companies (like Sky) - Sky Sports is no Garden of Eden - I'm thinking of the frequent picture problems like stuttering/juddering effects that were evident on Sky Sports HD1 during the last cricket Test match. There have also been lip sync issues on a number of Sky channels since I got my HD service last November. Sky's hardware and software is also nothing to boast about (e.g. failing HD boxes and a new EPG that many people detest). While people are entitled to their views on PQ, I think a lot of the political stuff about BBC management would be better directed elsewhere rather than to Andy, whose expertise is, I should think, in the technical side of broadcasting. I think it's right that people feed back on PQ issues - the more specific the better, as Andy will no doubt look into those. Finally, also remember that Sky does not provide a forum like this (anyone who has contacted their Customer Services will know how opaque they are), so hats off to Andy for continuing to listen to feedback (hopefully constructive) which may lead to changes in some areas. Continued personal comments may ultimately lead to the withdrawal of this forum, although personally I think it should be dealt with by banning persistent offenders.
Complain about this comment
Andy
Sorry if this is a bit basic, but are there separate versions of BBC HD on freesat and sky or is it precisely the same signal just accessed via two different EPGs. I ask because via my computer EPG I see entries as follows
Astra 19.2 BBC HD 10847 MHZ & 10773.25
Astra 28.2 BBC HD 10847 MHZ
Just curious really - wouldnt want to record a lower bit rate version if there is a higher one around.
thanks!
Complain about this comment
@Andy
I don't have Eurosport to compare the athletics but how can BBC HD's picture possibly be better when Eurosport have twice the bitrate of BBC HD now?
Complain about this comment
i recorded onto my Sky HD box a bit of Eurosport HD and BBC HD coverage yesterday of the same event - a shot putter getting ready and then throwing.
Couldnt see any difference - watching on a 120 inch screen via a Mitsuibishi 1080p projector.
Complain about this comment
#242 HD1080. I cant agreed with this statement:
"1080i25 won't give a lower quality picture than 720p50, depending on picture content."
I'm with trevorjharris, its well proven that in the circumstances that Freeview HD will have, 720p50 will give much better PQ.
But then you have agreed with this yourself (sort of):
"If the picture is constantly moving very fast, and it's a low bitrate, I can see that 720p50 would probably be better"
Its not an 'if' that Freeview HD will be low bitrate, its a fact - probably a 32Mbit/s multiplex split between 3 (later 4) channels.
The evidence for 720p being better at these bitrates is available one Google search away, the guys name has been mentioned a few times already - Hans Hoffman from the EBU.
Forget the numbers, forget "1080 is bigger than 720, so it has to be better", forget certain people on this blog disparaging 720p as not 'proper' HD (I think Scorf2008 said "Things wont get that bad will they on satellite?").
In subjective tests, even on 1080p native flat screens, test viewers gave 720p encoded video the highest marks, even at bitrates HIGHER than BBC HD started at!
The reason for this is well known - H.264 doesn't handle interlaced video every well, it gives lower PQ from interlaced, for the same bitrate.
And the BBCs own Research and development dept has worked out that at the average viewing distance of 2.5 metres, and with perfect eyesight, you would need a TV thats 50 inch or larger for your eyes to even be able to make out the difference between 720 and 1080!
I think those of you that are baying for more bitrate are wasting your breath - the BBC has a policy of equivalence on all platforms, and thats that. I think the focus now should be on getting the best PQ with what bitrate the BBC Trust is prepared to sanction.
And the way to do that is the feed the encoders NOTHING but progressive video - either 720p50 or 1080p25 (and yes, this second one is a valid DVB format).
Andy
Complain about this comment
I forgot to say - hands up how many of you have a TV thats 50 inch or larger?
Andy
Complain about this comment
The EBU seem to believe that the future of HD is 1080p50. It is interesting that Ofcom have specified that freeview will only support H.264 to level 4.1 for Freeview. 1080p50 needs level 4.2 and so Ofcom are trying to lock 1080p50 out of the equation.
This could have serious consequences for the BBC. I understand that Sky is building its HD structure on 1080p50. So I wonder if Sky is going to switch to 1080p50 which would be particularly good for the 3D television they are starting next year. What if Sky HD boxes can already support 1080p50. If Sky was to switch Freeview and Freesat will be stuck with millions of legacy boxes and even more serious a legacy infrastructure that cannot support 1080p50. By decreasing bit rates the BBC is digging its own grave. Switching would give Sky a massive technical advantage which would take the BBC years to recover from.
I still don't understand why the BBC are still using DVB-S for HD when Sky has always used DVB-S2. This seems to be a complete waist of licence fee money as it would increase the bitrate by about 30%.
What is amazing about all this it totally unnecesary. Ofcom is being allowed to steal a large parts of the UHF spectrum from TV licence payers. Ofcom seems to be answerable to no one. All the spectrum should be given back to the people which would permit numerous 1080p50 HD channels including 3D. Its about time the BBC started to stand up against Ofcom aswell. They have just let Ofcom walk all over them.
So my prediction is that Sky will start rolling out 1080p50 next year just when Freeview is starting to roll out 1080i25 at very low bit rates. The difference in picture quality will be very obvious.
Complain about this comment
I've only just found this corner of the Beeb's site.
I have had HD via Sky for two years now, and watch on a SHARP Aquos set.
I am hard put to notie the differnece between SD & HD now, and given the difficulty of planning viewing when my newspaper has no HD listings, I am considering giving up the sub.
I can detect a slight increase in stereo separation, but basically feel the whole HD thing has been overhyped compared to what we get.
Complain about this comment
Excellent (and disturbing!) post from trevorjharris. This throws Andy Quested's comments in post 210 into sharper focus. It seems that by forcing a sale of the family silver and underspecifying freeview, Ofcom is neatly sidelining the BBC and handing Sky a solid degree of technical superiority that will last long into the future. The arguments for the licence fee will be correspondingly weakened. Perhaps that was the idea all along.
Is there any way to confirm that Sky is building 1080p50? If it is, it seems all too plausible that this scenario will play out. Can the people responsible be held to account somehow? This is all too serious for a BBC blog thread (as good as it is to have it).
Like most people on here I probably follow these things more closely than the general public, but I didn't see this one coming. Most likely it will be a long done deal before the public get to see its consequences. But if the doom and gloom turns out to be true, one question will be why didn't the government uphold the public trust? Another will be why didn't the BBC (and other psb broadcasters) try to resist these moves?
Complain about this comment
"Is there any way to confirm that Sky is building 1080p50?"
Here's an article about that:
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/picture-perfect/1909863.article
Article quote:
"BSkyB has taken the opportunity to outfit its new studio and playout complex at Osterley, “targeting 1080p/50 as the production format” says Troy Smith, technology platforms director. The facility is designed for Sky's sport and entertainment programming and will come on stream mid-2011. Sony will design the installation, but won't specify kit until 2010..."
Complain about this comment
To back up my speculation in 258 above I have just found this quote.
BSkyB has taken the opportunity to outfit its new studio and playout complex at Osterley, “targeting 1080p/50 as the production format” says Troy Smith, technology platforms director. The facility is designed for Sky's sport and entertainment programming and will come on stream mid-2011. Sony will design the installation, but won't specify kit until 2010 in the meantime saying 1080p/50 is “aspirational”.
For those who would like to read the whole article it is at
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/picture-perfect/1909863.article
Complain about this comment
Here's another good article about it called "Act Now For 1080p50":
http://tvbeurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1790
Article Quotes: "Broadcasters need to start installing 1080p50 infrastructure now, EBU Project Manager, Hans Hoffman, told the recent HD Masters conference..."
"If 1080p50 is used for transmission it "provides better quality at reasonable bitrates. You do not need higher bitrates than 1080i," he stated"
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the links folks.
This looks bad. :(
Complain about this comment
But second reaction: if it doesn't require better bitrates, could 1080p50 be done anyway without extra carriage costs (if they mean such bank-breaking charges)? Would it then not be a matter of 'just' revising the freeview HD spec?
Complain about this comment
The BBC are planning for 1080p50*. Stop panicing :) They've also been doing a lot of research into how to handle it (the first time I saw 1080p50 was at the BBC R&D display at IBC in 2007), including developing hardware to let them use it in existing HD infrastructure and new codecs that would allow it to be transmitted to the home.
But this doesn't mean that Sky or the BBC are going to be broadcasting it anytime soon though. The biggest problem is consumer-level silicon to decode it -- it doesn't exist yet and when it does it is likely to be expensive.
Steven
* See http://www.bbcstudiosandpostproduction.com/about/archive/080826_hdtc4.html
Complain about this comment
Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves talking about 1080p50? BBC can't get 1080i out at a decent standard yet :(
Rivers tonight - yet another episode of very soft looking HD.
Complain about this comment
Dear Scorf2008
Thank you for the encouraging comment. The athletics is particularly challenging and the new coder handled it very well.
Dear archgrumpy1 - are you noticing no difference on all HD channels or just BBC HD?
Andy
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy
You say "The athletics is particularly challenging and the new coder handled it very well.". Actually that may be correct considering the low bit rate being used. But if you switch directly between Eurosport and BBC HD the difference is obvious, even on static pictures where the camera is not moving. Eurosports picture is stunning but the BBC version seems a bit soft. Infact I suspect the BBC is using some of the noise filtering that is built into the decoder.
In fact this is not a good way to test the subjective picture quality. It is much better to do proper tests like those done by the EBU. These tests clearly showed that picture quality is directly related to the bit rate for several different types of video. Even at 18 Mbit/s there is a considerable percieved decrease in quality.
Complain about this comment
On the athletics still scenes looked good but there were compression problems on the moving crowd in the background of the studio shots.
The biggest problem though in my view was movement - I was getting artefacts on both the blue track and green field when the camera was tracking the athletes. The track and the field have a too of detail - the track in particular has quite a grainy surface in still shots and I thought the encoder was struggling with this whenever the camera moved.
Complain about this comment
I have found BBC HD, and it's new codec, to be brilliant and I can't really tell the difference from the old one. The pictures do seem to more consistently sharper to me and I haven't seen any nasties, so to speak.
Yellowstone was stunning and was the first time I have seen this. Thank you for repeating it. Can't wait for the next episode.
The Athletics is brilliant also.
Rivers looked fine, as did Gardeners World.
I am watching BBC HD via a Panasonic 37PX80 and a Humax Foxsat HD box.
Complain about this comment
The way I see it, there are 4 steps in getting HD to us the viewers, and they all have different needs:
Production
Emission
Reception
Display
We've already heard that Production only consider 1080 (at any old frame rate) as 'HD', so for them, 720 is out of the question. On top of this, without the use of 'Dirac Pro', the existing studio infrastructure for routing uncompressed HD around the studio (that SteveBagley mentioned, HD-SDI) can only handle 1080i25 or 1080p25, not 1080p50.
This is the only explanation I have for the internal advice at BBC Production that '1080i25 should be used for sports'! Interlaced, for sports? For anything with fast motion? Are you mad? :)
Emission and Reception are about the DVB standards, and in addition, much to wednesday83s annoyance, the Emission bitrate is going to be low, probably on all platforms. As I mentioned before, EBU have proven these low Bitrates are best suited for Progressive. From the formats chosen by Production, that leaves us with 1080p25.
Display, what you see on your TV, is not about the DVB standards. Its the Eicta 'HD Ready' standard, what the TV will accept over HDMI. Based on that, the BBC can only guarantee that a TV can show 720p50 or 1080i25. Neither of which match the remaining option in my previous paragraph.
What a cock up!
Andy Q, is it possible to "Encode Progressive, Flag as Interlaced"? I've seen this done on some DVDs (that I then converted to H.264 for my iPod), can it be done on Emission encoders? This would be for the 1080psf programmes.
And (I know this seems nuts), have any tests been done to see what the PQ is like if you take the 1080i25 that (for instance) the football is recorded in, deinterlace it, and then scale it to 720p before feeding it to the encoder?
Andy.
Complain about this comment
I'd just like to second the comments in post 271. I've watched several hours of athletics over the weekend, and thought the picture quality was excellent, especially so yesterday evening. Looking forward to the rest of the week.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie,
You say that rivers looked very soft. For me that wasn't strictly correct.
On static shots of scenery / buildings it actually looked very sharp.
The problem is the motion. It is another of example of a production that suffers from terrible motion blur.
IMHO in this instance, this is nothing to do with the encoder. It's the production.
A number of BBC productions have exhibited this issue, it was there pre encoder change. I find it very objectionable and I have mentioned to Andy before. HD, but only when things are stationary.
The athletics has looked on the whole pretty good here, especially the BBC shots (commentary team etc). However I have noticed the odd problem with fast pans and twittering on track lines / other straight lines, but I assume thats an interlace / de-interlacing issue.
Also, are the BBC graphics (not the main ones) in SD? They look pretty soft.
Generally after a while watching the new encoder I feel that the picture is sharper than the old one. For undemanding material, on the whole, IMHO it does look better.
However with very demanding material it still has issues. It does show blocking. The fades and mixes are the easiest place to spot it, but it is visible elsewhere.
Andy,
I am fascinated to know how the encoder tools are going to deal with this issue without making the demanding sections of material just go "soft".
Also, how does an encoder differentiate between noise and fine detail in a picture? If you apply noise reduction to sources are they just ultimately going to go "soft"?
Maybe you could comment on some of the techniques? It would be interesting for us techie geeks.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Just been watching the Jools Holland Kasabien clip on the preview loop.
The slow lighting changes. Look at the cones of light as they ramp up / down in brightness and change colour. They are clearly demonstrating the encoder struggling.
Complain about this comment
I think the quote from the 'Act Now For 1080p50' report:
"If 1080p50 is used for transmission it provides better quality at reasonable bitrates. You do not need higher bitrates than 1080i"
Should be put into context - the comment is trying to say that if a broadcaster is already using sufficient bitrate for good PQ with 1080i, they will not need to use a higher bitrate for the same PQ with 1080p50. And it is even possible that with the same existing bitrate, subjective PQ will go up.
However, this statement all assumes 'already using sufficient bitrate for good PQ with 1080i'. The EBUs own work suggests this is in the 14-16Mbits/s range. The poor experience of everyone commenting here and watching on Satellite since the latest bitrate drop is more evidence this is true. If every channel on Freeview HD was at this rate, with currently planned provision there would only be space for 2 channels.
But I do agreed that OFCOM are being short sighted in not making it a requirement that Freeview HD receiving equipment can handle H.264 to level 4.2. If some time in the future, more multiplexes are made available for Freeview HD instead of the current 'spectrum sell off, pay off some of the national debt' plan (yeah, ok so its unlikely), 1080p50 will still be ruled out as an option.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear Andy-Moore
Thanks for the comment and the EBU figures were correct at the time the testing was done. We have moved on now and new coders do a far better job.
I think from comments above the Athletics were shown to be identical or slightly better quality in a straight comparison. Do remember though, when doing a direct quality of the PQ, the link from the host broadcaster/venue has to be taken into account.
Re the flagging of i/p material we are looking at that to see what impact it would have on quality and compatibility across platforms.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Is it a ViBE?
Complain about this comment
>At 09:02am on 17 Aug 2009, tagmclaren wrote:
>Also, are the BBC graphics (not the main ones) in SD? They look pretty soft.
Actually, that is the one complaint I have about the Athletics on BBCHD. The BBC graphics do look annoyingly fuzzy and out of place on what is otherwise an excellent picture.
Complain about this comment
I have still got some of the Glastonbury festival on my hard drive transmitted a few weekends ago and I recorded the Status Quo and Spinal Tap sets transmitted on Thursday night. I am therefore able to do an AB test, before and after the bit rate drop using identical source material (I used “Down Down” by the Quo and “Big Bottom” by Spinal Tap).
The lower bit rate copy is not quite as good. There is more smearing when the artists or cameras move and a loss of clean fine detail in wide crowd shots. This is not the best source material with some smearing even in the high bit rate version but it was worse in the second transmission. It all adds up to a reduction in the feeling of being “there”, more a feeling of watching an image.
I am aware that the mind can play tricks with this type of test so I called my wife and showed her the clips without telling her the source. She correctly identified the higher bit rate clips as being better. She commented on a crowd scene where arms were moving in time with the music. It was not as clean on the low bit rate version.
I particularly dislike smearing so things on BBC HD were not perfect for me before the changeover, but we occasionally got a glimpse of just how good HD could be. I thought that the Royal Variety Show and the Proms in 2008 were both excellent with a wonderful “live” feel. But I commented to my wife when watching Handel on this year’s Proms that it didn’t have the “wow” factor of last year. I didn’t actually know about the bit rate reduction on Saturday. I hope the BBC has not just put a cap on how good BBC HD pictures can be.
The decision that BBC programmes must look the same on all platforms is a bad decision for those of us who delight in clear pictures with that “live” feel. Why worry if satellite HD transmissions are better than Freeview. Everyone in the UK can get a satellite picture one way or another if they really want to (not so easy for people in flats, but still possible).
In BBC used to promote DAT radio as the new high quality medium for the future. In practice limited bandwidth has made DAT irrelevant to anybody likes radio to sound good. I can see something similar happening to BBC HDTV.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andyquested,
You seem to be overselling the advances in codecs made over the last 2 years. The EBU tests show that the BBC HD picure quality show that the latest cut has reduced the picture quality from 62% to 45%. My guess is that advances in codecs could possible account for a 10% increase in quality which means that the current picture quality is about 50%. This seems about right to me looking at your current pictures. Codec advances are constrained by the H.264 specification in any case.
You seem to have started to blame the considerable differences between Eurosport HD and the BBC HD on the link from the host broadcaster/venue. That begs the question why can Eurosport do it so much better that the BBC. In any case that argument does not really hold water as complaints have been pouring in all over the net about a considerable range of programs.
So I ask myself why do I care. Why not let the BBC go into self destruct mode like ITV. Well the problem is I have to pay Sky alot of money to get descent HD pictures and I am forced to pay the BBC licence for a quality of picture I don't want. So if I am paying I want something for my money and that is a descent bit rate. The BBC should repent and return to 20Mbit/s and it would be nice if they had more 5.1 sound.
Complain about this comment
Dear trevorjharris
I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragarph? I think I said the reverse
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Sorry I misinterpreted that bit.
I wondered if you could persude the BBC research dept to repeat the EBU tests with the new encoder. This would give us some quantitative evidence as to how well the new encoders work.
Trevor
Complain about this comment
The latest posts from Andy-Moore, especially 276, make the 'don't panic' post from SteveBagley (266) seem rather less reassuring. It does seem that because of the freeview decisions, in the medium term Sky are going to end up with a significant infrastructural advantage compared to psb, with the potentially serious/fatal long-term consequences for the BBC outlined in my post 260.
I freely admit that post is a bit panicked. :) Why isn't the BBC? Are the people pointing to the infrastructural issues mistaken somehow?
Complain about this comment
I should point out that in my message 280 above about the two transmissions of Glastonbury performances, the differences were subtle and not immediately obvious. However watching the lower bit-rate version is definitely a slightly degraded experience.
As I said, the high bit rate stream had some smearing so my main worry is that the very best smear-free 50 Hz HDTV will no longer be available from the BBC.
I think people watch TV differently and that could account for why smearing is not a problem for some people. I always look at detail. When I am watching something my eyes move around the screen focusing in on detail (I do my own close ups). If movement means I can’t see detail due to smearing, the experience gets quite frustrating. I also hate the current trend for big close ups and rapid cutting on music performances. I don’t get a shot long enough to focus in on detail and these eyebrow-to-chin closups on my big screen make me want to move my chair further away. For viewers who tend to take in the whole picture at once, maybe smearing and rapid cutting make little difference (but then they don’t really need HDTV).
Oh yes, and it is DAB radio, not DAT.
Complain about this comment
Dear trevorjharris
I hope to do a new blog soon but can't yet. I was on the original EBU HD group and chair a section of the new EBU HD group. My key area of interest is codecs concatenation - that is the study of issues caused by using several (and sometimes many) different codecs in the programme chain from camera to TV. That's why I mentioned the link in my post - it was a common factor in the programme chain. There were also digital radio cameras on the track, yet another codec and replays/time slips come from yet another codec.
If you watched various sections of the picture - the grass on the final bend just above the runners heads for example you could see what the codecs were up to. The blue smearing was common to both transmissions as was the highlight smearing on the crowds (when they were in the sun).
This is all before the transmission codec. Pouring bit rate in only cures one problem - the effect of "raw" noise but as we see that at 50Mbs+ the only practical solution is noise reduction. Before everyone shouts about degrading quality or softening pictures, that’s just sledgehammer noise reduction. Doing it properly can only be described as an art.
We do listen and we do act on your comments.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Oh, dont misunderstand me, SteveBagley is right. Dont get production infrastructure and broadcast mixed up.
BBC R&D have been working on their own video compression for years, and one use they have found for it is to squeeze 1080p50 into studio cabling designed for 1080i25:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml
With all the 'Beeb bashing' (including me), we should not forget that the BBC, especially R&D, have made a lot of digital TV possible.
Most of the EBU campaign for 1080p50 has been about using it for production, not necessarily for broadcast and thats clearly what the BBC are focusing on. This is because you can easily convert it to 1080i (by missing out the odd/even lines), 1080p25 (by missing even frames) or 720p (by scaling).
I dont think Sky are any more 'future proof' than the minimum requirements Ofcom have specified for Freeview HD boxes. Sky shipped their first HD STBs in May 2006, theres no way those can display 1080p50, the tech was prohibitively expensive then. And those boxes aren't rented as part of the service, Sky SOLD them, for big money too. Sky is not going to offer a free trade in for people with the 'early adopter' box. So switching on 1080p50 broadcast is just going to annoy a big chunk of their customers that wont be able to see it.
A bit like letting your customers get used to PQ at 16Mbit, then dropping it in 2 steps to 9... (oops, mustnt)
SteveBagley said receiver chipsets to decode 1080p50 dont exist at consumer price point right now. I have no idea, I assume he is right. If they get cheap enough before Freeview HD STBs come to market, then requirement for them should be included - it would mean Freeview HD could, in future, exceed what Sky can offer (they would be stuck with being backward compatible, 'first mover disadvantage').
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear Andyquested,
Thanks for your reply. 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. It is clear from your post that the BBC is spending alot of money getting a high quality picture to the transmitters only to destroy everything with the last link in the chain. It makes no sense to me at all but of course there could be other motives for the BBC to do this. Firstly the BBC want to sell there output to other broadcasters but no broadcaster is going to buy an 9Mbit/s link so they have to provide the with a higher quality picture. Another reason is the BBC want to make money from Blu-ray sales and no one is going to buy a Blu-ray disc with the quality being delivered from satellite. So how come is the BBC is delivering a higher quality of product to other broadcasters and the blu-ray market than it is willing to deliver to the people who pay the licence fee.
The cost of running 20Mbit/s on a satellite transponder must be a very small price to pay compared to the costs in other parts of the transmission chain.
Complain about this comment
@Andy
Re the athletics - certainly its the grass and blue track that I noticed the most problems with. I can't compare to Eurosport because I don't have it however.
Moving on from the athletics , "Victorians" (for the 5 mins I watched it) and "How not to live your life" - both of these looked quite SD-ish I thought tonight. So much so that when I walked into the room I couldnt tell it was the HD channel.
Bitrates - You commented above that you didn't think the EBU measure of 14-16 is a valid bitrate anymore. What is a valid benchmark then?
Then only benchmarks we have as viewers are the EBU figures that say 14+ mbps for 1080i and by comparing what other (Sky) channels are doing - most of which seem to have a higher bitrate than BBC HD.
I read that BBC HD in Sweden is broadcasting true 1980x1080 at 16mbps incidently
Complain about this comment
@Hornsc - Thanks for doing the benchmark. You have produced similar results to my benchmark findings for Wallander comparing Dec 08 to today. A 10-20% deterioration in picture was my estimate in the lower bitrate version (ie today's picture)
All,
Can anyone record Eurosport and BBC HD athletics and compare the same picture? (Does Sky HD allow twin recording?) I don't have Sky otherwise I would try to do it. It seems odd to say both pictures are the same quality when Eurosport has twice the bitrate to work with.
Some suggestions to watch out for if someone can record and compare the picture. Watch the crowd to the right of Colin Jacksons shoulders - there was compression problems/blocking here in the crowd on BBC HD. The blue track and green field have problems as Andy posted above - most apparent when the camera is panning in speed with the runners. It would be interesting to note if Eurosport has this too, and if the problem is as bad.
If you are comparing the same two HD pictures I found you need to play a recording more than once to compare the picture quality and focus on a particular area of the screen. Ideally you'd have two screen's running to compare, but I doubt anyone has that setup!
Complain about this comment
Andy, I finally had another look at BBC HD tonight (Mon 18th)- just gone 7pm - Athletics.
I have to say that whilst the picture was still this was the best picture quality wise I've ever seen on BBC HD - stunning!!!!
I couldn't see last night the artefacts many of you have talked about - question therefore whether its the Humax scaling or LCD tv's having the problems or previous production.
I did see one problem though mentioned above, the writing on the advertising hoardings became very blurred and the letter edges seem to "lag" even on quite slow pans. Other than that, everything looked OK to me - no artefacts on the lane lines or other blocking in the crowd as others had mentioned on my TV.
I have to comment also that I hate athletics and so had it on for 2 minutes only just specifically to take a look (although I confess the stunning quality did have me wanting to watch it for longer and potentially interested in it for the 1st time).
Complain about this comment
""Can anyone record Eurosport and BBC HD athletics and compare the same picture? (Does Sky HD allow twin recording?) I don't have Sky otherwise I would try to do it. It seems odd to say both pictures are the same quality when Eurosport has twice the bitrate to work with."
Remember BBC HD is 1440x1080 and Eurosport is 1920x1080 -- that means there's 75% of the data going into the BBC compressor and so less bits coming out :)Mind you it will also mean the BBC's arefacts are about 33% wider. MY own comparisons between Eurosport and BBC HD point to most of the problems being upstream of either of them. One wonders if it is coincidence that an episode of House from Sky one take up 4% of my Sky+ box and an episode of Rivers takes up 3% :)
Which leads me to a question to Andy Quested, have you considered running BBC HD at 1920x1080 rather than 1440x1080 but low-pass filtering it to remove the extra detail? (i.e. above 720cycles per picture width) I don't think it'd affect the bitrate needed (there'd be no extra entropy to encode) but it might reduce the visible size of the artefacts somewhat.
Steven
Complain about this comment
In a previous post I speculated that Sky were planning to go to 1080p50 sooner rather than later. Someone said that they could not do that as the Sky box will not support 1080p50.
Infact that does not matter as the problem can be solved with Scalable Video Encoding.
According to Wikipedia,
In Europe, 1080p25 signals have been supported by the DVB suite of broadcasting standards; higher frame rates, such as 1080p50 and 1080p60, have been foreseen as the future broadcasting standard, [4] though they require more bandwidth and/or advanced codec such as H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Starting Fall 2009, ETSI and EBU, the maintainers of DVB, will require that DVB-compatible digital receivers feature support for 1080p signals at 50/60 Hz and MPEG-4 AVC High Profile Level 4.2 with Scalable Video Coding extensions. [7][8] SVC enables forward compatibility with 1080p50 broadcasting for older MPEG-4 AVC receivers, so they will only recognize baseline SVC stream coded at a lower resolution/frame rate and gracefully ignore additional frames, while newer hardware will be able to decode full-resolution 1080p50 signal. EBU recommends that legacy hardware should at least not crash in presence of SVC or 1080p50 (and higher resolution) signals.[7]
So just as Freeview is rolling out the ultra low bandwidth HD service, Sky could be offering 1080p50 in 3D.
Complain about this comment
H.264 Scalable Video Encoding wont help Sky. From what I know about Scalable Video Encoding, it only works when all the 'streams' are progressive. I dont think you can have 'baseline' 1080i25, with an enhancement stream that adds in whats missing to become 1080p50.
Could be wrong though, the info on SVC is really confusing!
Regardless, the Sky+ HD box early adopters will still miss out on 1080p50, which would still cause a revolt. Just look at reaction by FreeSat HD early adopters on this blog to what is being seen as degrading the service for the 'benefit' of later viewers getting HD on another platform.
This is interesting:
"Starting Fall 2009, ETSI and EBU, the maintainers of DVB, will require that DVB-compatible digital receivers feature support for 1080p signals at 50/60 Hz and MPEG-4 AVC High Profile Level 4.2 with Scalable Video Coding extensions"
"Fall" (no, thats Autumn) 2009 is 2 weeks away. So Ofcom appear to be flouting the DVB standard :P
Complain about this comment
Actually you could consider 1080i25 as a progressive stream with alternate lines missing in each field. All you would have to do is to transmit another stream which would look like 1080i25 only with a different field order. One field from each stream could be could be combined to form a frame which gives you 1080p50. I think I should patent that!
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
You do have a Pioneer Plasma don't you? Do you think that might be affecting your picture quality?
Complain about this comment
What Hi Fi
"BBC admits to problems with new HD encoders"
http://whathifi.com/News/BBC-admits-to-problems-with-new-HD-encoders/
Complain about this comment
I've taken a second look at the What Hi Fi article (above - 297) and the Beeb seem to be saying that a higher bitrate wouldn't result in a better picture quality. Surely that's spin of the highest order?
There's also a bit of supplier knocking.
And its made very clear that they are not trying to improve on the last 16mbps encoders, all they are trying to do is match them in terms of picture quality. A real missed opportunity in my opinion. Because the previousl picture wasn't that good either.
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo
But you hear that here as far back as pos 76!!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Opps
...
But you heard that hear as far back as post 76!!
Too many fingers
Complain about this comment
Back from the realm of 1080p50 and the future of GB broadcasting(!), there's a reference in that article to fixing non-pq related problems with the previous encoder. It would be good if someone could tell us what they were. I hope it's not a reference to the audio previously not being dvb compliant. That *would* be breathtaking spin. Clarification would be welcome!
digitalscoobiedoo: To be fair, they aren't saying that a higher bitrate wouldn't give a better picture, rather that it wouldn't cure the issue they are talking about (which is the racking and fading (post 153), I guess).
Complain about this comment
PS if the aim was parity with the previous pq, as stated, I agree it is a missed opportunity. A statement on whether this bitrate was picked to provide uniform pq with freeview, as has been implied, would also be welcome. As someone said before, we may not like what we hear, but it's better than not knowing.
Complain about this comment
Ah, the joys of posting without seeing the latest update.
But Andy's pointer to post 76 is interesting. Apart from showing how quickly they were onto this particular pq issue, it also mentions resolving an audio issue. But that issue, if I'm not mistaken, was the incorrect labelling of PES start codes on the AC3 track, which affects some computer-based access paths. But this was itself merely an error introduced in a previous upgrade; audio had been dvb compliant before then and there was no problem. This is well documented. So calling it a fix is not untrue, but the implication in the article that some previously elusive gremlin has finally been squashed is not true. Am I wrong? Were other issues corrected? I hope so.
OTOH, I see that the What HiFi item has prompted the usual knee-jerk anti-BBC reaction from some respondents (not scoobiesnacks), so I can see why they would go for the win/spin. Politics with a small p, let alone with an uppercase version, is...awful. :(
Complain about this comment
Back to current programming.
Torchwood - often looks unsharp still as others have reported elsewhere. This isn't a programme with a soft focus generally.
Who do you think you are? with Kim Cattrell - Encoder doesn't seem to be able to cope with landscape shots in first hald. Early shot in the lounge with her mother, the background is a mess (focusing on lampshade and curtains)
Complain about this comment
Classic example just now on Who do you think you are - She is parking her car. Fixed camera pans at medium speed. Tiles on the house roofs have artefacts.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Some specific questions for you:
1. In what ways will the mix/fade fix improve picture quality? Is it related to specific types of scenes? Will it deal with the artefacts in complex/fast moving scenes? Will it improve the picture quality on programmes like Coast that just don't look like good HD anymore? I am quoting others here in relation to Coast so its not just my view.
2. Other than the mix / fade issue, are there any other picture improvements you are open to considering right now? I hope you don't give a general answer like "always open to improvements" which I take as given. I'm asking about specific steps to improve the quality of the picture that are in consideration or being acted upon now.
3. Why is bitrate "unsustainable" for the BBC? It doesn't seem to be for other channels. Does this mean that paid-for HD channels will generally have a better bitrates and hence generally better picture quality than BBC HD?
4.Do you consider 9mbps - the bitrate for BBC HD- a benchmark for broadcasting 1080i at the moment? If so, why are other channels generally higher? 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.
4. 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? This is a constant theme of this thread from the start but it doesn't seem to get addressed, so i would be grateful if you could address improving bitrates.
5. Are there further bitrate cuts on the cards? Cutting bitrates is a stated objective by BBC management - is this right? Is improving picture quality to the highest quality / best possible picture an objective of the BBC HD channel?
The What Hi Fi article it is 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 money on new encoders?
Complain about this comment
@ 306, I would expect another bandwith cut when freeview HD comes into play. The BBC clearly do not want any platform to be better than the other (which means we all have to put up with awful quality).
Andy Quested recently posted a comment saying he believes you can get good quality HD pictures at 6mbps. Now most of us know this just does not happen, how ever Ive a feeling this is what the bandwith may go down to sadly.
Theres only one thing that can rescue BBC HD at the moment and as I dont want this post to be deleted I wont mention the axing of HD management.
Complain about this comment
Andy: I know I said I have given up on bandwidth, but I have been viewing the BBC Online presentations on their blogs and have been struck with what they are doing.
If you have been instructed to have the same HD experience for all of the proposed HD delivery platforms and this means you have to get it to work in the lowest transmission bandwidth in the set, then to me this is the same as BBC online being instructed to provide their service at 56k bits/s as this is all some of the BBC licence payers can get!!
I live in a small village whos BT exchange is over 2.4Km away so I an lucky if I get 3Mbps, but I can use BBC online and download material that will not stream! [the village is not and unlikely to be cabled for the foreseeable future]
My view is that HD should be the best that can be provided with the technology available/ affordable. This should be the bitrate needed for the best HD experience. Where DTT limits bandwidth then there should be delivery mechanism to enable there users get the best experience possible within this limit.
Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator should not be an option, let alone a Management order!
Has the BBC Trust insisted on the common bandwidth? If so please provide a link and I will try to waste some of their, and my time!
Complain about this comment
If the reason for the bitrate reduction was to allow for another HD channel...ITVHD for example, I'm sure more people would be happier about this reduction. If the reduction is to bring the service in line with the bandwidth crippled freeview HD service, then this I feel is a mistake.
Also I think myself and others are concerned that bandwidth may be restricted even further to make an almost HD"light" service.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie,
Referring to your 304/305 comments. I wanted to see how similar our experiences were.
The lounge shots had noise, presumably camera noise due to low light levels. This is in the source material. I assume the encoder is now performing some noise reduction as most material doesn't show the levels that were apparant at first.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/jks52sLwyyPK0E42k-upBg?feat=directlink
The photo (ignore the reflection of the blinds) shows more noise than was apparant when the image was not paused and that was visible when at normal viewing distance. Some compression artifacts were visible around the noise but again not easy to spot at normal distance.
To say it was "a mess" seems harsh.
The parking scene was interesting. The red roof seemed to "jiggle" after the car stopped. Otherwise the main artifact I see is moire patterning.
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/dDqwGEXUUs_6xsysvnH2cg?feat=directlink
for info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern
That could be an issue anywhere in the TX chain and not necessarily the encoder. From a camera issue to dodgey LP filtering somewhere creating aliasing to even the TV creating problems!
On the whole I thought the program looked pretty good, sharp and detailed.
Andy, any comments?
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else noticed that BBC1 programmes are being cut off every single afternoon between 3.45 and 4.14pm..... Why?.... Could it be because it's outside broadcasting?
Has anyone else has phone calls proporting to come from USA customs and excise, saying they have a parcel of cash with my name and address on it? JanetBoulton
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy
Any Answers to post 306 yet?
Nice to her that the BBC have admitted problems with the New Encoders I hope this is now priority number 1.
I think we do need minimum standards for HD to be set perhaps you could change the DOG to BBCSD+.
It's looking more and more like we have been sold down the river for Freeview HD.
If the quality of Freeview HD is like this it will be a big flop.
The BBC need to grasp that HD is the future and the new standard.
I used to recommend and promote HD to my friends cant really do that at this level.
Next Year SKY 3D TV and Sky News in HD what for the BBC a further cut in bit rates and quality?
Perhaps you should start out putting in Black & White.
ENCODERGATE rolls on and on and on.
I am now going to use reverse physcology and demand a cut in Bit Rates now.
After all every one wants higher bit rates and quality and yet the BBC seem to want the exact opposite.To use Freeview HD limitations as an excuse to cut standards is very poor.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give us proper BBCHD back.
Complain about this comment
I am no technical expert but have noticed a significant deterioration in picture quality since the inception of the new encoders. this has been so bad that whilst watching Desperate Romantics I have actually had to make sure that I was tuned into the BBC HD channel. I have a Humax PVR and still have the first two episodes to compare with. Picture is softer, less sharpness, less contrast, much more noisy in the many dark scenes. Please can we have the old encoders back ?
Complain about this comment
Andy,
We're watching the athletics at the moment via Virgin Media and our AVR is showing DD5.1 is being received yet we can only hear a stereo broadcast. Is there a flagging problem or something? - which I thought had been resolved months ago!?
Thx
Complain about this comment
Dear BikeNutt
Thanks for the post and for letting me know ASAP. I have just got in and started to watch via Sky PVR and noticed a big blue light but no centre or surround - quick check on the blog confirmed not just me!!. Have send e-mails and will report back as soon as I find out what and why
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy, you've ignored a couple of my comments, and questions, now and I'm starting to infer that you are only willing to engage in conversation with those who know everything there is to know about artefacts, codecs or the technical difference between 1080i and 1080p50. Now I confess that I haven't a clue about any of those things, and therefore probably can't help you to fine tune the new encoders. However, what I do know is that, like many other non-techies, I spent a lot of money getting myself an HD ready TV and a Freesat system in the expectation of being able to couple it with my Hi-Fi and experience all of the "best of the BBC" with an absolutely top notch picture and in glorious surround sound. My actual experience of the channel has fallen rather short of that.
For instance, my wife's just finished watching "Who do think you are" on BBC HD now and what I can tell you is that the picture in that programme was just not of the same quality that it has been for other similar shows in the past, particularly the indoor close-up shots (and like others have commented here, without the DOG I'd have struggled to tell that it was supposed to be in HD). Also, the sound whilst in 5.1 (which I'm glad for) was also of below par standard, e.g. Martin Freeman's narration seemed to be leaking into/from the rear speakers (rather like the commentary did in the pre-bandwith reduction Wimbeldon coverage).
I hope that, even though I can't engage in technical debate with you, my voice is being heard along with all the others who are telling you that post the new encoders and bandwidth reduction the received picture on a home system is definitely much worse than it was. Despite lots of people asking, politely, to be told why you have had to reduce the bandwidth (or why the old bandwidth was not sustainable) you are still keeping us in the dark.
Just to prove you're still listening to me and others, if you'd care to publish the BBC Trust contact details I asked for in #245, #249, or the link to them that Bill asked for in#308 then I'd be grateful, and I could go elsewhere to see if I can get some answers. Thanks in anticipation. Paul.
Complain about this comment
Dear paul_geaton
I am reading all the comments and am planning a new blog at the moment. There are several questions I want to answer in detail and late night posts aren't the best way - so I hope you can be patient for a little longer.
I am going on holiday this weekend and will not be posting again after tomorrow pm for a couple of weeks. I will have a quick look through the posts before I go though.
I always try and answer or deal with faults as soon as possible (hence the reply to BikeNutt above), the audio should either have been "more than 2 channel" or flagged 2.0!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy, thanks again for a quick response. Have a great holiday, I think you deserve your turn. Looking forward to those answers in due course.
Complain about this comment
Andy
Re: #314 & #315
I wasn't watching the athletics, but the 5.1 light was on right through Dragon's Den and for at least the first 15' of WDYTYA, but only sound from 2 channels.
Enjoy your holiday.
Complain about this comment
Hope you enjoyed your holiday.
You asked about picture quality. I did not reply immediately as I was had problems with my sky box. Engineer has now given me a new box and new gizmos on the dish; so I checked on the athletics.
Can't compare BBCHD with other HD channels in the morning ecept Eurosport, as they show video phone, cartoon or archive data which has poor quality due to orignating material. I watched the Bolt replay. BBC standard wad the best by far ( the track lanes looked like lines not steps); then Euro HD and a long way behind was the BBC HD Giant steps on the running lanes behind Bolt's jump, especially on the bend.
Sky Arts Opera looked good but now very dark.
In summary none of the HD channels now seem to give a better picture on my room sized set (26" widescreen). BBC HD gave a significantly worse picture.
Complain about this comment
@Andy, Great job you are doing here! I watched a lot of bbc-hd the last days especially to compare to your old encoder settings and to compare the pq to the ard, zdf trial these days.
What I would like to now if you use any measurement devices (PSNR, R&S DVQ) for the picture quality? E.g. to get a MOS value.
LinowSat
Complain about this comment
I'm another one who records the BBC HD as a TS file using TSReader and plays back the file using software media player such as VLC or MPC-HC.
VLC v1.0.1 seems to play the TS files ok although you'll see macroblocking whilst it searches for the first 'I' frame after you move the progress bar. A similar problem occurs with FFDShow 3054 (via MPC-HC 1.2.908.0) but less noticeable.
Converting the TS to MKV is only 100% successful when using hardware assisted decoding via the NVidia CUDA version of dgavcindexnv.
Complain about this comment
Have a good Holiday Andy look forward to your next Blog Post.
Complain about this comment
Dear archgrumpy1
It sounds like you either have a SCART lead connected or your boxes HD output resolution is set to 576
Andy
Complain about this comment
@ DigitalScoobydoo post 496.
Yes I have a 428XD Kuro which is a very expensive flagship tv (think twice as much as the top Panasonic and you're in the right region) so its entirely possible its handling the signal in a better way than most.
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to add I do see slight shimmering on the lines but it not at all usual to see a shimmering effect with high contrast lines (black on white) on a tv when a pictures moving. I don't see the jagged edges or blocking though.
Complain about this comment
Alsone 325,
Better if it's masking artifacts that Andy has acknowledged? Some of which are in the feed and not encoder related?
Have you seen blocking on fades / mixes? Although this has improved since the encoders first went on air.
There was definite blocking when I watched the discus last night. As the camera quickly panned across the crowd following the discus. If this was feed or encoder related I won't comment.
Complain about this comment
The audio bitrate has also been halved (384 to 192 kbps). I'd seen this a while ago but wanted to hear it before commenting. Only heard one music show so far, The Specials at Glastonbury, and the sound was lifeless and insipid. Perhaps it was just that broadcast though. Has anyone putting the audio through an AV amp noticed any difference?
I rather NOT have a response from Andy Quested at the moment--he's meant to be on holiday, though he seems to be finding it difficult to stay away. :)
Complain about this comment
HD_fan
Was the program just stereo DD 2.0? Is a 5.1 program also down to 192Kbps or still at 384Kbps?
My reason for asking, which Andy may be able to answer, is that in a Dolby digital 5.1 stream at 384 Kbps would the left and right channels ever get assigned more than 192Kbps?
The rest of the bits taken for centre, rears and sub?
Or are the bits assigned dynamically dependant on each channels content meaning that if only L&R are used they get the full 384Kbps?
Have to say that I have not made any close assessment of the sound quality lately.
Mind you, 192Kbps does seem a trivially small amount of data to save.
Complain about this comment
tagmaclaren: You're right! I assumed because it was music it would be 5.1, but the amp was generating 5.1 from a stereo input (as it's set to do), which I didn't notice.
I've now spotted I'd recorded a Jools Holland snippet, and it is 5.1, 384 kbps. Phew! I'm surprised Glastonbury was 2.0 though.
All these bitrate cuts and futurology are making me twitchy! :)
Complain about this comment
The Ofcom report (end of page 3) mentions 5.1 dolby being run at 160kbit/s on DTT.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/dttfuture/report.pdf
As you say this is a trivial amount of data to save but after the current fiasco I would not be suprised. The BBC is no longer committed to high quality sound as we have seen from DAB radio. It is ironic to think that HD televison sound could end up to be a lower quality that SD analogue.
Sky proposed using h.264 on freeview SD for their Picnic service but have now decided not to go ahead with it. I think they have realised that HD is taking off much faster than expected and that it is not worth investing in SD. It is also very noticable that Skys HD sales are far outstriping Freesat even with the big price difference. Sky has pushed ahead with makeing HD the norm while the BBC still only have one channel consisting mainly of repeats. Sky also has the technical lead as from day 1 they went for DVB-S2 and also employ statistical multiplexing. This is one reason the bit rate cut has had such a big inpact on quality the BBC are using a fixed bit rate. If they had more channels they could benifit from stat mpx.
The BBC also has a rather laid back attitude to 3D. All the BBC references to 3D consider that it will be many years before 3D will take off. Well they need to wake up. Sky will be starting a 3D service next year, hollywood is producing loads of 3D films, cinemas are investing millions, and 3D televisions are already available in the UK. Even channel 4 is transmitting some 3D films this autumn.
Complain about this comment
Trevor,
Well we still havent actually had a reason given to us for the bitrate cut other than "unsustainable". Personally I am waiting to see what really pans out on the transponder, not making any predictions :-)
It's quite obvious that something is not being said.
3D.....mmmmm...is anyone seriously bothered about 3D other than for novelty value. I can assure that I have zero intention of sitting wearing glasses going cross eyed. Plus the content I have seen is rather unsubtle, designed to show off 3D more than tell a story and was ultimately quite fatiguing.
OK on a trip to the cinema once in a while but personally I have no interest for home use.
So I actually agree with the BBC on this one. I don't want them to spend lots of money on a novelty, which has been tried a number of times before.
It may take off eventually but I would rather wait and see.
Complain about this comment
Doesn't Sky's version of 3D put 2 pictures (left and right) into one 50i picture - ie. only using half the resolution for each eye's view? Maybe the BBC could do a 3D system on that uses full resolution per eye instead eg. 1920x1080p50 x2 (for stereoscopic) at a higher bitrate than Sky?
Complain about this comment
Not scientific I know, but I can absolutely tell that the PQ on the Tudors is far, far worse than it was. This is the first time I've started to watch a programme post bitrate reduction that I've already seen before this farce (and parts of it many times owing to the preview loop they used to have on). I wish they'd put things back to how they were. I'm so disappointed with it that I've now had to turn over and watch the Proms in SD instead.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with paul_geaton. The Tudors just looked...underwhelming. Not very scientific, and nor are terms such as 'the wow factor', but they surely capture something of what's going on. I wonder if the people assessing quality are getting drawn into scrutinising specific aspects of the picture and don't often enough stand back and consider how it looks overall.
There were a lot of low light scenes in this programme, with a lot of noise, but this doesn't explain why even the well lit scenes looked flat and, in a strange way, lacking in detail. The only pictures that looked good were long shots of buildings.
Against this, the athletics were fantastic. Does this mean it's not the encoders? Not necessarily. The What HiFi statement says the bit rates were picked such that 'in most cases' quality would be the same as or better than with the old encoders. Perhaps the assessors would just say The Tudors is in one of the formats where it's worse--so that's OK then. Hmm.
We need an explanation why the previous bitrate was 'unsustainable' when by the BBC's own admission HD is now sometimes worse that it was. Why couldn't the new encoders be allowed to raise or at least maintain quality in all cases? As has already been said, PQ wasn't always that great to start with, so there was precious little room for such a manoeuvre.
I doubt we'll get such an explanation because of PR considerations, so here's my hope. ITV HD will join the transponder and stat muxing will start. You will switch to S2 and allow at least some of the new headroom to be used to increase PQ further. 'HD lite' as in evidence in The Tudors does not serve the cause of the universal licence fee and it needs to be remedied.
Complain about this comment
Andy, another point here. We keep hearing how Sky is moving over to 3D HD.
Now I know the BBC isn't trying to compete with Sky but I was wondering if maybe there may be some scope in the future for selected BBC HD programming to be shot in 3D HD?
Natural history programmes such as Oceans would look fantastic where there are animals swimming or flying towards the camera and I'm sure there are other programmes where it might be applicable as well. Overall, there are only a small number of types of programmes that would benefit, which is probably a good thing as the BBC has enough to do getting all its programmes onto HD, however, I do think for those selected programmes it would be worth considering it.
Also, more and more Hollywood films are being shot in 3D which means that on the rare occasions the BBC shows a film (hint would like more films :-) ), maybe we could get the 3D version?
Obviously, trials would have to be conducted to see if it worked but as 3D technology seems to have improved from the early days quite markedly, maybe the BBC could consider a trial with a view to limited programming using it in the future.
The only extra cost I can see is the use of two HD cameras instead of one and the initial cost of the 3D mounting bracket (for anyone who doesn't know you mount 2 cameras side by side on a bracket at approximately eye distance apart and then put a tint on each cameras footage and combine them into one in post). As cameras these days are solid state there are no additional film costs so the real cost is the initial set up (if the BBC can afford to allocate 2 cameras from its stock at 1 time there's no need even for additional camera purchase) and a few extra hours in post production adding the tints / combining.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think 3D is a gimmick and have no interest in sitting in front of the TV with a flimsy pair of cardboard glasses that give me a headache after only a few minutes. Yes, it's fun the first few times something shoots out of the screen at you but the novelty quickly wears off. In my experience, the overall effect is hardly realistic and reminds me of a cardboard theatre stage I made at school as a kid - yes there was some sense of depth but it still felt 'contained'. Each to their own of course.
I think the BBCHD team should concentrate their efforts to improve the overall quality to the levels achieved in the trials of 2006.
Complain about this comment
The posts above talk of "adding tints" etc. Isn't the Sky HDs version of 3D, though only half resolution per eye (which I'm sure the BBC can improve on) using a higher quality version of 3D? ie. it won't be using the red+blue/cyan technique but instead won't it require 3D capable TVs/LCD shutter glasses? Perhaps the Freeview HD decoders could have a selection so if you are viewing a BBC 3D programme, you could view in whatever type of 3D your TV was capable of, eg. if you don't have a "3d ready" TV you could just output in the anaglyph (red+blue) or could select a higher quality method depending on your TV etc.
Complain about this comment
OK - since this is the 'correct' blog to mention it.
Please get back to the best pictures possible -
Like others I hope this reduction has not been done so as to help squeese BBCHD onto Freeview.
I hate DOGs - but I'm now LOOOKING for the BBCHD one to make sure I AM on a HD channel, well at least on some of the programmes.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Despite my previous posts 328 and 330, it seems the audio bitrate *has* been halved--for DD 2.0. Looking back before the change, the first three examples I find, The History Boys, Wallander and a Natural World episode, are all 2 channel, 384 kbps. :(
(I also see Bruce Springstein got 5.1, so I was wrong to assume Glastonbury was all 2.0.)
Complain about this comment
Actually I've been researching this. It seems that Sky's system actually requires a special 3D tv with a polarising screen similar to the new generation of 3D technology that's working well at the cinema, so I guess for most people this is probably out unless someone comes out with a retrofitting cover.
Complain about this comment
@tagmclaren
Re Who do you think you are
Car park scene - I don't recall the patterning like you are seeing there. I recall random blocking on the tiles area, and general mess on the roofs like digital compression of old.
The lounge shot you've posted I find hard to comment on. Take your point on noise, low light etc but I recall artifacts on curtains which I take as unrelated to noise and more to do with bitrate and encoding.
Taking a step back it is interesting that you felt the overall programme was sharp and HD like. My thoughts were the opposite, only occassionally it looked like HD (some long shot street scenes in Vancouver spring to mind as being sharp)
Overall I wonder if we are detecting a difference again in the Humax Freesat box being able to improve the picture quality somehow. And maybe it introduced the patterning as I don't recall that.
Complain about this comment
Re Tudors
I had a feeling this was going to be a good test of the new encoder - we know the source material must be good but the trailers looked like SD quality and not how I recalled the previous series for picture quality.
Complain about this comment
Well earlier today after my post #339 I looked again at BBC HD - and a clip of one of the Doctor Who Specials - 'Planet of the Dead' came on.
Now this was the first Dr Who in HD and the picture (if not the adventure) was top notch.
Today it looked about half-way between HD and SD - certainly down in image quality from it's first showing.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Moving off the PQ issue for just a minute, I don't understand why when the BBC do actually transmit a live programme in 5.1, such as Wimbeldon or the Proms, they have the sound of the commentators, or studio team, coming out of the front two speakers rather than the centre. It just sounds odd! I know I'm not the only one who thinks that, because I mentioned it before when Wimbeldon was on and lots of people on these blogs agreed. I seem to recall Andy mentioning, then, that they might do a trial of putting such dialogue through the centre instead however I didn't notice that ever happen.
Thanks though for tonight's Prom though, I love it. It's just a shame that the PQ isn't quite as good as it could be.
Complain about this comment
paul_geaton echo here again. :)
The Proms definitely doesn't look as good as the last one I saw (the one with The Planets). Not sure about the audio either tbh. Still, I hear the overture just finishing, so off for the rest!
Complain about this comment
I had to come back on quickly to withdraw my comment about audio quality. I now think it's too close to tell from memory. I had a look at at BBC2, and the sound was shockingly bad in comparison--perhaps worse than the last time I checked...
Complain about this comment
Post #346 HD_fan428
Totally agree - the Proms picture tonight looks slightly better than SD - nothing more.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
My only concern regarding the drop in bitrate would be how it copes with varying content. 9.8 is plenty for some content like Proms but fast moving content like F1 will suffer unless certain settings are used to draw bits from the background.
Current thinking is to increase bits in the background in order to preserve grain and this can be death to a fast moving scene where a pan follows a fast moving object.
I wonder how all content can be catered for without stat-mux.
Complain about this comment
#349, but they won't give us F1 anyway (nor Top Gear); actually, perhaps you've found the reason why. They knew they were going to drop the bitrate and that it wouldn't cope with the fast moving content in those programmes, so they decided not to give us it in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#339
Agree with you - I also find myself looking for the DOG now for BBCHD to make sure I am on the HD channel, as the difference to SD is not easy to tell at times.
Complain about this comment
@ digitalscoobiedoo, can you tell me what programmes you're likely to be watching tonight and I'll try and take a look from my site.
My overall impression of the new encoder has been its a vast improvement apart from one or two artefacts / blur on movement that need addressing.
As to F1, Paul, if they didn't transmit the race live, they could use 300FPS cameras as they've just used on the Free running championships on BBC HD and then down convert to 50fps in post. That should help overcome the blur. The picture in the free running was excellent.
Complain about this comment
scoobie #342
Just thinking out loud, no real evidence to back this up, but I am starting to wonder if there is a connection between the quality of pictures you see and the source type.
ie 50 fields per sec video and 25 fps PSF video / film.
If you know how to spot the difference between the two, try to take note if you think the PSF video sources always tend to look less detailed / sharp than straight 50i video.
My deinterlacing is done by an external video processor. Yours is done by the plasma. This may have a crucial bearing on how these two types of source are dealt with.
Complain about this comment
#353
I don't know how to tell the difference in source type but I would say films tend to be better but having said that Twelve Monkeys on BBC HD was poor and SD like. Constant Gardener on ITV last night was excellent in constrast, as was King Kong. I've found that generally with all ITV films.
I think the weakest link has to be the bitrate cut.
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
Sorry, unable to commit to watching anything tonight as very busy at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie,
The 12 monkeys source was poor IMHO. Even on undemanding scenes it looked uninspiring.
This just shows that there are huge differences in the quality of productions / tranfers.
Not to mention the "looks" applied to productions.
Tudors showed a bluish tint to a lot of scenes, yet the Italian scenes didn't. Far more bright, natural and colourful. IMHO the production in this series has had a different look applied.
It also varied quite considerably in sharpness from scene to scene, but again seemed pretty good most of the time. Is that the effect of noise reduction in the encoder or a production issue?
Not referring to you, this is a general statement, I think a great many people confuse the "look" applied to productions with a picture quality issue.
Take a look at Vyvienne Vyle. I have only seen one episode recently. It flips between what looks like a straight camera look in studio shots, to one that has been "colour graded".
From what I have seen, people generally consider an non colour graded look to be more "HD".
BTW to spot PSF video look at the motion. If pans/motion seem to step or judder then it's probably PSF. BBC uses it a lot, Most dramas are PSF. However some productions seem to have a lot of motion blur, I think to disguise the inherent judder of 25PSF. 50i is used for live studio/sport most of the time.
Complain about this comment
Ok no probs Scoobie.
Having stuck up for BBC HD, I have to say that tonight I took a look at Rivers with Gryf Rhys Jones.
The quality was an absolute disgrace!!!
However, I'm not sure it was the encoder totally at fault.
There's too much too complain about here but a few specifics:
1. 99% of the aerial shots were blurry and looked SD
2. The in cockpit shots in the light aircraft all looked blurry, soft and SD.
3. In the supermarket, when he was wheeling the trolley, all the shelves became a blur at the camera pan despite the fact the camera was hardly moving
4. Also in the supermarket, whilst the camera in the basket shot recording him putting cans into the trolley was deserving of HD, much of the other footage was also blurry, lacking detail and looked SD.
5. In the church, most of the footage apart from 1 shot of the bible looked SD.
6. 90% of all the other footage in the programme including on the boat sailing shots was unsharp, lacking detail and looked SD.
Overall it was best described as poor quality SD (ch5 SD is better than this) inter spaced with the occasional clip of a few seconds that actually looked HD.
I think that for the BBC to even air this in this quality is a disgrace.
That said, as I said above, I don't think this can be blamed on the encoding perhaps with the exception of the motion blur in the supermarket trolley scenes although even that, given the quality of most of the rest of the footage could quite easily have been poor quality cameras / settings and / or poor quality post production.
Complain about this comment
Alsone, you obviously know your onions when it comes to HD but, I wondered, could any of the problems you've highlighted in Rivers be put down to the bandwidth reduction?
Complain about this comment
Couldn't post before - was on a long podcast :-) - but watched about 10 minutes of Gardener's World earlier today - about a 'cottage garden' and apart from a few 'good' close-ups of an elderly ladies face the picture was average at best.
cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
For people moaning about the new encoders, theres nothing wrong with the new encoders, they are great. Its the stupid bandwith reduction thats the problem end of.
You cannott run an HD channel on 9mbps and expect top quality pictures. It just does not happen.
If the new encoders were running at around 12-14 mbps then the channel for me would look fantatsic.
Sadly all TV companies dont seem to care about quality anymore. It seems to be all they care about is sticking an HD logo on a show and saving money.
Its time there was a governing body to set up some legal standards and quick.
All in all the new encoders are a great welcome. Sadly the bandwith reduction is not.
Complain about this comment
In the end I caught 5 mins of the World Freerun Championships on Sunday night. I had high hopes for this because I think someone said earlier its good HD. Not on my tv though!
At around 10-15 mins into the show:
- A shot of the scoreboard (which takes up most of the screen), there is smoke in the background. The smoke has artefacts.
- There is a slow panning shot from a Lion statue to a very wide shot of the stage and crowd. There are artefacts all over this shot especially the trees to the right of the picture and also on the stone for the statues.
These must be bitrate issues IMO.
Complain about this comment
Also for the people blaming production. The Athletics is produced by the same people (bar studio shots) so why then is Eurosport far higher in quality??? Nothing to do with double the bandwith????
Also why all of a sudden are shows like dragons Den looking far less detailed. Did they change production methods on the day the bandwith was reduced???
Its clear you cannott get fantastic images on such low levels of bandwith.
Complain about this comment
re: Coast - the in cockpit shots will be shot on a small camera so you'll never get the quality of a standard HD camera and yes it did look as though it might have been upscaled - you could see the aliasing on the hedges.
Some of the aerials had been smoothed out in post to remove camera shake - at one point I saw the blanking appear on right of frame - caused by doing such a thing. I do a fair amount of that at work, it tends to reduce the resolution but the comprimise is a more stable shot.
You're right about the blur though - rather a lot for such little movement.
Complain about this comment
Of course I meant Rivers! Its late!
Complain about this comment
@PaulGeaton Post 358, I'd have to say No Paul in all honesty. The blur when the supermarket trolley was moving could definitely have been an encoding issue as motion is a common problem with HD encoding, however I didn't see artefacts only blur. However, most of the other shots were slow or static and should have looked fantastic in HD. However, most were un-sharp, blurry and lacking detail. This suggests to me camera / production problems OR cheating with SD footage (although the BBC reckon not to put any HD programme out with SD footage within it - I actually think there's a small allowance like 5% but can't remember off the top).
@Wednesday83 Post 360 "You cannot expect to run a HD channel at 9mbs and expect top quality pictures. It does not happen".
Yes it does!!! take a look at LUXE HD (manual freesat tune). Its by far the best quality HD picture on Freesat but the bandwidth is 4mbs!!!
What matters is the quality of the encoding. There seems to be some disassociation occurring on here with bandwidth and encoding. Encoding is what compresses the signal and reduces its bandwidth. Superior encoding produces superior results. You can produce a 30mb file using MPEG2 but it won't look anywhere near as good as the same file at 10mb compressed using MPEG 4 (h.264). So bandwidth isn't everything. LUXE HD shows it can be done. The only thing about LUXE is there's very little movement in their pictures but equally that's where VBR (variable bit rates) come in - it allows the encoder to reduce the compression when it senses it can't cope with elements within the picture. Another alternative is simply to reduce the compression and thus up the bandwidth usage for programmes where there's a lot of movement eg sport.
@digitalscoobydoo, it was me that said that the Freerunning championships were good and I still stand by that however, there were 2 types of cameras used - the high speed ones for the on the stage action and the ordinary ones for the more general shots. The smoke and panning shots you describe sound like they were taken from the general cameras. I didn't see the artefacts you saw (I'll re-check though as I have this recorded). However, I did see motion blur when the camera zoomed out from a Rolls Royce waiting at the traffic lights on the road nearby to the presenters again. Given the slow zoom there shouldn't have been the significant blur that there was. The on stage material though was spot on given its fast movement but it had the high speed cameras.
Complain about this comment
Alsone #357
Although I wouldn't describe Rivers as poor quality SD, it certainly had a number of problems.
Worst of which is motion blur/smearing.
Here, on completely static shots, there is a fair amount of detail and sharpness. However anything that moves blurs, even on the most undemanding of shots.
As I have said further up the thread, a number of productions on BBCHD had suffered this problem and I have discussed it with Andy before.
Again, I don't think this particular issue has anything to do with the new encoder. It was there before the change and is not prevelent on all material.
Daveac #359,
I think you will find some of the shots in Gardners World were actually upscaled SD and had been recorded a while back. If they weren'tthey were filmed on an inferior camera! The new shots looked absolutely fine here, no complaints.
Scoobie #361,
I have looked at the Lion statue pan and yes ther are a fair amount of artifacts on the stonework behind. Again though it's the severity which is different between our observations. I can see them at 1m, 2m, but struggle at 3m+.
Wednesday83 #362
I too have noticed the sharpness/detail levels change. The first few days of the new encoder were very sharp, far better than the old one. However this has dropped off. However, so have the noise levels in the pictures. I would suggest it has a lot to do with the settings being tweaked and noise reduction being applied. Maybe they have gone too far.
Was eurosport "far higher quality"? There have been confilcting opinions on this. Unfortunately I do not have it to compare.
However if you think that production quality and look isn't a contributing issue you are very wrong.
Then there is still the problem with mixes/fades and any ramp of brightness level in the picture.
Overall, my impression is that some aspects of the picture are actually better, however we are still left with some significant problems that IMHO are related to bitrate.
The BBC trust remit for BBCHD is
"BBC HD should deliver a very high quality technical service to viewers, by adhering to, or seeking to exceed, industry standards for picture resolution"
Overall at the moment it is currently failing to deliver that. IMHO they may just be able to overcome most of the issue if the service is stat muxed.
Apart from the "unsustainable" quote no explanation has yet been given for the cut,so I am waiting with baited breathe to find out why. However I do feel a proper explanation is in order.
Complain about this comment
ANDY YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MEDIA SHOTS / CLIPS IN THIS POST AS IT SHOWS SOME ENCODING PROBLEMS:
@digitalscoobydoo, I can't find the scenes you're talking about. However, at the trophy awarding at the end there was smoke and confetti cannons and I can see no artefacts on my box Humax HDR and TV - Pioneer 428XD Kuro so there could be equipment differences in how well the picture is handled.
In fact the still picture is excellent most of the time IN NORMAL VIEWING on my equipment (that zoom scene apart which shows motion problems), this is a photograph I took of the tv (not a screen capture showing an on-stage interview - for a photo this is excellent quality given I'm photographing a reflective flickering screen):
Warning its 1600 x 1200 pixels if resized (displays smaller as standard)
http://img269.imageshack.us/i/cimg0806g.jpg/
HOWEVER, I can see BIG encoding problems with fast forwarding - this doesn't happen on LUXE HD at 4mbs:
Huge amounts of macro blocking making the picture unwatcheable on FF:
Still showing mild example: http://img269.imageshack.us/i/cimg0805m.jpg/
Video Clip of severe Macro-blocking on FF (Occurs on Fast Forward Only): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_aWATxWjmk&fmt=18
Complain about this comment
Should have added the Fast Forward speed on the macro blocked video clip is only 4x.
Complain about this comment
Alsone the lion statue pan is about 9 mins in on my recording and the artifacts are there.
My humax is also showing the blocking on FF. Didn't before encoder change.
Complain about this comment
That FF blocking may be an issue with the Humax remember, it doesn't automatically follow that the encoding is at fault.
Complain about this comment
It could be Tag but I get no other macro blocking on FF. ITV HD has non on FF. Older BBC HD has non. Only the Freerunning recording.
Still struggling to find the lion you mean. At 9 mins in my recording its in the middle of a look back at the 1st set of on stage performances. There's a slight view of a lion in the background as one of the performers performs, but its viewed through some square steel mesh and I see no problems. At 12 minutes on my recording after the interview with Tim Shief, there's a lion shot in which the camera draws back and zooms out, again on my equipment I see no artefacts on the stone plinth behind. Maybe the tv's scaling is processing it better.
Complain about this comment
It's on other recordings I have.
Sorry, my recording didn't start exactly at the beginning of the show, but you have found the scene I was looking at.
Unfortunately I have deleted the recording so cant take a piccy of the artifacts.
Remember your KURO does have a range of noise reduction features that could be masking the artifacts.
Fine so long as they don't mask fine detail in the process!
Does the menu have the option to turn off the block, mpeg and DNR noise reduction?
Complain about this comment
must remember how to spell artefacts!
Complain about this comment
Surely the only reason for the existence of HD is to provide the best picture and sound quality possible. Once you diverge from that you're ruining it.
Complain about this comment
@ Shaun, I couldn't agree more.
@ Tag, the settings you mention Tag are buried too deep in the TV menu for me to want to go around changing them. However, I have attempted to video the lion zoom you were on about. Its a bit flickery because obviously tv is very hard to video from especially on a compact camera, but if I look beyond the flicker I can't see any macro blocking or artefacts beyond flicker generated lines. So it looks as if tv processing quality does have a lot to do with how apparent artefacing is. It clearly can't compensate for the blur mentioned earlier in Rivers though:
Clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff2RtLLxGN4&fmt=18
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
Yes, thats the scene with the lion that had artefacts. I haven't got it recorded though, so cannot demonstrate. That youtube quality would not be good enough to show them though. I suspect your tv is working wonders on the picture though. I notice there is one other person on another forum who says the picture is ok but he also has a Pioneer.
Complain about this comment
Alsone,
The artefacts were similar to mosquito / the sort of stuff you see when you over compress a JPEG photo, no blocking per se.
I agree however, it is clear the end user experience is varying greatly.
You see little, I see some, Scoobie sees loads!
The thing to try and establish, which we can't do, is how much these artefacts are in the transmission in the first place and how much generated / amplified by our set ups?
Unless we have access to the source material pre transmission to judge it is a little unfair IMHO to throw large rocks at Andy. :)
Complain about this comment
Hey Andy,
Thats an idea, I'm up for aninvite to TVC / Red Bee!
You may be able to convince some of the doubters! ;)
Complain about this comment
I have to disagree with people saying luxe tv is stunning and saying you can get great images at under 9mbps.
The colours on Luxe HD look washed out and the channel mainly has still camera shots and zoomed in close up still shots. Soon as the cameras start moving its poor.
BBC HD Should be setting standards in HD. Sadly its been run as a total farce.
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
I don't think Lux TV is a good benchmark due to the lack of real time encoding (as I understand it) and the type of "programmes" it shows. Sky One HD or Channel 4 HD I think are better benchmarks. C4 is at 12mbps and Sky One at 15mbps on variable bitrates. The Euro Broadcasting Standard for 1080i is 14-16mbps.
I don't believe it is technically possible to transmit decent HD at 9mpbs, and I think anything other than that is a academic argument. The BBC shouldn't be trying to prove something that is best suited to a pilot or trial on a live system. The theory might say you can continue to compress, but the evidence in my eyes, and to lots of others all over the web who are also complaining, is the picture doesn't hold up for the majority of setups.
We are giving them far too many excuses to say its the source material. Its one excuse after the other from this technical department - one moment its our tv setups, then the source material, then clashing codecs. All these I agree are factors in PQ but the weakest link is the bitrate and I think the evidence for that is quite simply every time they reduce the bitrate the picture quality worsens.
I also saw 5 minutes of South Pacific last night. Artefacts on the helicopter landscape shots and overall it was the softest looking HD, ie looked like SD. Others have reported the same elsewhere on the web.
Freerunners, again didn't watch it all but was poor HD on my setup - little detail on the stage, people's hair etc even in still shots. And the fact that any artefacts are present when there a SLOW camera pan is very telling (actually there were lots). And it couldn't cope with smoke - another classic giveaway of a bitrate problem.
Complain about this comment
Where is Danielle in all of this. Nothing personal but she seems to be very quiet regarding the quality.
Since Danielles arival at BBC HD the quality of picture has gradually got worse. Its time the BBC HD boss gave us answers and an APOLOGY.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie, I have to agree with you. I'm watching "Earth" right now and it looks like the picture quality has the potential to be stunning, but it's just not. I think it's such a shame for all those cameramen and the production teams, lugging those cameras all around the world, for their final product not to be given the chance to shine through, in the way they probably intended it to. To me the pictures of the guy getting out of his canoe, or wading through the snow, looked to me to be just like the sort of SD picture I get on Channel 5, which has the best PQ of my SD channels.
There only seem to be 2 people around on the web (standfast Andy and, when she gets back, no doubt Danielle too) who seem to still be getting a perfect picture post the reduction; alsone and (on another forum) White-Knight and they both have very expensive TVs, a little pricier than the average.
Shouldn't the BBC HD be judging the reception of their channel on the average system, i.e. something a bit like mine a Sony Bravia from John Lewis through a Grundig Freesat box bought mail order, rather than a state-of-the-art system the like of which most people will never even see, let alone own. I've found out that Danielle is back to work tomorrow. So, I'm hoping that we'll finally get the answer to the mystery of the unsustainable bitrate very soon.
Complain about this comment
@Tag Post 377 - the Pioneer has Mosquito noise reduction and given its arguably the best tv for picture quality on the market and is a gulf apart in price, its entirely possible its simply processed it out where other brands haven't.
@ Wednesday Post 379 - LUXE HD has washed out colours??? Don't know what you're watching it on but if we go to Snoods library of screen captures it looks anything but washed out in fact positively punchy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesathd/2882178674/in/set-72157605075246190/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesathd/2821259842/in/set-72157605075246190/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesathd/2821440728/in/set-72157605075246190/
@digital Post 380 whereas I can't argue with the real time encoding point per se, you have to remember that programmes like Freerunning and Rivers weren't encoded on the fly in real time as they weren't live. They were pre-processed so should have every chance of being as good as LUXE HD at the 4mbs bit rate and should be considerably better at 9mbs. Now if we'd been talking live football or F1, your point would be entirely valid.
I feel there are probably 2 things going on here in reality:
1. Some very poor camera work / processing in post
2. Some broadcast encoding issues
and what we're actually seeing is mixture of the 2 things. The movement artefacts /blur and FF artefacts are broadcast encoding issues and the poor blurry SD looking pictures are shooting / production issues.
You have to remember on the encoding point that video encoding is very much a black art. I used to make gaming videos captured using FRAPS and I'd output them from Adobe Premiere Pro at 6mbs only to find that professional gaming companies / people in the know, were producing similar videos from similar footage in the same games captured using the same programme (FRAPS) that looked twice as good at 1.5mbs or 1/4 the bit rate!!! The difference was the encoder settings as once you get off the pre-sets finding the magic formula can be very difficult without someone who already knows it!! It used to annoy me intensely that they could produce a file twice as good for 1/4 the size.
Complain about this comment
@ Paul, I am white-knight on the other forum btw and yes I agree the encoding should work well with the average tv set up. I'm very lucky to have such a nice tv, had a very small wind fall around the time I was going to buy it although it still stretched me to the limit.
Complain about this comment
#383 @Alsone wrote "programmes like Freerunning and Rivers weren't encoded on the fly in real time as they weren't live", however, I'm sure the free running programme was live, or almost live, when I first watched it on Sat 15 Aug. If not, they did a very good job of disguising the fact that it was actually a recording.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Alsone, you've done a good job of promoting the Kuro for me. If they dig-in at the Beeb and never up the bandwidth again then I'm going to have to start saving-up for one. Because, unfortunately, I just can't enjoy an HD picture the way it's looking these days on my Sony.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately Paul whilst it seems to disguise some artefacts, as you can see from the FF video, some are as prevalent as on any other tv. Same with the softness and blur on Rivers. There's only so much a tv can do, the rest is down to the Beeb to get the problems sorted.
Complain about this comment
You know I bet no-one from the BBC has read this blog other than Andy. Has anyone actually complained elsewhere in the press or through formal BBC complaints channels? I will admit I have not complained formally to Head of Vision or the like.
My point is , this topic has been going for almost a year now, and its only gotten worse during that time. I don't believe complaining on here has much effect whatsoever.
What do you think are other more effective complaint routes? I am open to ideas. I see BBC Trust mentioned above, but we'd need to be clear on their remit in this context. Is the HD channel in breach of its remit? It's certainly in breach of its marketing and hype.
I'm generally making sure as many people know as possible about the bitrate cut on the web, because some people have noticed the picture quality but very few viewers really know what's going on back at BBC HD cuts department. When they know it tends to open their eyes to what's going on, unless they don't understand the fundamentals when its gets difficult (eg. the "Antiques Roadshow looked great" debate). There's an education aspect to this too.
In the interests of objectivity I thought the picture was slightly better tonight. I think the over zealous noise reduction of the weekend has been toned down a little. But it still can't overcome the bitrate fundamentals.
Complain about this comment
@388
An official written complaint will proably have more of an effect or, at the very least, be read more seriously.
Things like complaining on blogs or (as someone suggested about Eurovision in another page) online petitions really don't accomplish much. Anyone can do something online but writing and posting a letter is still seen as putting more offort in. Even if it takes the same amount of time to write.
Writing a letter reduces the possibility of having your comment hidden between two others of higher or lower quality, as a letter will (probably) be read on its own. A letter requires at least the pretense of more attention to read, as someone has to open it or pick it up first.
A letter also has the chance of being replied to. Sometimes it's a form letter, sometimes it addresses points one by one. (It's 15+ years since I last sent one to the BBC, so I forget which they do)
The other thing is that here that are almost 400 comments. 400 comments in one place. That place is currently a single webpage and, therefore, somewhat easy to overlook. But if even half that wrote real dead-tree letters than that's 200 envelopes to open. 200+ sheets of A4 to try and collate/file. And, if replies are standard, that's 200 reply-letters to write, print, stuff and post.
As to where to complain. Probably the addresses on the /complaints page, as it seems to cover most of the bases.
Complain about this comment
Scoobie,
The bbc website has a complaints page. Whenever I have contacted them through it regarding other issues I have recieved a reply.
However, personally, I would hold off formally complaining until we have some real reasons for the cut.
"Unsustainable" for what reason?
To reduce cost? - not a good enough reason
To make room for more SD channels? - not a good enough reason
To make room for more HD channels? - maybe a good enough reason if stat muxing can be shown to address the problems.
Andy / Danielle should answer this first to give you a good context for the complaint.
Complain about this comment
I guess this bitrate reduction and the associated quality reduction was inevitable. We could have great looking SD too, but...
Unfortunately we now live in an era where bean counters and sales & marketing run the show, and the days of a scientist/engineer/principal technologist having the casting vote based on quality, pride, and passion for the former, have gone.
Spin and truth aversion mean that "tweaks" will fix the problem, and "everything looks better now, doesn't it?". Bonuses all round?
Sad times...
My recommendation is to switch off the TV and go outside - it's all in HD out there, day or night :-)
Complain about this comment
I have to appologise in advance for the following comments as ive been reading this blog for a while and just feel i need to finally contribute.
About 2 months ago I was amazed by my friend showing me BBC HD on his new HDTV so I just had to get in on the act and go and purchase myself some new gadgets. After a lot of quick research and a new 4 digit sized hole in my wallet I sat in amazement at the offerings of BBC HD on freesat.
Now only a matter of weeks down the line, I must say I am absolutely appalled by the quality of the new HD broadcasts. Last nights 'Earth' broadcast was something ive been looking forward to since I heard about it being shown in HD, yet I was utterly shocked by the PQ, awful in comparison to many previous broadcasts, theres simply no point in having HD capable hardware if the benefits just aren't apparent to the viewer.
I had to put a blu-ray disc on to simply check that my TV wasn't on the blink and my eyes weren't deceiving me.
This is crazy! madness I tell you, something needs to be done here surely? Are we not supposed to progress along with technology anymore, or are we just going to sit back and watch it whistle by?
Complain about this comment
"@ 390 tag" How long do we have to wait for a response??? The entire BBC HD team seem to look away when it comes to questions on quality. We have not had one single apology yet for the decrease in bandwith and shocking quality decrease. Is an apology hard to do????
Where is BBC HD management??? Maybe Danielle has a valid reason for not been around and if she has then where are the other staff at BBC HD???
Andy Quested is good at posting comments sticking up for BBC HD, but he seems to deffend the undeffendable.
We cannott wait any longer for answers. Its time everyone just turned off BBC HD and let the ratings tell the BBC how we feel.
HD TV should be a luxury. The BBC are treating it as a home discount brand.
Complain about this comment
Thought I should post that I've been watching some more BBC HD.
Recorded Earth Power of the Planet (Volcanoes). 1st time around very good HD. This time, starting from the begininng - the BBC HD logo before the programme started (diamond ripple with a lion) excellent quality. Intro graphics on Earth also excellent quality. Intro footage, soft and SD looking - very poor - good example, in the intro Ian Stewart is canoeing down a river, its terrible quality. Content of the programme as a whole, very similar to others recently, odd very high quality still shot that looks HD but all other footage 99% looks soft and blurry. Definitely some encoding problems.
I'd intended recording this as a HD showcase. As it was it was so poor I deleted it and cancelled the series recording. Simply not worth watching.
Coast (Norway Fjords). Again odd HD derserving shot but most of it again soft and blurry and SD like although not quite as bad as it has been.
What I'd really like to know is what has happened since the Athletics Championships??
The BBC had the best picture I've ever seen on BBC HD on the Athletics Championships (movement artefacts aside) and since then the quality is not even worthy of SD never mind HD.
Complain about this comment
Deaperate Romantics tonight had a dreadful PQ. There was no DOG so I found myself reaching for the remote to check that my wife had actually got it on 108 and not 102 by mistake. Likewise the PQ for 3 Men...., which, although not so consistenly bad (and occasionally quite good), certainly seems to be a lot worse overall than it was 1st time round.
I think the BBC are still trying to promote HD TV, with their recent marketing, etc. but surely people are only going to invest in the technology if they get good reports of it by word of mouth. Even Alsone seems to be coming round to the opinion that the picture isn't good, so I don't think many people are going to be getting those recommends, nor making that investment.
Re: #388 and the complaining, he's certainly right. Complaining on this Blog makes no difference at all. Perhaps the government ought to be asked to step in now. I know people will tell me that I don't understand the complexities of the matter, but for me it would make sense for the governent to legislate for us to have just the 4 BBC channels, 3 x ITV, 2 x Channel4/Film4 type channels and 1 x Channel 5 (i.e. 10 channels) all in HD on Freesat.
If they closed off all the other, 70 or so, SD Freesat channel variations and all those +1 channels, then surely they'd have enough room for 10 HD ones, and it would certainly work for me. Then we could get back to having a few channels all showing decent programmes, made to the highest standards like they used to be and shown in the best possible audiovisual quality. They could perhaps even squeeze on one or two HD sport and News channels too.
Also, I note that on my Grundig box you can add non-freesat channels as well, and there seem to be loads of those taking up room (on the same satellite?) which is what all this seems to be about. These channels are so bad that I can't believe anyone actually watches them. Surely getting rid of them would be the answer to the "unsustainable" bandwidth issue.
Complain about this comment
I just saw the end of Desperate Romantics. There have been statements on here where people declare they cannot tell HD from SD, and while this may seem to the disinterested reader like a rhetorical effort to catch attention I have to say I found it was literally true in this case. This was a low light sequence, but that doesn't excuse the horrendous smearing and lack of detail, with the picture at times looking like it was shot through a fog with a strobe light going off in the distance. I understand the scene was supposed to be lit by candlelight and therefore flickery, but the flickers lit up the whole screen right to the edges in a blurry, odd way that looked completely unnatural.
I spent a bit of time last night comparing the original broadcast of South Pacific ep 1 with the repeat, and was going to report something nuanced but at least partly enthusiastic about the new encoder/bandwidth balance, but for me this example demonstrated that as soon as the material gets challenging the results are disastrous.
Complain about this comment
#388, Scoobie, what about writing to the Culture, Media & Sport Committee at the following email address: CMSCOM@parliament.uk
According to their own website the Culture, Media and Sport Committee monitors the policy, administration and expenditure of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies, including the BBC, on behalf of the House of Commons and the electorate.
The BBC Policy of lowering their High Definition picture quality to the lowest standard that they can possibly get away with, and still call it HD, is surely something CMSCOM should, at least, be looking into.
Complain about this comment
@astroBalderdash
Re going outside - "its all in HD"- good point and my viewing time of the BBC HD channel has plummeted due to picture quality.
I wonder what all this means for the viewing figures for the channel and if the BBC are shooting themselves in the foot? If the picture isn't stunning I see no point in watching BBC HD, other than as a sort of quasi-catch up channel. I wonder if others are switching off too.
Complain about this comment
I watched some of the athletics last week and was distinctly unimpressed - a very grainy picture, lots of blocking/artefacts and messed up DD sound.
Basically, I've given up with BBCHD. I don't even bother to check the EPG any more. Perhaps Dragon's Den is the only thing I might choose to watch but only because it's marginally better PQ than BBC2.
Quantity over quality. It sums up our society these days. Such a shame...
Complain about this comment
#396 by HD_fan428
I agree!
I had to switch off Desperate Romantics - I even send out a tweet about it:-
@daveac just turned off 'Desperate Romantics' on BBC HD - please @BBC what are you doing to the picture quality on BBC HD - please up the bitrate!
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Would anyone be willing to start a wiki, or be interested in working together on a joint complaints letter? I've not done this before, so not sure how. Google docs is possibly a route? Thinking is a few heads are better than one.
If we do write a letter of complaint we need to keep it factual I guess.
I like the idea of the Culture committee, and maybe the shadow culture secretary and BBC Trust. I'd suggest BBC Head of Vision (I think this is Danielle's boss). Probably BBC Head of Technology too.
Complain about this comment
@Daveac
How do we tweet about this?
What is @BBC?
Complain about this comment
I've drafted a complaints letter. What do you think?
I would be so grateful if someone with the technical knowledge can get this up onto a wiki or shared internet document so others can contribute easily.
"Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a complaint about the deteriorating picture quality of the BBC HD channel. BBC HD has cut its transmission bitrates by 40% for its HD channel a couple of weeks back. This impacts anyone watching BBC HD via satellite (Sky or Freesat). Many viewers have been complaining about the impact on picture quality to the BBC HD blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html
The BBC Technology department has explained the cuts this way:
"We need to reduce the unsustainable bit rates for HD transmission or it will have no future or will only be available to those willing to pay for and able to get super premium services." Source - Andy Quested, BBC technology via Digital Spy forums and BBC HD blog.
The reason for "unsustainable" is not given. The implication of the quote is that higher quality HD , which always requires higher bitrates, will be left to Sky and pay TV and the BBC are trying to develop a cut down version of HD , of lesser quality, for the masses.
BBC HD has admitted to What Hi Fi magazine that there are problems with the new picture quality, but they have consistently failed to admit that the root cause of the problem is the lower bitrates, which are far lower than equivalent competitor HD channels
http://whathifi.com/News/BBC-admits-to-problems-with-new-HD-encoders/
Some facts about HD and the BBC HD channel:
- European Broadcast Benchmarks for HD transmission at 1080i are 14-16mbps. These are widely accepted benchmarks
- BBC HD used to broadcast at 20mbps (mega bits per second) and most said that the picture was fantastic. It then cut back to 16mbps. In the past couple of weeks it has cutback again to 9mbps.
- Sky One HD is broadcast at 15mbps and uses better technology (so called variable bitrates which vary the bitrates to cope with higher demanding programmes which require more bitrate)
- There have been circa 300 complaints about picture quality on the BBC HD blog since the bitrate change a few weeks back.
- BBC HD is available in Europe at 1980x1080 at 16mbps but only at 1440x1080 resolution at 9mbps in the UK. Most people's TV's are 1980x1080 (so called true HD)
- The mission statement for the BBC HD channel, taken from its website says:
"The BBC HD channel's commitment to the highest possible quality means that ... we will choose the standard that delivers the best possible pictures."
We do not believe it is fulfilling this mission statement and we request your support to lobby the BBC to improve picture quality.
"
Ends
Complain about this comment
Good letter. Ive just decided not to watch anything on the BBC until they sort out the problem. 6 people in our house no longer watching BBC. I know 6 people is not much but if every household did this then it would soon add up. I will leep an eye on BBC HD every now and then to check the quality but thats it.
Complain about this comment
I agree, good letter. Though I think the bits where it says "1980x1080" should maybe say "1920x1080".
Complain about this comment
scoobie,
don't forget to add in the BBC Trust Service License for BBCHD states:-
"BBC HD should deliver a very high quality technical service to viewers, by adhering to, or seeking to exceed, industry standards for picture resolution"
There is technical wriggle room in that statement, but the spirit of the directive is clear.
Complain about this comment