Picture Quality on BBC HD: a response
Post categories: hdtv
| 14:07 UK time, Thursday, 17 September 2009
Hello Everyone
I thought that you might like to see the detailed response which I have sent to someone who contacted me regarding the picture quality issues which are under discussion here:
"...Your complaint refers to the introduction of the new transmission encoders for BBC HD which were introduced into operations on Wednesday 5th August. There was an extensive process of assessment in advance of the selection of new encoders for the BBC HD service, using both objective and subjective criteria. The encoders which were chosen then went through further testing in advance of operational use, not only for picture quality but for compatibility with the Sky and Freesat platforms and their ability to deliver other services such as subtitling and surround sound successfully.
The new encoders were intended to help us in handling the wide range of material which the BBC broadcasts in HD, and to help to improve the picture quality of some of our most challenging programmes. These may combine progressive and interlaced shooting or where the BBC has limited control over some aspects of the broadcast chain. I believe that the new encoders have achieved this in relation to programmes such as the series of BBC Proms broadcast, Gardeners' World, Rick Stein's Mediterranean Escapes and the recent Athletics World Championships, for which our coverage using the host broadcaster feed was as good as and sometimes better than other broadcasters covering the same event. However we of course continue to assess coder settings against the wide range of material which they have to handle to determine the best settings on an ongoing basis.
Following the introduction of the new encoders, there were some issues around the handling of some pictures - primarily mixes and fades - which we acknowledged through the BBC HD blog on picture quality almost immediately. We have worked with our encoder supplier to address these issues in the long-term, and also put in place interim changes to minimise the difficulties. That the encoder change should generate problems for viewers watching BBC HD content is of course a matter for regret, but I do not believe that this was the result of errors in the preparation process.
You have also highlighted the issue of the bit-rate at which BBC HD broadcasts, and the changes to this over time. I do not believe that the problems that arose following the introduction of the new encoders had anything to do with the broadcast bit-rate, even though they coincided, as you have rightly identified, with a reduction in bit-rate for the channel.
One of the central issues in selecting new encoders for BBC HD was to deliver pictures at the same or improved quality while allowing a reduction in the channel bit-rate. As MPEG 4 encoders have evolved, the relationship between bit-rate and picture quality has also shifted. This is not an issue that is specific to BBC HD, or to the encoders that we have selected.
The BBC has an absolute responsibility to use bandwidth efficiently - whether on digital terrestrial muxes or on satellite. Bandwidth is not unlimited, and on UK-footprint transponders the demand for capacity is very high. The current bit-rates were selected through a process which directly evaluated quality on the new and old encoders, using a wide range of programme material and both subjective and objective assessments.
HD is still an evolving production technology. A variety of production techniques are - in my view quite rightly - deployed as experimentation continues to explore what HD can delivery creatively.
As in standard definition, it is also important that HD delivers a range of "looks" for producers, appropriate to the nature of the subject matter. I do not prescribe a single standard for HD work for the BBC. Decisions regarding frame rate and progressive versus interlaced styles are the responsibility of individual producers. These choices do not impact on quality provided that the camera is set up properly and the shutter speed set correctly, issues on which the BBC HD team provides ongoing advice and guidance. As the discussion on the BBC HD blog suggests, there is a range of views around these issues, and the degradation or quality they may bring to HD pictures. It is worth noting that 25 frames progressive mode in fact has more resolution than a 25 frame interlace image, and is used by the majority of drama, documentary and natural history programmes to great effect.
While very clear, sharp images have become closely associated with HD, it is important not to confuse "sharpness" with resolution. The use of electronic sharpening on standard definition pictures can make images clearer but does not increase the amount of information in the picture, one of the defining features of HD.
Electronic sharpening is not a characteristic which BBC HD encourages since we prefer images to look more natural, and to allow directors to offer contrasting focus in order to highlight the key features in a scene. Indeed, some of our dramas are now using the latest large image format cameras. These cameras use an image sensor about the same physical size as a 35mm film frame that gives the image a very shallow depth of field. This will put all but the key subject out of focus and allows a director to use focus as a story telling tool.
HD picture quality is not purely about a crispness of image, but about a richness of image which comes from the amount of detailed information included.
Within the BBC HD team we work consistently to explore new HD technology with a particular view to enhancing picture quality across the range of programme projects with which we are involved. Filming in certain environments or using small cameras remains challenging, and where it is not possible to deliver HD pictures to the standards we set, we limit the use of lower quality images to a maximum of 25% of an individual title.
Finally, you raise the issue of surround sound and the number of programmes broadcast which offer a 5.1 sound mix. Wherever possible we buy series and films with surround sound tracks, and try to ensure that sound is captured in this format for outside events. But 5.1 sound is not always available, and a genuine surround sound mix can add substantially to production costs in HD at a time when we are concentrating the resources available to increase the total volume of programmes made in HD. At present we do not routinely "up-mix" programmes from stereo to surround.
I can assure you that picture quality is a very important part of the work that we are doing in BBC HD. We clearly have different views on the picture quality that is delivered and the factors that contribute to it, but I do believe that we share a perspective that the quality of images is central to delivery of HD television.
I want to add that the BBC HD blog is a very important discussion and communications forum for us, but as you have clearly observed we don't respond to every single comment raised on it. We do take on board all the views expressed, and look seriously at substantive issues that are highlighted, whether they attract one comment or many.
I am sorry that in this case you feel that your original contribution did not receive the attention which you believed that it should have done."
Danielle Nagler is Head of BBC HD, BBC Vision
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Thanks for posting this Danielle. I was just about to write to you regarding my comment #664 over on Andy's PQ Blog but you've beaten me to it. I'm sure that everyone will be very relieved to see this, after quite a long wait. Let's see what they have to say.
Complain about this comment
"A higher bit-rate will not automatically deliver higher picture quality."
What a load...
Complain about this comment
Danielle Nagler: Just out of interest, how are the overnight test of Freeview HD going from Winter Hill on C50?
Is there one set of equipment for Freeview HD and another for satellite?
Will this improve the HD pictures for those Virgin Media areas that use MPEG2 or have these now been phased out?
Complain about this comment
Hi Danielle, if your reading this. You still haven't answered a fundamemtal question I am sure many licence payers want to know. What plan of action is going to take place to resolve the picture quality issue?
The fact remains as of today the quality is still poor on a lot of programmes.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the reply Danielle. At last we get what we have been waiting for. Why did it take so long. A quicker response may have calmed everyone down.
You mention that the new encoders have improved quality on some programmes, surely new encoders should improve quality on all programmes.At least it is good that you acknowledge that quality is important.
If I buy something new I want it to be better. I cant believe you tested these encoders and then bought them when the quality is no better and mostly worse. How did you not spot the problems you list when you were testing?? No one on this blog has come on to say that WOW the picture quality has improved.
Everything I read indicates that higher bit rates mean better quality and while I acknowledge that bandwith is not unlimited a 40% reduction does seem drastic.
Next time a major change occurs please can you tell us in advance and advise us they may be teething problems, I think that would have solved a few problems.
So far this year we have had good progress on BBCHD e.g more programmes, iPlayer HD and some stunning outside broadcasts ( Wimbledon & Glastonbury) but the new encoders has been a big mistake in my view.
I agree the HD picture is better than SD but propably only 2-3 times better and certainly not 5-6 times better like the Sky advert promises.
Keep working on it I bet these last few weeks have been a bit hectic.
Thanks again for the post.
As Always please keep us updatede on New Program news.
Complain about this comment
Dear zubeirp
We have looked at a lot of material and I will be doing another blog with the results of tests between the old and new coders as soon as all the results are in.
So far the the majority of programmes are better through the new coders - some significantly, but I need the full set of results to publish.
Dear CompactDistance
Good coding is about good tools and processing. Even at 200Mbs there are compression errors.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear Briantist
I don't have any new information about tests. At this year's IBC there were several manufactures demonstrating terrestrial T2 HD set top boxes. You will need a Freview HD STB to get the terrestrial HD services.
Andy
Complain about this comment
I personally am very happy with the quality of the HD picture on BBC HD - we just need more of it. Can we dispense with the HD Preview all day and put some decent films, etc on?
Complain about this comment
Dear SkyCaddie
Thanks for the post. I hope my next blog will clear up a few more points. We did acknowledge the mix/fade problem almost immediately though in the PQ blog. It was an underestimation of the problem and we were already tying to fix it. Any full fix we do though must work on all STBs and there are differences in how some respond to changes.
Also one point I will make in the next blog is we are always working on improvements. When they are ready and tested across the platforms we implement them. For more details of the next blog see post 6
Complain about this comment
As I stated earlier this afternoon on Andy's Blog #664 I was the recipient of Danielle's email, which she has thoughtfully reproduced for us in this Blog. This Blog is, I'm sure, the comment that everyone has been patiently waiting for but as @zubirp points out above, disappointingly, it makes no promises for any sort of improvements, at all, to either the PQ or, if necessary, the Bandwidth in the future.
Since receiving her email I have thought long and hard about it and wondered whether it is sufficient an explanation of the PQ deterioration that we've all observed and, if not, what my next course of action should be. I've come to the conclusion that it does not give me any indication of how the BBC, in the face of the considerable criticism from its HD viewers, intends to meet its BBC Trust licence remit to adhere to, or seek to exceed, industry standards for picture resolution.
So, within the 20 day working period of receipt of this email permitted by the BBC Trust I intend to take my complaint on to them as the next stage in a long battle to get an acceptance from the BBC that the PQ is now below par, perhaps a proper apology for their recent mistakes, and an acceptable plan of action from them for improving it. I would welcome any contributions or assistance in crafting the 1000 word (limited) complaint to the Trust but, for obvious reasons, I would prefer it if any significant contribution be sent to me via a less public means than this Blog.
So, if you wish to contribute you will find me with the same user name at most of the other forums dealing with this issue, and from there you can send contact me via a personal message, and I will then give you the chance to make contact with me by email.
Danielle, as I've already said above I am grateful to you for posting your reply to me here in public. Really it is nothing personal but I do feel that the BBC should be delivering us a better HD product and I'm willing to do everything that I can, in my own limited way, to ensure that it does. I'm sure you will do endeavour to do the same, from your somewhat more empowered position.
Complain about this comment
Dear al_catraz
We are trying to get more programmes into HD. At the moment we can't really go over the 9 hours agreed when the channel first started (except when we have big events and sport). We hope to reduce the repeat rate first then we can ask if the hours could be extended.
Thanks very much for your comments though. You are not alone and there are other sites that share your view
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy, great to hear from you again. Thanks for breaking silence.
Complain about this comment
@andyquested
Will it be possible for the BBC to buy the lastest MPEG-2 encoders being used by other broadcasters for its satellite channels to allow a second BBC HD channel to launch?
These encoders would allow not only an improvement in the quality of the BBC channels broadcast on Astra 2D but they would also allow you to shuffle the channels around allowing you to remove the remaining 2 BBC MPEG-2 channels that current share the trasponder slot with BBC HD.
This trasponder could then be switched to broadcast in DVB-S2, even if you left the bit-rate of BBC HD as it is the resulting efficiencies of DVB-S2 would mean a vast improvement for BBC HD.
It would also mean the BBC would have the option to broadcast a second HD channel.
With The Winter Olympics, The World Cup and The Commonwealth games set to take up large amounts of day and evening broadcasting making it impossible to schedule weekly programming.
Because of the time difference The Winter Olympics will be on from late afternoon until the early morning.
With the BBC committed to covering A list events in full and in HD there will need to be a second HD channel to allow regular programming to continue.
With the expected increase in HD content it would be a welcome addition.
It would also solve the issue for Danielle where HD programmes aren't promoted by the announcer on BBC1 and 2 because the HD version is broadcast at a different time or on a different day.
The third and forth HD slots on the new HD trasponder could then be sub-leased with the BBC having the rights to take back the slots in the future. By the Olympics the BBC will need 4 HD channels to cover all the events taking place as well as allow regular programming to be broadcast.
Complain about this comment
I am quite impressed that Danielle Nagler had the time to e-mail that to one of the contributers, I think that is pretty positive. However cutting and pasting it to the rest of the blog audience I think is patronising and shows a lack of good quality arguments. I think much of the content of that e-mail is very well meaning nonsense. It doesn't tell anybody anything new and just reinforces views people have - that Danielle Nagler is a channel controller who mostly focuses on schedules, well meaning (although has a few very odd views like who would need to know why people want Top Gear in HD?) but ultimately hampered by funds and limited hours and that Andy Quested is a nice enough guy but not really bothered about PQ, he's a sound man.
I'd have been much happier if the BBC had just said that some mean person in the BBC had held a gun to their head and told them to get the bitrate down, or it was needed to get ITV and C4 HD on Tx50 Astra 2D ASAP or they needed the space for a year or two when they were going to launch another HD channel/download service/whatever. We all know very well what is (or rather isn't) on that transponder and can see straight through the "unsustainable" argument. If the BBC had come out with one of the above arguments, people won't like it, but a lot more of us would accept it. I for one on balance would grudgingly accept BBC HD at 9.7Mbs if it meant another BBC HD channel (or two) launching.
Complain about this comment
Infact you wouldn't have to leave the BBC HD on a fixed rate if it switched to DVB-S2, it could be stat-muxed giving it the entire transponder to use until a second BBC HD channel is launched to deal with major international sporting events taking up BBC HD and the third and fourth slots of sub-leased for a period of time until the BBC needs them back.
Complain about this comment
ropies - just an early warning, that the conversation is well mannered so far, but let's keep it so.
It's a little unfair to say that either Andy or Danielle don't care about picture quality or about the HD channel even if you disagree with particular decisions that have been made.
Both Andy's and Danielle's continued presence on this blog is proof that they do care.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Andy, look forward to your post.
Complain about this comment
I think a lot of the arguments in Danielle's response are diversion tactics - like the classic "its the way it was filmed". It's the sort of stuff we've heard before on Andy Questeds blog; little of it is actually new information despite its length.
All these things you mention are relevant factors to PQ but the only two things that BBC HD has CHANGED are the bitrate and the encoder.
Every time BBC HD cuts the bitrate, the picture gets worse, and the complaints come in.
From what I read here and elsewhere many people think the pictures are frequently soft, lacking in detail, noisy and with compression artefacts.
Has Danielle actually watched the programmes she cites as having excellent picture quality? I thought she was on holiday during the Athletics? I notice this list matches Andy Quested's list that he cited in defense of PQ earlier in August. I disagreed then that these programmes are benchmark HD. The argument that the channel's Sports picture quality is better than others hasn't been cited outside the BBC as far as I'm aware.
Benchmarks I have done on three programmes, the same shows recorded pre and post the bitrate cut, show the picture is worse than before the recent bitrate cut.
Let's not loose sight here of the magnitude of the bitrate cut - 16 mbps to 9mbps. BBC HD might have new encoders, but its very hard to make up that sort of cutback.
BBC HD are running the channel at a bitrate that is lower than comparible HD channels. It MUST have an impact on picture quality. It's sort of obvious isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Hi, This is my first post, and I have a couple of things to say :-)
1. I think it is a very positive sign to see employees of the BBC engaged with us in such a positive way. Every company has limits they have to work to and the new bitrate reduction is one.
2. Danielle states that
"
It is worth noting that 25 frames progressive mode in fact has more resolution than a 25 frame interlace image
"
Are you sure about this? If the image is stationary it is the same, if it is moving, it will be the same but over two fields. Perhaps you are referring to the losses resolving interlaced images. If so I believe this is not conclusive. For example, see
http://www.poynton.com/notes/short_subjects/video/Interlace_Progressive
I personally prefer interlaced and I watch television via my computer (i.e. progressive display). With good post processing the picture quality is excellent.
Complain about this comment
I think some of the queries raised have been answered some have been ignored - can I suggest we put together 10 specific questions or so direct to Danielle for answering as head of the channel. I am happy to co-ordinate this.
Complain about this comment
Dear ropies
A "sound man" not sure if you mean someone you can trust or someone in audio! I agree if it's the first but if it's the second, I'm afraid I have a much more murkier past
Try
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0703360/
for just some of it
Complain about this comment
@midzone
I've got a question for you. If the picture quality is so good now since the bitrate cut then how come there are hundreds, if not thouands of complaints, all over the web, and the ratio of complaints to praise is about 9:1?
Complain about this comment
Dear en5ads
Interesting site. As you suggest a 25fps image is a whole frame captured in one go normally with a 1/50th of a second shutter. This is split into two fields with the same temporal resolution but different vertical information - in other words the frame is carried as 2 half frame packets. An interlace image is half a frame captured every 50th of a second usually with no shutter. Each half frame has different vertical and temporal information.
As the two interlace halves are interleaved (say alternate lines) your eye "smoothes out" the difference. The faster the motion the bigger the difference and the "softer" the picture. Poor deinterlacers don't help!
A progressive image has no motion between the two halves so no softening. You may not like the motion portrayal of 25 (or 24fps in the cinema) but as I've said that's an editorial not a technical choice.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy Quested: "So far the the majority of programmes are better through the new coders - some significantly, but I need the full set of results to publish."
Andy I don't mean to be rude but that's utter rubbish and you know it.
The BBC even admitted to the WhatHiFI team that your encoders were having problems according to their website:
http://whathifi.com/News/BBC-admits-to-problems-with-new-HD-encoders/
You can hardly deny what you've already admitted and what your own audience have spotted the majority of whom involved in these and other forums are telling you its not good.
I've posted a whole series of pictures onto your blog, some of which clearly show some Channel 5 SD to be sharper, clearer and more detailed than BBC HD since the new encoders have come on line.
eg: http://img159.yfrog.com/i/comparison1.jpg/
The truth of the matter is there have been one or two successes: The Athletics which you shout about but fail to mention to the movement artefacts which were nevertheless a problem, excellent still picture aside. The Wildest Dreams final, which whilst it was superb throughout, nevertheless doesn't erase the fact that the week before (as captured in the pictures above) was some of the worst HD ever seen on BBC tv!
Overall I have to say that since the new encoders, BBC HD is so poor, I hardly watch it!
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo
There are sites that say the quality is good and there are sites that would prefer we used no compression at all. We take not of all comments
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy, if you have access to a TV now, flick between Hotel Babylon in HD on your channel and Alone in the Wild in SD on Channel 4. Which has the better PQ?
Complain about this comment
Dear Alsone
Thanks for the post - I have seen your pictures. The comments in what hifi refer to the mix/fade issue mentioned in the PQ blog though.
Dear paul_geaton
Sorry missed both
Complain about this comment
Danielle/Andy,
My first post - I've been watching this blog for a few months now.
From reading the many comments on that other PQ blog entry I keep coming back to the same somewhat unanswered question:
What is the overall driving force behind the reduction in BBC HD bitrate?
If the BBC pays by actual bandwidth used on tp 50 then am I right in assuming it is cost? If not (noticing you don't share tp 50 at the moment and therefore may be paying a flat rate), then what IS the main reason?
I've read various other guesstimations from contributors about a) matching bitrate towards the forthcoming Freeview HD version of BBC HD, and b) making space to accomodate some kind of sub-let to the ITV HD/upscaled simulcast channel that launches with Freeview HD or even an "in the clear" channel 4 HD - I'll rule out another BBC HD channel as your broadcasting hours and available programming are already limited for your existing channel.
Your responses to date have not really confirmed or denied any of this. Even an acknowledgment that you're not at liberty to say would be better than no acknowledgement at all.
Regards,
Ade.
Complain about this comment
Andy, that's a shame because the Channel 4 programme's PQ was outstanding considering I was watching it in SD and it was filmed by a man alone in the woods with a camera on the end of a stick. I'm telling you that here, on a BBC Blog, because having watched quite a few similar programmes on the BBC HD channel recently I was surprised to find how good the PQ on an SD programme could be by comparison. Flicking between the 2 channels this evening and there was no doubt in my mind, the SD programme had a vastly superior picture. Considering the way both programmes were made, that surely couldn't be put down to different production choices, could it?
Complain about this comment
Could someone from the BBC please explain what the exact copy of BBCHD called 6945 is for and why the bandwidth it consumes couldn't be freed up for the main BBCHD channel ?
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton
Channel 4 is using new MPEG-2 decoders on satellite. It's mentioned on post 13 as part of a question to Andy.
Complain about this comment
Sorry but the post seems the usual BBC HD fob off. When the channel started out as a test channel the picture quality was stunning. I REPEAT ***STUNNING***. Yes BBC HD and the word Stunning are not used very often sadly. Then the channel lowered the bandwith and the quality went down - we had the excuses of "its production" "its your TV". We all knew it was the bandwith reduction but the BBC HD team continued with the fob off.
Now we have bandwith reduced again to unacceptable levels (and they are unacceptable levels for someone like the BBC who should be setting the standards) and the quality has suffered again. yet again we have the usual fob offs about production and TV sets.
Its time to stop the fob offs and admit bandwith does affect quality and IT HAS effected quality.
Theres very little I watch on BBC HD mainly due to quality issues and also the fact theres little on I want to watch, but I watched every episode of Dragons Den recently. Before the bandwith reduction to 9mbps Dragons Den looked very good, the bandwith is reduced to a silly 9MBPS and it all of a sudden looses detail and looks average. Where was the production change in this then?
9MBPS is unacceptable and if this is all the channel is going to stay at then why not save money and bin the channel.
Also @ Nick, look through the posts by Andy and Danielle and then come back and tell us they care about quality. The constant blame on production and TV sets is becoming thin.
People are fed up with the way the channel is been run down to the guetter and can you blame viewers??? Look at the ratings of the channel and this shows you what people think.
Complain about this comment
@Andy Quested
Is there any reason why your encoder has deblocking at a low strength(alpha/beta coefficients at -3/-3 respectively)?
I've seen it more and more often set low like this by compressionists in Blu-rays but not in broadcast before.
Complain about this comment
Wow a responce at last. Andy has now prommised to publish test results for the new encoder. I hope they will include subjective and objective test including results of tests using metrics such a PSNR. It will also be interesting see what methodology has been used for the subjective tests. I simply do not believe that the new encoders will give the same PSNR as the older encoders at 40% bitrate. The reason I don't believe is that this claimed breakthrough in encoder technology has not been reported any where else on the net. The best figures I have ever seen is an "upto" 10% improvement for an MPEG2 encoder. Another reason I do not believe the claim is what I can see with my own eyes and yes I did go to specsavers.
With respect to Andies credentials
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0703360/
shows he is not a "sound" man but he is infact a comedian and all this was a joke right!
Complain about this comment
Andy, Why doesnt the BBC HD team try bandwith at 12mbps for 2 weeks? This will prove to you bandwith does effect picture quality and has effected the quality.
If you do try this and the quality is not increased then you will have been proved right and can come on here and say "told you so".
12 MBPS would certainly help the channel dramatically.
Complain about this comment
@Andy, post 27, Thanks for the reply.
I'm on your side and have defended BBC PQ in several previous posts where the BBC did achieve a good quality, however I do think your comment on PQ since the encoder change is as unsustainable as the previous bit rate.
What myself and several others would like to do is try to work with you to improve the problem. However, this is impossible if its simply denied.
As I said elsewhere in the other PQ thread, if the purchased encoder cannot produce good quality at the current bit rate then what bodes for the future? I think someone somewhere needs to acknowledge the wrong choice was made, money was possibly wasted and that the only solution is to sell the encoders on and go for Ateme, or as I mentioned in that post, if you want to play it absolutely safe, someone needs to go on a fact finding mission to LUXE TV to see how they're doing it and what the Ateme encoder can achieve with the current BBC bit rate on sports programming - I'm sure there is some test footage you could take with you to give a run with the toughest possible material. Even with the slow material 4Mbs vs the BBC's 9.5Mbs is a big gulf especially as LUXE HD looks better!! That way you can effectively try before you buy and pick up encoder setting tips to avoid a repeat of what has happened this time.
To just continue with the current encoders is never going to be a satisfactory solution if the current PQ is the best that can be achieved. The fact is the pressure on Freesat for space is only going to increase even if Sky can be persuaded to move its encrypted content off 2D. We all know that 4HD and FIVE HD are likely in the future but what then? More and more channels are going to switch to HD. eg. FIVE US already has a high proportion of HD programming scaled down to SD. Are we really to believe that if FIVE HD is a success, FIVE US won't go HD? Further to that, are we really to believe other channels won't follow suit? eg. Are we also to believe that FILM 4 won't go HD given that all of its content is already HD resolution and there's a big demand for HD films.
That being the case with no room for another HD channel on Freeview, are the BBC Trust simply going to let the FTA public lose more channels to Sky and some of the more popular ones at that? It seems to me with Freesat, at least there's a platform they could be hosted on (which is why I've long believed Freesat should become a standalone platform in its own right).
It's time to face facts. Freeview hasn't the capacity for the future - we all know 4HD channels is all it can ever accommodate and unless channels are to be lost to Sky as they change over, and Freeview left with a very poor selection then Freesat needs to become a standalone platform based around quality and HD content as its the only FTA platform that can possibly accommodate more channels as they switch over. That way people have a choice. Freeview for ease of installation / reception and Freesat for extra quality and content. Mirroring Freeview simply won't work going forwards as Freeview won't be able to accomodate much of what it does now as more channels go HD. However, it may be possible to satisfy both channel bosses and FTA audiences by transmitting SD versions on Freeview and HD on Freesat where there's insufficient room to fit the HD onto Freeview.
Further to tie this in with BBC HD encoders and space on Freesat, all of this in turn means that even on Freesat, in the future, as well as a possible move to free up space by moving encrypted content off Freesat, more efficient use of transponder space will be necessary and so as I said above, if the current encoders can't produce more space whilst maintaining quality, then the only option is going to be to acknowledge the mistake and change them for some that can. A failure to do this is going to be a disaster for FTA tv going forwards.
Complain about this comment
Quoted as being good:-
'BBC Proms broadcast, Gardeners' World, Rick Stein's Mediterranean Escapes and the recent Athletics World Championships'
No to 3 of those - only 'some' of the Athletiscs were good - the pictures on the other three were not in my opinion.
And 'The Tudors' and 'Land Girls' pictures were not up to HD standards.
Why were these 'codec' handicapped with a 40% bit-rate cut?
And this from Andyquested -'So far the the majority of programmes are better through the new coders - some significantly, but I need the full set of results to publish.'
NOT TO MY EYES
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Danielle Still did not tell us why they had to lower the bandwith to such low rates.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Andy,
Clearly the point I was making is that running a premier HD channel that we are forced to pay for at sub-par bitrates is going to produce worse picture quality than running at a proven bitrate. You have a remit to meet or exceed industry specifications and you are FAILING US using OUR MONEY. You are using us as guinea pigs.
Aleks
Complain about this comment
I can't help thinking that as the BBC's TV offering has grown the service has severely degraded. Digital channels with hideous DOGs, sub-par HD quality... why don't we cut out all the fat and uncaring management who will simply spend our money as they please and take us back to BBC 1 & 2 with a vastly reduced license fee.
Complain about this comment
25p vs 50i and others.
Danielle Wrote "It is worth noting that 25 frames progressive mode in fact has more resolution than a 25 frame interlace image, and is used by the majority of drama, documentary and natural history programmes to great effect.".
In post 23 Andy said about 50i, "As the two interlace halves are interleaved (say alternate lines) your eye "smoothes out" the difference. The faster the motion the bigger the difference and the "softer" the picture. Poor deinterlacers don't help!". Isn't it true that the faster the motion, the better 50i will look in comparison to 25p? eg. your rarely see sports like football shot for broadcast at 25p, and when there very occasionally has been a sport event shot like that I see complaints about it. 25p strobes/judders a much more than 50i/50p especially on today's HDTVs.
Even film directors like James Cameron dislike the strobe/judder effect of 24p (very similar to 25p) saying "Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all."
On the issue of which has the most resolution (spatial/motion resolution etc.) - do the BBC have test equipment and/or have they done tests which show which has the higher resolution, and by how much? I assume high def interlaced footage isn't/doesn't need to be filtered to reduce interlace flicker since it will be de-interlaced and viewed on progressive displays.
I think the 25p/50i issue would be a great idea for a blog where this was the main subject, where we could discuss these issues, including the different resolutions/benefits of each. We/the BBC could have test footage and other stuff which compared the two with footage that had different amounts of motion. Maybe we could see how other formats compared to them (eg. compare 1080/25p, 1080/50i, 720/50p, 1080/50p at various bitrates).
Complain about this comment
Interesting reading.
From the post, I get the impression that (one way or the other) things are not going to change quickly any time soon. That the bitrate is down is obviously for a reason. And that the new encoders are still having the kinks straightened out is something becoming apparent. (And, yes, I'm one of those who does think that you can test all you like, but the only real results come from a live environment)
From the comments, people aren't going to accept anything other than things going back to the way they think they should be. Standard user response, I get it a lot in IT where I work. nothing behind the scenes matters, only what they perceive.
I really don't envy the BBC at the moment. They seem to be stuck between an unchangeable decision and a "user base" that cannot accept what that decision has brought.
And, finally, I have to applaud Danielle and Andy Q. The fact that they still come here, and to take the time to make responses that they know won't necessarily make everybody happy shows a level of profesisonalism I can only dream of.
And, no, I'm not being in any way flippant. I would flat out ignore the level of vitriol that they're getting levelled at them. (I hate wasting words on people who don't wish to take them on board.) That they still take the time to respond, and in a fairly polite manner at that, genuinely impresses me.
Complain about this comment
The real test of BBC HD's encoders will be tonight, when Strictly Come Dancing is shown. Firstly, the images should be very clean entering the compressors coming straight out of TC1 never having touched a compressor. Secondly, the material -- very fast motion and sparkly dresses -- is an absolute killer for any compression system.
It'll be interesting to see how it looks, but based on material seen so far I suspect it'll pass with flying colours and better than previous years encoders.
Steven
Complain about this comment
Assuming that Danielle and Andy's claims are correct, I wonder if they've done any testing at all across the entire transmission chain.
It seems to me that the new encoders could well be putting out a better picture than the old encoders, but with less picture redundancy due to the bandwidth cut. By the time this signal reaches viewers, who will have data loss (surely it's impossible to avoid with broadcast transmission?), the decoder has to do the best job it can with what it's received. If there's less information received (regardless of bitrate), less information will be displayed. (This is a great simplification, but I think it makes my point.)
It's also occurred to me that many people don't calibrate their TVs (or don't know how to/what it even means), whereas every panel at the BBC, I'd hope, is calibrated properly. Given that broadcast engineering has, in the past, always focused on what the picture looks like to the viewer, has the BBC done any subjective image comparisons on consumer-grade HDTVs with factory settings? If not, then why? What is it about HDTV that means you can do less testing and checks than the past 50 years of television broadcasting?
I'd love to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt. I believe them when they say encoder improvements allow for a cut in bandwidth with no perceived quality loss; I've seen it myself with MPEG-4 encoders. In this case though, they really need to listen to the complaints instead of nodding along pretending to listen.
Complain about this comment
"but with less picture redundancy due to the bandwidth cut. By the time this signal reaches viewers, who will have data loss (surely it's impossible to avoid with broadcast transmission?), the decoder has to do the best job it can with what it's received."
The DVB-S transmission standard includes error correction, so reception is either perfect, or it'll break up into blocks. The Signal Quality meter on the box usual shows how hard the error corrector is having to work.
" In this case though, they really need to listen to the complaints instead of nodding along pretending to listen."
Trouble is a lot of complaints are necessarily down to the encoders. There have been some for example about the picture going soft when things move. This is a function of the way TV works and happens in SD, HD and at 4K. I saw a 4K (well, 2.8K in reality) JVC prototype on monday at IBC directly feeding a 4K LCD filming a model trainset. The image was staggering on the things that don't move, but the train itself was a blurred mess. There's a BBC research paper that shows that to keep HD resolution on moving objects requires 300p at least for HD.
Steve
Steven
Complain about this comment
"Trouble is a lot of complaints are necessarily down to the encoders."
Of course I mean, not necessarily down to the encoder above...
Steve
Complain about this comment
Dear smiler_jerg
Thank you for the post. What you have said is very interesting. If traditional programme making routes are followed an image could pass through 6 to 8 different codecs. Each one its own more than up to the job.
Added together though they can cause "concatenation failure". Some of you have commented on the BBC HD delivery requirements and these are set to minimise this.
As we move to file based production from linear tape processes, there is a real danger programmes may mix and match codecs inappropriately - especially during the transition.
Ideally the codec used in the camera should be used all the way to the playout server - and even on to the STB if we could.
I hope I can cover more of this in the next blog
Andy
Complain about this comment
@Daveac post 37, I have to agree. I too failed to see anything good about land girls although I did only watch a very short clip. To me it was extremely soft and un-detailed.
To allow the excuse that's how the director intended it, simply isn't acceptable in the days of clarity and sharpness of HD. If the director doesn't agree with the way BBC want programming sack them!! Who is the boss here? Who holds the purse and who's money is being spent?
I hate to say this although I mentioned it elsewhere, but most of the BBC's programming is absolute tripe. Extremely boring, very little in the way of decent comedy, dull and politically correct cop programmes, dull and lifeless dramas. Losing a director or two would be a godsend not a loss. I'm not going to go over detailed programme feedback again as I've done it elsewhere. Suffice to say I've watched nothing on BBC channels since Pirates except Jack Dee Live at the Apollo - 1 programme. I can go weeks without touching either BBC channel. That says something about the content. Age wise I'm 40 going on 25 and my mother who feels exactly the same is 84. So it seems that more than one demographic are affected.
@Tiggs post 43, "I really don't envy the BBC at the moment. They seem to be stuck between an unchangeable decision and a "user base" that cannot accept what that decision has brought."
I'm not sure that's quite reflective of the situation. The decision to reduce bit rate may be unchangeable but the reason that there's an unhappy user base is not because of the bit rate reduction but because of the quality reduction. If it was unavoidable then I guess we'd moan and have to live with it but it isn't unavoidable. LUXE HD runs 4.5Mbs on their HD channel with material in instances better quality than BBC HD was at 14Mbs. Yes its all pre-recorded so could be 2 pass but so is 99% of BBC transmissions - a past excuse used. Its only really sport, the election broadcast and the odd live news report that's broadcast live by the BBC and no-one, not even the BBC are advocating 4.5Mbs anyway.
The BBC were told about LUXE's performance and encoders by many users a long time before they changed their encoders but it seems it fell on deaf ears. Someone fancied something different and seemingly untested by the BBC and the BBC opened the purses and bought it. So to say its unavoidable is untrue. The BBC could have bought different equipment and could still buy different equipment to deliver the desired quality at the new bit rate. They've just chosen not to. It seems no-one wants to admit mistake.
Tiggs "From the comments, people aren't going to accept anything other than things going back to the way they think they should be. Standard user response, I get it a lot in IT where I work. nothing behind the scenes matters, only what they perceive."
What you perceive is very important in TV though as that's what Tv is. Reading between the lines of what you said I get the impression you're saying just ignore the complaints. The difference here is you can ignore it and your users can do nothing but complain to your boss who can ignore them.
The BBC is bound by the terms of the licence to deliver cutting edge and industry leading quality. The difference here is we as users don't have to take it. We can take the BBC Court and Judicially review the BBC to see whether or not its picture quality is matching its obligations under the licence.
@ Smiler Jerk, my tv is calibrated to THX II Standards using a dedicated THX II cinema disc.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for all the replies Andy at last some positive discussion on picture quality.
Look forward to your blog, but surely the best test is with our eyes to me the picture seems to be soft and I have noticed some artefacts. Surely HD should not have artefacts, could you comment on these.I used to be able to be practically touching the TV and there was no artefacts or pixellating with HD.
Can Andy & Danielle and everyone else watch Stricly tonight to check out quality. We can flick between BBC1 and HD and check out the difference.
Stricly has looked stunning in the past and coming from BBC studios should look good.
Then lets put our thoughts on the blog.
I would also like a answer to post 30.
Thanks again Andy & Danielle dont forget to watch Strictly
Complain about this comment
Andy ... you say:
'There are sites that say the quality is good and there are sites that would prefer we used no compression at all.'
Could you point me in the direction of these - as every site I visit is complaining of the dreadful state of the channel picture wise - it would be interesting to see other positive views apart from those of Danielle and yourself.
Complain about this comment
Is the Newcastle v Impswich Game not on HD on Saturday 26th?? It is not showing on the Radio times Internet listings. I thought all The Championship Games were in HD/
Complain about this comment
Were the Ateme encoders (as used by LUXE HD) even tested?
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the post
Personally, I feel the picture quality is largely far superior than previously (particularly with darker colours in Dramas etc).
The breakup of picture during transitions did get me worried that perhaps quality was being compromised, good to hear you're onto it. I found it was particularly noticeable/distracting watching Beyonce last night.
The lower resolution that BBC HD broadcasts on (compared to some other channels) inevitably takes the edge off of some programming, but i'll live with that.
Complain about this comment
post 45 @Smiler_jerg
'It's also occurred to me that many people don't calibrate their TVs (or don't know how to/what it even means), whereas every panel at the BBC, I'd hope, is calibrated properly'
But many of the people posting here WILL have calibrated their TV with 'Spyder?' or at at the very least like me will have used a Calibration DVD.
Also although we may be a critical 'sub-group' of viewers - we are only trying to hold to BBC to the quality standard they have undertaken to supply.
I too would like to see the new codecs at 12Mbs for a couple of weeks.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Strictly is back tonight. I was complaining about the picture quality on here a year ago, before the new encoders/bitrate drop.
One thing solved it for me though. Upgrading from LCD to Plasma. What was once a grainy/noisy mess, became nearly stunning!!
Tonight will be the big test.
Complain about this comment
Why do we have to introduce HD as a wonderful new transmission.
If previous policy had not been to condense channel transmission data, we would all be receiving HD now.
Complain about this comment
@ Derek, I'm on plasma - a 428XD Kuro - supposed to be the best picture available. The picture on BBC HD has been poor on mine recently except for the odd programme I've highlighted.
Complain about this comment
@Tiggspanther
Regarding "From the comments, people aren't going to accept anything other than things going back to the way they think they should be. Standard user response, I get it a lot in IT where I work. nothing behind the scenes matters, only what they perceive."
I also work in IT, and when the users are shouting thats normally a sign that an IT project is going to fail badly in my experience. The IT is nothing without the users, like BBC HD is nothing without its supportive viewers.
My take on your analogy is BBC HD is like an IT project that's doing wrong - lots of debate from BBC HD about irrelevant technicalities and little thought for the user input or impact.
Complain about this comment
Strictly is looking excellent tonight. No bitrate/encoder problems for me!!
The non studio cameras are still only SD though. I thought that was being sorted?
Good 5.1 as well.
Complain about this comment
I've just had a look at Strictly and I'm strictly un-impressed.
In parts it looks good eg. Bruce Forsyth stood with Tess Daley did indeed look impressive - very sharp and you could see every wrinkle on Bruce's face and every sequin in the background panel.
However, when they cut to the interview with Rav Wilding his face looked soft and the in gym footage was absolutely terrible. Same with his female partners interview and same with the interview with Gary from Eastenders. I didn't watch beyond that as the programme holds no interest for me, but I'd have to say its a mixed bag maybe indicating some production issues rather than encoder ones here.
Complain about this comment
"The BBC has an absolute responsibility to use bandwidth efficiently - whether on digital terrestrial muxes or on satellite"
In what way is satellite bandwidth used efficiently by broadcasting 18 further regional variations of 2 channels on 2D? I understand how it has no effect on terrestial bandwidth,where the distribution mechanism is regional, but on satellite they consume 18 further channels. HD is reducing bandwidth to make more room when so much is being used for these redundant/duplicate transmissions.
Complain about this comment
The red velvet curtains in the background get a bit noisy on panning shots and Tess's dress is a bit grainy but otherwise much improved over last year!
Only the actual 'live' studio is HD Alsone.
Complain about this comment
It would be nice if the scoreboard graphics were in HD, they look decidely SD! Overall, I think it's an improvement on last years PQ (at least for the live studio). The background grain seems to have gone, and it's coping better with things like beams of light, which used to look 'fizzy' round the edges.
Complain about this comment
Re. Strictly
There are compression problems on Bruces dark black suit on my tv - looks liquidish, there are artefacts , even in relatively still close up shots. Len's suit also has this but less so.
An awful lot of SD in there I agree. Is it me or are most if not all of the graphics and computer effects in SD? - like the opening titles of all things, the voting split screen, the voting itself and their on-screen names? Its blocky. I know Andy doesn't like sharp HD but computer graphics are meant to be sharp. This is a repeat of the athletics when anything BBC Sports put on screen for graphics was clearly SD.
Any person out of shot in the pink room has terrible blocky skin... and I don't think its acne. Its compression.
This doesn't fit the bill for so called improved PQ with new encoders.
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
I think this is my tv vs yours but Bruce has relatively few wrinkles on my screen. I was thinking botox.
Complain about this comment
Strictly
Looks good to me, but I agree with the graphics looking SD. Also looks very bright to me but overall good.
Complain about this comment
Strictly looked good - only in comparison to how dreadfully it looked in SD!
I've made this point before but for me BBC HD is now just SD for big screens, goodness knows how people with 46in plus TVs can watch SD on programmes like this.
As for the HD picture - it worked - but it wasn't excellent.
Tess worn a red dress - but the texture and admittedly small pattern wasn't resolved at all.
One other thing - the openning credits - I was expecting someone to have had a word with the graphic artists and say 'can you use an uncomplicated graphic so as not to stress the bandwidth' but no - heaven knows how they came across on SD pictures.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the responses from BBC HD Team.
My guess is that minimum bit-rate for acceptable HD Picture Quality depends on the programme's content. So having 9Mbps for all must be a compromise. I to would welcome a trial of 12Mbps.
Last night of the Proms 5.1 sound had many drop-outs which was a shame.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy, can you please trial the new encoders with a slightly higher bit rate of 12Mbps as suggested by many.
Complain about this comment
@zuberip
Its a given that the picture quality will be higher at 12mbps, even though they are throwing out all sorts of red herrings like "its won't automatically be better at a higher bitrate."
But the channel has conflicting objectives to picture quality. The overarching objective of the channel is to reduce the bitrates being used. No idea why - costs or Andy's seeming obsession with the technicalities of compression.
Complain about this comment
Re Strictly,
I have several HD recordings of Strictly from last season and compared them to tonight's episode to compare the picture quality.
I've made careful and objective comparisons betweem tonight and last season.
Firstly, a bit of praise- the most noticeable difference between last season and this season is in general picture noise reduction, especially in the darkness on the ceiling shots. No idea if that's the encoder or at the studio end. Noise reduction is better this year.
However, in terms of over-compression both seasons have LOTS of problems.
For context I did not think Strictly was good PQ at all last season - it would be hard to make it worse this season in my view.
The Group Mambo scene tonight - pausing the picture showed a large number of artefacts and compression all over the picture. A similar scene from last year had the same problem.
The channel just can't cope with movement - that is a bitrate caused problem in my view. If Andy can educate us otherwise, then tell us what it is. I don't think its the cameras or the studio.
Andy - Have you paused Strictly and seen the compression problems? Would an increase in bitrate not improve this issue?
You can see it yourself if you record and pause the show.
My conclusion would be that last year Strictly was bad on the old encoders and bitrate. We've now introduced new encoders, but because the bitrate has been cut way too far back (40% cut remember, when I hear the industry recommends 10% reduction for these new encoders) we've effectively got the same problem as before - compression problems.
Complain about this comment
@BikeNutt post 63, that would explain it then. If only the studio stuff is HD then as most of what I saw was out of the studio footage, it would have been in SD.
@Jasonic8 post 62, that's a very good idea! Whereas I can't speak for everyone, I personally would be very happy to give up regional variations in return for better quality HD and a 2nd BBC HD channel.
Complain about this comment
Comment 66 - Brucie's wrinkles are off topic.
Complain about this comment
Dear jasonic8
Thank you for the post. The regional versions of the BBC are very important and we have a duty to deliver them on every platform.
Andy
Complain about this comment
So the majority opinion so far is that SDC was better or at least not worse than last year. So at least for a 'shiny floor' programme the new encoders and lower bitrate haven't caused any loss of quality.
I still think a few programmes have suffered (or their production methods have changed) e.g. Coast., but on the whole I don't see a major problem.
Land Girls, recently was excellent PQ as good as other BBC HD dramas like Lark Rise and Little Dorrit, so no degradation there.
Production methods are the key to PQ. ITV HD have shown two Marples recently. The first was abysmal the second was perfect. Different director, different final product. Same encoder, same bitrate!!
@ digitalscoobiedoo I'm not too technical, but what what is the point of looking at a paused image? If you need to pause an image to see artefacts, then why bother. Also HD is broadcast 1080 interlaced, so if you pause aren't you just seeing half the picture?
Complain about this comment
Andy thanks for the comment. It doesn't really answer the question about efficient use of the spectrum though as Dianielle brought up in her post.
In this day and age there should be a more sophisticated mechanism instead of using 18 almost duplicate channels. And that's just the BBC ones, when you look at ITV and C4 it comes to around 48 I think. That's a travesty! Satellite just doesn't suit regional variations like this. Does the USA have 45 transmissions for each channel? (45 is population based equivalent, if each state had on avg. 9 regions like BBC1&2 do between them, then it would be 468 veriants per channel). Regional information is on Freeview - it's the logical place for it. Perhaps there should be one channel on satellite dedicated to running local news on a continual loop for those that can't get freeview. You'd just tune in when your area is on. Or get a PVR to always cache the latest local news, so you can always watch it (dedicated tuner required -I know - unless that loop goes on every transponder to give 11 instead of 48 channels extra..hmmm...).
Complain about this comment
I agree that there has to be a better way than broadcasting the exact same thing on so many channels for most of the day.
Complain about this comment
Post #76 derek500
Are you reading the same replies as me????
'So the majority opinion so far is that SDC was better or at least not worse than last year. So at least for a 'shiny floor' programme the new encoders and lower bitrate haven't caused any loss of quality.'
It wasn't 'better' than last years - but it could DO with being better.
'I still think a few programmes have suffered (or their production methods have changed) e.g. Coast., but on the whole I don't see a major problem.'
Coast has lost any impact that it had. The picture is not as good as it was. Do you you even see the high quality pictures of 'How We Built Britain' and 'Britain from Above'
'Land Girls, recently was excellent PQ as good as other BBC HD dramas like Lark Rise and Little Dorrit, so no degradation there.'
'Land Girls' picture to me is not as good in image quality as the other programmes you list.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
@daveac The majority of replies about SDC have been positive (don't forget Alsone thought the SD was bad HD and he said the live (HD bits) were 'good', 'impressive').
As for Britain From Above, I was posting on here when it first aired, along with others, saying the PQ was awful. That was with the old encoders and the 16mbs bitrate.
Complain about this comment
#derek500
For Strictly you're suggesting that everything else is constant other than the bitrates and encoders, but we don't know that. I think I read they've upgraded television centre for HD. In which case that might be the explanation of the improvement. What has noticeably changed is the level of picture noise. I think noise arises at the production end, not the encoder.
This explanation would be consistent why you are others are saying that Coast etc look worse. Coast hasn't changed its production (and I think are repeats actually aren't they?).
I doubt whether Strictly is a comparison based on the same source material because its different episodes - like the Marple example, which I agree with.
I have run comparisons on recordings of the same source material like Duffy and Wallander as well as Strictly. Whenever the same source material is used these seem worse.
Re the use of pause, its just one of the methods I used last night. Irrespective of pausing the picture from both last nights Strictly and last seasons had compression problems. The channel still cannot cope well with movement despite new encoders. This is noticeable during Sports transmissions too.
Complain about this comment
#74
That was not a serious comment about Bruce. I was just observing the difference between different tv setups. Point taken however, I did not make that clear.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I watched part of SCD last night purely to see the standard of the PQ. PQ was better than usual but not as good as I have seen pre change of encoder and bitrate reduction. There was a lack of detail in the faces of the participants, probably elsewhere too, but I was studying the faces expecting to see lines, wrinkles and skin texture but these were not visible. I have seen this in the past particularly on close ups on Dragons Den.
Overall I am very dissappointed with the PQ since the changes. I cannot believe Danielle and Andy cannot see the difference so I assume they are constrained by politics / policies. What is so frustrating is that no-one is prepared to give a proper explanation as to how the decision to broadcast at this standard was made or by whom.
I have always been a supporter of the BBC as I suspect are the majority of posters on this blog. With HD Dogs and poor PQ that support is wearing thin.
What I would like to see is BBC setting the standard as it has in the past. BBC you can do better, please do so.
Roger Watkins.
Complain about this comment
Ok, Ive been wondering why BBC HD has been looking so poor recently...
I had a quick look at strictly come dancing to see if the HD was any good... Well i wasnt so happy. It looked very soft in places. When the people were dancing a could see motion blur and artifacts!! Ive never seen this on an HD broadcast(Ive got a plasma so ive never suffered from these things). It was annying me so much i had to switch over, and plus i think the show is rubbish!hah.
I dont know if it was my tv or the broadcast but the contast had been turned up too much there was no detail on the whites. White shirts just looked like a bright white things. Tried adjusting stuff on my tv but didnt do anything.
Complain about this comment
Championship Football
Danielle why is the Newcastle v Impswich Game not showing on the BBCHD schedule for the 26th September?
We were promised Championship games in HD and on the BBC football web site it states BBC 2 online and HD.
Strictly for me last night was good quality but the SD graphics especially the contestants names were awful. Also at the end the group dance had lots of artefacts.As a previous post suggests pause this part of the program and look.
Complain about this comment
@ SkyCaddie. It looks like the simulcasts of Strictly and Hole in the Wall have put paid to that. Being on BBC2 hasn't helped.
Complain about this comment
@Danielle, couldn't the schedule be juggled to allow football and then put strictly out a little later than normal?
Complain about this comment
Just watching Strictly Come dancing and it can only be descibed as terrible. First of all all the pracice shots were not even in HD. Also the subtitles looked a terrible mess and in SD. The noise level was extreamly high. The sound dropout problem was very evident. Pixalation was very evident thoughout. The fade problem was also very evident and actually was quite pretty with it blocking with a rainbow range of colours. Motion blur was very noticable on Bruces jacket as all the detail on his suite was lost when he moved even very slightly. Sometimes white shirts had a large white glows around them as though someone had overdone it with the video effects button. Overal this was even worse than the last night of the proms.
I don't see why we should all have to pay the licence fee when the BBC produce such a low quality product. I think the licence fee should be abandond and people should be able to choose if they want to pay for this.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the comments above - the live pictures were generally good however the sound was appalling - sound dropout and level consistency was dreadful. Why oh why can is this quality allowed to happen? Is no one monitoring this audio in presentation?
Complain about this comment
Just watching the second episode of SCD and I think I speak for the majority of BBC HD's audience when I say that the picture is superb, just as it was last season.
My enjoyment of BBC HD on my 42" Panny Plasma has not been affected by the reduction in bit rate (I wasn't even aware of the change until I came here) but then I'm not sat with my face an inch from the screen trying to find fault.
Keep up the good work!
Complain about this comment
Andy - please can you look into the audio issue - I've had to switch to BBC One as the glitching and quality of audio on Strictly tonight is spoiling the show. Does anyone monitor live presentation?
Complain about this comment
Sorry for posting again but it sounds like there is no processing on the audio for Strictly just a raw feed with no limiter. A loud hit or round of applause and the audio is then heavily dipped, some channels are very loud - Tess's Mic for example - followed occasional loud cracks.
Positively I thought the pic was good!
Complain about this comment
@midzone. I too had terrible issues with sound dropping out or clipping etc. Glad other people noticed it, wasn't sure if it was the broadcast or my tv letting me down, never had any problems before
Complain about this comment
Strictly Good Picture but constant soud drop outs and those poor graphics look apalling. I agree with above does no one monitor the live picture?
Hopefully that 'Sound' man Andy can sort it out for next week.
Dont suppose the football could be on channel 6945 next week.
The Geordies relegated to The Fizzy Pop League and now relegated to Fuzzy SD on BBC 2.
Complain about this comment
Yep, lots of problems here too with sound drop-outs on 'Strictly Come Dancing' on BBCHD on a SkyHD box. Hopefully Andy's looking into it?
Complain about this comment
On SCD the picture seemed a little better than last night - but only that.
As others have posted the constant sound dropouts were more of a problem tonight.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
@ trevorjharris "Pixalation was very evident thoughout. The fade problem was also very evident and actually was quite pretty with it blocking with a rainbow range of colours. Motion blur was very noticable on Bruces jacket as all the detail on his suite was lost when he moved even very slightly. Sometimes white shirts had a large white glows around them as though someone had overdone it with the video effects button"
That's sounds exactly what SDC was like when I had my LCD. Now I've got a Panasonic plasma, it's perfect.
Complain about this comment
Cannott stand the programme but watched 10 mins to see what the picture was like. As I expect with BBC HD these days, I was expecting the usual shambles, how ever it was better than I thought it would be.
I thought it was very similar to how Later with Jools Holland is looking, The still shots were decent, colours looked more vivid than previously, but again movement shows the trouble with using unaceptable levels of bandwith.
My overal honest impression is that the new encoder is delivering cleaner more vivid images, but sadly the low bandwith is is making the final image less detailed. Just have to compare Doctors and Dragons Den to see this.
Lets stop blaming production and TV sets and lets be honest, the low bandwith is effecting quality. Its ok Andy and Danielle blaming production and TV sets but we have to remember people are mostly using teh same TV sets with the same settings.
I really do believe that a slight increase to 12mbps, and a change in BBC HD management and staff would make the channel excellent once again.
COME ON BBC, THE PAYING PUBLIC PAY YOUR WAGES, LISTEN TO US.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe there is a problem with my tv as I only get these problems with BBC HD. I watch quite alot of football on Sky Sports 1 HD without any sound of picture problems. In fact both Sky and Eurosport HD channels are very good indeed. Eurosport does transmit quite alot of upscalled SD but that is generally a better quality than BBC HD. I have calibrated my TV and turned all the special effects off.
There may be of course a compatability probelm between the H264 decoder in the Sky box and the new BBC encoders. I would have hoped that the BBC would have checked this as most people watch BBC HD on Sky boxes. The BBC have already admitted there is a bug in the encoder but there may well be further bugs yet to be uncovered.
Why has the BBC done nothing to correct these problems. They should have reinstated the original encoders until the problems are fixed. BBC HD channel is not meant to be an experimental channel.
Complain about this comment
IF the bug with the encoder does exist, then it should have been sorted before the encoders went live.
Complain about this comment
I too watched 10 mins of Strictly simply to check quality. For me the HD portion of the picture was very good (just as last night, the SD was appalling). Personally would have preferred a tad more sharpness on the HD but the it was reasonably sharp and detailed.
The sound however was full of drop outs on my equipment also. Got quite annoying even though I had no interest in the programme.
Complain about this comment
It's funny, the ratings for SCD must've been boosted yesterday, and tonight, by all those people just tuning in to check the PQ who otherwise have absolutely no interest in the programme. Actually, that makes me wonder what percentage of the viewers to whom SCD really does appeal have any interest in seeing it in HD. I guess surveys must've been done, so it would be interesting to see the results.
Complain about this comment
@trevorjharris
"I don't believe there is a problem with my tv as I only get these problems with BBC HD. I watch quite alot of football on Sky Sports 1 HD without any sound of picture problems"
It's a strange one, before I changed to plasma, BBC light entertainment programmes always looked the worst on my LCD. The majority of the other types of programmes were excellent. Even Sky1 shows like Noel's HQ which were broadcast live from the same BBC studios at TVC were perfect!!
I assumed it was something the BBC were doing in the broadcast chain that plasmas cope with better than LCDs.
Complain about this comment
iderek500
"It's a strange one, before I changed to plasma, BBC light entertainment programmes always looked the worst on my LCD. The majority of the other types of programmes were excellent. Even Sky1 shows like Noel's HQ which were broadcast live from the same BBC studios at TVC were perfect!!
I assumed it was something the BBC were doing in the broadcast chain that plasmas cope with better than LCDs."
Ive got a 50 inch panasonic plasma which i bought at the beging of the year, it is also greyscale calabraited. I was getting pixelation, motion blur and artifacts. The contrast was turned up way too high on the show, i think it was like that to hide the bad quality of the actual picture, and to make it look good at first glance,just like when you see tvs in shops look great at first, watch them for a while and you notice the settings are all wrong
Complain about this comment
@ skycaddie "Dont suppose the football could be on channel 6945 next week".
I think you'll find that 6945 is the same stream as BBC HD, but with a different PMT PID. Whatever that means!!!
Complain about this comment
Yes, I also had a few sound problems during Saturdays SCD; noticebly when the programme switched form dancing/music to Brucie.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I also had a few sound problems during Saturday's SCD; noticeably when the programme switched from dancing/music to Brucie.
Complain about this comment
Re Danielle's response and this quote:
"Bit-rate is not the only factor affecting picture quality and a higher bit-rate will not automatically deliver higher picture quality."
It is the case that lower bitrate will deliver lower quality. That is what you discovered in your own BBC trials. To quote from the BBC HD trials published papers:
When discussing the effects of lower bitrates at 1080i:
"Analysis in a lab situation revealed significant differences in picture quality between the (bitrate) settings"
"Each HD channel is likely to need bandwidth equivalent to that required by three or four standard definition channels even when using more advanced MPEG-4 technology."
"Interlaced pictures are more difficult to encode than progressive pictures. Bitrates of 80MB/s and above are needed for MPEG contribution links to maintain picture quality to be no more than one grade down from acquisition. For a single link with no other processes, 45MB/s was deemed satisfactory"
Complain about this comment
Dear digitalscoobiedoo
Thank you for your post
Your quotes were indeed true when the report was written. 4-6Mbs is already being demonstrated in the "next generation" coders and recent EBU demonstrations show there is now very little difference between the bit rates required for 1080i and 720p. The same tests also show only a small (but still significant) difference between required bit rates for 1080i25 and 1080i25.
Contribution links must have a high enough bit rate to cope with other digital processing so we recommend 60Mbs for single link and 100Mbs for multi hop links (where possible). This allows for at least one edit process and the conversion from MPEG2 to MPEG4.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Theres a General election next year for the Uk so heres a sugestion, why not have a general election at the BBC and let the viewers decide whos in charge of the channel??? Just a suggestion.
Complain about this comment
Dear wednesday83
Thanks you for the post - we are looking at the election night on the HD Channel and hope to have news of the possibility soon. Not sure what you are asking though but I assume you watched Montezuma and ARS? Both very good PQ.
Complain about this comment
re: #110 Andy, you wrote ".....between required bit rates for 1080i25 and 1080i25" I think you meant something else with one of those 1080i25s, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.
Complain about this comment
I dont find BBC HD to be all that bad, i wonder how much of peoples experience is to do with the known variability of the Sky HD box types and the various FreeSat HD appliances. In my experience Sky HD boxes show great variability, and not consistently, between different channels.
Complain about this comment
Dear paul_geaton
Indeed I did "1080i25 and 1080p50"
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Montezuma and ARS both had compression artefacts - especially the former. Antiques Roadshow is not like its former self - very soft and lacking in detail in my view.
Regarding dropping to 4mbps. This is what Thomson Grass Valley (your supplier) may quote as an example for their Vibe encoder but they are referring to the low point of a stat muxed bitrate - Eurosport HD may drop down to 4Mbps but it also goes up to 15Mbps in the French and German versions, and 20Mbps with the UK Eurosport HD.
BBC HD is not stat mixed, it is fixed , nor does it reach even 10mbps. So that would lead me to conclude you are transmitting half the picture detail that Eurosport does?
Given its the same supplier I assume you're using the same encoder as Eurosport are you?
Complain about this comment
Any news on the Strictly audio fiasco from last night?
Complain about this comment
Dear midzone
Thank you for the post
We are investigating to see if it was a problem with the Dolby E signal or the conversion to Dolby D
Andy
Complain about this comment
Thanks Andy.
One further question on this ... Does the channel not get monitored in playout as does BBC One and Two so that transmission problems can be dealt with as they happen?
Complain about this comment
In support of what digitalscoobiedoo has written about Eurosport readers may be interested in this case study.
http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/docs/Case_Studies/transmission/CDT-3090M.pdf
Infact the last time UK Eurosport was measured they had a minimum of 19394kb/s an average of 19876kb/s and a peak of 20284kb/s.
Just because a manufacturer claims an encoder works at 4mbt/s does not mean it is of sufficient quality. Clearly Eurosport has chosen to go with 20mb/s. Andy mentions tests in his post #110. Please can he tell us what tests and where I can find the report.
Yet again I have seen no subjective or objective tests which confirm what Andy is saying about the encoders. As he knows there is an EBU group to test encoders but as far as I am aware they have not published anything yet.
http://tech.ebu.ch/groups/dhdc
There are some interesting EBU publications here
http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/cache/bypass/publications
Complain about this comment
@Rovex33, my problem is that PQ took a dive following the new bitrate/encoders, whichever of those was the cause. Not consistently brilliant before then, though occasionally it was, there was definitely a step-change and I'm certain that the current problem has nothing to do with my receiver, or set-up.
That said, and I hope I'm not being too hasty because it's the 1st programme I've watched on BBC HD tonight, South Pacific (on now) is looking pretty good, impressive even.
Complain about this comment
The fact Danielle and Andy have refused to apologise for the recent bandwith reductions and quality drop tells you everything we need to know about the people running the channel.
Yet again Andy has pointed out 2 programmes he feels looked good. Doesnt matter what every other show looks like and it doesnt matter what other viewers think.
Why is increwasing the quality against current policy??? Why cannott you use 12mbps of bandwith???
You have blatenly refused to answer why you have gone so low with the bandwith and have just fobbed everyone when questions get asked about it.
Theres a reason no one hardly watches BBC HD. Have you not clicked on why this could be??? Have you not thought why some eceltrical stores are refusing to show BBC HD on loop now???
People are unhappy.
Complain about this comment
post 122 by wednesday83
'Theres a reason no one hardly watches BBC HD. Have you not clicked on why this could be?'
I have to agree - before (this change) I would always go to BBC HD first. Now I'm watching it much less.
If it can't be the 'Showcase' channel it once was - at least do something to stop it being 'marginally' HD
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Also as well I cannott believe that Dancing is coming before Football in HD. Why the hell can you not show bloody dancing afterwards??? SCD is on weekly where as the BBC only have 10 championship games. The decision made by BBC HD to ignore chamoionship football in HD shows exactly why the BBC HD needs new staff and why the BBC should not be given rights to big sports any more.
Complain about this comment
Just noticed that BBC HD is now transmitting Dolby Digital at 192 Kb/s. I seem to remember that it was 384 before. Does this mean they have dropped the audio bit rate aswell.
Complain about this comment
@ 125, Im sure Andy Quested will point out that Audio bit rate doesnt really effect quality. If it sounds more tinny then it will be down to your TV set up.
If BBC HD have lowered the audio bit rate then its not really a shock that they would stoop so low.
Complain about this comment
Good evening @Wednesday, you're unusually animated tonight!
I came here to ask if anyone else got the same awful blocky picture 5 mins ago at 0026, on Shogun just after the fight scene. Or was it my TV/reception? Is that what people call macro-blocking?
Complain about this comment
@ Trevor 192kbs is CD quality (at least in stereo music) so should be a decent bit rate. Compared to 348kbs there will be a difference but this side of audiophile equipment the difference should be slight.
Here's a 15 sec soundbite in 192kbs 24bit stereo: http://www.filefront.com/14571329/192.wma
Same in 384kbs 24 bit stereo: http://www.filefront.com/14571337/384.wma
I've kept them to 15 seconds of intro only per file to avoid piracy claims as at this bit rate they're high quality.
Complain about this comment
Everyone knows a lower Audio bit rate gives a lower quality. Everyone also knows the BBC HD team dont give a damn anymore about quality....
maybe you want to prove me wrong and up the bit rates????
No Thought not.
Complain about this comment
@ 127, Im animated as ive just had enough of BBC HD and the fob offs from the BBC HD team. They need to know peopel are getting fed up of the excuses and fob offs.
Complain about this comment
Dear trevorjharris
Thank you for the post. Stereo (2.0) has always been transmitted at 192Kbs however before the coder change there were 192Kbs of nothing also sent. Surround is sent using 384Kbs so we haven't actually changes anything on the audio side. I am checking the audio route though to track down the dropout problem and will report back as soon as I can.
Re the EBU work, I lead one section of work on one EBU HD group and am involved the work of the group you mention. Tests are done on both distribution codecs (transmission) and contribution codecs (internal distribution).
Dear wednesday83.
You are of course allowed to express your opinions on these blogs but please use language appropriate to a public site. Also this blog is about the PQ of the HD Channel and related topics. There are other areas where you can discuss the scheduling of the channel.
To All re viewing figures
The HD Channel does very well considering the small number of HD set top boxes so far. We are well placed in Sky home where as you know there are over 30 other HD channels and several hundred SD. In Fressat homes we do well against all others. I don't know the figures for Virgin cable as I am not sure how they measure the HD viewing.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Why not up the bitrate to 12mbps as has been suggested for a limited period of time just to see if it really does make a difference? Is it possible?
Complain about this comment
Dear hdblogger
Thanks for the post. We have tested the coders with various bit rates above and below the current level but bit rate is not the primary factor. Over the coming months we will be testing upgrades to the current coders and I hope to include some of the plans as well as some of the test results in a new blog soon.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Seems to be the age old Quantative vs Subjective argument again.
I imagine (in a nice way!) AndyQ as a boffin in an "Aladdin's Cave" of technology, studiously studying the read-outs that tell him that the BBC HD quality is the same or better as before.
However, all the gizmos and gadgets in the world can tell you that the PQ is fine... but the only real test is to actually look at the picture. And there is a considerably quantity of people looking at the picture, and feeling distinctly underwhelmed.
I wish now that I hadn't deleted the early BBCHD broadcasts from my Sky+ disk. These were the clips I used to boast to my friends with. And the response was always the same: Wow. Now, the response is more: Meh. I can accept the argument that perhaps this is down to a desensitisation to the quality of HD. Perhaps the novelty has gone. Perhaps the PQ hasn't altered at all, and the only change is that my Wow-benchmark has been raised beyond what BBCHD offers.
But this argument falls down when I flick to a different station. When I flick to Eurosport, or LuxeHD or even (at times, such as Ross Kemp in Afghanistan) SkyOneHD. Then I still get the Wow. And BBCHD is still Meh.
Three things appear to have changed since Wow went to Meh. 1) The bit-rate dropped. 2) The encoder changed. 3) The programme mix increased. And while the programme mix does include some hap-hazard HD productions (Jonathon Ross), for the most part it still appears to be drama and documentary. That would suggest the loss of the wow is due to one of the first two. Elementary my Dear Quested.
You do us a dis-service by suggesting that neither has had an effect. I can't prove to you that your channel PQ has decreased over time. But I can tell you that your competitors still make me go Wow, and your channel makes me go Meh.
Complain about this comment
Dear digital_elysium
Thank you for the post. We use both subjective viewing and measurements to check quality over a wide range of programmes and EBU test material. When you flick between channels have a look at more than just picture sharpness. As I have always said high definition is not about high sharpness but texture and detail.
Andy
Complain about this comment
What better 'subjective' viewing than the license payer? Yet it seems any comments or criticisms are ignored - Mother or in this case Auntie doesn't always know best!
Complain about this comment
@Andy post 131, "The HD Channel does very well considering the small number of HD set top boxes so far."
Generally Andy your posts are very accurate but I'm not sure the same can be said of this comment.
80% of all Freesat boxes sold last year were HD and I read somewhere recently that 75% of all Freesat boxes ever sold have been HD variants.
With 600,000 Freesat users currently that's over 450,000 HD users on Freesat alone. Add in the Sky HD Subscribers at 1.022 Million (figures for March 2009)and you have 1.5 MILLION HD viewers who can receive BBC HD.
Add onto that those who have bought integrated Freesat TV's as opposed to dedicated boxes and thus are less easily tracked in sales figures, and the number of viewers is larger still.
In any event, I'd hardly call the baseline 1.5 Million viewers a small number.
@Digital_elysium post 134 "However, all the gizmos and gadgets in the world can tell you that the PQ is fine... but the only real test is to actually look at the picture. And there is a considerably quantity of people looking at the picture, and feeling distinctly underwhelmed."
I have to agree entirely here. The only thing that matters is the picture quality as seen by the end user, the viewer on their tv. Its doesn't matter how good technology says the picture is before transmission, what matters is what is seen in the end users household and with one or two exceptions, the quality is still poor and sometimes even below SD quality on other channels.
Complain about this comment
Credit where credit is due. The picture quality on Montezuma, Lost Land of the Volcano and one or two other programmes has been superb. Rich, vibrant colours and real depth. I agree that it's not just about the sharpness but the overall picture.
But I can see what some people are saying, especially regarding Strictly. The picture was very sharp but there were problems I could see evident. Be interesting to see the test results in this new blog.
Best Wishes.
Complain about this comment
Hi Andy, I agree Montezuma and AR looked good last night. Also good to hear the BBC 1 announcer advise us that AR was in HD.
The sound drop outs on SCD were also on Virgin Media not just Sky.
Any Reason for the lack of Championship Football? Scheduling mix up, Lack of Cameras??
Lets have a vote Championship Football or Hole in the Wall, that will be 1-0 to Championship Football then.
We know Danielle is ‘The Boss’ and Andy is ‘Sound’ but does anyone know what Nick Reynolds does? (Apart from tell people off)
Complain about this comment
SkyCaddie,
Please keep it on-topic. Championship Football v Hole in the Wall is not the issue here.
Complain about this comment
@ hdblogger
Well at least that saved Nick a job
Thought everyone might be interested in this
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a178349/bbc-responds-to-hd-picture-quality-furore.html
Complain about this comment
Dear all
Thanks for the posts - interesting take from the link to DS (SkyCaddie)
"He acknowledged a "noise issue on some programmes and formats", citing material shot on Super16 and cameras using less than 50Mbps as examples of source material causing problems."
We don't call Super16 or cameras with bit rates under 50Mbs HD so they only appear as part of the 25% SD allowance.
Also SkyCaddie - there is a post on the PQ and Dolby blog that says no audio drop-outs on Virgin. There were a couple of holes in the LNOTP as incoming from the OB but I need people with cable to say is they heard many - not just the odd studio "pop"
As for audience figures 1.5M boxes compared to around 24M SD boxes is still relatively small - amazing growth for a new format though. When you look at figures though you can't just compare HD to HD - if the only STB in a household is HD it is also there to watch SD channels (until everything is HD that is).
Andy
Complain about this comment
All the comments about depth of field, focus and clarity are all very valid.
However the fact remains that when BBC HD started I could see no compression and now it is very obvious.
Let's get back to the bit rates of three years ago.
Complain about this comment
"The sound drop outs on SCD were also on Virgin Media not just Sky."
There were no sound drop-outs in this Virgin Media household.
"With 600,000 Freesat users currently that's over 450,000 HD users on Freesat alone. Add in the Sky HD Subscribers at 1.022 Million (figures for March 2009)and you have 1.5 MILLION HD viewers who can receive BBC HD."
Don't forget Virgin Media also has circa 650,000 V+ boxes out there - All of which are HD capable!
Complain about this comment
Thanks BikeNutt for the audio comment. As for the V+ boxes you are correct saying the are HD capable (yest another sticker??) but the V+ box is used in non-hd households too and we are not sure of the ratio.
Complain about this comment
# 141, to save Nick another job, all monitoring PQ issues here please be advised that Nick intends closing Andy's long-running PQ and Dolby Blog, very soon I guess. Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Andy
I definitely had lots of sound drop outs on Virgin Media, sounds like it might have only been me which seems strange.
Complain about this comment
If this blog is being closed soon then can we please have a definitive answer as to why quality issues including the appearance of compression artifacts, jitter on near-static scenes and problems with fades were reported by viewers on Strictly Come Dancing?
Complain about this comment
and an answer of the shoddy audio from SCD at the weekend please!
Why close the blog is this due to BBC HD burying it's head in the sand and saying non of the issues are relevant everything is fine?!?!?
Complain about this comment
@ Andy, post 142 "As for audience figures 1.5M boxes compared to around 24M SD boxes is still relatively small - amazing growth for a new format though. When you look at figures though you can't just compare HD to SD - if the only STB in a household is HD it is also there to watch SD channels (until everything is HD that is)."
But 1.5 million isn't small though Andy anyway you look at it.
You also can't say that any box capable of HD is also capable of SD. Of course that's true but aren't we talking here about the reach of BBC HD and the fact is it reaches those 1.5 million people?
..and are we really to believe that those people who have bought HD boxes watch SD when the same programme in HD is available?
Finally, when comparing figures HD vs Freeview SD boxes the popularity is distorted - you have to remember that Freesat gets no marketing at all, its very lucky to even get a mention pre-programme when there's a HD alternative available, whereas Freeview is constantly marketed and promoted and has been available for years before Freesat.
Complain about this comment
hdblogger - this blog is not being closed soon. The previous one is.
Complain about this comment
FAQ andyquested, daniellenagler.
One, very simple, very crucial question..
What is the reason/excuse/commercial advantage to the butchering of a 40% reduction of bandwidth, please?
As a license payer, I feel I have right to know this.
Thanks,
Matt.
Complain about this comment
Dear insidemedia
Thank you for your post. The current bit rate for the HD channel was chosen after a lot of testing. Danielle wrote:
"One of the central issues in selecting new encoders for BBC HD was to deliver pictures at the same or improved quality while allowing a reduction in the channel bit-rate. As MPEG 4 coders have evolved, the relationship between bit-rate and picture quality has also shifted. This is not an issue that is specific to BBC HD, or to the encoders that we have selected.
The BBC has an absolute responsibility to use bandwidth efficiently - whether on digital terrestrial muxes or on satellite. Bandwidth is not unlimited, and on UK-footprint transponders the demand for capacity is very high. The current bit-rates were selected through a process which directly evaluated quality on the new and old encoders, using a wide range of programme material and both subjective and objective assessments."
Andy
Complain about this comment
@insidemedia, I don't like being cynical but I fear there is an explanation as to why the BBC HD team have not yet answered this very frequently asked question. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, not satified with Danielle's response to my original formal executive level PQ complaint (the same one she's posted here) I am now taking it on further to the BBC Trust. By witholding comment, either until my 20 working day time limit has expired, or until the very end of the period, they are denying me the opportunity to build a strong case against their reasoning. For this reason I am trying to get the information via a Freedom of Information request. I'll keep the forums posted with any news. Or, perhaps Andy could prove my cynicism completely unfounded and come right out with a direct, straight answer to a direct question.
Complain about this comment
Andy, I think we were both typing at the same time. Thanks for your answer to @insidemedia, although I fear that it's not quite the one he was looking for. Cheers for keeping us updated though.
Complain about this comment
Dear paul_geaton
Thank you for the post - I'm not sure what more I can add other than the reason given in Danielle's blog. This say why and how as requested.
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy - any news on the SCD issues over the weekend? Secondly can you confirm that the output of the channel is monitored during broadcast times for quality?
Complain about this comment
Re: 156.
So what you're saying is like it or lump it? This is how BBC HD is and this is how BBC HD is going to stay, right?
Complain about this comment
Dear Andy
Do you have the chance to comment on any of the issues raised in post 13?
To recap if the BBC were to use the latest MPEG-2 decoders for its channels on 2D it would allow not only an increase in the quality of those channels but also allow the BBC to move the remaining 2 MPEG-2 channels that share the transponder with BBC HD.
That would allow the transponder to switch to DVB-S2. The BBC HD bitrate restriction would be then restricted as it would have the entire transponder.
It would allow the BBC to then launch a second HD channel. This is becoming more and more pressing with this weekends football currently listed as not being in HD and other major BBC series having to be broadcast on alternative days because of HD clashes and other flagship shows on Friday night being broadcast out of synch with BBC1 or BBC2.
There are also future events like The Winter Olympics and The World Cup where BBC HD will be severely interrupted by continous broadcasting of these sporting events over the entire current broadcast hours of BBC HD.
The BBC could then allow the extra two HD slots to be put on a sub-lease with the right to re-claim those slots for The Olympics in 2012.
Complain about this comment
Dear midzone
Thanks for the post. I can confirm the channel is monitored at two points (central switching and playout area) during live transmission and one for server playout programmes (playout area). We think the issues is happening somewhere in the distribution area.
Dear hdblogger
Thank you for your post. I don't think I did say that in fact in other posts I have said we are always looking for ways to improve the quality of the channel and increase the range of programmes made in HD.
I hope I can get the next blog out soon on the testing methods.
Andy
Complain about this comment
@ Alsone. The 600,000 is individual Freesat sales not users. Many have bought more than one box and I've read posts from users and dealers who have installed up to four in one household. The 600,000 also includes integrated TVs. The guy who runs joinfreesat.co.uk estimates about 400,000 homes.
Complain about this comment
#147. I'm another V+ HD viewer, and I had loads of sound dropouts during SCD, approx every 30 seconds. I actually thought the hard drive of the V+ box was on it's way out.
Complain about this comment
I am a Virgin Media V+ customer.
I run all feeds through my Onkyo AV Amp TX-SR 875 via HDMI and I have had re-occurring audio drop outs throughout Strictly Come Dancing.
All audio and picture is spot on before and after the programme.It seemed to me that the drop outs were NOT random but very similar in duration between each drop out.
I have no problems with any other BBCHD programmes or with any other programmes either HD or SD.
Complain about this comment
Please bbc,less fudging on this pq issue.just get it sorted!!!!
Complain about this comment
in post 113 Andy said the bit rates were set after various testing. Well do a test with us viewers and increase the bandwith for a week and we will tell you if there is any difference. And just for the record Bandwith is a major factor.
Try the bandwith at 12mbps and I bet you anything theres a quality increase. Since us viewers are the only ones who can tell a difference in quality why not up the bandwith to 12mbps and let us viewers see if theres a quality difference??? I can guarentee there will be.
Complain about this comment
@ 164, The BBC HD are happy with the quality of output so dont expect any changes.
Complain about this comment
Also as well, why the hell are other Countries getting better quality with higher bitrates and resolution??? Does the first B in BBC not stand for British???
Complain about this comment
Good Point post 167 Explain that one Andy.
Looks like I was not the only V+ customer to suffer sound drop outs.
Also I believe BBCHD in Australia is a 24 Hour Service.
http://australia.bbchd.com/tvschedule/
The debate reaches Tech Radar
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/bbc-responds-to-hd-bit-rate-row-637128
Complain about this comment
Looks very much like BBCHD in Australia is 24 hours a day - typical we only get 9 hours today in it's home country!
Complain about this comment
You know in the main I've been pretty happy with the picture on BBC HD. However, tonight I tuned into Rush HD on Sky (channel 452) and the difference is unbelievable - it's like chalk and cheese. I haven't watched Rush HD in a while and tonight I was speechless at how much difference there was in quality.
Astonishing!
Complain about this comment
Dear SkyCaddie
Thank you for the post. All the non UK BBC HD Channels work on a repeating 4 or 6 hour cycle (similar to CBeebies) there is no content that's not on or hasn't been shown on the UK Channel. We actually show more new HD and have a wider variety of programmes than the other versions.
Interesting on the V+ drop outs. That says it's not in the satellite distribution area. I spoke to Virgin today and they are testing the output to see if they can spot it. The audio was "clean" out of the SCD studio but those who read the Eurovision Song Contest Blog will know the metadata can have a bigger impact on the audio than anything else and we are the last people to hear it. I may have to get Rowan back to look at the system again!
Andy
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
Please read post 13 and post 159 on how the solution can be solved.
Andy hasn't got round to replying to these posts but they would solve the issues raised by everyone on this post.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
PLEASE, if you're still here, just watch Rush HD (channel 452 on Sky)for half an hour then switch to BBC HD. You'll soon see what we're all concerned about.
Complain about this comment
@hdblogger
Please read post 13 and post 159 on how the solution can be solved.
It seems unlikely the BBC will change its stance as it stands but by following out what is covered in those posts would solve all the issues raised on this blog and other future issues that BBC HD faces.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Andy, for looking into the V+ sound problem, shame we cant have 24hr HD even if it is a rolling program , it would be better than the preview.
Complain about this comment
@andyquested - "The current bit rate for the HD channel was chosen after a lot of testing."
Thanks for your reply, Andy. What sort of testing was this subjected to - complex analysis by computers, or human eye tests? Because if it was human eye tests then SURELY it is plainly visible that there is blocky pictures. For example, on the HD Preview in Jools Holland stuff (not fast movement even!) when there is any kind of red on the screen = BLOCKS. I'm not the sort of person that ramps up image processing and contrast etc on my TV set - I turn all this off - I shudder to think what it looks like for Joe Public who leave the TV at the 'dynamic' picture processing types.
Can you tell us if the type of encoders that Luxe TV use were tested, and if so what was concluded that makes the encoders which were opted for better? Cost? Picture quality to bandwidth ratio?!!.. ;)
Finally, I know that some posts on here seem aimed at you rather that at the BBC in general, but you are one of the only points of contact who the viewers (who seem unhappy!) can ask to take our comments further, so thank you for taking the time to respond!
Regards, Matt.
Complain about this comment
Haha I get it now. Thanks Andrew ;)
Btw, Ive applied for tickets to see Strictly Live. Hopefully this will resolve any sound drop out issues and picture blocking :D
That's assuming I can get tickets.
Complain about this comment
Can I remind people to stay on topic and remember this is not a message board thread please.
Complain about this comment
#168, I'm going to have to emigrate, why can't we have 24/7 HD over here? I wonder, do they pay a licence fee in Australia? Perhaps BBC HD over there isn't FTA.
Complain about this comment
Dear insidemedia (Matt)
Thanks for the post. We use a combination of PSNR and eye to check the quality of the coders. I will give more details in the next blog (with pictures I hope).
I'm sorry but I cannot comment on other broadcasters processing, equipment or pictures, but I can say I do watch them.
Dear SkyCaddie
Thanks and I will report back as soon as I can on the audio issues. As for extended hours, we will have to go back to the BBC Trust to change the remit of the channel but I would prefer to lower the repeat rate before we push earlier into the day (or later into the night).
Andy
Complain about this comment
AndyQ: Thanks for the posts. I am disturbed at the sound problems. I thought these had been sorted.
Also why no apology if the broadcasts are monitored?
Please can we have a period of stability when the current problems have been sorted?
Does BBC HD have to give back more of its bandwidth in the future?
For me BBC HD is no longer the benchmark for UK HD. A pity, but I guess you have to feed the masses.
Thanks for all you have done, sorry it has come to this!
Complain about this comment
#168, @SkyCaddie, there's an interesting theory in the comments at your last link, i.e. re: the Digital Rights Management signal.
Andy, back in Apr you said "The application of a DRM signal to manage multiple HD copying and internet distribution, costs us nothing and allows us to transmit programmes in HD that we would otherwise only be permitted to show in SD."
Can you confirm that a DRM signal is at absolutely no cost, even in terms of bandwidth?
Complain about this comment
Apologies. SCD did have sound drop-outs on Saturday on Virgin Media. Me and the missus were watching Friday's recording of SCD - which had no drop-outs. Doh!
Complain about this comment
Dear Bill-Taylor
Thanks for the post. The audio issue seems to be in the transport streams but as it appears on cable and sat it is not straight forward and does not seem to detectable before coding. As the feed to Virgin is totally separate from the feed to satellite it may even be a metadata fault.
It's also different on programmes played from the server to live studios and OBs. We are going to run some tests on the reserve chain to see if we can track it back - BUT we are tracking back a fault you can't hear in the broadcast domain, only the decoded signal has it!
Andy
Complain about this comment
#159 Andrew Knight. Please can you stop repeating this business of SD encoders on 2D, as I've already pointed out that Arqiva has a contract for EN8100 on other platforms. There is no evidence to contradict that this isn't also the case on satellite. It is unfair for you to repeatedly make these claims when I've pointed out that the the company that runs this may already be doing what you've said. Hopefully your obsession with the winter olympics will focus the minds of people who don't realise severe clashes and disappointment are inevitable (several realised this long ago and not just including the winter olympics and football world cup).
#153 Andy Quested
"The BBC has an absolute responsibility to use bandwidth efficiently - whether on digital terrestrial muxes or on satellite. Bandwidth is not unlimited, and on UK-footprint transponders the demand for capacity is very high."
We know what this means. We know that you know that we know what this means. Please tell us something new. You're not doing yourself any favours with this secrecy. If you're not going to tell us that ITV HD or C4 need the space for freesat autumn launches on 2D or additional BBC HD services/channels (people might understand you not being able to) at least tell us that an announcement concerning what the bandwidth will be used for will be made in the next few months or something along those lines. It's not very good PR for your channel or organisation.
#16 Nick Reynolds "It's a little unfair to say that either Andy or Danielle don't care about picture quality or about the HD channel even if you disagree with particular decisions that have been made."
I didn't say that at all in the post you were referring to. I said not that bothered which is qualitatively different from don't care. I didn't mention care or not for the channel itself. You should be moderating on what I've said, not on what I haven't said.
Complain about this comment
Dear BikeNutt
Thanks for the update. We intend to test the system asap with live audio. Interesting no drop-outs on Friday as there were on the sat service. Between Friday and Saturday nothing changes!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Dear Bikenutt
"Indeed" is all I can say at the moment!
Andy
Complain about this comment
Sorry but there were drop-outs on friday and they were very annoying. It was like listening to Norman Collier.
Complain about this comment
On Sky though, I don't have Virgin.
Complain about this comment
Dear hdblogger
Thanks for that - still investigating. We knew there were sat problems Friday but there were no reports from Virgin. I am trying to see if we have two issues (one for cable another for sat) or a single problem!
Andy
Complain about this comment
@Derek post 161, thanks for the correction. However, add that to Sky's figures and without Virgin that's still 1.4 Million HD users. Hardly an insignificant amount as Andy seemed to imply.
@Ropies post 185, I'd like to hear a response to what Andrew has suggested so I'm pleased that he won't allow this to simply drop. If what he has been suggesting is possible, then this may provide a major boost to Freesat as a whole and a major boost to BBC HD by allowing a 2nd channel.
I also believe you are misinterpreting what he actually hopes to achieve. You mention his obsession with the Winter Olympics and World Cup. You also fail to mention the main Olympics, Rugby World Cup, Wimbledon, F1 (maybe going HD next year) and many other major events due to fall in the next few years making for a very hectic schedule of very important and high profile sports many of which carry with them huge viewing figures.
If as I suspect, you don't like sport and believe that somehow he will miss out without a 2nd channel, you are sadly mistaken. The Winter Olympics may suffer only occasional coverage due to its lower popularity, but the other events are so large it's almost certain that BBC HD will be turned over to cover events such as the World Cup, Rugby World Cup, Olympics etc entirely. So you could be talking constant sport for weeks on end on some of these events. For the BBC to fail to do this would be unthinkable as many of these sports carry audiences well in excess of ordinary viewing figures.
You also only have to look at past events to see what happened - the last Olympics had HD huge coverage as has Wimbledon. To fail to give the World Cup full HD coverage of all major matches (not just England) would cause a lot of dissent and lose the BBC many viewers in favour of pay tv not to mention viewing statistics which the BBC rely on to justify much of their existence, budget requests and in in justifying their value for money requirement. So I doubt that non sports will be priority programming during many of these event periods.
I believe what Andrew is suggesting in a second channel is not only something to guarantee coverage of events such as the Winter Olympics that won't receive full coverage and matches such as Championship Matches that clash with other programmes, but also a channel to guarantee that there's a HD channel offering normal programming for those who don't like sport during periods when the major events are covered.
Complain about this comment
There is another aspect of picture quality that I have been concerned about for some time. The BBC has recently asked the government for more protected rights to certain events. The problem now is that protected rights now means inferior picture quality. Before ITV HD I use to dread ITV getiing any football rights as that would mean we would have to watch in very low definition SD. Even when BBC HD came along some of the protected rights events were not broadcast in HD where as Sky would have made HD available. Now that the BBC has decided to cut the picture quality we should all make sure the Government knows how we feel about this. My view now is that the PSB channels should not be given exclusive rights but any other broadcaster should be allowed to provide a high quality picture.
Complain about this comment
The thought of a second BBC HD Channel horrifies me!
If BBC HD are having to make some of their bandwidth available to other uses (BBC and non-BBC?) then please push for double the bandwidth "to enable BBC HD2" then use the additional bandwidth to provide one, decent non-compromised BBC HD Premium Channel.
Complain about this comment
A second BBC HD channel is off topic so can you please discuss this elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
I notice that the BBC have dropped the football match from BBC HD on Saturday. I was interested to see how the new encoders would handle live sport. I suspect they realized that the ball would be very blurred.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Sorry but I don't consider it off topic.
We still havent been given a clear and simple answer to the repeated question as to why the bitrate has been dropped.
Many people, including myself, have simply asked:-
Is it to save on transmission costs?
Is it to allow for more HD channels on the transponder, BBC or non BBC?
Is it to allow for more SD channels on the transponder, BBC or non BBC?
These are fairly simple questions to which there has not been a clear and simple answer.
Quotes such as "unsustainable" and "using bandwidth efficiently" don't answer the question.
Now, if the answer is considered "commercially sensitive" then fair enough, but currently the BBC are just looking evasive.
There can be no doubt that there are currently picture defects that are plainly visible. I know the specific issues with fades/mixes are being looked at, but they MUST have been noticed during testing. I can only assume that it was deemed that we the viewers wouldn't notice them.
Andy,
having just said that, I do have some positive comments.
I have just returned from about three weeks abroad. Before leaving I was not happy with picture. Too many programs looked lifeless, and lacking in sharpness and detail. This conclusion is taking into account the different "looks" of different productions.
After watching BBCHD for a few days now I have to say that most programs are appearing much improved. Generally they seem to be more vibrant, clean, sharp and detailed.
Either settings have been tweaked, or there is a psychological effect or a shift in my AV equipment.
However the problems with demanding material remain, mixes/fades lots of movement still induce blocking. Difficult to see this being related anything but bit-rate.
Mosquito noise also seems more noticeable at the moment, but primarily at close viewing, not really obvious at normal distance.
Andy, how are the "encoder tools" going to deal with the blocking on demanding material if the bit rate is not going to increased?
Complain about this comment
#196, @Tag, re: Nick's point you beat me to it, I was going to say exactly the same point about remaining on topic. However, if he stills considers that we should address that issue elsewhere then I'd like to know where he proposes we go. The nearest Blog in terms of subject is one of Danielle's, about a year ago, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/09/bbc_hd_what_works_best.html
Or Nick, do you suggest we should go over to Digital Spy or AV Forums to discuss the topic of a 2nd BBC HD Channel?
Complain about this comment
With the greatest respect, I would suggest Nick its on topic to the extent that bandwidth and therefore picture quality changes might be related to it.
@ Bill, if you read above Andrew Knight has come up with an excellent solution to increasing the available bandwidth. Also, contrary to what is often posted on here, I will side with Andy Quested on the point that more bandwidth isn't everything. It is possible to deliver HD quality at bandwidths as low as 4.5Mbs as seen on LUXE HD. The problem at the moment is not so much the bandwidth reduction but the fact that the encoder they are currently using doesn't appear capable of delivering the quality we all expect at the current reduced bandwidth. Which in turn again raises the question of why the BBC bought it knowing that Ateme used by LUXE HD were delivering high quality at low rates. has anyone even done any fact finding or pre-purchase broadcast testing?
Complain about this comment
Of course a second channel is on topic... But maybe ist's somemthing the BBC does not want us to talk about...
Perhaps they would prefer we all went "elsewhere"?
Complain about this comment
I will allow comments on a 2nd BBC HD Channel as long as they are related to picture quality. General comments about the desirability of it will be removed. Sorry to have to be so tough but as I've said before this is not a message board or an open post.
Complain about this comment
Andy Q, you mention ARS and Montezuma as examples of good PQ, but I think they illustrate the problem of variable PQ. ARS had a detailed, crisp picture with rich colours, and (to my eye) few defects, but the nature of the program means there is no fast movement, and little camera movement. Montezuma (great programme BTW) had some stunning still shots, and slow wide pans were (relative to other programmes eg Coast) not too bad, but the 'walk and talks' looked dreadful. The contrast between still and moving images on HD is so much greater than on SD. Please don't degrade the still images to match the moving ones(!), but maybe efforts can be concentrated on improving the moving shots.
PS Was ARS broadcast without a DOG? Is the DOG finally on its way out? Apart from the PQ a big advantage of having Harper's Island on HD is no DOG - I wouldn't have bothered with it on BBC3.
Complain about this comment
@ropies - Such changes haven't happend yet for the BBC but they have for Channel 4.
Both issues are linked, without a solution to the bit-rate issue there won't be the capacity to create a solution to avoid the schedule clashes.
In recent days these upgrades that you mentioned meant the resoultion broadcast for Channel 4 was increased.
http://www.linowsat.com/0282/all/0282.shtml
This is despite the fact the transponders already hold 9 Channel 4 branded services on each one. Much more than any BBC service.
The BBC does broadcasts in a higher resolution though and higher audio bitrate but if the BBC is next to recieve the update like you suggest then it will open the chance to move the remaining two channels from the transponder they share with BBC HD. One BBC transponder currently only has 5 channels and 2 radio stations. With the extra capacity the two MPEG-2 channels that share the transponder with BBC HD could be moved.
@ Bill-Taylor - Once BBC HD has the entire transponder it can switch to DVB-S2. The performance of DVB-S2 is at least 30% greater than DVB-S so even if BBC HD was left on a fixed rate it would recieve at least a 30% boost.
But being on a transponder by itself would mean it wouldn't need a fixed bit-rate. It could be stat-muxed, and for the time being that would give it the entire bandwidth of the transponder.
That would allow a second HD channel to be launched to avoid major sports events stopping regular scheduled programming from broadcasting.
Most transponders now fit 4 HD channels so the BBC could allow 2 slots to be sub-leased saving the BBC money but with the right to take back the slots in time for The Olympics in 2012.
@tagmclaren - The fact that Channel 4 has already had its resolutions changed and the fact they carry more channels per transponder suggests something is planned.
If upgrades are taking place it means the BBC could change the HD transponder to DVB-S2 to create room for 4 HD slots, of which the BBC could use 2 until they need the rest back for The Olmpics in 2012.
The BBC could even save some money by only having to rent half the transponder until 2012.
@Alsone
Your right. There will be an uproar if BBC HD fails to cover various prestigious A listed sports events in HD.
Many people will be looking at converting to recieve HD because of the major sporting events avaliable next year. People will also be interested in the continued expansion of regular BBC programming. Danielle has already promised more news on Top Gear and if it were positive it would no doubt boost interest in HD. If the Winter and Spring schedules keep on expanding following on from the Autumn scheule all the content will convince many to recieve BBC HD along with all the major sporting events.
Viewers know next year HD will be covering events like The 6 nations, The Winter Olympics, Wimbledon, The World Cup and The Commonwealth games, The Open, The US Open and Championship football fixtures and The Carling Cup final.
And there is a chance we could see Formula One, The French and Australian Open Tennis events, The Autumn Rugby Internationals, The Grand National, Moto GP, Challenge Cup and other sports events the BBC broadcasts.
All these events should be covered in HD in full. But it also means that regular programming shouldn't be affected to provide a good balance which necessitates a new channel to be created.
This is entirely feasible if the upgrades go ahead.
@NickReynolds - If Arqiva go ahead with the latest updates it would solve the current bit rate issue as BBC HD could have its own transponder in DVB-S2 and be stat muxed.
The cost of the BBC running its own transponder would be very high.
A second channel would not only solve this issue but address issues that haven't been addressed on how A-List sporting events will be covered in full on BBC HD without interupting the schedules.
Launching a second channel would be more cost beneficial, it would allow the BBC to then allow the third and fourth slots to be sub-leased saving the BBC more money until the BBC needs the slots back for 2012 for The Olympics.
Complain about this comment
As far as I know the cost of a satellite transponder is alot cheaper than the same bandwidth on a national terestrial network. That is one of the reasons that the drop in bitrate is so perplexing. The BBC will need atleast 4 channels for the olympics and even for the world cup. I think 4 HD channels on a DVB-S2 transponder is reasonable.
If the BBC is so strapped for cash why is the BBC even considering recording the Olympics in 3D and Super HD. They have aleady said they have no plans to actually make these available to the public. Of course Skys HD service will be well underway by then so Sky could actually give us the Olympics in 3D.
Complain about this comment
Audio problems:
Today we recreated the SCD signal path albeit with a CD player as the sound source this was because it was a bit difficult to interfere too much with TC1 as they were rehearsing Jools.
Sadly nothing wrong all the way to the output of the playout area - almost perfect Dolby E all the way. We started looking at the actual audio as the cause of the problems. Not much to go on - AES sync, levels, dynamic range are about it really. Our next step was to try each one and looking at some of your post I decided levels was the best place to start. Level issues are unusual because after the studio there's only one point they can be changed and that's only in circuit during junctions. By a strange co-incidence the SCD studio resource manager was in today doing Jools and he had an e-mail from a colleague about level.
So... anyone listening to the barker around 14:15 today would have heard it getting louder and the dynamic range changing. Even driving it 4dBs over peak didn't do much until we hit a clip with a presenter (as opposed to narration or ordinary speech) and that reproduced the fault!
Not a conclusive test because we still don't know why! But it has given us something to work on. Next step will be to take the studio recording of SCD down to our R&D area and push it through the transmission simulator. So what's the quick fix for live programmes? - if you hear it break up TURN IT DOWN.
As for the monitoring of the channel I must apologies for saying live programmes are monitored in two places - it's actually three! We are not sure why the third point didn't pick up the off air problems and will investigate. The other two points only monitor the broadcast chain - that's the Dolby E audio and the metadata. After the interesting Eurovision Song Contest two years ago I am taking NO chances
Andy
Complain about this comment
@Trevor post 203, there's a catch to 3D - you need a brand new special tv to decode it so unless you're planning on spending £2K or so between now and the Olympics I guess its not much use. I too am enthusiastic about 3D but until they can produce something to retro fit to an existing screen, I think its going to be beyond anything but a handful of viewers.
BTW when I say decode its not a simple as that - one method (seen in cinemas) use a polarised screen the other Sony's uses special glasses with shutters but I think on the latter the tv controls the glasses.
Complain about this comment
#191. Alsone. You always seem to get the wrong end of the stick with my posts. I am very interested in sport, I have repeatedly called for a second channel for scheduling problems and frequently commented on what sort of encoders should be used on SD/HD, what bitrates for those and astra 2D shuffling. None of what I, Andrew or anybody else has said on this matter is new and original, these sort of comments have been done to death. All of these matters are deeply related.
As all of us here know the BBC 9 hour licence allows for exceptional events to be broadcast way outside of the normal hours. By talking mostly about the winter olympics (as it is the nearest such event) I think there is the risk of people focusing on the exceptional events (there are quite a few :-D) so that the beeb and other people get into this mentality, rather than focusing on the more general scheduling problems that will happen throughout the year. The BBC will say these are exceptional events, live with them rather than focusing on the bigger picture. This would just be history and predictions repeating itself.
Right, onto picture quality, I watched The Tudors and thought the colours were poor and too many artifacts, too soft. Strictly Come Dancing in some ways I thought was less chaotic than last year but still nowhere near good enough on challenging material and production chain.
Complain about this comment
re: post 205
"there's a catch to 3D - you need a brand new special tv to decode it so unless you're planning on spending £2K or so between now and the Olympics I guess its not much use".
Couldn't the HD set-top boxes do the decoding (including Freeview HD ones)? The set top boxes could even convert it to anaglyph (red+cyan or whatever colours) for viewing in "3D" on normal TVs, or a better type of 3D if you have a capable TV, or just convert it to 2D by just showing one of the eye's views. I doubt 3D Tv's will cost a minimum a minimum of £2K though.
Complain about this comment
As pointed out in post 196, BBC HD still have not commented as to why bandwith was reduced to such enacceptable levels.
Any chance of an honest answer Andy???
Also thinking about the football this weekend, I think its now pretty obvious why its only in SD, I think its BBC HD admitting they know the quality will not be good enough on such low bandwith
Complain about this comment
Dear wednesday83
Thanks for the post - I'm afraid we have given you the full answer
Andy
Complain about this comment
Thats just it Andy you have not given a full answe except fob offs such as you have done tests.
I ask again, what is the reason the bandwith has been lowered to UNACCEPTABLE levels???
Not just me asking fella.
Complain about this comment
One can certainly call it an answer. Full answer I think is being disingenuous. It is the other replies that has been without loss of generality.
Complain about this comment
Well I feel that the BBC HD picture needs to get back it's WOW factor.
Earlier tonight I watched Doctor Who - Episode '42' on BBC Three of all places and the picture was very good for SD.
The point being that current BBC HD stuff isn't a step-level change above that quality - as I think we would all agree it should be.
BBC HD is just looking like top notch SD - not high quality HD!
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I agree with wednesday83 the BBC has not given a full answer. The BBC transponder is sitting up there in space practically doing nothing. Not using the bandwidth which is available seems to me to be a complete waist of resource and licence payers money. I am sure sure you know exactly why this bandwith is not being used but are not willing to tell the people who are paying for it. Licence payers are entitled to know how and why their money is being spent. My be our MP's should be asking why the BBC is waisting such a valuable resource.
Complain about this comment
Glad to hear that the sound problem is begining to be looked at. I understand that the Grassvalley Encoders transcode Dolby E to Dolby Digital so I think that is the first place I would look.
Complain about this comment
Dear Danielle & Andy,
I am concerned about the perceived technical 'merits' surrounding 25P motion and certainly concur with 1080's comments posted earlier.
With the exposure time doubled for 25Hz, there is more light with a longer exposure compared with the amount needed for 50Hz. This may mean that detail is lost through persistency compared to the faster time per interlaced field with an subsequent increase in blur particularly with any motion. This is going to be particulary noticeable with the "creatives" current vogue of the 'wobbly camera'.
For depth of field technicalities I can recommend a watching of the opening sequence of Citizen Kane where even at 24P it's NOT a problem to have a wide depth of field.
Watching Later... It's obvious that 25p could not cope with the fast pans and movements of people.
Furthermore, people do not see naturally at 25p. Emotional response increases with picture rate.
High definition should mean both higher temporal AND spacial resolution. Creatively AND technically
An outstanding example of how it can look was Lost Land of the Volcanoes. The hi-motion shots were frankly, superb.
But I don't want to be too pessimistic. Problems are being overcome and Coder efficiencies are improving, AND Decoders and displays are improving too. I appreciate your commitment to providing quality content.
Complain about this comment
Andy, please look at comment 213. A post I completely aggree with.
Please can we have an honest answer???
The way the channel is currently been run is a total joke. There still has been no apology btw Andy from BBC HD.
Complain about this comment
@HD1080 post 207, unfortunately its not that easy. I believe all the systems require special screens and so until these can be produced as filters to sit over over your existing tv screen, the only option is a new tv.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film
Regarding price, current price is £10,000 but its expected fall once production starts. However, I wouldn't go hunting for the £400 3D Tv just yet!
Complain about this comment
@ 215, you are quite right when you say Encoders are improving as well as TV sets. Sadly the BBC HD team have an obsession with lowering the bandwith and quality. So it doesnt matter how good encoders and TV sets get, when you have a team insisting on using such low bandwith, then things wont improve.
Complain about this comment
"I believe all the systems require special screens and so until these can be produced as filters to sit over over your existing tv screen, the only option is a new tv.".
What I meant is, all current TVs can already show anaglyph 3D (where you use red+cyan glasses or other colours). I know it's worse quality than other methods, but it's still 3D. Currently available Blu-ray titles use the anaglyph method and so do some TV episodes shown on Freeview (I think an episode of Chuck was though I didn't see it).
Freeview HD boxes aren't on sale yet, so they could have an option to convert stereoscopic 3D, in whatever method is decided into anaglyph 3D (eg. by taking the left eye view and applying the right colour filter to it, applying another, different colour filter to the right eye image, combining it into one image and outputing that as normal so you have a 3D that works on all current TVs) or output it in whatever 3D format your TV was capable of or 2D.
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
The solution is within post 13 and 159, the upgrades as mentioned by ropies in 185 that are taking place right now as I mentioned in post 202 would allow everything mentioned to happen which would solve the bandwidth issue, allow a second 'red button interactive' or full HD channel to launch, the interactive service being easier to set up to deal with major A-List sporting events and save the BBC money.
@trevorjharris - 213
By implementing the changes not only could BBC HD have more bandwidth but the BBC could have either a second HD channel or 'interactive second channel'. For now whichever the Trust would be willing to allow to get around the major A-List international sporting event fixture clashes that are going to happen would be best.
It could then allow the two extra HD slots,most DVB-S2 transponders carry
4 HD channels, to be sub-leased by the owner of the transponder to save money until the slots are needed for the Olympics in 2012.
While it may be hard to get the BBC Trust to allow a full second BBC HD channel they could allow a interactive stream so uninterupted HD coverage of major sporting events could happen without causing major schedule issues on BBC HD for weekly programming but allowing these sporting events to be shown all the time in HD.
Complain about this comment
Dear Squegg
Thank you for the comments. This is a really interesting and "beefy" subject. There is no right or wrong answer as it's a matter of taste.
Cameras set to 25p mode MUST use shuttering just like film cameras. We have had programmes (only a few) where the camera has not used the shutter and although we have allowed to go out we don't believe it's an editorial choice.
The recommended exposure for TV is 1/50th, exactly the same as 25 interlace. This is not an absolute rule because it depends on circumstance and location, but it's a good starting point. The whole frame is captured in 1/50th then processed but there is no temporal change during the frame, hence the higher resolution.
1080i25 captures two "1/2 frames" each one having 1/50th exposure i.e. no shutter required. When the frame is processed there is movement interlaced so your eye average out the information so the faster the motion the lower the resolution. Several of the posts have mention the BBC's R&D project looking at high frame rates. At 300fps there is amazing temporal resolution but if the motions slows enough or stops there is almost difference to 25fps (logical to deduce then a still could be 1fps or even 1 frame for the duration of the shot!). That leads on to the idea of variable frame rate dependent dependent on the fastest moving area of the image
We wouldn't expect a sport programme to shoot 1080p25 because, as you say, the motion would be wrong. But 24fps is still used for film (cinema and TV) and the choice of frame rate is up to individual producers.
Depth of field is not dependent on frame rate. At the moment it's just simple physics i.e. sensor size and aperture . The greater the image size and/or aperture the shorter the DoF. So 35mm film has less depth of field than 16mm. You can play with both formats with lighting and distance from subject etc. but sometimes you are stuck with it. For example, if we cover some classical performances and have to position the cameras a long way back and cannot control the stage lighting, camera operators sweat blood to keep the performers in focus because the DoF at the wrong end of a very long zoom lens is almost zero.
Drama producers usually want to limit DoF allowing focus to be used - sport or action programmes usually want greater DoF to keep fast moving (relative to the focal distance that is) subjects in focus.
The argument about high frame rate and the use of focus for story telling will go on long after you and I have stopped worrying about it
Andy
Complain about this comment
"We wouldn't expect a sport programme to shoot 1080p25 because, as you say, the motion would be wrong. But 24fps is still used for film (cinema and TV) and the choice of frame rate is up to individual producers".
But there are directors and film makers/cinematographers (eg. IMAGO members) who want to use higher frame rates. Film makers can't really use more than 24fps right now because most cinemas (non-digital ones) can't do more than 24fps I think.
I agree that 50i is better at capturing motion than 25p, but the BBC still shows many programmes with things with high motion (including documentaries) that often have 25p motion.eg. things shot with the varicam so they can slow footage down, but if it was shown with 50i motion instead of 25p, even though it might not have the same look the motion would be more accurate and it wouldn't strobe or judder on current TVs.1080p50 would be even better since it would have the high motion and all lines captured each 1/50th of a second. Though we might not get broadcasts like this for a while. But, shouldn't Blu-ray in 2010 allow 1080p48 to be encoded (perhaps 1080p50 to 60 too) because of the method they will be using for their 3D upgrade? So it could be that BBC programmes could be released on Blu-ray at 1080p48 or higher res then and still be compatible with current players but only output to the current players specs.
Another thing I thought of is, couldn't one day the BBC viewer select the type of motion the prefer on their set-top box? Many TVs have motion interpolation functions that a lot of people use, but they produce artefacts and don't produce real frames. If, in future the BBC broadcast could 1080p50, the consumer could select whether they want 1080p25 type motion or 1080p50 type motion by an option on their set-top box - if they want p25 type motion it would just skip every other frame.
I still believe interlaced (50i) isn't lower resolution than 25p, and we haven't had any test results showing it is. It's definitely a lot better at capturing motion than 25p and is the best at capturing high motion until we have 1080p50 or higher broadcasting.
"Several of the posts have mention the BBC's R&D project looking at high frame rates. At 300fps there is amazing temporal resolution but if the motions slows enough or stops there is almost difference to 25fps (logical to deduce then a still could be 1fps or even 1 frame for the duration of the shot!). That leads on to the idea of variable frame rate dependent dependent on the fastest moving area of the image"
I think the idea of variable frame rate is good, though it might complicate things. But it isn't part of specs of decoders/set top boxes so is probably not something we could have for a long time (unless it was a software thing?). But I don't really agree with the very low fps (eg. less than 24/25fps) part you mentioned. Higher fps helps hide compression artefacts, and even still video shots or shots with a still background will usually have small variations.
I think the BBC high frame rate TV paper is a good paper and points out why higher frame rates are important if the spatial resolution of TV is increased (eg. going from SD to HD). Yet the motion of 25p is lower than the 50i we can have with standard definition. James Cameron has said of 24p "when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact...Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying".
Complain about this comment
@HD1080 Interlaced isn't lower resolution, the resolution is exactly the same as the number of lines captured overall is the same, its just that they're split over 2 frames instead of one. One frame captures the even lines and the other captures the odd.
What you do get with interlaced though is on a programme with movement, you get a change in the relative position of moving objects (or everything if the camera is moving or panning) between frames. This effectively "blurs" the picture slightly because the 2 frames don't equal one whole one exactly and so can lead to an slight observable difference in crispness between eg 50P and 50i.
However, conversely, this also helps with fast movement because it smooths out the differences between frames. That is why interlaced is often considered more suited for movement capture that progressive, its because there's less of a jump between what's captured on each frame so the difference ares smoothed out.
Complain about this comment
One thing that has a major effect on the 50i vs 25p debate is an individual's Flicker Fusion Threshold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
This varies quite widely between individuals and in those with a high threshold, 25p can be unwatchable with very unnatural movement.
Unfortunately, Producers only seem to take "artistic" considerations into account when deciding how to shoot. I would suggest that they also look into this. The Bill changed to 25p as part of their move to HD and IMO it now looks terrible. I stopped watching it after many years as a result of this. The same is true of the various fake film effects used on many programmes. The most basic of these, the field removed types, also look terrible, and I'm amazed that Producers consider the effect that they have on the picture an improvement on the smooth motion offered by 25i.
Complain about this comment
Dear HD1080
Thanks to Alsone and GaryB007 I think you have an answer to the resolution issue. As for the desire, I'm not even going to try and go there!
There is a book by Alan Roberts that has some very good information but it is expensive
http://showdaily.biz/ibc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=230&Itemid=37
Complain about this comment
#204 Andy: Thanks for the info. I would still welcome an apology at the end of the programme, when your team has monitored audio problems. Or how about an HD status information on the BBC HD page.
Complain about this comment
Dear Andy,
My main concern is that with the technical advantages of progressive picture generation and display, 25P (low temporal definition) production seems to becoming the de facto (though maybe not the official) standard.
This has already spread retrospectively to SD programmes with programmes such as Holby City , which in addition, is shot like most soaps these days, in the dark!
1080P50 is perhaps a decade away for mainstream use and interlace is obsolescent. I know that 720P50 is not recommended for content generation and I would suggest in the light of current R&D, that its potential use is reviewed, particularly in the light of the upcoming Freeview launch.
And maybe to remind the creatives of the medium's technical capacity: It's not moving pictures but television! Plus, - call me old fashioned - the use of lighting, Fidelity and FOCUS in which to display their expression to an audience that wishes content over style. If necessary point them to these blogs to give them feedback.
(Then run away!)
Complain about this comment
#225. At 11:55am on 23 Sep 2009, andyquested wrote:
"There is a book by Alan Roberts that has some very good information but it is expensive [..//..]"
If that is the same Alan Roberts that used to work for BBC R&D then what he doesn't know about HD probably isn't worth knowing...
Complain about this comment
Dear Boilerplated
Thanks for the post and yes he is but his book is based on his life after BBC - if there is such a thing!
Dear Squegg
Remember programme styles come and go. If we used 720 it would be 720p25 so still the same temporal but around half the image resolution
Andy
Complain about this comment
"Remember programme styles come and go. If we used 720 it would be 720p25 so still the same temporal but around half the image resolution".
At a lower spatial resolution, wouldn't the low temporal resolution of 25p not look as bad? Not that I'm asking for lowering of the spatial resolution - just increasing of the temporal resolution (like the BBC white paper recommends when spatial resolution is increased).
If programmes are shot at 25p doesn't it mean that, as well as the strobing/judder problems mentioned (and all the problems with it mentioned in the BBC frame rate white paper), doesn't it mean that if and when styles change to a better temporal resolution (fps) that those programmes will be out-dated? If the programmes are produced with a high fps eg. 1080p50, they won't get out-dated in the same way, will be easy to convert to other formats for sale overseas and can be easy to convert to 25p for broadcast now, and can be released on Blu-ray in either high or low fps or both.
Complain about this comment
I has just stumbled (via Google) on this blog post as I was looking for other people that had noticed the same degradation of BBC HD quality of recent weeks.
I have had Freesat for about seven or eight months and have notice that the 'Wow Factor' has definitely gone from BBC HD. There is a definite softness to the image, lack of pop, and, most worryingly a high incidence and proliferation of encoding artefacts that appear to be a result of poor encoding AND a too-low bitrate.
The situation reminds me of what happened when OnDigital and other Digital TV services originally launched. Marketing campaigns regularly included technically meaningless statements such as 'You can now watch your favourite programmes in digital quality'. These marketing slogans successfully hoodwinked the non-technically-savvy public that 'Digital' always means better.
This is now exactly what is happening again with HD. HD has just become a marketing tool. It is regrettable, but a fact of life, that a majority of people just quietly accept what they are given and probably just assume that what they've got is the best it COULD be.
I agree with the various comments that suggest that the BBC is reneging on its remit to provide a high-quality HD service.
There was a time when organisations would put out the very best product that they could as this would contribute to an organisation's reputation and pride. Sadly, it seems that the only thing to be proud of is how they have compromised to keep the accounts departments happy. It appears that the only department that can function fully and achieve everything it wants to is the accounts dept. So, the BBC's pride is now represented by the quality of and the ability of it's accountants to directly hobble the very product it produces.
Complain about this comment
Dear Andy,
I'm actually shocked that (admittedly hypothetical) 720p25 would be the preferred choice given the EBU's recommendations in EBU Tech 3299 for 'System 1' and also here:
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_301-editorial.html
I've just checked the date and it's not April 1....
Complain about this comment
Andy - is it not possible for any faults to be broadcast - I am aware the continuity is recorded but if a fault is spotted a text caption apologising would be helpful even if broadcast for just a few seconds - it would stop us thinking our equipment was at fault.
Secondly any further news on why the third area of presentation failed to spot the error or were they all watching the X Factor?
Complain about this comment
I'd rather something was said after the programme rather than during... The fault might only affect (say) virgin, those on Sky and Freesat would be rather annoyed to have a message on screen during thier enjoyment of the programme...
Complain about this comment
Difficult with no live continuity announcer unless every eventuality was recorded in advance - saying that stv manage it during the day :)
Complain about this comment
ooops - saying that the normal female voice of the station is often replaced by the live announcer on BBC One who has recorded links for BBC HD if the schedule changes or sport has overun - so yes it is possible!
Presentation need to be awake though and actually monitoring the output.
Complain about this comment
'The BBC has an absolute responsibility to use bandwidth efficiently - whether on digital terrestrial muxes or on satellite. Bandwidth is not unlimited, and on UK-footprint transponders the demand for capacity is very high. The current bit-rates were selected through a process which directly evaluated quality on the new and old encoders, using a wide range of programme material and both subjective and objective assessments.
Bit-rate is not the only factor affecting picture quality and a higher bit-rate will not automatically deliver higher picture quality.'
If this is the full answer Andy re post 209 why has the picture now gone soft with no WOW factor and why is the spare bandwidth not being used? The selection process obviously did not work properly.
Andy & Danielle
I wish you wanted the best quality and not just average quality. I agree with other comments I think the Channel is now run by Accountants. HD is the future and the BBC is now being left behind. Stop spending money on regional feeds, BBC3 and BBC4 and numerous radio stations and concentrate on HD. How embarrassing will it be when Freeview HD starts and ITV and C4 have a better picture than you.
Also an apology on the SCD sound quality at the end of the programme would have been nice.
Again the lack of Championship Football is a promise broken.
Complain about this comment
@ 237. Andy knows full well Bandwith effects picture quality. He seems to think that by telling people it doesnt really effect quality people will believe it and accept the fob offs.
If Andy Quested does believe bandwith hardly effects quality then you have to question why he has the job he has.
So far a very simple question has yet to be answered.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
I notice the EBU is recommending HDTV bitrates of:
Minimum 12mbps,
Recommended 12-14 mbps
in this presentation dated march 2009
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/events/abu09/abu_digital_broadcasting_symposium09_kouadio.pdf
(see pages 17-18)
http://tech.ebu.ch/
Complain about this comment
Wednesday83 - keep it civil please.
Complain about this comment
My post was very civil Nick all things considered.
Complain about this comment
digitalscoobiedoo @ 239
I've also read that presentation. Did you notice that the UK was singled out on a few occassions for less than normal transmission parameters? Even with no compression we'd still only be getting three-quarters HD due to our 1440x1080 resolution!
Complain about this comment
Just shows you what a total embarrassment BBC HD has become. Just out of interest, who was in charge when the channel begun??? Who was in charge of Technical at that stage as well??
HD in UK is a bit like broadband in UK, it needs a shake up and fast. we are accepting second rate products and paying top prices.
Complain about this comment
243. At 10:25pm on 23 Sep 2009, wednesday83 wrote:
"we are accepting second rate products and paying top prices."
Good grief, that comment is unreal, you are paying nothing for the BBC HD service beyond the normal TVL fee! Heck, when the colour service was launched back in the 1960s people actually did have to pay extra, sorry but you don't seem to know that you've been born yet...
Complain about this comment
Wednesday and others, comments are getting heated now but I think we need to give Andy and Danielle some consideration for the tricky position that they must be in. In view of their credentials, expertise and backgrounds I'm sure that they know full well that the picture would be better with a higher bitrate. But they probably can't say that because they are being forced, by someone (be it the Trust or Ofcom), to reduce bandwidth down to a set level (maybe, as some have suggested, set to be in line with the bandwidth available for the launch of BBC HD on Freeview).
I suspect that, given free reign, they would themselves be much happier to be allowed to transmit at the EBU's recommended rate, as identified by @Scoobie, i.e. 12-14 Mb/s. A rate at which PQ would undoubtedly be better than at 9.7, given that, in terms of encoders, they will now have to make do with what they've got (minor tinkering notwithstanding). And @Alsone, I'm sure that they can't now simply pack them back to the manufacturers and buy Ateme ones instead.
I strongly suspect too that @Skycaddie's post #237 is also near the mark when he mentions accountants. Although it must be an insignificantly small ammount in comparison to the overall end-to-end High Definition production and transmission costs, I'm sure that the Freesat bitrate has a cost. I'm also certain that the main reasons for the bandwidth reduction, and the consequent PQ loss since 5 Aug, is that those accountants are making a false economy by enforcing expenditure cuts on that final link in the transmission chain.
I think we, the viewers, are the guinea pigs in this attempt to fob us off with a PQ reduction. I'm sure those accountants thought that we would take the reductions in quality without noticing? I think, initially, the rest of the BBC management hoped that we would too (and probably Danielle and Andy had their fingers tightly crossed during their respective summer breaks). But unfortunately we did notice, and now they have been boxed into a corner where they don't have any wriggle room.
So now we're in a stalemate situation, where they can't manouever and we can't accept the situation. Which is why they are now forced to tell us that the PQ is at least as good, or better, than it was in the hope that we are convinced by their assertions that either our eyes are deceiving us, or our TVs aren't properly calibrated.
What's the way ahead? I think there should now be a compromise. I think it is quite clear that we have noticed the poor SD+ like pictures, and just can't accept these current PQ levels from a supposedly HD service. So Danielle should now come clean and do us a Blog where she explains exactly what the position actually is, giving us the full truth as to why the bandwidth was slashed.
She should also go to those accountants, the Trust, or Ofsted, and even to those charging her for the Freesat Bitrate and explain that the public won't accept such a poor, high definition picture from the BBC any longer. She should lay down that if they continue to put the squeeze on her channel, then the public will vote with their feet and go elsewhere (and I can't believe I'm saying this but for the first time in my life I'm seriously considering getting Sky).
She must get agreement from these people and bodies that they have to permit her to transmit the channel at the EBU recommended rate. That would show the viewing public that the BBC do care about us and our opinions, because at the moment whatever PR job they are attempting is falling far short of the mark. In return I think we would compromise by accepting the reduction from the pre-Aug 16 Mb/s to the EBU recommended one, without further ado.
Complain about this comment
Paul,
I agree entirely with your comments. I too have thought about Sky HD, heaven forbid.
Are you going ahead with your complaint to the BBC Trust? If so I would be more than happy to put my name to the "complaint" as I am sure would many others if it would add weight to the arguments that the PQ has deteriorated to such a degree that it can no longer be desribed as HD.
Roger Watkins.
Complain about this comment
@rogerdw I can certainly describe BBC HD as HD!!
The HD quality of last weekend's Strictly was the best it has been in the three years I've had HD. Other programmes I've watched have been excellent too. Last night's Nigel Slater was 'perfection' as was 'Rick Stein' the other night.
I have complained on here in the past about PQ, especially on 'shiny floor' shows. But I believe that has now been sorted, SDC and Shooting Stars' both good examples.
A couple of shows I've watched have been a bit 'questionable', 'Coast' and 'Britain From Above' come to mind, but on the whole I'm more than happy.
Complain about this comment
@derek500
I hate tell you this derek, but large sections of Stricly was not even shot in HD it was very clearly SD. The subtitles were also in SD and there were serious sound problems which the BBC has acknowleged and are trying to fix.
Complain about this comment
@Paul post 245, very sensible post. I must pick up on the point you raise on the encoders though.
I never actually said they could simply pack them up and return them, they could ask given the BBC's weight as a potential future customer again but in the current economic climate is likely they couldn't.
However, if the encoders do turn out to be the wrong choice for the BBC, I doubt very much that there will be difficulty selling them 2nd hand. With broadcast tv all set to go HD eventually, there are going to be an increasing number of channels scrambling to get their hands on HD equipment, mostly from the 2nd hand market (where possible) in the case of smaller broadcasters. As the 2nd hand market is sparse due to people switching to rather than from HD, I doubt there will be any difficulty selling them. I think the hardest part will be for someone in charge at the BBC to admit internally that they made the wrong choice (if they did) and make the decision to purchase an alternative. Ateme look the item of choice, but as I said elsewhere, this should be once bitten twice shy ie the BBC need to set up back to back testing between encoders or if manufacturers won't lend test samples then go on fact finding mission to places such as LUXE and have a play around making tests using typical BBC transmission methods to confirm which models perform best.
Complain about this comment
@Trevor - I came to the same conclusion about lost land of the volcano last night. I think all the aerial shots (except those inside the helicopter) are in fact SD which explains why the landscape looked so unspectacular and the trees so blurred. Overall the picture last night was very good if slightly soft for my taste. There was one shot of the bug expert in a white shirt with a creature up close that was exceptionally sharp and clear. You could see every wrinkle, every blemish, the complexion was realistic and no disguising anything.
However, the rest of the HD was very good but not razor sharp.
One point @ Andy, someone commented above that you don't like razor sharp HD. If this is true, I was wondering if you could explain why? To me anything less than razor sharp isn't HD. HD is about realism and bringing the picture to life so its as if you the events are in your living room. If I step outside of the house and look around and look people in their faces, they don't have a slight unsharpeness (unless I have uncorrected vision, they are razor sharp as is everything I look at so why should HD be anything less than razor sharp?
Complain about this comment
@ trevorjharris "I hate tell you this derek, but large sections of Stricly was not even shot in HD it was very clearly SD."
Obviously. I was referring to the live studio part of the show!!
Perhaps I should refer you to post #60!!!
Complain about this comment
@ trevorjharris. Fortunately I'm not deaf so I didn't check to see if the subtitles were in HD. There were sound problems on the Saturday, Friday was fine.
Complain about this comment
I watched a few minutes of Gardener's World last night and I saw a couple of instances of blocking and artefacting.
There was a section with a lady contributor where in a head and shoulders shot, she turned her head and the lines on her face (which were quite prominent) completely fell apart.
Also, overall the programme most definitely did not have the resolution and colour fidelity that I would have expected to see just a few months ago on the same service.
I work as a graphic designer and spend a great deal of my time working with **very** high resolution images (albeit stills). I can tell when an image has been scaled up and isn't displayed at it's native resolution. Gardeners World, and I suspect all current HD output is being shown at a less than native resolution. This results in the picture being processed multiple times before being displayed on the TV screen - once by the receiver (to get it up to 1080i) and then by the TV to get it up to 1080p. Obviously, this situation would be better if the first upscale wasn't necessary. However, if for whatever reason, it is not possible (or desirable by the accounts dept) to send a full RESOLUTION image, increasing the bit rate would CERTAINLY improve the stability of the image and help mitigate problems caused by the various post-reception processes.
Obviously, the BBC can't control what equipment people have in their homes and how well (or not) they set it up, but they must endeavour to provide source material that is produced to a standard and not a price.
The same decision making process that erodes the quality of SD services can not apply to HD as an HD service is ALL about quality presentation, not programming per se. SD should be considered as 'general purpose', whereas HD lives and dies by the quality of its picture and sound.
Complain about this comment
#246, Roger, yes its full steam ahead with my complaint to the Trust. I've had lots of backing on other fora too, I'm going to have to find a way of capturing all the real names of people who, like you, want to put their names to the letter. Any suggestions for that are welcome. The biggest hurdle is the 1000 word limit for complaints to the Trust, Danielle herself used nearly 50% more than that in her reply to me. Every time I rationalise it down to the limit I think of another point I want to make.
#247, Derek, I have to agree with you that whatever encoder tinkering Andy is pulling off has markedly improve the PQ in some programmes. SCD looked quite good to me; though not being a show I've any interest in it was only a cursory look. South Pacific, and Later Live, on the other hand looked outstanding and actually brought back the "wow" factor temporarily. However, there are many shows, the majority I think, that still look like SD+ to me. I'm talking about things like Holby Blue and the Innocence Project late last night and Hustle and Lillies the previous night, which needed a DOG to inform us that they were in fact supposed to be high definition.
#249, Al, you're right to pick me up on my misrepresentation of what you'd actually said about the encoders. It was late last evening and to be honest I didn't check your early comments before writing what I did. Your ideas for what the BBC should do wrt the encoders are eminently sensible.
#250, again sensible comment about the sharpness of image in HD. In support I'd like to post here the content of a message recently sent to me from a professional digital photographer. He is happy for me to quote it because he's been trying to get a log-in to these Blogs to join the debate for ages. This is what he said:
I'm not literate with all the relevant technicalities of HD TV, I just have a pair of eyes and as a photographer I use them, and have a good visual memory so know that PQ had decreased.
It is that decrease and the comparative viewing of other HD channels that leads me to the conclusion that the channel is operating outside its remit from the trust.
I note some recurring weasel words from Andy Quested about HD not being defined by sharpness, in doing this he is attempting to dismiss the past level of service - redefining the term to meet the edict from who knows where that that service was unsustainable.
From my experience as a digital photographer Edge Sharpness is probably the FIRST quality the the average viewer would look for in a 'high definition' picture.
It may even flatter to deceive and other aspects of the picture can be under par but that perception.
When numerically evaluating the other factors such as compression artifacts, noise levels, etc. it would be quite correct to claim X was superior to Y whereas the viewer would perceive otherwise.
This makes it easier for them to say night is day and this will be what makes the case harder to fight without an expert in the science of visual perception.
I only wish that I could be putting these points in the BBC blogs but despite numerous attempts and using my work and home email addresses I never get the confirmation email from the BBC to complete my registration.
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton
I think someone mentioned earlier, the possibility of an online petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/
This is a good way to get a campaign going as the link is easily passed on via email or by posting on the various specialist forums out there.
Is there any scope to reference these posts and forums' entries (and indeed any future petition) in the complaint to the trust, or are these regarded as inadmissible?
I do fear that we are going to lose out in terms of 'what could have been...' if we do not keep the pressure up in some form. Such a shame that we have to though.
Complain about this comment
#255, Easybourne, I'm not sure that its government policy to reduce the BBC's bandwidth, although I suppose that could be argued. While I agree that such a petition would be a good way to collect the names I'm not certain it's the best place. Although I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.
wrt admissibility of these posts for the Trust, again I'm not certain, but just in case I'm keeping a Word copy of everything posted here and will certainly be attaching it as an Annex to my letter, all 200+ double-sided A4 pages of it.
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton "I'm talking about things like Holby Blue and the Innocence Project late last night and Hustle and Lillies the previous night, which needed a DOG to inform us that they were in fact supposed to be high definition."
I think this is where your complaint will fall flat on its face. The 'questionable' HD quality of Holby Blue and Hustle have been discussed on various forums going back to 2007!! I believe that the bitrate has dropped twice since then. Also, most of the shows you quote were made back in 2006/7 when BBC HD was in its infancy and the new production methods were being tested.
Complain about this comment
@ paul
Apologies, I didn't make it clear what the petition should be about!
I think the petition could be in the form of getting the BBC trust to enforce the remit for HD channel - ie that the HD channel (and any future HD services) should be presented in way that matches and 'seeks to exceed' industry practices.
It may be possible to approach the administrators of some of the audio visual forums or to contact the publishers of AV magazines to get a campaign started. The problem is I think that at the moment, internet discussions are probably no more credible than saying 'a bloke down the pub told me' no matter how well-informed or how accurate the observations are. It needs some kind of media backing.
Complain about this comment
@ Easybourne
See post 13. There are more posts as well but post 13 covers it all.
MPEG-2 upgrades have aready been rolled out to Channel 4 and the BBC will recieve them soon enough allowing BBC HD to have its own transponder, switch to DVB-S2, launch a 'red button' or full second HD channel to deal with major sporting events like The Winter Olympics which will fill the schedules for 2 weeks and lease 2 slots until the next Olympics to save money until 2012.
A second channel whether interactive or as a full second channel would need permission from The BBC Trust which is probably why for now information on a solution isn't forthcoming.
Complain about this comment
Paul,
I use an odd Yahoo e-mail address to remain anonymous if I think I am going to be spammed. Signatories to your letter could send their names and real address to such an address and your letter could be sent to their real address for approval. If spam results you will not be able to post on this Blog again!
Easybourne, a good idea but does anyone have connections with AV mags to help kickstart a campaign?
On PQ, I was flicking through the channels earlier this week and came across a programme in a jungle. I had seen it before and did not stay long but a still photo of an insect came up. The PQ was beautiful, it had sparkle and wow factor, I am not a techie, back to the jungle and movement and back to SD+. Encoder or bitrate, something is wrong.
Roger Watkins.
Complain about this comment
@ Andrew Knight "MPEG-2 upgrades have aready been rolled out to Channel 4 and the BBC will recieve them soon enough allowing BBC HD to have its own transponder, switch to DVB-S2, launch a 'red button' or full second HD channel to deal with major sporting events like The Winter Olympics which will fill the schedules for 2 weeks and lease 2 slots until the next Olympics to save money until 2012.
A second channel whether interactive or as a full second channel would need permission from The BBC Trust which is probably why for now information on a solution isn't forthcoming."
And what will Freeview HD viewers get, where there is only one BBC HD channel allocated?
Complain about this comment
#261. At 4:36pm on 24 Sep 2009, derek500 wrote:
"And what will Freeview HD viewers get, where there is only one BBC HD channel allocated?"
An acceptable service for the bandwidth available, this means that it still allows SD viewers to have an acceptable to above acceptable service, without messing up the entire DVB-T service - unless Ofcom/HMG decide that they are going to have a complete rethink on what is going to happen to the old analogue spectrum post DSO.
Complain about this comment
Andy,
Perhaps you can answer a question for me?
I have a recording on my PVR dated 13/01/09 and it's a 2 minute snippet from the barker. It's of a preview for a programme called 'Mountains Of The Monsoon'. I remember thinking I just have to record it purely for demo reasons. It is, without doubt, THE best broadcast PQ I have ever seen on BBCHD. Not only does it include fantastic stills of wildlife, amazingly sharp images of frogs during slow camera pans (silky smooth) but also a medium-paced pan of the mountainous horizon (again silky smooth without loss of spatial resolution).
My question is this: How was this programme shot and broadcast?
I'm guessing 1080i50 but I'd be intrigued to know for sure as, for me, this is how all HD should be presented until 1080p50 becomes a reality.
Sadly I missed the actual programme and, to my knowledge, it has not been repeated.
Thx
Complain about this comment
#258, Easybourne, I was thinking about the petition to No.10 that you suggested. I can't really come up with the right words though. Whatever I suggest is likely to get flanned by dozens on here.
As a starter I thought about this: "Recent internet furore following reduction in BBC HD TV transmission bit-rate indicates that widespread UK consumer acceptance of HDTV will never be achieved so long as delivery fails to match or exceed industry practices in the majority of other HDTV countries. I therefore petition the Government, and Ofcom, to develop a roadmap for the provision of a high quality 7 channel PSB HDTV simulcast of BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, ITV1, Channel 4, and Channel 5 on the available FTA Platforms."
I would be the 1st to accept that this is just not good enough, but does anyone here have a better suggestion?
Complain about this comment
'Part one of the Telegraph's The 50 most influential Britons in technology featured blog contributor and regular commenter Andy Quested at number 42'
Congratulations Andy!!!
Comment 245 is Spot on HD is the future dont let the Accountants ruin it.
Andy & Danielle stand up to them, I hope Andy's tests show the picture quality is poorer that would give him some ammunition.
Complain about this comment
I must agree that, picture quality varies between programes and also within a given program, whilst we are all aware of the variables and technical reasons... I do feel that there is room for improvement.
I feel, the BBC should be the UK flagship broadcaster of HD, this should also include the best possible picture quality (using the 'right' codec), BBC HD should be a beacon of quality and something of envy.
I should say at this point, that I am a big fan of most of the natural history programes, and some of the dramas, the programming is actually pretty good, however, I do feel there is better picture quality to be had, this also includes the poor motion tracking on quite a lot of broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
Paul,
The BBC would veto your wording as they are committed to HD without upscaling and they do not have the program material for full HD channels. What I think we should be aiming for is a standard for a minimum PQ which should then be adopted by all new channels. So how about this as a start
"The BBC recently installed new equipment on their HD channel which has resulted in a grossly degraded picture compared to that previously transmitted. If there is to be widespread consumer takeup of HDTV in the UKit should match or exceed the standards set in the majority of other HDTV countries.
I therefore petition the government and Ofcom to define a standard for HD TV in the UK which at minimum should be that which is recommended by the EBU. Such a standard should then be adopted for all future FTA HD channels."
Roger Watkins.
Complain about this comment
@derek500 Post 261
ITV only aims to broadcast during the evening so its slot could be used by the BBC to distribute the evening schedule during the day.
Terrestrial DVB-T2 products seem destined to have a PVR facility as well so they could download the evening schedule in advance
BBC HD has to broadcast the same over all its services.
But there is no remit on what a satellite or terrestrial interactive channel could do.
To all the posters see post 13. There hasn't been a reply to it but with various issues that BBC HD has to deal with it would make the most sense.
Afterall to save money why not buy the latest MPEG-4 decoders and set up for DVB-S2 at the same time as well as any DVB-T2 equipment.
Complain about this comment
@ Bike nut post 263, the episode Mountains of the Monsoon as a whole does have the some very best PQ of any programme broadcast on BBC HD. There are some soft moments but overall its pretty mind blowing. However, it was broadcast on 16Mbs.
Complain about this comment
@Boilerplated #262, I agree entirely. Freesat needs to stand on its own as does BBC HD. Lack of space on Freeview shouldn't be allowed to block BBC's HD progression on Freesat / Sky / Virgin. At the end of the day that progression is inevitable so its only putting off a disparity that's going to happen anyway when other channels go HD and Freeview can't accommodate that.
Complain about this comment
Just watching Bleak House and the PQ is as stunning as it's ever been at any bitrate. World class HD!!
Complain about this comment
#271, Derek, blast I missed it, but I'm watching the follow-on Darwin programme and, at my end at least, I'm afraid the SD effect is back (except for in the odd, near stationary, bit of brickwork).
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton The Darwin show is not too bad although the shots from the camera mounted on the car weren't that good.
Bleak House is on every night at 6.30pm. It's my all time favourite BBC HD show, both picture quality and the programme itself.
Perhaps I'll keep a copy on my HDD so in the future I can look back at the good old days when the bitrate was a massive 9.7mbs!!
Complain about this comment
Wonder if this will make BBCHD look better.
http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/world-s-most-advanced-tv-out-december-638279
Complain about this comment
@Alsone #29. Yes, agreed higher bit rate but my point (perhaps not very clear) was not only did it look great with static and slow moving material but with a fluid motion without PQ deterioration at higher speeds too. This is why I'd like to learn from Andy which format used.
Complain about this comment
Audio dropouts (BBCHD on Sky) continued on Tuesday's "Last Chance to See" and "Lost Land of the Volcano". They are not the long-duration dropouts we had on Saturday's "Strictly", but they are there - a frame or two each, and very distracting.
Complain about this comment
I watched both via Virgin Media - no audio drop-outs here.
SCD had audio drop-outs on Saturday but not Friday via VM.
Complain about this comment
#267 Roger, I'd sign up to that! Perhaps change the final words to: "be adopted by all current and future FTA HD channels" so that BBC HD doesn't slip through the net.
Complain about this comment
Thanks BikeNutt
Can I ask a favor (to all)? There we 6 small (20ms) audio dropouts in Jools this week on satellite. I would like to compare the SD version on all platforms and the HD on cable and satellite as received on as many different devices.
We can confirm the dropouts record and replay so if they are there you will hear them and to give you an idea what they sound like, the first is at 22:06:06 - so about 6 mins in.
Thanks in advance
Andy
Complain about this comment
Andy,
#265, Congrats on your recent "most influential Briton" honour from me too, well done.
#279, Don't have a PVR but watched Jools Live on Tue via a Freesat box and AV Amp, and didn't notice any Audio dropouts at all, great programme, great PQ too. For any who missed it, please do tune in tonight because the boogie woogie bit was a classic(with Jools and Charlie Watt's accompanying pianists extraordinaire Ben Waters and Axel Zwingenberger).
Andy,I take it you're not expecting any repeat of the problems in tonight's show?
Complain about this comment
Dear paul_geaton
Thanks for the "congratulations" it was a surprise to find out!! As for Jools actually it would be "good" if we did have the same problem as it eliminates a chunk of the chain
Andy
Complain about this comment
Do the BBC apply anti-twitter vertical filtering to their interlaced HDTV broadcasts? And if so, do they need to when nearly everyone is using progressive HDTVs (eg. LCD/Plasma)?
Complain about this comment
@ Andy Quested, Andy I've listened to my recording and can find no sign of the drop outs you mentioned in Lost Land of the Volcano. I listened between 5 minutes (where they were descending into the crater of the extinct volcano to 7 minutes where George McGavin was on the slopes of the active volcano. The only thing I did hear was a very slight click during one of the shots of the volcano erupting on the infra red (black and white) camera. It was extremely slight though and had to be listened for. I wouldn't describe it as a noticeable drop out.
My equipment is Freesat via a Humax HDR and 85cm dish.
Also, on the subject of quality, the scene which really looked HD to me is at 41 minutes featuring a close up on George McGavin between where he's looked at a fungus on the ground and where he looks at one close up on a twig he holds up. To me that's true HD clarity, detail and sharpness. Some of the other shots in programme (the ones supposed to be HD), do have a little lack of sharpness that takes the realism away.
Complain about this comment
This blows the whole Freesat standalone PQ debate to the fore:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/drive_to_discover&id=7013471
New TV technology just announced 1080 x 1020 lines progressive all the time at an amazing 1080Hz scan rate.
Now how is Freeview possibly going to accommodate anything like this when it's struggling to even manage 4 channels of 1080i?
Think 3D is a niche technology, the same report says all the major studios are now to start releasing 3D movies at the rate of 1 a month. It may take some time for these tv's to feature heavily in peoples homes because of the cost of upgrading existing flat panels to tv's costing thousands, but the fact it this is the future and over the next few years this is where broadcasting is going to be finding itself - 1080P at high data rates.
As I see it, the BBC Trust have two options:
Option 1 is to continue as they are doing sweeping the truth under the carpet, not marketing Freesat but continuing to push Freeview and keeping quiet about the problems. Result is in a year or two as more HD channels come on line and possibly even 3D at 1080P, people discover that Freeview can't accommodate this and find many of their favourite channels have to be hosted on Freesat anyway. The result is a lot of very p*ssed off viewers who've just invested in Freeview equipment and aerials when they'd have perhaps preferred to have spent money on Freesat, finding out that the BBC Trust knew about the bandwidth problems before digital switch over. I can see calls for people's head already.
Option 2 the BBC Trust takes advantage of the fact that most of the country hasn't switched over yet and *suddenly* announces Freesat as a new premium quality service from the BBC offering maximum HD content, maximum picture quality and maximum channel choice, and starts marketing it heavily as the alternative choice. The fact that the very few people have been switched over yet means there are very few people who've already invested in Freeview to get p*ssed off. In any case, the Trust can get out of it if questioned by saying yes Freesat has existed for the last 2 years but its only been a trial so far to ensure it was a viable service and that's why it hasn't previously been marketed. Result: Trust off the hook with existing customers! New customer then have the choice, Freeview for ease of reception / minimum cost, Freesat as the premium choice for max quality and content.
Thus people can make an informed choice in the build up to switch over and no one is upset if they make the wrong choice because they had all of the facts.
You'll note how in option 2 I don't make any mention of Freeview in the marketing because there is no need to run Freeview down in any way to promote Freesat. The fact that it is a "new" service means you can just market it as a brand new premium alternative to Freeview for those who maximum quality, HD content and channel choice. With this the Trust also has the perfect answer to anyone who questions why has the BBC set up a premium service as Freesat instead of putting it on Freeview. - You can simply say, the BBC has launched the new premium Freesat service because it has become apparent that there are technical limitations on Freeview due to bandwidth that means that unfortunately due to circumstances beyond the trusts control, many of the new service simply cannot be accommodated on Freeview. Rather than lose these channels and services for its customers altogether, the Trust instead decided to launch the Premium Freesat service so as to give people a choice of platforms and content according to their own viewing habits and requirements.
Complain about this comment
Sorry typed the resolution above - it should read 1920 x 1080 progressive at 1080 hertz.
Complain about this comment
@ Alsone I would be very unhappy if the BBC started to spend money marketing Freesat, it has more important things to spend its license payers cash on. And it can hardly be labelled as premium, as the channel choice is not as good as Freeview.
Also, the BBC makes no money from Freesat, whereas it receives millions each year from its share in UKTV which broadcasts on Freeview/Sky/Virgin.
Financially the BBC would be better off if DSAT viewers took Sky rather than Freesat.
Don't forget the original remit of Freesat was to provide free digital TV to those who can't receive Freeview.
Complain about this comment
I can't find the BBC Trust Blog anywhere! :)
Complain about this comment
Not too sure about a Trust Blog, but I guess you're looking for its submission to Digital Briton Consultaton, published today here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/september/digital_britain.shtml
or, for complaints to them go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_appeals/index.shtml or or just try the index here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml
Complain about this comment
@Derek500 freesat has all the channels that Freeview has plus a lot more!!! The BBC gets enough money from license payer to run a decent SERVICE for the licence payers, they are not meant to be commercial company like Sky or Virgin!! Over 600 000 people have freesat are also license payers too!! Anyway I thought this blog was about the recent drop in picture quality, thats what people are complaining about.
Complain about this comment
To paul_geaton #288:
Thank you. I did actually mean a blog. I can't believe the range of knowledge and discussion displayed here actually happens in the Trust and it probably takes too long and isn't responsive enough to new circumstances. If approval takes so long then any advantages due to confidentiality are often lost. If there was even a modest attempt at highlighting some dilemmas then this might attract feedback to encourage best practice, standardization and an infusion of new thinking. You never know!
Complain about this comment
@ stayat9.7mbs I'm glad you enjoy watching the likes of Dave and Virgin 1 on Freesat and just to clarify 600,000 people do not have Freesat. It's 600,000 boxes/integrated TVs that have been sold. Many thousands have bought more than one.
Complain about this comment
More short audio dropouts in Strictly (BBCHD on Sky) this evening: 1-2 frames each. Not as many as we have had at times, but they are still there.
Complain about this comment
@derek500
Can you clarify what setup you are using please (tv , receiver) because I watched a bit of Bleak House and thought it was terrible HD.
You're not watching on a 32 inch screen are you?
Complain about this comment
Jools definately has compression artefacts (watch the purple set in fast pans) though like Strictly I think there is improvement in noise since last season. There does seem to be a pattern that Television Centre shows are looking better than a few weeks back, but everything else I see looks dire for HD.
The previous night Thursday - Off the Hook. BBC HD definately not off the hook - terrible HD.
The Hotel Babylon repeat just before this bore no relation to its former PQ.
Complain about this comment
@ digitalscoobiedoo 42", Panasonic, 1080p, plasma with a Thomson Sky HD box.
I had a quick look at 'Off the Hook' and the PQ was very similar to 'Peep Show' on C4 HD i.e. very soft. I think that's definitely a production issue not an encoder/bitrate one as C4 HD's PQ is as good as the best.
Complain about this comment
@Derek #286, but you're quite happy for them to spend tens of thousands on Freeview advertising? That's a bit of a double standard wouldn't you say. There are adverts for Freeview on ITV all the time. Also, surely the BBC should be able to advertise programmes on Freesat (HD and SD) just as they advertise programmes coming up on BBC terrestrial now. I've yet to see and advert on BBC saying "The new series of eg Heros starts next week on BBC HD on Freesat. If you can't currently receive Freesat then please ask at your retailer for details of how to receive the BBC Freesat service."
Funnily enough, that wording almost mirrors what is said about Freeview on BBC One. Wonder where I got it from?
As for the Premium comment, yes you're right, at the moment Freesat has less channels than Freeview.
However, as I said above in several places there are several reasons why that isn't going to remain the case simply because compression advances cannot possibly keep up with the rate of change of channels to HD and newer higher bandwidth technologies such as 3D. Whereas the BBC could simply decide not to subscribe to the 3D technologies, they Trust can't stop independent channels such as Fiver, Five US, Film 4 etc going HD which given that most of their content is produced in HD anyway, is highly likely, and when they do its going to be a case of lose them on "terrestrial" (FTA) altogether or accommodate them on Freesat.
We both know there's simply no room on Freeview unless the BBC degrade picture quality on BBC HD and SD so much that it simply isn't worth watching and even then, I doubt you could get more than a couple of extra channels on Freeview, hardly likely to be enough.
I'd love to see the public's reaction to losing many of the current most popular channels either as HD versions if dual broadcast or possibly even altogether if broadcast HD alone, in the future. There is also going to become a point in the not too distant future where some channels will decide to go HD exclusively because audiences are high enough to justify it, advertisers are willing to support it, and dual broadcasting costs are too high to justify a continued presence on SD. this may be in the future but its just around the corner, maybe one or two years max given current growth in HD take up rates. Look at Sky HD's figures for this year, way above analysts growth predictions and now the fastest growing part of Sky broadcasting.
If the BBC is to maintain picture quality across all of its broadcasting including HD channels, then some rethinking of the roles of Freeview vs Freesat are going to be need to made and now is the time to make them because if not, as I pointed out above, Option 1 is going to become reality and if I was a BBC exec I'd rather not have half the country baying for my head.
Complain about this comment
@ Andy, further to my post at 283 about Lost Land of the Volcanoes, apart from not finding the audio drop outs you described at 6 minutes in, I'd also like to comment that I noticed that the macro blocking is still there on FF as is the slightly soft picture (mostly noticeable in face shots).
Complain about this comment
Its interesting to note that the BBC does not accept HDV (from camcorders) or Super 16 film as HD but is now transmitting at a much lower quality. HDV is 25mb/s MPEG2 which is at a higher quality than the 9mb/s H264 now being transmitted.
As this cannot be considered HD I think we need to find a new name for what the BBC is giving us. The best I have come up with at the moment is Pseudo HD or Low HD. We do need something so that the public is not confused. There is no legal definition of what HD is. Analogue television had a very tight specification which guarenteed the picture and sound quality. Unfortunatly there is no equivalent spec for HD.
You may remember that the BBC got into trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority when they described DAB radio as CD quality when it wasn't. If the ASA got enough complaints about BBC pseudo HD I think they might be interested in setting some sort of standard which could prevent the BBC describing its service as HD.
On this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbchd/what_is_hd.shtml
the BBC describe the Pseudo HD channel as
"HD gives you exceptionally clear, crisp pictures with vivid colours and up to five times more detail than standard definition."
I don't think anyone except Andy would agree with this statement. It is also interesting that the "up to" expression which is the same expression Broadband Providers use to describe thier bandwidth. In fact the BBC only transmit up to 3.75 times more detail as they only have a horizontal definition 1440 instead of 1920.
Dr Beeching was very famous as the person who nearly destroyed the British Rail system with his savage cuts. I wonder if it will be Andy or Danielle who will be remembered for the savage cuts to BBC HD. It is interesting to note that the Beeching cuts were based on very dubious statistics derived from a totally inadequate survey.
Complain about this comment
@ Alsone Why would the BBC specifically mention Freesat, when it is a platform neutral channel, where most of its viewers come from Sky and Virgin homes?
Freesat is a non-profit platform owned jointly with ITV. It has very little income to spend on marketing. After all it's not a 'broadcaster', just an EPG.
Freeview is the only way to receive DTT, so platform neutrality isn't an issue. Of course Freeview is also jointly owned by the broadcasters BBC, ITV, C4 and BSkyB along with the transmitter operator Arqiva. It has a lot more money for marketing.
Complain about this comment
There have been alot of comments about softness. This could be the result of deliberatly producing the pictures this way using soft lenses or a filter. I think it is more likely this is due to noise filtering at the encoders. As Andy has already mentioned low bitrate encoding is particularly susceptable to noise. Many encoders have an adaptive noise filter which adds spacial and temporial noise filtering. The spacial filtering will produce softer static pictures and the temporial filtering produces motion blurr. It seems to be generally better to leave some noise to give better perception of sharpness.
Watching SCD last week it seems that there is a considerable amount of noise which is suprising for a studio production.
Complain about this comment
@ Derek post 299, why shouldn't they? Sky, Virgin, ITV, BBC in Freeview form can all all advertise their services but the BBC can't advertise their Freesat services for fear of competing against those that are allowed to do it. Ostensibly they're not allowed to use license payers money to advertise other channels but the reality is they're not even allowed to advertise their own channels / programmes for fear of promoting others along with it. How biased is that? Political correctness gone mad.
Complain about this comment
@ Alsone. Why would they want to advertise Freesat? It's only there as a 'politically correct' solution to DSO - the Government can't turn off someone's signal and give them Sky's phone number can they?
As I've said many times, the BBC make money from people going to pay TV, as they receive millions in advertising, subs and programme sales from their share in UKTV. They make nothing from Freesat.
Ultimately that is beneficial to all licence payers.
The BBC should promote their HD channel, but not the platforms it's available on.
Complain about this comment
just caught Jools Holland which I recorded and must say its certainly cleaner than the past few series. The still shots look great and the colours very vibrant but the lack of bandwith really does show on panning shots.
Also congratulations on Andy for the recent "most influential Briton" recognition. Maybe you are too good for BBC HD Andy??
Complain about this comment
#6, 133, 135, 153 & 160, Andy, I'm looking forward to the results of the tests you've talked about a lot, just to confirm my suspicions. However, my own subjective test was just conducted on the showing of Nature's Great Events, just concluded now, which I also had the privilege of seeing back in Feb/Mar with the older encoder and higher bitrate. Then, I was gobsmacked by both the photography and the stunning PQ. Now, I'm still in awe of the camerawork, but decidedly underwhelmed by the PQ. So I can already predict the results of your tests; the PQ is worse, at a guess by a factor of (up to) approx 40%!
Complain about this comment
40% I wonder how the picture quality has gone down by that amount???
Anybody out there got any ideas.
Complain about this comment
@Derek # 302, that's a very cynical view but as someone often associated on another forum to be a staunch Sky supporter and often thought as of anti-freesat, (rightly or wrongly), maybe I shouldn't have expected anything else.
To pick up on your point though, I don't think a few extra people migrating to Sky is going to boost the BBC's ad income. I'm guessing they (or UK TV) charge per advert and the time of day, not per person in the audience.
As for they have nothing to gain from advertising Freesat, yes they do, they can dig themselves out of one almighty hole that's looming over bandwidth, channel quality, especially HD quality and a very angry large section of licence payers who are about to feel ripped off when they discover the BBC knew all along that Freeview couldn't hold all the channels at any quality and couldn't hold all the HD channels and technologies that were emerging but kept quiet about it rather than putting forward an alternative and giving people the choice of exactly wanted from their tv, easy cheap reception or max quality and choice.
Complain about this comment
If tests are genuinely been conducted, do we really expect Andy to come on here and admit the quality is not good enough????
No one at BBC HD will apologise and even admit the bandwith is too low so all I see is a fob off along the lines of - Picture tests completed and held up well against old bandwith levels and looked stunning on our tv sets.
BBC HD know full well the channel should be running at higher bandwith levels, but sadly due to the fixation with free view HD we are all going to have to suffer 2nd rate broadcasts.
Boosting the bandwith to around 12mbps would improve the channel so greatly, but sadly no one at BBC HD seems to give a hoot.
Complain about this comment
Audio dropouts on Saturday's SCD (BBCHD on Sky) also. Not the large gaps of last week, but a fair few 1-2 frame ones again.
Complain about this comment
Although better than last week there were still audio problems with SCD last night on BBC HD - Tess Daly's microphone was a lot louder than anyone elses for a start - it just sounded like a raw feed with no compresssion or limiter in use - then suddenly the sound would dip after a loud noise.
Not good that this is happening 7 days on.
What happened to the 3 safety nets in presentation that monitor output - as there was no apology again? - maybe they were all watching X Factor once more.
I am going back to view BBC ONE's version next week as HD is a joke.
Complain about this comment
Just watching the repeat of No.1 Ladies detective agency. Andy if your watching, pic quality is o.k. but artefacts are cleary visible on some scenes. just checked the recording on my freesat+ recorder of the original..the good old 16mb/sec days. can notice a lot of difference in quality of the same scenes on the 9.7mb/sec bitrate. Morale of the story less "less doesnt always get you more".
Complain about this comment
midzone wrote: "Not good that this is happening 7 days on."
To be fair, the dropouts were happening for a good few days prior to that. It's just that, perhaps, they were the most noticable ones in the highest-profile transmission.
That this has not been immediately fixed suggests a tricky problem in the Dolby chain somewhere.
Complain about this comment
Countryfile tonight - hardly "stunning HD" is it?
Flicking between SD and HD - very easy to compare this way as they are out of sync by 10 secs or so - the difference in PQ on HD is at times bearly noticable
Complain about this comment
Up the bandwith please. Its not good enough.
Complain about this comment
Countryfile again - I now think 50%+ of it is actually in SD. Only the bit about the grain and the bread making looked like SD so far.
Complain about this comment
Sorry that should have read :
- Only the bit about the grain and the bread making looked like *HD* so far.
Complain about this comment
I'm watching Countryfile (only in SD) for the first time since it was shot in HD and the picture quality is abysmal, even on the main links. It looks like it's either been shot in 25p or it's had the nasty fake film effect slapped on it.
Andy, can you confirm if they've shot it in 25p as part of the move to HD and, if so, do you know why they've done this when 25p looks so poor with its inherent strobing and flicker on movement.
Complain about this comment
Hi Scoobie, I agree for Countryfile the picture wasn't worth watching and some of it at least, must've been in SD because it was so poor. The bits that looked like they might actually have been filmed in HD gave me a headache too, so much panning, zooming, and fast cuts. I gave up in the end and swapped over to BBC2 for the Floyd tribute programme, in glorious 4:3 the picture's nearly as good.
Complain about this comment
We had a mini-broadcast milestone tonight - the first (as far as I know) UK weather forecast broadcast on a HD Channel.
Except it was in SD of course or at least I couldn't tell the difference in picture quality at all.
Did anyone think it was in HD?
Complain about this comment
.......and following Floyd is "Last Chance to See", I thought great I'll switch back to BBC HD to watch that; only to find I've got to wait a couple of days to see the SD+ version. How frustrating!
Complain about this comment
I've been away from HD for nearly three weeks, and what do I come back to find? Basically, stonewalling from the BBC, and the first programme I see is Countryfile which, as the above comments reflect, was hard to differentiate from from SD in places. I tuned in to see a red-faced artist enthusing about the wonders of the countryside, with such softness and a blown-out sky behind him I was searching for the logo to make sure I was on the right channel. It was duly blown out as well at that juncture, and I was genuinely wondering what I was looking at for some seconds. I see several people have made the point about the logo gaining an unforeseen use as a quick way to check we are indeed supposed to be seeing HD, and I have to confirm it was literally true in this case. Other bits were better in the sense that they were clearly distinguishable from SD, but really this was a grim return to the current issues in terms of both PQ and institutional response.
Excellent post 245 from paul_geaton btw!
Complain about this comment
@Derek500 stayat9.7mbs very cheeky mate, made be laugh (nearly as much as when you said BBC HD was the best HD you have ever seen )your jokes are funny but not as funny as your judgements! Not sure if your serious or winding us up! Why are you so anti freesat? Does the 500 part of you username equate to the amount of pounds extra you have spent on sky compared to a freesat viewer to get free to view BBC HD!! Seems like you want better PQ on BBC HD for sky but not for Freesat!! I have a feeling that’s what will happen anyway in the future. Initially I thought the recent drop in PQ was a technical fault it was so bad!! But now it’s obvious it was done on purpose for commercial reasons. But what the BBC doesn’t realise is Freeview will not be able to keep up with freesat in the future due to bandwidth capacity as previously mentioned buy other comments. Panasonic have realised this and that’s why they are selling TVs with integrated Freesat Tuners, I bet all other forward looking brands start to do the same. Also if freeview does eventually die out because of this then people will begin to question why we should pay extra for a TV licence to fund the BBC for free viewing. I wonder if that’s why the BBC seems to be neglecting free to watch TV and are concentrating on pay to view or TV with advertising revenue. If this is not the case and I was head of BBC HD, I would be seriously worried about my future with the BBC!
Anyway to get back to PQ, to put it simply, is still very poor compared to before.
Complain about this comment
I agree with many of the comments about the less than spectacular HD pictures from BBCHD; last night's Countryfile was in no way 'stunning' HD, in fact flicking over from BBCHD Countryfile to Sky Sports 2 NFL Live, the difference was night and day. So what we have now is HD Lite if you like; very disappointing, and as for the Weather for the Week Ahead - no way was that HD.
Complain about this comment
@ dpgs400 "as for the Weather for the Week Ahead - no way was that HD."
I didn't watch Countryfile, but for the weather don't they cut across to the BBC's weather studios? If so, these aren't HD enabled, so the pictures would only be upscaled.
Complain about this comment
@ backto16mbs "I bet all the thinking brands do the same"
Not all.
"Toshiba has been showing us their latest tellies today, but the man in charge of the UK telly line up just let slip there are even better ones just around the corner: Toshiba will start selling TVs with Freeview HD inside within the next 12 months.
Andrew Line, Toshiba product manager for UK TV, told us “the decision has always been that we will support Freeview HD… this time next year I expect to be standing here with them.”
Line also said there were no plans for Toshiba to make Freesat TVs at all, turning its back on the competition from Panasonic, which has had the exclusive rights to make Freesat TVs so far."
http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2009/03/13/toshiba-were-with-freeview-hd-not-freesat/
Complain about this comment
#324, "Wise move, or is Toshiba about to back the TV equivalent of HD-DVD?"
Complain about this comment
I don't think that is going to be very expensive to add freeview psuedo hd to television sets. I am still at a lost to see any real future for this service. Firstly its going to be very low quality and secondly it will only have 5 channels by 2012. For instance the BBC is going to show the world cup matches which will leave very little time for anything else. Freeview needs to get back the multiplex space stolen by Ofcom and provide a proper freeview HD service. I think it needs about 20 HD channels to be a viable alternative to satellite. It should also restore quality by having 2 or 3 channels per multiplex. I think it is also time to consider MIMO technology which the BBC has demonstated can double the mutiplex capacity. A new aerial would be required for this service.
Complain about this comment
@ paul-geaton I really believe Freeview HD will be more successful than Freesat. The ability to just plug and play without additional installation expense and to get four HD channels initially will sell it.
No one knows if Freesat will ever get C4 HD, Five HD and a full time ITV HD.
Complain about this comment
@Derek #324, I don't see this as making much difference. As I see it the top 3 manufacturers are Pioneer, Sony and Panasonic. I'd be very surprised if Panasonic or Sony aren't the top selling brands in the UK.
If Toshiba take a different route then so be it, I certainly wouldn't buy Toshiba as to me (rightly or wrongly) they're a middle market brand for quality, albeit at the upper end. In most WhatHiFi tests that I've seen, from memory they've been behind the other brands I mentioned in the majority.
From what I can gather, the Panasonic Freesat tv's have been flying off the shelves which is why they're expanding the range.
If Freeview HD is more successful then indeed it will be down to marketing and ease availability as box price is about the same. But then again isn't this what I said above, there's a choice Freeview for ease and Freesat for quality. If only the trust would implement it rather than denying what is obvious.
We all know Freeview can't allegedly deliver the HD channel choice or quality in the long run as its locked into 4 HD channels max without other channel losses or massive compression improvements, so why delay the inevitable and upset people who've bought in to the wrong choice.
This blog alone should tell you that many people value HD picture quality above all else and the trust need to reposition their assets to deliver that.
On the channel point Derek, its inevitable that Freesat is going to get many channels. As I've said previously, Film 4, Five US and Fiver are all prime candidates to go HD as their content is already HD in the majority. They can't go on Freeview if the 4 slots are filled so just where are they going to go? Its Sky / Virgin exclusive or Freesat / Sky FTA.
Complain about this comment
I also think Freeview HD will be very popular to begin with if it’s easy to set up, but if PQ is as bad as I think it may be its popularity will fade quickly, as will Freesat if PQ on BBC HD and ITV HD does not improve. I would watch Feeview hd most of the time if Freesat HD PQ remains the same. New technologies if developed and if implemented could change everything anyways, my crystal ball predicts most people will probably be watching TV via a system similar to iplayer or BT Vision with advances in broadband internet networks!
Complain about this comment
If all the other channels have the same attitude as the BBC HD team then free view HD has no future at all.
BBC HD still has not apologised for the quality issues and the use of unacceptable levels of bandwith and have still not answered why they have to use such low levels.
Why doesnt BBC HD just save money and scrap the HD channel if they cannott be bothered with it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry for wandering in at the end, I did wonder why my HD had lost it's "wow" factor and now I think I know.
Anyway, I am unclear why you won't post that the bitrate is staying as it is Andy? IS there any possibility it will be increased again?
Kyle
Complain about this comment
@kylerickards1974
That is a very good question. Clearly restoring the bitrate would be a very big climbdown for the BBC. On the other hand by keeping the bitrate the BBC is digging itself into a very big hole. It may be that the BBC thinks that the complainers will simply give up and go away. The problem is that the BBC sold this as a quality product and we also have other channels which clearly demonstrate that the BBC output is very poor quality. Restoring the bit rate will also mean that the BBC will have to change their future HD plans.
The crunch of the problem is that the BBC does not have enough transponder space. Their long term planning failed to ensure they had the capacity for a proper service.
It is interesting that the BBC is putting alot of effort in getting the iplayer onto freesat boxes. I wonder if they see this as a cheap way out as they could then deliver an even lower bitrate over the internet. The problem with this is that the ISPs will start to complain about the bandwidth and will want to charge the BBC for delivery.
I wonder at times if the BBC has any long term plans for HD. If they do have they are certainly very secretive about them.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with the internet is apart from there's only a fraction of the bandwidth available to deliver a broadcast quality service, the internet also suffers frequent packet loss and drop outs often only lasting for a split second. When web browsing these may go unnoticed as just slight pauses when serving a web page or if it happens when browsing a static page, but I doubt people are going to be very happy if their tv sound or picture suffers drop outs regularly.
I personally can't see a future for internet delivered tv services even when speeds reach 100mb, which I think is around the level you need to deliver the current HD service, because the internet doesn't have the robustness of broadcast. There are simply far too many links in the chain between the broadcaster and end user.
Complain about this comment
@ 332 - I think the long term plan for BBC HD is to delivery a low quality service at a very low budget. Clearly BBC would rather invest in I Players and such at the moment.
The comments (or lack of comments), lack of answers to questions asked and fobs offs from BBC HD members suggests they have just totally given up on the channel.
When asked about why they had to reduce the bandwith to such unacceptable levels, Andy responds with he has already answered this, when he clearly has not.
Danielle is the head of BBC HD and sice the drop in bandwith and quality she has not given one single apology.
I personally feel BBC HD needs a new team with fresh Ideas and a team who drives on quality. A team that will be honest with viewers and apologise when they have messed up. Also needs someone in charge who will not scrap a big football match just because 5 mins of the broadcast clashes with strictly come dancing.
The channel for me is lacking a drive for quality. Come on BBC HD. Listen to the people who watch your channel and who ultimately pay your wages.
Complain about this comment
What has happened to Andy?? Do you think his test have shown that picture quality has dropped and he is in hiding??
Thought everyone might like this
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/samsung-s-unveils-12mp-phone-with-3x-optical-zoom-639246
A phone with HD video recording.Probably better quality than BBCHD at the moment
Complain about this comment
#333, The Internet is not an option. Not only is it not robust enough to deliver TV, as you point out @Alsone. It also requires the viewers to have a broadband ISP, which as far as I'm aware isn't free; meaning TV content provided in this way can't be considered to be FTA. Also, don't forget that the ISP's charge a premium for high speed bandwidth and put monthly limitations on data amounts, charging their customers significant penalties for exceeding them.
Another factor related to robustness is that the www is already creaking at the seams due to already increased music and video downloading. There is just no room for the expansion required for an additional new TV service; short of a major government investment in infrastructure, and that isn't going to happen in Brown's Britain.
No, the answer to returning BBC HD PQ to acceptable standards lies in my suggestion at #245. Danielle, or whoever runs these matters at the BBC, has to negotiate with all parties to put the (Freesat, Cable and Sky) bitrate back up to at least the EBU's recommended rate of 12-14 Mb/s. Otherwise the Corporation's going to have an awful lot of disatisfied customers. Freeview, with its inherent limitations from earlier decisions, will just have to cope as a second rate system (though Statmuxing may help) for those who want an easier or cheaper solution.
Complain about this comment
#319, On Sunday I wrote: ".......and following Floyd is "Last Chance to See", I thought great I'll switch back to BBC HD to watch that; only to find I've got to wait a couple of days to see the SD+ version. How frustrating!"
I need not have fretted, the SD+ version on BBC HD tonight is almost indistinguishable from the BBC2 SD version on Sunday. If I expected that a repeat viewing would be required, just to gaze in wonder at the amazing PQ, then I was sadly mistaken (for all bar the underwater shots of the turtles - which curiously was much superior to the rest of the programme).
Andy, do tell us the results of those PQ tests that you've been conducting. I think we're all getting impatient to hear them and to learn that they've confirmed our suspicions and that, after scientific proof of the reduction in quality, the BBC is now going to go back to the old bitrate. Please.
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton
Actually there is a way that the BBC could use the internet for distribution and that is by using a technology called "Multicasting" which is a method for broadcasting over the internet in a much more efficient way. In fact the BBC has been testing this with a select number of ISP's. Generaly many of the Internet ISPs have routers which support multicasting and they just need to be configured. This will not increase the bitrate delivered to the home but it will greatly reduce the internet trafic generated.
As for the test results I understood that the BBC had already done the tests before the bitrate cut. This long wait makes one suspect that the BBC did not actually do the tests. I would be interested in knowing what the PSTN (or other metric) produces such poor pictures we are seeing now. I have from time to time done some of these test myself on the Mainconcept and X264 encoders to compare their performance. Anybody interested in video quality measurement might like to look at this site.
http://www.compression.ru/video/quality_measure/index_en.html
Anyone interesting in how to optimise h264 might like to see
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/x264_options_analysis_08_en.html
Complain about this comment
Sorry in my previous post PSTN should read PSNR.
Complain about this comment
I think we all know that the results of the tests wont
be given to us in full as Andy will not want to admit that such low bandwith has effected the quality. My Guess is Andy will pick one or 2 shows that look decent and ignore shows that are poor like he usually does. He never seems to see the poor looking shows lol.
As mentioned in post #336 I totally aggree they should up the bandwith on all platforms other than free view, but the politically correct BBC policy wont allow them to. If the bandwith was lower on free view they would see it as discrimination.
It needs protests against BBC HD.
Complain about this comment
@Trevor, I know nothing of mutlicasting but you say it doesn't reduce the bit rate required. The problem with bandwidth is that currently BBC HD is 9.6Mbs. A broadband connection's down load speed is typically only 1/10th its maximum speed so 4MB gives you 400Kbs. Therefore to get 10Mbs you'd be looking at a line speed of 100MB.
Apart from the fact that a few select line testers aside, no-one has those speeds, there's also the fact that even when they do become available (if they do), they're likely to be very expensive and certainly won't be on the free deals which most people are on currently (you pay for the phone and get the broadband free eg Talk Talk and many others).
It still doesn't eliminate the packet loss, server drop out, momentary synchronisation loss issues that most people's broadband suffers either.
So from my non technical background, I'd have to say that any internet broadcast looks of BBC HD looks like it will only be at a fraction of the quality of the current BBC HD stream (if you take average line speed to be 2MB then you're talking 1/50th the current BBC HD bit rate ie 200Kbs), and for internet tv as a whole the stability issues are likely to drive most people mad in my opinion.
I've already watched internet streamed tv as I'm a gamer and used to watch professional matches streamed live and the picture quality was awful as were the pauses and drop outs, no thanks!!!
Complain about this comment
The BBC uses 3.2mb/s with 720p25 on the Iplayer. My internet connection runs at 4.7mb/s beacause I am along way from the exchange and iplayer works well. As the BBC does not care about quality I assumed they will keep the same bit rate for the freeview iplayer. Yes it won't look very good on a 46 inch screen.
One current problem is that the BBC use a fixed bit rate for satellite on BBC pseudo HD. Sky use 4 channels on DVB-S2 transponder using statistical multiplexing. This means that peak bit rate can reach 20mb/s when it is needed for a complex parts of the video. The BBC Pseudo HD channel cannot benifit from statistical multiplexing and the bit rate is limited to 9.7mb/s. Even if the BBC kept the an average bit rate of 9.7 mb/s they would improve picture quality if they used variable bit rate encoding. I think Sky's arrangement is a good option as it produces some very good pictures on thier sports channels. Eurosport HD leads the way in picture quality. They have a very high bit rate in combination with the latest Green Valley encoders. Even up scaled SD looks better on Eurosport HD than the BBC Pseudo HD channel.
I think many of us would like to see HD become the norm in television rather than the exception. This would mean that BBC 1, 2, 3and 4 would be in HD. The real problem is the 18 regional variations the BBC has. We can all remember how long to took the regions to get wide screen let alone HD.
The BBC is now a very small player in the HD world. The BBC are only able to keep some of thier status from protected rights. The BBC will get a large proportion of the World Cup matches many of which they will not be able to broadcast in HD. This is dispite the lack of commitment of the BBC to football demonstrated by not transmitting the matches they do have now in HD. Last night Sky simultaneously broadcast 8 championship matches 3 of which were in HD. My view is that the World Cup matches should also be available to all HD broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
@trevorjharris - See post 13 on how to make enough room for a 'red button second HD stream'.
Complain about this comment
@Trevor, I'm glad this discussion is kind of getting back on track now. Whilst its never been off topic, it has perhaps taken a few related diversions along the way. Hopefully now they've all been covered, we can discuss the core issue more passionately again.
To pick up on your world cup point, I for one will be very very annoyed with the BBC if ALL the major teams matches are not covered in HD. At the end of the day I may support England as do most football supporters in the UK, but its folly to think that England supporters won't want to watch major big names matches such as eg Brazil v Spain, or Germany v Argentina (assuming qualification of the latter) or anyone other big names. Games such as Cameroon vs Ghana etc may be acceptable in SD but all the major games need to be HD.
The ideal situation would be a 2nd BBC HD channel and to turn it over exclusively to the world cup for total HD coverage but in the absence of that, all major teams games need to be HD.
Complain about this comment
@337. We watched the Floyd programme and like you, turned to BBC HD to watch LCTS, only to discover it was not simulcast. I don't really have an issue this, however.. we watched it last night in HD instead.
I was very disappointed at the picture quality, so much so that I gave up watching and left SWMBO to view it. I'll wait for the B-DVD to make an appearance.
Since getting HD in 2007 (originally haivng to use component), I've been enthralled at some of the images and we've watched a lot of content that we would not have otherwise - Planet Earth, Lost Land, Little Dorrit, Cranford - SCD last year, Torchwood - I could go on for ages.
Now, however, the channel has lost it's sparkle. My HD enabled TV may not be top of the range, but the settings have not been changed since I set up in August 08; yet the PQ has noticeably dropped. A quick check of the FTA HD channels on Astra 1 19E confirmed that everything was as I would have expected - no drop in quality there!
I think its pretty clear that the change in bit-rate has had an effect (we can't all be wrong) but I also feel that the regular BBC staff that post here have their hands tied in some way - that is not to say that I'm going to blindly accept the cut - having invested over £1000 in HD technology I feel that as a loyal BBC viewer (I've been trying to remember the last time I watched ITV but I can't), I have been very badly let down by the current state of HD-PQ.
There have been calls for the bit-rate to be increased to 12mB for a period to prove/disprove that the cut was responsible for the drop and I'd like to see this implemented. If this experiment were to show that the return to previous levels restores the PQ, it should be left there - I don't really care if it's cost or politics that caused the cut - but IMO a world leader in broadcasting cannot be seen to be offering second rate pictures on it's own turf - it's a massive own goal.
BBC - drop canvas, scale back on the disease that iplayer is becoming and invest in the core services, please.
Complain about this comment
I would agree that putting the bit-rate back up for a period would definitely give us an opportunity to act as real-world testers.
Something is most definitely amiss with the picture quality on BBCHD at the moment; most people suspect that it is down to the bit-rate reduction and this seems very plausible. I'm still of course open to the possibility that it IS an encoder issue, but it must surely be easier to test a higher bit rate first and then rule out the encoder than it would be to switch back to the old encoder. Test the easier and obvious first to rule it out.
The encoder may well be more efficient than the previous one, but it seems that this improved efficiency has been 'oversold' to all concerned. Of course, in theory a more efficient encoder could mean an imperceptible loss in quality at a lower data rate, but there are limits to this rate reduction. A more efficient encoder usually means improved quality at existing data rates, but an accountant will use this efficiency for something other than technical improvement.
Complain about this comment
Just been 'watching' "Last Chance to See" - I had 3 episodes recorded from the White Rhino through to the Indonesian one.
Turned off and deleted all 3 within 5 minutes of starting each episode. They were poor quality by SD standards nevermind HD and so poor in fact I simply couldn't bring myself to watch.
Complain about this comment
The new encoder is certainly more efficient but it still needs feeding enough bandwith to produce the goods.
Everyone can see 9mbps is not good enough, BBC HD can see this but they just dont seem bothered.
Its nothing personal but the channel is crying out for new blood with staff. New management and new tech guys just to give the channel some energy and commitment to quality.
Complain about this comment
There's is almost no way at all that a "trial period" would be viable for upping the bandwidth. As, unless they are able to keep it at that level, what would be the point?
All it would do would annoy people more, as it would be like dangling a carrot in front of viewers, only to take it away.
Just knowing that the higher bandwidth improves quality will not magically make said bandwidth available.
'Cos if it was, I'm sure they'd have upped it by now. To shut everyone up, if nothing else.
Complain about this comment
They have the bandwidth available Tiggs, they're trying to save money.
Personally I don't have a problem with or bandwidth reduction *provided* the encoders can still deliver a world class HD picture.
"Last Chance to See" has quite honestly been one of the worst pictures I've ever seen which was why I switched off 5 mins in.
Complain about this comment
I got HD in Aug 2007 so I never saw anything when the bit rate was at 20mbps in the trial period which the BBC tells us now was unsustainable.
However the BBC could do everyone a favour by broadcasting the same episode of Planet Earth one evening at a high bit rate and at a reduced bit rate but without telling anybody which was which and then inviting feedback.
If the overwhelming majority of people can see a difference in pic quality then the BBC would know it needs to do something. How about it ?
Complain about this comment
Alsone ~350
Last chance to see does indeed look awful.
However, considering other programs can look quite good (encoder problems notwithstanding) doesn't that suggest the issues had more to do with production/post production?
There is a danger of blaming everything on the encoder (BTW yes I do think it has issues and the bitrate is not sufficient), but there is no doubt in my mind that the production standards are not high enough in many cases.
Also, although I understand the creative decisions when applying "looks" to programs, I often think they are poor decisions.
IMHO these applied "looks" are often confused with poor quality HD.
Complain about this comment
@Tag, I think you're right, there are a number of factors in play here.
Andy told us that the BBC hadn't altered he encoders for a while but with Wildest Dreams, the 1st episode or two after the change was excellent. There were then a couple of truly dreadful episodes which were worse than FIVE SD followed by the Final Episode which as I've reported before was amazingly razor sharp and detailed.
My guess here is that *if* the encoder setting weren't altered, then someone from the production team read our blog posts and made changes in post production. Either way, Andy really needs to investigate this because if that was the case, the final episode shows that it is possible to produce a truly outstanding picture on this encoder.
Complain about this comment
@ Tiggs
That was my point, if the bandwidth is not going to be re-increased and it's a "like it or lump it" view, why not just say this is the way things are now.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
Unless AndyQ can convince me otherwise it seems to me that BBC HD have been instructed to match the transmission bandwidth of Satellite and FreeView systems. AndyQ is having to be very imaginative and compromise his professional integrity to convince us that the new encoders can compensate for the reduced bandwidth available.
Complain about this comment
I just dont understand why the bandwith cannott be upped to around 12mbps and Andy and Dannielle refuse point blank to answer.
A bit of honesty would not go amiss, but then again this is BBC HD.
Complain about this comment
@ 355, I think Andy Qs professional integrity went out the window a long time ago.
Complain about this comment
@355 Bill, I hope that isn't the case although many suspect it is.
@357 Wednesday, I think that's a little harsh. I'm sure Andy's hands are tied and hopefully he's battling to get our point across and accepted with whoever is making these decisions (I suspect the Trust). I hope he doesn't miss out the separate platform point though as to me the biggest thing handicapping Freesat at the moment is the fact that it has to play 2nd fiddle to Freeview as the compensation channel for those who can't receive it when in actual fact its the flagship service or would be if only they'd let the platforms find their own markets.
Complain about this comment
@ 358, Maybe I was a little harsh about Andy Q, but he does himself no favours with his answers and comments.
Complain about this comment
@354
That's the thing. They did. Previous bandwidth levels were stated as being "unsustainable".
Now, people here are quibbling about whether that's strictly true, or even whether it's a valid reason. But, to me, it reads exactly as "like it or lump it" put through the customer-facing filter.
Sometimes there is a party line that you have to tow. Personally, I'm mroe of a "criticise the party line" kind of person. But that's just me. That's not profesisonal. And I actually have respect for people who can maintain the official explanations against all criticisms.
Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with stuff.
Seriously, if AndyQ and Danielle acted like I would, the information would be out there, fingers would be pointed, but they would not perhaps be long for their jobs. And these blogs would cease to exist in their current format.
Complain about this comment
I think the real crunch will come with the World Cup. Freeview Psuedo HD will not be available in all areas which means that many viewers will have to invest in Freesat to get it in HD. Those who have gone the Freeview HD route will be very disaapointed that the picture quality is worse than that of the BBC's satellite pictures. They are also going to be annoyed with only haveing one channel which will mean that many important games will not be in HD. As for Freesat viewers they will also notice the increadable picture quality between the BBC and ITV. Of cource it may be that the BBC and ITV will collude and ITV may reduce their picture quality so as not to embarrase the BBC.
Complain about this comment
ITV HD quality is much better than BBC HD at the moment. Does anybody know what the current ITV HD bit rate is.
Complain about this comment
It was around 10.7. At these low levels every extra ounce of mbps makes a difference
Complain about this comment
wednesday83 and others - keep it civil please. You are unlikely to get Andy to talk to you if you call his professional integrity into question.
Complain about this comment
@ Nick, I think myself and many other BBC HD viewers are been very civil considering the constant fob offs and unacceptble answers from BBC HD. I understand you have a job to do but try and see the point of the BBC HD viewers:
Bandwith gets reduced to extremely low levels and the quality of BBC HD sinks. BBC HD refuse to comment other than the odd fob off. The Quality has got worse and shows most people assume would be in HD such as Championship football gets dropped because of a 5 minute clash with Strictly come Dancing.
We have not had one single apology from the head of BBC HD for the huge loss in quality and reduced bandwith. Not one.
Now try tell us we are been uncivil???
Even just a simple comment to explain why the bandwith had to bo reduced so low would be something.
All we get is an exapmple of a tv show that looks good on Andys TV.
BBC HD viewers want top quality HD pictures back.
Complain about this comment
What's disapointing is that after SCD last week with the repeated sound problems not one word of an update on the situation or an apology.
Andy Q has gone to ground and it seems Danielle has buried her head in the sand hoping the issues mentioned on here will go away.
As the paying public we deserve answers - anyone with responsibility in management has to take the flack when things go wrong, it comes with the job sadly.
Complain about this comment
@midzone,
I have heard that the viewer complaints have not gone away for Danielle. I am party to some limited inside information and I gather that there are now two complaints that have been raised to the BBC Trust about BBC HD picture quality. I am surprised actually that there have not had more complaints to the BBC Trust.
For those who don't know BBC Trust, they are an independent escalation route for the viewer when BBC management are not listening to feedback and/or there is an unresolved despute like this situation. So at the very least, there will be a third party other than Andy and Danielle looking at the matter pretty soon I expect.
@All,
On the subject of the BBC Trust, for those of you not satisfied with Danielle's response on here can I strongly encourage you to write again to BBC complaints and say that you so you want to refer your complaint to BBC Trust. It's then the simple matter of a letter to BBC Trust. I understand you'd need to do this within 20 working days after Danielle's post above, ie by 15 Oct at latest.
On a related note, please join me in wishing all the best health to Paul Geaton who you will know from his intelligent posts on here, and wish him a speedy recovery from ill health. I will try my best (despite I must admit it seeming an impossiblity at times) to move the complaint forward in what I hope is his temporary absence from this thread. All the best to Paul.
Complain about this comment
Nick I had great expectations of AndyQ, given his background and contributions at European Broadcast Union hosted events. I had expected the BBC HD service to be the Gold Standard in the UK. I believe Andy has compromised his professional integrity by allowing the significant reduction in picture quality. I am waiting to see how he explains his actions at the next public EBU hosted event.
Complain about this comment
Best wishes to Paul.
Tonight I watched a little of "Mountain". The HD was very good in a lot of the programme but disappointing in others.
One example of poor HD was some of the shots of the flock of rare sheep (that were EU subsidised to be kept) were soft whilst others were sharp. I also felt the close-ups of the presenters faces were soft compared to the shots immediately before them. Case of flattering the presenters in post maybe?
Complain about this comment
I had no idea that Paul Geaton had met with ill health--how could I?--but I wish him a speedy recovery. I hope that worries over the state of BBC HD had nothing to do with it!
His posts, like many, have been reasonable in tone but sharply judged about the direction BBC HD has been taking, and what to do about it. I was away during his efforts to write up a communal report for the Trust, but this makes digitalscoobiedo's point about writing to the Trust before Oct 15 all the more urgent. I should be getting my video processor back tomorrow (though such a thing shouldn't be necessary for HD :() and as I am so used to it being there I'll feel more confident about my own PQ judgments after that.
We are beyond blogs now. This may be why there has been so little feedback. Andy Quested, quite fairly, asked for comparisons of 'before and after' PQ. There have been some of those here, without immediate response, but perhaps more of the same directed at the Trust will make a difference.
I hope to be working up such a report within the deadline. Part of the reason I haven't done this so far is that I've been without the v/p. But tbh, since at its strictest it's a matter of comparing recordings with repeats, I could have done that already and the lack of v/p would have cancelled itself out. I think I've been avoiding it because it's so damn painful to see what's happened!
Complain about this comment
@ alsone. Have you looked at the HD version on the BBCi player? Are the same differences in PQ evident?
@paul_geaton Be back soon.
Complain about this comment
Here are my thoughts on a few areas
NEW ENCODERS AND BITRATE
Why did the BBC not advise us beforehand that the new encoders were arriving. A simple blog post could have advised us and indicated that they might be teething promblems. I believe this would have stpopped the complaints escalating. Also why drop the bit rate 40% why not drop it slowly after bedding in the new encoders?
If the bbc has the responsibilty of keeping bandwith low does that mean that all the channels currently transmitting at higher bit rates are being irresponsible?
Would it not have been good for the new encoders to arrive at the old bit rate and the picture quality improve rather than stading still or getting worse.
PQ & UPSCALING
Picture quality has got worse there is no question about it. Everyone on this blog cant be wrong.We would ot be complaining if PQ was not worse. Would it not be good if everyone was saying that other HD channels were not as good instead of better.A friend of mine got SKY HD after I informed him of the quality of my BBCHD. ON the day it arrived I texted him to ask if it was installed yet, he replied yes but nothing was on in HD at the moment to see the difference.I replied for him to check 143 BBCHD as the preview was in HD, he replied straight away with the simple text WOW!. Sadly the WOW factor has now disapeared.C4HD upscales all there content if it is not hD and the PQ is excellent even on a 4:3 picture of Fraiser. On Freeview HD I believe ITV will upscale prime time also, the BBC will be showing repeats and will no doubt be the worst quality picture are you not embaresed by this.
SOUND DROP OUTS
The SCD sound drop outs, why was there not a apology during the programme or at the end?This was supposed to be being monitored and yet no one noticed it.Surely someone at the BBCHD team was watching at home and could have phoned in to advise the studio.I got the impression Andy did not believe me when I said the problem was also on Virgin Media.Why would I ay this if it was not true?
CHAMPIONSHIP FOOTBALL AND WORLD CUP
I was aware via the radio times website that the football was not showing in HD,even though the BBC Football website said it was.If you knew in advance why again did you not inform us of the problem ( what ever it was,we still dont know as no one has told us)A siple post to advise us and apolgise would have been nice after all you did promise games would be covered. Also feedback on whether future games will be covered, but still nothing.I really fear for the World Cup will this be another promise broken?
MARKETING
The lack of announcements that programmes are also in HD is evry poor as is promotions of future programmes in HD. I believe ITV and C4 announce when a programme is in HD. Can you imagine SKY advertising the Football and forgetting to mention it is also in HD??
In Summary
1. Please advise us in advance of any many changes or broken promises.
2. Please apologise when you make a mistake. I dont expect you to be perfect but the odd apology would be nice. If I make a mistake for a customer the first thing I do is ring up and apolgise.
3. Please promote your channel or else no one will know about it.
I would like peoples views on my comments. Danielles and Andy's would be nice but that is highly unlikely.
P.S. All the best to Paul get well soon
Complain about this comment
@Derek I don't watch iPlayer but I just took a look specially. Mountains isn't listed as available.
Complain about this comment
Danielle in your blog you say:
"I want to add that the BBC HD blog is a very important discussion and communications forum for us, but as you have clearly observed we don't respond to every single comment raised on it."
Well up to now Danielle there have been 373 posts and you have not responded to a single one of them. This blog is meant to be your blog but you have ignored all of them.
This problem has now been with us for nearly 2 months now and we have seen no improvement. As head of BBC HD you need take some action and get this fixed. It is totally unacceptable to continue to waist licence payers money in this way.
Complain about this comment
I got no reply when I made a complaint about the picture quality, only having to read the blog update which diverted away form the answers people wanted. How do I raise a complaint to the trust with regards to the degraded HD pictures?
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Complain about this comment
I must admit that both Danielle and Andy have nailed their flags to the mast as the architects of low quality HD. Our only hope now is for the BBC Trust to replace them with people who are commited to higher standards and understand that quality is sacrosanct for an HD service. Although I think most of us would like more HD channels we do not want them at the price of inferior quality.
Complain about this comment
SCD tonight lots of pixelating around the contestants necks and faces during the results announcement. Ad once again the grahics for contestant's names looked horrible.
Complain about this comment
To all at BBC HD: Thanks for Countryfile HD.
Complain about this comment
Andy Quested if you get a chance can you take a look at Rangers vs Celtic on Sky sports HD3 and Arsenal vs Blackburn on Sky Sports HD1. Excellent picture quality. Also take a look at the bit rates those channel use.
This kind of quality is something BBC HD will never get with the stupid bandwith levels you are currently insisting on. The quality of those matches is superb.
BBC HD should be insisting on trying to get to these kind of quality levels.
Complain about this comment
Hello all, I hope Nick will allow me a short, off-topic, comment. Just to say 3 weeks ago I found that I had a cancerous tumour, quite unexpectedly, but I'm now out of hospital after surgery to remove it. Thanks to everyone for all the good wishes re: my state of health, it was very touching to see them. I look forward to making a speedy recovery and rejoining the debate soon. Paul.
Complain about this comment
Paul - I'll allow your comment because it would be callous to remove it. But can I remind people that this is not a message board and stay on topic.
Best wishes for your recovery.
Complain about this comment
Well, as NickReynolds has given a warning, I'll just get on with it and say, wasn't the sound on the Countryfile weather forecast a mess of audio dropouts? At least someone was paying attention as an apology caption came up quickly. Hopefully this will have been so extreme an example of whatever the fault is that it will be relatively easy to track it down.
BTW PQ seemed rather better than last week, at least the bits of last week's that I saw.
Complain about this comment
PQ of Countryfile on SD was still poor, a result, I assume, of shooting in 25p (or some very odd PP effect). This, and the general dumbing down of the programme mean I've zapped the Series Link after 2 years.
Complain about this comment
In addition to 383, I switched to BBC1 during the weather forecast, there were no audio problems there. When going back to HD, the problems were still evident. That said, I didn't notice any audio problems with the sound on SCD this week.
It was also good to see an apology caption for the sound issues during the weather forecast, so either someone was monitoring in playout, or the phones were busy :-)
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many people with non Sky HD/Freesat HD PVRs are recording HD programmes on to DVD/HDD/Video and think that when they're playing them back they're watching in HD? More than a few I'd bet. Do TV retailers explain this major drawback with single tuner/integrated TV Freesat boxes?
Here's an example of GBP technical ignorance, on a forum last night I'm sure there are many more!!
"Haven't a clue myself about HD though, though I know our telly can get it I'm not sure our Freesat gives it to us. If I remember rightly we have to fit some other bit of equipment which didn't work when we tried it."
Complain about this comment
That is a good point Derek. However, there are plenty of us with HD equipment that do see the problems. You are right though in that there will be some people out there who think they are watching HD when they aren't. Watch the fun start when Freeview switches over!
Personally, I haven't watched anything on BBC (HD or otherwise) for a while. Simply nothing that interests me at all (feedback I gave in Scheduling discussion). I have heard though that a few report an improved picture on SCD on Friday.
Complain about this comment
Paul_geaton, I wish you a speedy and full recovery. Do you need any assistance with your complaint to the BBC Trust? If so I will give you an e-mail address to send it to and try co-ordinating anyone who wants to add their signature.
On PQ, there has been no improvement in my view, in fact some SD broadcasts particularly C4 have been better than BBC HD. It is dissappointing that there has been no response from Danielle nor Andy, I am hoping they are trying to do something to bring PQ back to what it was pre new encoders, but I am not holding my breath.
Roger Watkins.
Complain about this comment
@ 388, I think Andy and Danielle gave up a while back. They have not given one single apology for the mess the channels in and not answered why the bandwith was lowered to such unacceptable levels.
I think you are hoping for too much in wanting the quality to go up under their leadership.
Personally Im hoping someone higher up who has some more power drags all of BBC HD in to an office and tells em to sort it out or get out.
Despite what we are seeing its not a circus, its an HD channel, which sadly rarely looks HD.
Is honesty and apologies too hard to ask for?? Well in the case of BBC HD it appears so.
Complain about this comment
I have followed this blog with interest over the last week or two as I too have noticed some issues with BBC HD PQ. However, I do feel that certain comments are a little unrealistic. For instance, in post 380, wednesday83 asks Andy Quested to look at the broadcast quality of Rangers v Celtic & Arsenal v Blackburn on Sky Sports 1. Yes, the quality was good, but it costs around £600 per annum to watch Sky Sports HD compared to BBC HD (which is available at no extra cost on top of the licence fee) so at that rate I would expect it to be better.
Also, Sky Sports is a specialised sports channel making it easier for them to optimise their broadcast set-up, compared to BBC HD which shows a wider range of programming from a wider range of source material than any other HD channel in the UK. On any given night you can have live sport followed by a documentry, period drama followed by a concert. There is no other single channel in UK attempting to do this, and sometimes it would seem this is stretching BBC HD's current limitations - financial or otherwise.
As I said, I do share a lot of concerns on PQ expressed on this board, but I am sorry that a few contributors seem to be so unrealistic with their comments and also appear to think it fair game to make quite vitriolic attacks on Andy Quested - a bit sad when you consider all the bad things that can happen in the world. It's only telly at the end of the day - calm down! There is generally a good debate on here, and I for one really value Andy's information and input.
Complain about this comment
@Rogerdw and Paul_Geaton(wishing you a very speedy recovery)
I would be happy to contribute or add my signature for a complaint to the trust. Before that happens, hopefully Andy will post some test results and I would like a follow up on why the bitrate was cut to such a low level. They are fully aware that the bitrate is below the EBU's recommendation. As most of the people on this blog have said, bitrate is a factor. If it wasn't then nobody would buy blueray to watch something with a low bitrate with poor picture quality.
Complain about this comment
@Rogerdw, zubeirp, and others thanks for the offers and the good wishes too. The Trust has given me a 6-month extension for my appeal re: Danielle's reply to my PQ complaint (which is the subject of this Blog). That appeal would otherwise have been due a week today and, although I'd made a start on it before my illness really kicked-in, it's still far from ready to proceed with. Unfortunately, now, it's no longer high on my priorities either, so if anyone wants to take-on a coordination role for me then I'm more than happy for the help. Of note, I have an FOI request in to the BBC and some work will be necessary trawling through whatever that throws up as the results expected very soon. Again, any help with that would be welcomed so that I can concentrate on my further treatment. I'd sort of hoped that I'd come out of hospital to find that PQ was back to the pre-Aug changes levels but the 1st thing I watched, Coutryfile, was no better than it had been the previous week. Rogerdw, if you want to send me a Private Message re: getting in touch by email then you'll find me over on the Digital Spy or AV forums, with the same username (where that facility is offered).
Complain about this comment
Paul,
I am more than happy to help. Can't use DS as I have to pay with a yahoo address. Try contacting me on don31592@yahoo.co.uk. It is a throw away address. If you would like to send your draft to me I'll have a look at it and see if I can add to it. I was rather hoping things might not take take the six months the trust have allowed for your appeal.
Regards, Roger.
Complain about this comment
@389
That's assuming that it's not the higherups calling the shots and mandating the lower birates, etc.
Complain about this comment
...which is almost certainly the case. These are the people whose decisions need to be put to public scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Well my best friend popped round tonight to catch up and watch Rough Justice on BBC HD and said:
1.) Why are you not watching it in HD?
2.) Is this BBC 1?
3.) I don't think I will bother upgrading to HD now
Interestingly, I had not filled him in on the debate here so surely that should mean something to someone?!
Kyle
Complain about this comment
Danielle, You still have not apologised for whats happening. I work in customer services and the first thing id do is say SORRY and then promise to sort the problems out.
Complain about this comment
Saturday afternoon (3rd October) on BBCHD (via Sky) seemed audio dropout-free (Rick Stein and Strictly).
But the dropouts were back on Tuesday evening (Criminal Justice and the HD bumpers afterwards).
On PQ - the Jonathan Ross show has looked a tad soft when I've glanced at it over the past couple of weeks, and there was some obvious MPEG smearing, and a loss of resolution on movement, in Tuesday's Criminal Justice.
Complain about this comment
Criminal Justice last night (episode 1, 5th Oct) had quite a lot issues a far as I could tell.
Firstly motion was very bad (shot 25p?)
This programme had (or should have had!) quite a lot of intentional fine grain by the looks of it in the interior / night scenes and this really showed up the problems with using too low a bitrate. Areas of background graininess broke up regularly into MPEG blockiness. And some grainy areas were not resolved fully resulting in flat patches in backgrounds. A grainy look can really add to the 'feel' of a programme, but this gritty look was more or less destroyed by this last step in transmission which the director has no control over. This of course raises questions of artistic vision being compromised.
As I noted before, the image looked like it was not 'native' resolution - ie it had the look of an image that had been upscaled, resulting in softness caused by pixel interpolation.
Quite disappointing I'd say.
I'll watch again tonight to confirm these observations.
Complain about this comment
Re Criminal Justice. It's the production. Last year's was the same, hardly looked HD. Do a Google - Criminal Justice BBC HD, PQ!!
I watched Emma last night. Very good PQ and DD5.1 as well. On Sunday I switched over to the BBC1 showing during an ad break on Doc Martin (awful HD BTW) and the difference last night was clearly noticeable.
Complain about this comment
What's the point of producing in HD if the 'artist intent' negates any benefit?
SD content on 4hd and LivingHD look just as good!?
Complain about this comment
typo - 'artistic intent'
Complain about this comment
I think Doc Martin is filmed in super 16 film which is not really HD. ITV's football is alot better.
There has been an eerie silence from both Andy and Danielle over the past few weeks. In fact Danielle has not made a single post to this blog which is meant to belong to her. The sound problems are still not fixed. The promised test results have not been published. No appology from the BBC. Football in HD abandoned. What a mess!. Its clear that the BBC has serious management problem. The BBC seem to have no vision for the future HD. We have been told nothing about their long term plans probably because they have not got a clue as what to do.
Complain about this comment
@ trevorjharris. I would agree it looks like it's shot on 16mm film, which of course the BBC wouldn't scan into HD for transmission - PQ indicates the BBC's policy is correct!! I think Kingdom was the same. ITV must have a different policy.
Complain about this comment
Derek, I seem to remember asking on here about 2 months ago (before the encoder and bitrate changes) why the PQ was so bad for the History Boys film. You responded then that it was shot in 16mm, and Andy Q confirmed it. So why did the BBC scan that film for HD transmission, against policy? I forgot to ask then.
Strangely, although the poor picture then proved that a policy of not accepting 16mm sourced HD material was right (even if not strictly observed), it seems that the BBC have since accepted a new policy of transmitting other material with a much lower PQ, e.g. Countryfile the other evening.
Complain about this comment
RE Criminal Justice, Whilst not produced that well, as mentioned in post 339, there was many scenes that showed it could not cope with the lack of bandwith. Too much blocking especially on dark scenes.
I think some people have to stop making excuses with bandwith and face up to the fact the channel just is not good enough with the low bandwith it is using.
The evidence is in shows that were screened before the drop and screened now. THE SAME SHOWS lower quality.
A simple increase to at least 12mbps would solve many of the issues.
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
Actually I don't think that 12mb/s would make much difference. The major problem with BBC Pseudo HD is that they use a constant bit rate. You realy need to use variable bit rate to get the optimum use of bandwidth. Sky often peaks up to 20mb/s with averages of about 14mb/s. The BBC have never explained why they use a constant bit rate it just seems to be a bad engineering policy to me.
Complain about this comment
My point about the grain was really to say that grain acts as a useful yardstick for visually assessing encoding quality. There's no reason that this programme couldn't look better.
A higher bitrate would help to render the grain properly and give it a more stable and 'natural' look. As well as a practical (financial) decision, it is also possible that 16mm was chosen deliberately for its 'look'. Either way, the HD transmission should be transparent and show this material as is.
With a poorer-quality source material to work from, a high (or sufficiently adaptive) bitrate is MORE essential than with pristine material as the encoder has more work to do encoding the pre-existing noise and grain.
The argument that transmitting this stuff in SD or that it actually looks better (due to smoothing) at a lower bitrate is bogus.
Complain about this comment
@408 I'm a bit confused about the grain comment. In an ideal picture or even a good, there should be no visible grain especially at HD level of detail.
Where there is grain the idea that somehow that can be used as a measure of bit rate is way out there. You'd have to discard an awful amount of information to result in visible grain through compression losses, far beyond compression levels that any broadcast company would even consider.
If there is grain in a programme then its more likely to be "noise" - ie. gain (no r) caused by the digital sensor chip in the camera and itself caused by inadequate lighting - when there is insufficient light the digital circuitry on a modern digital camera compensates by electronically amplifying (gaining up) the signal from the CCD / CMOS to get a better picture. Unfortunately in doing so you introduce electronic transient noise and this is seen as visible grain on the screen.
Further you talk about using grain as measure of quality and yet the way you disguise grain in footage is by blurring the picture - not something conducive to quality. Conversely the more you sharpen an image / footage the more grain becomes apparent because the increased edge detail / contrast between dissimilar areas / pixels becomes more apparent. In fact the more you sharpen the more you bring out the other detail in a picture until you reach a point where you get halos in which case the halos themselves start to obscure detail, although in no haloed areas you may still see even more detail!
You can see how sharpening increase visible detail by the comparison I did here:
http://yfrog.com/10comparisonbj
If anything BBC HD tends to be soft. Using grain as a yardstick therefore would result in even further softening of the picture and even less visible detail.
If grain is a problem in a programme there are 3 aspects to consider:
a) The camera used - some cameras are noisier than others and some have better low light capabilities
b) The lighting
c) Whether its simply unavoidable - quite possible in very dark scenes
Compression isn't likely to come into it at broadcast levels.
Complain about this comment
@Alsone
I think you are thinking I mean picture noise when I actually mean grain. (Either added deliberately in post-production or inherent in the original filmstock).
Film grain is inherent to one degree or another and is often deliberately emphasised by a director to add a gritty or 'documentary' feel to drama. A good blockbuster example is Steven Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds'. There is extensive visible grain throughout this film and it is INTENTIONAL and the film would be less without it.
So, in this case an 'ideal' picture would be one that includes this grain, not one that obfuscates it with digital noise and artefacts as in last night's Criminal Justice.
Grain, introduces a lot of fine motion detail into an image and it is this detail that exposes lack of bandwidth or bad encoding as this material is 'hard work' for an encoder. This is why if you are watching an image that has film grain that looks stable and 'naturalistic' you know the encoder is behaving quite well. If the grain becomes patchy, indistinct or suffers other aberrations, then bandwidth is probably lacking.
When a grainy or poor-quality source is encoded at to low a bitrate this grain becomes blocky, indistinct and ridden with artefacts.
One should easily be able to tell genuine grain from digital noise on a good transfer. Last night, digital noise become more apparent as the grain defeated the encoding process.
As for sharpening, I saw no evidence of any excessive sharpening being applied to the transfer.
So, to recap if the source is grainy, then more bandwidth is needed to resolve the fine detail that grain is.
Complain about this comment
@ paul_geaton. The BBC didn't scan the History Boys into HD. It was supplied to them by the distributor already in HD broadcast format.
Complain about this comment
#406, Wednesday, I hear tell that the BBC Points of View Team are interested in this issue of poor picture quality for Criminal Justice on BBC HD. They've apparently asked some complainants to do a Video about it for them. Perhaps if they're flooded with videos on the same issue it might broaden the exposure of this HD PQ issue beyond a Blog which is only read by a couple of dozen members of the public and 3 (known) employees of the BBC (assuming Danielle is reading it too).
Complain about this comment
Further to my #412. May as well give them a free plug, just to say Points of View returns to our screens on 11 Oct. So as they say "Why not make a film of your opinions and send it in for broadcast on the Points of View programme? Please email your video files (10MB limit) to videopov@bbc.co.uk". There's plenty of HD issues that could fill up their first programme; of course there's PQ, but also what about HD programme choice, scheduling, sport, to name just a few.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with other comments Criminal Justice picture quality is very poor. What is the obsession with soft focus and dark scenes it does not look good in HD at all.
I see the next Championship game is not listed as HD on the football web site.So looks like we get 1/10 in HD about the same score I would give the HD channel at the moment.
Looks like Danielle and co have given up on HD.I suspect Andy is off playing with Freeview HD.
Good idea lets all send video into Points of View.
Perhaps Andy should get one of these then he can compare quality of HD channels on the same screen.Another day passes and still no blog on his tests I suspect they show quality 40 % down.
http://www.techradar.com/news/television/9-ways-the-toshiba-regza-cell-will-change-tv-640744
What a shame that the BBC have gone backwards on the HD front we have all been let down.If only the HD team had half of the passion and commitment to HD quality of the people on this blog it would be 100% better.