BBC HD: Interview with Danielle Nagler on Points of View
Post categories: hdtv
| 08:55 UK time, Monday, 9 November 2009
Danielle Nagler, Head of BBC HD and a regular contributor to this blog was interviewed on yesterday's Points of View.
Among the topics covered was picture quality which has provoked a lively discussion on Danielle's previous posts.
Here's a link to the programme. The interview with Danielle is the first item. There's also an extended interview on the Points of View website (scroll down - it's the second video after the "Featured" heading).
There are discussions about the programme on the Points of View message board, Digital Spy and a post on Radio and Telly.
Keep your comments civil and within the house rules please.
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, BBC Online
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Many thanks for the other links Nick.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
I look forward to an explanation why factual inaccuracies about bit rate were allowed to be broadcast by a senior manager at the BBC on a BBC programme.
Such statements are made from a position of privilege and it is an abuse of that privilege to mis-inform a public who would invest such a position with a degree of trust.
Complain about this comment
Has something happened over the last few days? The picture seems to have improved or is it my imagination?
Complain about this comment
Sorry I forgot to mention,
Danielle,
I'm not stupid, I understand the difference between crisp sharp images on one programme and a different kind of picture on a drama for example. That's not the issue. The issue has been what has alreadt been described which has nothing to do with the type of programme broadcast. How come out of around 35 HD channels, BBC HD is the only one people are having problems with? It can't be the viewers who are wrong surely?
Complain about this comment
Oh but it is the Viewers who are wrong as Danielle literally pointed out on POV by practically calling us all liars when we say there are problems with the picture quality.
Complain about this comment
Midzone1 - Danielle did not call anyone a liar. Moderate your tone please.
Complain about this comment
Danielle did however deliberately obfuscate by misrepresenting the nature of the complaints and making factually inaccurate statements.
Complain about this comment
Keep you comments civil ...
Schoolboy typo there Nick
Complain about this comment
.... and still no detailed rollout plans for Freeview HD. This is getting beyond a joke now. I still refuse to believe that the complexity of contract negotiations are behind this. It's just rediculous when the details of the transmitter programme for the introduction of UHF in the 1960's and 1970's and the extension of BBC 1 and ITV to UHF in the 1970's were signposted up to a year sometimes more in advance.
.... some followup please?
Complain about this comment
Looks like BBC HD TV is going to end up the same sort of joke that "near CD quality" DAB radio is. The picture quality has deteriorated significantly and no amount of denials from BBC staff is going to convince me otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Let me give a very good example:
Sky One HD broadcast an American crime drama called 'Cold Case'. The picture has a 'soft' look yet the picture quality is absolutely superb. It's still a stunning programme to watch yet the soft style is deliberate.
So the argument that it's down to the individual programme is absolute rubbish.
Complain about this comment
More questions were raised than answered.
Digital on screen graphics are a commercial creation, why does BBC HD need to copy its commercial rivals? What public broadcasting need is there for it?
BBC HD is also wrong to claim that by reducing the bit-rate they can help different styles of filming.
Only the production company with its cameras can help create a certain style of filming.
Reducing bit-rates has no effect on different styles other than to reduce the quality of all HD broadcasts.
The BBC HD channel currently has the ability to boost its bit-rate to improve the channel as there is capacity. Enough spare capacity for exists not only to improve the current channel but there is enough to launch a second HD channel.
The only current reason for reducing the picture is to test how low the bit-rate can be for future broadcast on freeview and satellite and viewers must complain.
Complain about this comment
I've been following all of these comments on the various HD-related blog posts and have even posted once or twice.
A couple of things:
I'm amazed and very disheartened by the amount of comments that have been posted, but also encouraged by the dedication, persistance and strength of argument put forth by several people as well as their calm and well-worded posts. However, a couple of people are regularly posting inflammatory comments, which while I don't doubt are heartfelt and represent the poster's point of view, are actually weakening the argument and turning these comments into a slanging match. I do not wish to belong to an internet 'rabble' and this is why I haven't posted much of late. For the benefit of all, could we please read our own posts before posting them and try and make comments based on reasoned argument (whether technical or not).
Now that I've got that off my chest, I'd like to just say that I missed POV (but will watch on the web later) but I gather from the comments on these blogs that many are unhappy with what was said. I'll have to see for myself before I comment on that.
Anyway, to get things back on track, I'd like to restate what I feel is the case for BB HD's bitrates to be higher than at present.
My belief is that the difference between SD and HD is simple. SD is a 'utilitarian' one-size fits all service designed to give access to the widest number of people in the most cost-effective manner possible. It is about ACCESS to programming and not picture quality. iPlayer falls into this category also - while the quality is good for web video, I doubt there is anyone who would choose to watch iPlayer specifically for its quality.
HD is an entirely different proposition. It's all about quality delivery of programming and showing that programming in as good a light as possible. "HD," let's not forget, is even in the very name of the service. HD is not a new platform (but is almost being confused for one). It is a quality-based service that is delivered through existing platforms. There is no unique programming on BBC HD that can not be seen elsewhere, so if BBC HD doesn't deliver the promise of High Definition, then it is redundant, and the channel is little more than a time-shifted or "+1" type channel - merely an alternative place to watch BBC programmes. Viewing figures for HD are not going to go up unless there is word of mouth from people that rave about the quality. Simple as that I'm afraid.
Sadly, it seems that the remit for BBC HD was written in different times, and most troubling is the difficulty with which we are being faced in getting the BBC to stick to this mission statement. At the end of the day we are customers and it is with our money that the BBC exists. (By the way I fully support the licence fee as I think at present we get pretty good value on the whole - it's just that BBC HD is not as good as it once was or as good as it should be).
There was a discussion regarding the artistic merits of deliberate use of film grain and other picture 'looks' a while back which I'd like to address again only to say this: An HD transmission stream should be robust enough to be totally transparent to the picture source. What I mean by this is that the encoder should be sufficiently effective so that that complex areas of 'micro movement' such as grain, rain, mist and other particulate matter should not cause blocking artefacts. In its current form BBC HD is not transparent to source and therefore the encoding and transmission of this source is detracting from the quality of the image. If BBC HD is going to transmit a wide range of programming then simply put, the encoding and transmission process has to be much robust than at present. Under no circumstances should this process introduce aberrations into the image.
Complain about this comment
By fixing the channels bandwidth it now means that the transponder is wasting bandwidth.
There is enough transponder room on the transponder to create a red button HD stream.
Currently bandwidth is wasted, enough for a red button HD channel and to unfix the bitrates.
Such a red button HD stream could be provided to
Sports viewers are also being let down, this issue wasn't covered that much.
Sky Sports showed HD highlights of the Rugby League match France v Australia, this match went out in the early afternoon live on the BBC and could have been shown on BBC HD as it wouldn't have clashed with anything.
BBC HD could have also shown highlights today of the England v Australia game which was shown in HD as well.
It's understandable that it would have been difficult to show the Wales v New Zealand match in HD because of the clash with Strictly Come Dancing but next year the BBC needs to work with Strictly Come Dancing and the BBC Sport department so Autumn Internationals can be shown in HD followed by Strictly Come Dancing.
Also ITV had the perfect example of how to bring 6 nations rugby from Ireland,France and Italy and events like Formula One, The Grand National and other Rugby League and Union matches that the BBC has.
They used an outside broadcast company, which you could clearly see today for the Northwich Victoria v Charlton game.
They had 2 presenters on the pitch side working with those in the outside broadcast unit to help produce pre-game half-time and post game coverage in HD.
The game was brought in HD with no studio needed to keep costs down on BBC HD and Sport could do this as well to bring more sports in HD.
The BBC could work with local outside broadcast units for the Italy and France games and provide the HD coverage to those countries broadcasters to share the costs. While for Ireland games the BBC could send over a outside broadcast unit and produce the game in a similar fashion to the Northwich Victoria v Charlton game so all 6 nations games are brought in HD.
Bringing more sport in HD like Formula One is far more important than daytime television shows like Flog it and The Unsellables.
These are poor programmes especially The Unsellables which is just acting like an Estate Agent on BBC HD.
There is little reason for Hole in the Wall as well. Viewers would rather see Merlin and Spooks.
So far BBC HD is available in roughly 2.6 million homes or 12% of UK households. By the World Cup this could be 20% or even greater. Certainly by the end of next year with freesat and freeview HD and cable and satellite services it could be in more than 25% of homes.
People just don't want poor daytime shows like Flog it and the Unsellables using money from the BBC HD budget, they want better shows.
Can anyone explain why BBC HD is trying to claim that Life is a film? Look at the BARB listings.
Is BBC HD trying to meet its sport and film quota by mis-labelling programmes?
Complain about this comment
I watched the original POV on TV last night and have just watched the extended version online. It was amazing how Danielle could sit there and defend the picture quality and she acted like a politician in not answering the questions correctly as well as providing false information.
I personally did not expect any different from the POV I knew that was what we were going to get,One thing I do hope is that now this issue has been aired on TV that more people who sit at home and are unhappy with the picture quality will contact the BBC to raise their complaint as there is possibly some who think it's just them but can see now its a widescale problem
Complain about this comment
As I thought POV gave the issues lip service - the sequences were well edited together and Danielle gave scripted answers provided by others no doubt.
I would like to see Danielle come and answer the many questions on this blog direct and stop hiding behind a smoke screen. I would think with all the reaction the channel is receiving the BBC HD Department is an interesting place to be working in today.
I repeat my thoughts from yesterday - Danielle's proud achievements over the last year - and whilst the new shows are admirable the fact the station has lost viewers, the constant technical problems together with the awful picture quality are hardly things to be proud of. The station is a poor imitation of what it once was. I am sure questions will be asked if the BBC genuinely is concerned about it's product. HD on the BBC is becoming a joke within in the industry, and sadly as Channel Director the buck stops with Danielle.
In addition my comments about Danielle calling us liars was a bit harsh - however she needs to take off her rose tinted glasses and deal with the criticisms and not just ignore them and hope they will go away. So many viewers can't be wrong. Maybe a trip to Specsavers is required?!?!?
Complain about this comment
As bitrate does not effect quality why was it not reduced by 90%?
Complain about this comment
* Affect not effect sorry!
Complain about this comment
Given how many times POV have mentioned her appearance and invited questions on the POV message board, yesterday's appearance was a complete let down. We wanted, and we were led to believe we would get, answers, but all we got was a succession of pre-prepared, and, in some cases, factually incorrect waffle. Ms. Nagler obviously doesn't watch her own output, otherwise she would have seen the degradation in quality that has afflicted BBC HD.
Just out of interest, does anyone know Ms. Nagler's background? All I can find that that she used to be head of the Director-General’s office.
Complain about this comment
Danielle Nagler, who will report to the BBC controller of multiplatform and portfolio, Simon Nelson, joined the BBC in 1996 as a journalism trainee.
She later led the BBC project team alongside the BBC2 controller, Roly Keating, working on charter renewal.
Complain about this comment
Picture quality is an issue and is a technical and commercial issue and it is also never going to be fixed once and for all!
For many viewers so long as the box in the corner flashes brightly they don't care (this must be the case or there would be far more complaints).
I think the the problems stem from multiple transcoding, editing and switching, particularly live switching. It the analogue days so long as everything was gen-locked together switching took place between frames (actually fields?). If we assume everything is shot in 1920x1080 HD edited as such (uncompressed) and then transmitted there will still be problems as the bandwidth of the transmission system means that there will be substantial compression (and hence a loss of data not only in an individual frame but over a stream of frames as compression takes place in the time domain too.) This is inevitable. But quite a lot of material is not shot in 1920x1080 - uncompressed and uses such things a HDV (which actually compresses in both colour and luminance and to 1440 etc and then expands to 1920).
Because the codecs used for transmission also compress over a range of frames (actually fields) there will inevitably be problems and I see no alternative than having to put up with them as it not only depends on the encoder used by the broadcaster but also the many different decoders in the viewers' TVs. That is life and live TV has even more problems relating to multiple transcoding and no time to do off-line re-encoding and optimising the image data! (Hence the football pitch looks really well mowed some of time - but this is just an illusion of the encoding system.)
I shoot in (the pro version of) AVCHD which preserves more of the image data than HDV, but expand to uncompressed to edit giving me gigantic files but then I can edit frame by frame. I would like to shoot in 25p or 24p as it gives me more of the feel of film but transmission systems are mainly 50i (50 fields interlaced). I would also love to shoot in 2k or 4k and cinemascope 2.66:1.
There is also another issue - HD needs more accurate focussing than SD as out of focus HD looks far worse than out of focus SD. (I can technically explain why, but I won't here) I am just trying to explain why some TV looks less than optimal from time to time! (And that is without considering the very narrow bandwidth and hence the low bit rate of many channels.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well THAT was the response?
'No evidence that reducing the bitrate has an impact on quality or that there is an absolute relationship between bitrate and picture quality'
As many have posted here bitrate we know it isn't the 'only' factor (in picture quality) and neither have most people here said there is an 'absolute relationship' between the two.
It is the ability of the newer codec to maintain the previously high quality 'or even as we would like, improve on it (ie. not just maintain the 16Mb quality but get back to the 18-20Mb quality) when cut so savagely by 50% (not 40%) that we query.
The issue was side-stepped by 'there is no evidence'
Well that puts us in our place doesn't it!
'we have a very active convsersation'
What? We write, with 890 plus posts in that one thread alone - but the other side of this 'conversation' is rather less active!
'...no...the slogan is HD - really great pictures'
Well I'm not getting 'really great pictures' and I KNOW my TV can display such quality pictures if broadcast but that's not what I am seeing now.
Very disappointed - 'stone walling at its best - but not in HD'
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment
What's that old phrase - 'It's not what you know it's who you know'.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately it is not possible to watch the POV outsite the UK. I like the worldwide web :-( If statements are comming via video with conditional access I dont't need to read the response.
In general I like this blog. Especially the technical explainations from Andy Quested.
Please make the POV accessible from all over the world or publish additionally a print version of this. This would be great!
Complain about this comment
I Suggest that all bloggers send a complaint as I did with regards to the incorrect statement Danielle made about Bitrates and picture quality.
Complain about this comment
@NickReynolds: As you've closed the previous thread on picture quality
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/a_day_in_the_life_of_the_head.html
it would be good if you could include a direct link to it in the preamble to this thread, as it contains evidence of technical problems that Danielle claimed doesn't exist (post 11 (compare post 12), and 194). (The evidence, that is, not the problems.) There are more examples on these blogs, but I'm sure they would be a helpful start for the interested newcomer to this issue.
Tia.
Complain about this comment
PS there have now been over 400 views of the first image, that of Dennis Lawson as Van Gogh might have rendered him. I hope that some of them were from The Look, the post-production house for Criminal Justice, and from the director of the show.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andrew Knight asked re the DOG: "What public broadcasting need is there for it?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle did answer that question on POV when she said some viewers need a DOG to help them navigate the channels.
Complain about this comment
Because most viewers can't read an EPG!
What rubbish - it's there for marketing and nothing more.
Complain about this comment
trevorjharris - if you continue to accuse Danielle of 'lying' your comments will continue to be removed. No one on this thread calls anyone else a liar please.
Complain about this comment
DN tells us the DOG is a navigation tool.
So I challenge DN and any of her staff to give me the make and model number of any equipment used by viewers like us, that can render her HD broadcast on a screen, that does not bring up its own menu and information bar as soon as you start navigating.
(These inbuilt navigation tools do a better and more comprehensive job than a DOG could ever do.)
Come on the gauntlet is thrown........name me one.
Complain about this comment
I have mixed feelings about the POV broadcast. I actually agree about the concept of picture 'sharpness' not being the same as 'detail'. I think the problem for some folks is that depth of field plays a role where a major part of the picture may not be 'in focus'.
I think there is a misunderstanding about what constitutes the 'filmic' look. 24/25 fps pictures somehow do not convey - for me at least - a sense of realism. Certainly NOT 'dream-like for the mind' as the creatives would have you believe, simply LESS believable. 50i does give sense of live-ness but can introduce well known display defects especially on a progressive display under certain conditions on which I shall wane lyrical. There is MORE 'association' into a programme/feature with a higher picture rate (theoretically up to 72Hz).
Higher frame rated HDTV has its own 'look' - better than film and SDTV. (bearing in mind the artifacts of both interlaced SD & Film when displayed by the respective mechanical and electronic means.)
The creep of 25p has now adversely affected SD programmes, invoking specific negative emotional responses in me; particularly on factual programmes such as The Culture Show, Panorama, {dumbed down}Horizon{/dumbed down} etc. .
Along with low spacial resolution (720x576), we now also suffer low temporal resolution too! The worst of ALL possible worlds. AND it's spreading.
** A note to the 'Creatives'**
When I turn on the display in my room called 'Television', I'd like to watch live moving 'television' pictures with all the technical advantages that the medium of 'television' can bring, without the artifacts of a obsolescent mechanical based system.
You may want to be the next Cecil B. De Milne, and build up your C.V. but you have forgotten your CURRENT brief as a TV executive to US, the 'television' viewers. If you are so in awe of mechanical devices being 'superior', I suggest you seek the 'authenticity' of a nipkow disc @ 30 lines, 7:3 ratio, 12.5fps with Celluloid and seek your authenticity there.
P.S. Re: Garrow. People were hanged, not hung.
Complain about this comment
I see no apology yet regarding the dreadful sound on SCD at the weekend or the DOG on Waterloo Road last week.
Complain about this comment
Nick instead of removing the whole of trevorjharris comment why not just remove the offending sentence? There were other valid points that could have remained.
Complain about this comment
Some more evidence. This time, Nature's Great Events, episode 3. As usual, you have to double click the image to get the full size version.
First, codec artefacts:
Old encoder
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4834/zebras16.jpg
New encoder
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5474/zebras9.jpg
Old encoder
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6462/birth216.jpg
New encoder
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3130/birth29.jpg
Also, more subtly, finer detail is preserved with the old encoder, e.g. the wildebeest's 'beard', the calf's nose:
Old encoder
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/951/birth116.jpg
New encoder
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4118/birth19.jpg
The last one might look quite subtle, but the difference between the pictures is frequently obvious, with the 16 megs looking clearer and more stable. I'm sure the brain takes all this in, as surely as it does subliminal frames. As before, I picked out suitable demonstration sequences just from watching the images at a normal viewing distance.
I've got some South Pacific and Yellowstone episodes as well. (I only seem to hang on to nature programmes for some reason.) I'll post images from them at some point, if more evidence is needed, but as you can imagine it's a bit time consuming.
Complain about this comment
"There is no evidence that bitrate has an impact on picture quality or there is an absolute relationship between bitrate and picture quality" Danielle Nagler 8th November 2009
I had my original post removed. I have tied to change the wording to comply with the BBC censorship.
Just watched POV
Wow the quote above must go down in history as most technically inacurate statement ever made by a BBC executive. Danielles comments clearly show that even if she has read our posts she certainly does not understand them.
The first thing is that Danielle she is not technically qualified to say that picture quality is not related to bitrate. As far as I know the only qualification she has is as a Journalist. She catagorically stated that "there is no evidence that bitrate has an impact on picture quality or there is an absolute relationship between bitrate and picture quality". As any technical person will tell you picture quality is directly related the bitrate. This can be mathematically proven with analysis of the Discrete Cosine Transform used in the MPEG4 codec. A considerable amount of reseach has gone into the relationship between bitrate and picture quality and many of those papers have been referenced in these blogs.
So why did Danielle make such a rediculous statement. It is possible she could have not of fully understood what her technical staff were saying to her. In any case I think she should have checked with her technical staff that the statement was correct. Whatever the reason she has mislead millions of viewers and should apologize. I think the BBC should also make a statement on the matter.
Danielle also says she has a very active conversation on the HD Blog. Well Danielle this is a very "oneway" conversation as you never reply on your blog.
Danielle then goes on to try and explain away the complaints as us requiring a "single look". She talks about picture information. Well Danielle information theory shows us that picture information is directly related to bitrate. She also talks about "depth". I am not sure what she means by this. An HD picture uses 24bits to decribe a pixel which is exactly the same as SD. SD and HD are made up of the same number of colours.
Another word that Danielle used was the "Filmic". Well filmic usually refers to two aspects of most films and that is "depth of field" and frame rate. Film is normally shot on 35mm film which in combination with standard film lenses gives a certain depth of field in the pictures. Sometimes television cameras use special lenses to mimic that effect giving it a filmic look. The frame rate used in film is only 24 frames per second which gives films their characteristic flickering on movement. So what Danielle seem to be sugesting is that hd should have a single look and that is filmic. I think what she may have been trying to express is the use of soft lenses but this is used in both films and television and is not normally considered filmic.
The other confusion that comes out of this is picture sharpness. Bitrate reduction does reduce picture sharpness but it also creates artifacts such as blocking. Danielle seems to believe that it only sharpness that we are complaining about. Of cource soft lens and reduced depths of field reduces sharpness and this is not what we are complaing about. We are complaining about the bluring and artifacts caused by the codec. Photographic evidence has been produced on this board showing the difference between the 16mb/s and 9 mb/s pictures.
Finally she comes up with the slogan "HD really great pictures". Well clearly to most peoples eyes this is not true. Why is it that Danielle is blind to the decrease in picture quality. I know from research that there is a wide variation of peoples perception of picture quality but is it possible that some people are almost blind to picture quality.
Complain about this comment
#14 As you know BBC have an internal policy of not transferring 16mm shot programmes, Spooks and Merlin are both examples of which you quoted, into HD.
Tonight at nine and throughout the week, the new drama Collision is on ITV HD. It was shot on 16mm and transferred to HD.
It will be interesting to see people's comments on the PQ.
Complain about this comment
Just watched the extended interview myself and Danielle got out her bat again and just kept prodding back to the bowler. Fact of the matter is, despite being part of the Eurovision set of broadcasters, the BBC are not adhering to Eurovision HD recommendations.
Fireyab's excellent posts in the other thread and various screen grabs that he, tagmclaren and HD_Fan428 have provided are further evidence to what many, many, many others think; picture quality has been affected and very badly at that.
Granted, I tuned in to Antiques Roadshow on Sunday and thought Lincoln Catherdral looked great and I thought this was a stark improvement over programmes on the HD channel in recent months (see, I can give praise when it is valid !).
However, when you tune into Strictly and still find that the sound problems happened again, just like the Electric Proms the week before, you think, why bother?
It completely ruins the enjoyment of the programme - although I thought the Electric Proms were upscaled in picture - and these types of problems were thought to be eradicated thanks to the stringent procedures that Andy Q alluded to in a post a while back.
The sport and film remit was not even covered. When ITV can broadcast a showing of Northwich Victoria playing Charlton and the BBC cannot show their full quota of Championship matches in HD, it really is taking the biscuit.
I thought the ITV HD coverage was miles better than the offering shown the last week on BBC HD; when the ball was moving there was very little blur evident. Yet on BBC HD, when the picture wasn't panning, it looked great, when it did, it was poor.
Complain about this comment
Oh and Nick, thanks for providing the links above.
I agree with HD_Fan28; a link to the evidence provided should also be added with the other links for newcomers to this, so they can see for themselves and make their own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
I heard a rumor that Danielle is watching her HD television through a scart cable. That might explain a few things!
Complain about this comment
Post 42 - At last an explanation wonder if it is a CRT model?
Complain about this comment
@ jtemplar
Thanks for pointing this out.
For BBC HD. From The Oxford Dictionary
Navigate
• verb 1 plan and direct the route or course of a ship, aircraft, or other form of transport. 2 sail or travel over. 3 guide (a vessel or vehicle) over a specified route.
— ORIGIN Latin navigare ‘to sail’.
The DOG has nothing to do with the English world Navigate. It is on-screen advertising.
People are clearly told what channel they are on when they select that channel via the EPG as the EPG contains the channel name.
If they record the programme it tells them what channel they recorded from.
People navigate to or away from a channel based on TV listings available or via an EPG, they already know what the channel is called.
The DOG is a commercial creation, it has nothing to do with navigation so why is it on a public broadcaster.
If the BBC is banned from product placements, advertising, and overtly plugging commercial products or services on air why is it being commercial by using a DOG.
People on BBC Radio 4 aren't told every other minute what station they are tuned into, why does BBC HD or any other BBC channel need to do the same?
In the wider World the DOG is a non-issue. It's a tiny technical insignificant issue.
But viewers are being given a service with a lower resolution, lower bit-rate which is fixed when few other channels are fixed and being forced to see advertising of what channel they are on.
There is also programming available in HD like Sport and shows that are made in HD studios right now that isn't going out in HD and films and TV programmes.
Sport viewers are being let down again this weekend.
Despite news that Welsh rugby games may be protected on free television the 7.30pm Friday game isn't going out in HD despite the fact it could as it would interrupt any live programming.
It would only interupt minor shows like Flog It, a show where the funding should be spent elsewhere like Merlin or Spooks.
The same goes for the Scotland v Fuji game, it goes out at 2.30pm on Saturday and would be available for broadcast for on BBC HD as it would clash with no other programming.
The games will highly likely covered by outside broadcasts that can broadcast in HD so the games could go out on BBC HD. With it being a international football weekend there are no Premier League or Championship games that need covering in HD making the availability of HD outside broadcast greater than usual.
Also as England games are shown in HD it is still possible for the BBC to bring HD highlights on the channel at the same time as BBC1 or 2.
Complain about this comment
About DOGs.
Danielle Nagler said "I do have to balance those who find it annoying with those that find it very usefull".
Who exactly finds them usefull?. All we've got to do is press a button on the remote control and it will tell you what channel we're watching.
Sorry to state the obvious BBC but when people decide to watch a certain programme the first thing they've got to do is know what channel it's on otherwise they won't be able to watch it, so how exactly can anyone not know what channel they're watching anyway.
Best Quality ( Untrue)
How can you say you use best quality when full HD is 1920 x 1080 and you tranmit at 1440 x 1080.
Why do all other HD channels use sharp crisp images and you prefer soft fil images?
All the links above are full of complaints, your own blog is full of complaints and yet still you ignore the issue.
Bit rate does not affect picture quality ( untrue) if this is the case why not transmit at 1mbs and we can have 9 HD cahnnels?
You dont listen Danielle and obviously have some sort of vision problem.
Please dont come on TV and tell us we are all wrong.
Complain about this comment
Why are the BBC tranmitting an exact copy of BBCHD from the same transponder wasting Bandwith when it is supposed to be so precious?? Still no Answer
Why have we had no explanation or aplogy of the awful sound problems on SCD again this week, No announcement during, or at the end of the programme.I gather there were no such problems on BBC 1. Did the person checking the sound fall asleep again. checking the sound fall asleep again.
Danielle's comments and sarcastic attitude on POV have just poured petrol on the fire.She really talks down to people, dismisses their views and incorrectly believes she is right and knows it all.
Sadly she is very mistaken.
Complain about this comment
#39, on the use of 16mm on Collision, ITV HD.
I've just seen the opening few minutes, and this is not HD. If that's the best it can be then it completely vindicates the BBC's decision not to go down that path, IMHO.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Nick, I get a lot of emails from people wishing to contribute to the debate about BBC HD PQ - ever since the BBC FOI team left my email address on the FOI response that I received from them, and published here:
http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/
I'm actually pleased to receive them, but I'd like to draw to your attention to the fact that many report that they can't comment on the Blogs. They've usually registered but have then had snags with either the confirmation email, or signing-in after that. The number is quite significant, of course you wouldn't know that because they can't tell you, so hopefully by my passing it on you can launch an investigation.
One such person has asked me to post the following:
"would it not be possible for the BBC who transmit the preview loop which is on for 16 hours a day at a lowered bit rate and up the bit rate when the programmes start at 16:00, as they are saying that to continue transmitting at a higher bit rate is unsustainable, (too expensive) would this not make it more economical, John Lewis, Comet and Curry's are not running BBC HD previews at present so if they drop the bit rate of the previews it would not be a loss as they would make their saving there. this reduction of the bitrate is more about cut-backs than new technology, the BBC is making cut's all over the place and this is just one of many."
I think it's a sensible proposal if we accept that the bitrate is "unsustainable", and then draw the logical conclusion that this is for financial reasons. If it's actually feasible to save bitrate costs by lowering the bandwidth, which must be why the BBC has done it, then why not take another leap and cut costs to the minimum when noone is watching (i.e. when the loop is on).
Actually, why not just drop the Preview loop altogether and then spend the money saved on bitrate during those 15 hours on giving us the highest bitrate possible during the other 9.
Of course, for this proposal to work you have to make a leap of faith and accept that bitrate and PQ are linked, which of course we now know is not correct. Thanks for letting me know Danielle.
Complain about this comment
@ Sky caddie 45. Hit the nail on the head. Perfect post.
Complain about this comment
paul_geaton - this blog post about the new signing in system on BBC blogs may be relevant to some of the people who have contacted you. Help pages are here. People having trouble logging in can also use this email: membership@bbc.co.uk.
Complain about this comment
SkyCaddie - please moderate your tone.
Complain about this comment
Nick, Instead of just removing posts, maybe you could explain your reasons??
My post was not abusive and it was put very politely. Please can you explain what especially was not allowed??? Maybe because it was critical of Danielle which is now allowed??
Im sorry Nick but Danielle had to expect some negative feedback and you can delete all the posts you like to hide to cover up for her, but the facts are people are unhappy and by deleting posts that are fair comments all you are doing is upsetting viewers even more.
Theres a saying, you make your bed, you lay in it.
Complain about this comment
@34. I agree with most of what Squegg wrote. Also, in the HD masters conference:
http://tvbeurope.com/pdfs/HDEurope/2009/HDEurope2009_P12-34.pdf
Richard Salmon, Senior Research Engineer, at BBC Research, told the conference "If SD is acceptable at 50Hz, then full HDTV needs 150Hz, and “as resolution increases, we probably want at least 300Hz.”
So I don't see why more and more programming is being made at half the rate we used to have in SD.
Also in that document above, which is relevant to POV and the film look/broadcasting film content it says this:
"While HDTV offers an ideal entertainment medium in terms of resolution and shape, conveying the ‘film look’ is difficult for digital TV said Andrén, as coding random grain consumes valuable bandwidth. Later BBC Head of Technology Andy Quested confirmed this point with the definitive statement, “The BBC does not transmit grain.”
Yet film is made up of grain. To be transparent to the source surely it would need to have a bitrate high enough to be able to encode the grain?
Though, as I said above, these "film-looks" are usually about low frame rates (even though film is capable of many frame rates), and as BBC research has said low frame rates are not what achieves high quality for HD, all it does is create motion artefacts.
And since the statement by Richard Solomon of BBC research has said that for full HD we need 150hz, why is it that over 90% of BBC HD programmes are only at 25p, and when will we get a higher temporal resolution (or a much higher percentage of content with a high temporal resolution) instead half the temporal resolution we had in SD? Also, if the BBC iplayer was to start streaming/offering downloads of 1080p50 content, even initially at low bitrates, wouldn't that a marketing point as it would be doing something not possible with Blu-ray and not yet available from other UK broadcasters?
Complain about this comment
wednesday83 - I didn't remove your last post. But I have had to warn you on several occasions about your tone. Let's stay on topic please and not start discussing individual moderation decisions.
Complain about this comment
On 16mm:
The problem with 16mm source was (when I last used it) that there insufficient sprocket holes to provide a stable image to the telecine. This shows itself up only when overlaying a digital image in analogue, but has very much worse effects in generating artefacts and ramps up the datarate because the frame is essentially jumping around (this means that more data is generated and in consequence the received quality is generally worse.)
35mm film is immune from this - but the cameras are bigger and the film stock prices are far higher so most productions for TV cannot afford to shoot in 35mm.
If only these producers would get into the digital age and use digital techniques to give them the 'feel' of film we would all get a better experience! It is only a story guys and girls and what is the point of shooting in 16mm (or super 16 generally) when the broadcast result would have had better pictures as a radio play!
Complain about this comment
I thought the main problem with 16mm and Super 16 was the grain size relative to the frame size and ability to encode this at low TV bitrates? Also, if they want the best quality, don't they use film scanners instead of normal telecines now?
Though I think that all future productions should be made on something better than Super 16 eg. 35mm or HD video, since that will mean better quality.
Complain about this comment
I see that we are being told not to call people liars but if the information given is false and is obviously this way to confuse and mislead then why may we not use such a word as liar?
On the subject of the POV interview I personally thought it was horrific, to say reducing the bitrate helps with the varied content styles is just incorrect, furthermore we don't complain because the images aren't crisp it is simply because the picture is verging on SD quality most of the time. This is not because some choose to shoot in more film styles it's because the bitrate is low meaning over compression leading to heavy blocking and just dire PQ. And however it was sugar coated on POV we were being called liars plain and simple by saying the picture quality had reduced since the bit rate and encoder change.. What ever happened to 18mbps?.. those where the days... (stares out into the night sky reminiscing of what once was)
Complain about this comment
David
Not to usurp Nick but I would steer well clear of accusing someone of lying.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
A short P.S and a nod to HD1080
I recently reviewed a demonstration of 3D HDTV and even at 60HZ, some scenes demonstrated motion artifacts; Sport and ESPECIALLY transferred 24p film (Avatar) - albeit with Pull Down contributing its own problems.
I mention 72Hz for it is politically neutral as a candidate for a potential common interchange format (film OR TV). Capture at multiples at 144 and 288Hz might be useful in the future because using 150 and 300Hz ties us into legacy standards. (Again.)
Complain about this comment
In post 58. At 11:11pm on 09 Nov 2009, David wrote:
"the information given is false and is obviously this way to confuse and mislead"
--------------------------------
Danielle has previously revealed her position with regard to both bitrate and content when she stated "I know that for some who read this programmes are a second order issue, compared to the DOG and our broadcast bitrate"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/hd_update_the_arrival_of_the_h.html
I said, at the time, I considered her comments to be rather, ill-considered and dismissive, given her position as Head of the Corporations High Definition channel.
Prior to having a swipe at people 'more' interested in the technical aspects of HD programming, as opposed to 'content', Danielle had, in her previous blog, demonstrated how busy she had been putting together new channel idents - apparently much more important than the technical quality of the broadcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/03/bbc_hd_all_new_website_and_ide.html
Complain about this comment
I think POV revealed that Danielle is realy running the channel as her own personal station. She wants the picture to have the look she likes. The schedualing is was she thinks it should be. The DOG is to help her navigate the multitude of channels. The choice of program is the sort of programs she likes. As a result the BBC HD channel is failing in every way. It is failing technically, in programing, and scheduling and in the viewing figures.
By taking the attitude that we are all a bunch of idiots she is diging herself into a deeper and deeper hole. Eventually the channel will be everything she wants it to be but unfortunatly she will be the only one left watching.
Complain about this comment
@ 62, I doubt Danielle even watches BBC HD never mind having a view on the looks.
Complain about this comment
@paul_geaton Post 49
Roughly every satellite transponder has 33mbps of capacity.
BBC HD is using around 9mbps fixed while the two MPEG2 channels will only use around 4.5mbps.
So roughly half the capacity is being wasted.
It would be possible to have 2 HD channels, BBC HD and a red button HD stream unfixed but roughly working at 12mbps while the two MPEG2 channels work at 4.5.
BBC HD is still testing on its transponder with a service information descriptor or SID of 3495 on top of its usual SID channel of 3490.
Perhaps it is a place holder for a future red button HD stream to come soon?
The Winter Olympics is still going to cause huge scheduling issues and so will The World Cup.
Such a stream can be provided on cable and possibly via borrowing space on Freeview HD.
Cutting the HD hours outside of broadcast would cut the average bandwidth per day, but if BBC HD plans to extend its hours at the weekends to cover more sport and show other programming in the future then it would only be a temporary measure.
By fixing the channels bandwidth it is wasting a large amount of bandwidth on the transponder.
Complain about this comment
Andy, I know you are overseas at the moment and missing out on the (sometimes) heated and vigorous debate (?) going on here following Danielle's appearance on POV, and don't get back into work until Wednesday (that was well timed). By the time you return this comment will have disappeared amongst the (probably) hundreds that will follow.
However, should you come across it, firstly welcome back to the madhouse, secondly, I wonder if you can recall writing this:
"Thursday, 6 November 2008 - Over the months we have had many comments about the BBC HD channel on this blog, other chat rooms and directly to the BBC HD team. Not all of them are negative in fact many of them are very positive."
There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, not to mention 678 posts on your PQ Blog, 895 on Danielle's, 226 related ones in her Day in the Life...Blog and now 64 more here. Not all of them negative, true, but I think you'll find that about 99% of them are.
Nick has kindly provided here some links to some of the other websites were there have been negative comments. Although these links are just a drop in the ocean, e.g. on Digital Spy alone you'll find dozens of threads discussing the poor picture quality of BBC HD and probably none praising it.
That state of affairs really saddens me, particularly when I think of the hard work that so many BBC employees and contractors, cameramen, producers, sound men, etc. must be putting in day-in and day-out trying their best to make the channel, and it's HD products, a success.
In the light of that I'd just like to ask you what could be going wrong, and what do you think can, and hopefully will, be done about it now? A simple enough question, don't spend too long mulling it over. Just jump on here and post a quick comment. I would genuinely really appreciate that.
Complain about this comment
@ 65, I think what could be done to sort out the issues is someone at BBC have the bottle to admit Danielle has failed at BBC HD and move Danielle to a department she would be able to excel at. Im sure there must be a department that she is suited to???
Unless Danielle is replaced as Head of BBC HD then the channel has no future for me. How can it suceed when the channel boss is totally ignoring the comments of its viewers and going on national TV denying theres a problem when everyone can see there is a problem. It needs someone who understands HD to be in charge.
Complain about this comment
@49
"John Lewis, Comet and Curry's are not running BBC HD previews at present"
Not entirely true.
It was either Comet or Curry's in Barnstaple, two weeks ago, where I saw the BBC HD Preview on a pretty large sized screen. (40"+)
Looked clear to me. In fact, it looked clearer at 40" than a DVD upscales on my more modest 22" screen. At a much larger screen size, the picture resolution actually seemed to be appropriate to the size of the screen.
And with all the fuss there's been on here for the past year or more, you can be certain that I spent a good few minutes looking closely at it.
Were there a sub-12-month option of going HD (long story, out of my control), I'd switch tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
Can I ask everyone and in particular Wednesday83 (again) to moderate their tone.
Firstly calling someone a liar is both a breach of the house rules and potentially defamatory.
Secondly you may disagree with the decisions made but a statements like "Danielle never watches the channel" is absurd and untrue. I have not linked to other non BBC conversations about this subject because they contain offensive language and unpleasant personal abuse. Let's not go down that road please.
Thirdly can we stay on topic - which is the POV interview. This is not a general discussion about all the ins and outs of HD kit etc.
Complain about this comment
Fair enough Nick. Keeping on topic then, on POV Danielle said "There's no evidence that that reducing the bitrate has an impact on picture quality".
I've posted some more image captures from another programme transmitted before and after the encoder changes above, post 37. These are directly from the broadcast bitstream, not a photograph of a TV picture, so this is what people receive in their homes before their TV gets hold of it.
It seems to me that this is clear evidence that the picture has deteriorated since the change, sometimes alarmingly (I'm thinking of the zebra image). I would like to know if and how Danielle can maintain her position in the light of such evidence. (This isn't the first comparison I've posted.)
I'd also like to know how these examples can be reconciled with the BBC Trusts's remit for the channel, that it "should deliver a very high quality technical service to viewers, by adhering to, or seeking to exceed, industry standards for picture resolution."
I can post more evidence, but is it really needed?
Complain about this comment
Nick, indeed some do need to moderate their tone but most is born out of sheer frustration. Surely its not beyond someone in authority from the BBC besides yourself to comment on whats been said in the blog? In the hundreds of preceeding posts Ive seen nothing at all.
Not too much to ask surely?
Complain about this comment
I've been lurking here and on the other now closed blogs for some time and have followed the debate with interest. I've been watching BBC HD for over two years and although I am not knowledgeable on the technical aspects if HD transmission, I have good enough eyesight and can recognise that what I am seeing on my screen is not what it was. I have only now decided to comment after watching the now infamous interview with the head of BBC HD on POV. I don't know what I expected, but it wasn't, in my opinion, the patronising, supercilious hubris we were treated to on Sunday.
A great many people have taken the time to post here and elsewhere and to prepare comparative evidence and put forward detailed technical data which was dismissed out of hand. I think we deserve better. There will be many viewers who are not aware of these forums and who possibly have become dissatisfied with their BBC HD viewing experience. They too deserve better.
BTW did anyone spot the magical jacket Paul Martin was wearing on the recent Flog It! episode? When he stood still his jacked was a resplendent pin-stripe couture. Then whenever he moved the stripes magically disappeared only to return when he stopped! Now that IS using bit rate reduction and compression inadequacies to bring new artistic effect to our screens in a very imaginative way! (please excuse the sarcasm).
Complain about this comment
best just to forget it all, on the evidence of what's been posted here, the problem is not technical, it is one of managerial competence (or lack thereof) and 'jockeying for position'.
Complain about this comment
We're better off sticking with Sky for HD material. You get what you pay for. I've yet to see anything on BBC HD match Sky Sports HD for PQ. Sky are also far more pro-active in taking HD feeds when available, and moving stuff onto HD channels where possible - Barack Obama's inauguration on Sky Arts HD for example
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
.... In the interview Danielle claimed theres no proof lowering bit rates affects quality, maybe she just does not understand and was given wrong info on her script.
She also hinted lowering bit rates helps artistic decisions my the programme makers. Again maybe she was given wrong info on her script.
Complain about this comment
@ post 70, Its very hard to get people to comment on posts. We get into trouble for what we say when we have a valid reason yet people at BBC HD just sit silent and let Nick tell us off.
Complain about this comment
Given that just about every piece of technical documentation I can find confirms that bitrate is related to picture quality (otherwise why don't they just drop BBC HD to 1Mb/sec) Ms Nagler's statement that "there is no evidence that bitrate has an impact on picture quality or there is an absolute relationship between bitrate and picture quality" can have only two logical conclusions:
1. She was deliberately not telling the truth.
2. She has been technically misinformed.
Given that we can hopefully discount No. 1, should she not be compelled to issue a retraction of her incorrect statement and provide us with correct information?
Complain about this comment
@ 77, If she genuinely did not know about bit rates affecting quality, then how can she be in charge of an HD channel????
I just don't get it. Surely Danielle knows at least that much?
Complain about this comment
And also as well, who actually wrote her script for the interview?? Surely they should have done their research.
Complain about this comment
#57. HD1080 wrote:
"I thought the main problem with 16mm and Super 16 was the grain size relative to the frame size and ability to encode this at low TV bitrates?"
My experience has shown me that the inter-frame micro movements of the film in the gate of the "projector" between frames has a significant effect of the quantity of data in an image stream.
The human brain simply ignores the lack of absolute registration when viewing 16mm film and 16 mm film analogue scanned, but as soon as the film is digitised these little movements of apparently still objects generate extra data (for the same perceived quality). Hence the problem with compression schemes that encode differences between frames rather than just every frame. This pushes up the necessary bitrates for the same quality, or conversely for a given bitrate the quality is lower.
Grain can be a problem but most film shot properly, light properly and developed properly has a far higher resolution (and lower grain size) than is resoled by digital scanning. (Try the sums and compare that with the inter-frame differences resulting from the gate jitter caused by 16mm film's relative lack of sprocket holes.) There is a good reason for not using 16mm (apart from the cost!) If the same image streams were created from a digital source the necessary data rate to achieve the same visual perceived quality if far lower - but producers still like the feel of film. (Even though Hollywood (where they all want to work!) is moving to digital end to end production and delivery!
Complain about this comment
Good interview, shame about the content. However what has really irked me over the past 24 hours is this story ....
http://blog.wotsat.com/page/whatsat?entry=freeview_expands_early_access_to
In which elememts of the Freeview rollout are revealed to a Magazine, PRIOR to an official Press Release, by a senior BBC Employee. Official Channels should be used for this information and not given selectively to magazines in interviews.
It does nothing to the credibility of the Corporation as I pointed out in a read, but as yet not replied to, email I sent to the individual concerned last night.
HD is important so please no more leaks like this one please.
Complain about this comment
Post #37
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/11/bbc_hd_interview_with_danielle.html#P88258538
Needs replying to by someone at the BBC, and not a forum mod.
There is no debate until this is taken on board and answered by the Beeb
Danielle (or someone else)
Why has this deterioration of PQ been ignored, and why is the Beeb sticking theirs heads in the sand over this issue.
I got BBCHD, soon after Sky launched their service, I then left for a year and came back to the service recently, and the difference between then and now is huge.
Also, is this a blog or propoganda I was under the impression a blog offered a 2 way form of communication with ample opportunity for the blog author to respond to comments?
Complain about this comment
Id like to watch the extended interview that some have mentioned on POV. Can somebody post a link to it or is the iplayer version the long one?
Perhaps as it relates to the channel it could be repeated on BBC HD at some time. I know its SD but the Dog will tell us that it is really HD
Complain about this comment
AndyQ: Please tell us what you told DN that made her feel confident in saying that there is no evidence that reducing the bit-rate has reduced the Picture Quality of received BBC HD.
Andy: If you have been replaced by DN, with some Technical HD expert that backs up her statement, please let us know who it is and what qualifications/ experience they have to provide such technical engineering advice.
Complain about this comment
It now seems that if BBC HD isn't unfixed then BBC HD will look better on Freeview HD than satellite. As stated before enough capacity is being wasted on satellite to unfix BBC HD and launch a second red button stream via DVB-S. And keeping the current 2 MPEG-2 channels.
Hot of the EBU press. Freeview HD will work on 256QAM with inner coding of 2/3 which will provide roughly 41Mbit/s.
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2009-Q4_Spectrum_Brugger.pdf
That is roughly the same as satellite if you take 33Mbit/s and add in the 30% codec improvement.
The EBU document shows statistical multiplexing is more efficient.
Infact Andy Quested has already released this information.
http://www.slideshare.net/Frankwatching/bbc-hd-andy-quested
Just in case the slides are pulled down the slides confirm on Freeview HD Ofcom Mode 7 will be used and will provide 40.2Mbits/s to 98.5% of the country.
This would mean 4 HD channels could launch and run un-fixed using the latest MPEG-4 improvements and look as good as BBC HD before it was fixed on satellite.
Infact with Five not launching the BBC could even ask to run a red button HD stream using the capacity Five isn't using, or borrow capacity of ITV HD when it isn't running.
Fixing BBC HD has been pointless, DVB-T2 can now support 4 unfixed HD 1980x1080i at 25 frames.
If BBC HD isn't unfixed it will look better via Freeview HD.
Someone has wrongly done the calculations, by fixing BBC HD at such a low bit-rate and with only having 2 other MPEG-2 channels half the satellite transponder space is being wasted. Enough to unfix BBC HD and launch a red button HD stream.
@wednesday83
In the UK the position of a HD controller is a new job as well so there is a steep learning curve. Replacing them would just set back the whole project, mistakes will be made but they can be learnt from.
They have the information from this post now to show how fixing BBC HD isn't needed and how enough capacity is being wasted to launch a red button channel on satellite, it could also be launched via cable as well and perhaps Freeview HD.
This is who BBC HD report to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/controllers/simon_nelson.shtml
Complain about this comment
The slides say the Freeview HD information was confirmed on the 1st of October.
So now BBC HD know that Freeview HD has such a large bandwidth to play with and by using the latest MEPG-4 coders each of the 4 potention HD channels will look better than BBC HD on satellite if it stays fixed.
As the EBU recommend in its conclusion ''Furthermore, the conclusion can be drawn that broadcasters only benefit from a transition to MPEG-
4 and/or DVB-T2 under the assumption that this application of more frequency-efficient techniques
can be used by them for an improved programme offer in terms of higher quality (HD) and/or a larger
number of programmes.''
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2009-Q4_Spectrum_Brugger.pdf
Page 15.
So it seems questionable why BBC HD on satellite needs to be fixed as the EBU recommends that channels aren't fixed in order to get the best out of the available technology.
Since half the satellite transponder space is being wasted the best isn't being realised from BBC HD via satellite, there is enough to launch a red button HD stream for various clashes like when a sport broadcast in HD clashes with a live programme.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to Andrew Knight for yet another insightful couple of posts!
Complain about this comment
All
On Pages 1 and 144 of this weeks Radio Times, it says they are taking questions for "You Ask The Questions" to be put to Sir Michael Lyons. Questions should be sent to radio.times@bbc.co.uk"
I think it's worth keeping in mind Nick's guidelines on civility and houserules though. We may well get a response if we stick to the PQ/bitrate issue and not randomly call for public sackings of BBC Managers.
Nick - please delete if you feel this is off topic.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
Vote here for BBCHD quality the vote is on the right. Not looking good at the moment.
http://www.vmhd.blogspot.com/
Did I hear Danielle say she engaged vigorously with us, no comments so far on this blog. Surely not another untrue statement?
Also nice to see that when Andy is away no one has stepped in and commented on the awful sound problems on SCD.Nice to see you work as a team at BBCHD.I apologise Andy for saying you have not replied and await your return, your so called colleagues are obviously lost without you.
Question for your return Andy is it true what the above posts state that Freeview HD will be better than Satellite or Cable? I suspect so ,another body blow.
Complain about this comment
@89 Skycaddie
I imagine that even though people have to buy another box for Freeview HD, there will be a much bigger take up for that than Freesat, perhaps that may explain the perception that more resource is being pushed in that direction. Purely speculative of course.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
@89 Skycaddie
Missed the bit that made it relevant here! If bitrate and PQ are not linked then why is the Freeview HD rate higher? Surely it should match the Freesat one leaving room/space for future services and channels?
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the information Andrew 85 & 86. I wish Andy was as informative.
Sorry Andy but another question for you.Is DVB-S2 more effecient? If so why do the BBC not use this it seems all SKY HD channels are tramsmitted using DVB-S2 and I assume Freesat boxes can work with this?
Complain about this comment
Just on a point of information Danielle doesn't report to Simon Nelson. I believe she reports to Roly Keating.
Complain about this comment
#88 Thanks Kyle, a great spot and good advice too. Nick, it's not off topic at all, in fact it's completely relevant to the points that Danielle was attempting to address on POV, so don't delete it.
I really hope that the likes of @Andrew Knight and @Fireyab9, and the rest of us, can all take some time to compose one very pertinent question each for Sir Michael. As Chairman of the BBC Trust, who "set the course for the BBC...(&) represent the public who own and pay for (it)", just one well framed and incisive question to him has got to be worth dozens of comments aimed at Danielle (on a Blog that doesn't even appear to be read by her).
Kyle, is their a deadline for sending these questions, or guidelines on how long they can be?
#85 Andrew, more great posts but I can't believe that the BBC put the man responsible for the development of DAB digital radio in charge of supervising the BBC HD channel controller. I think I read somewhere that "The sound quality of current DAB services is — both subjectively and technically — inferior to that achievable with FM, varying from just about acceptable to utterly atrocious, depending on the bit-rate allocated to each service. DAB was conceived to use bit-rates at least twice as high as those often employed now". Fancy that!
Complain about this comment
#93, thanks for clarifying Nick. I can breathe a sigh of relief.
Complain about this comment
@88, I wouldnt exactly say its random calling for Danielles head. Theres a valid reason. The quality of BBC HD has been poor for far too long now and Danielle is the boss. In any line of business the buck stops with the person in charge. Danielle could use her powers to sort the issues out but instead all she does is deny theres a problem and tries to fob everyone off.
The reason I would like to see Danielle replaced is because its clear the BBC HD channel needs someone in charge who knows about HD and has a passion for improving quality. The comments made by her on points of view show that she is not technical minded about HD.
Since Danielle has been in charge of BBC HD the quality of picture has got worse and worse with no commitment to sorting the issue out.
Maybe Andy Quested could be promoted???
Complain about this comment
@NickReynolds
So Danielle and Simon report to Roly Keating and Erik Huggers who is the boss of Andy Quested. Rory and Erik reports to Jana Bennett, Director of BBC Vision who reports to Mark Thompson.
Simon Lloyd has joined as part of a marketing position on the board that oversees Andy Quested. But although he is on this board he reports to head of communications Sharon Baylay.
http://www.itvt.com/story/5961/new-hires-bbc-future-media-technology-music-choice-demand-episodic
Andy Quested needs to be put on the board. You can't have the head of technology being in a lower position than someone who is on the board of an important department when they actually report to someone else in another department.
It seems to imply Marketing and Communications is more important than the picture quality which won't go down well. People are spending good money on updating TV sets throughout the UK and they would at least expect the head of the department for getting the best possible HD and 5.1 service out there has an equal footing on the board.
That point is even greater when Andy is actually responsible for the physical running of the service and is one of the most important people in the department. The BBC aims to run in HD from 2012 as his department plays an important role in that.
It would also make more sense for Danielle to report to Jana Bennett as BBC HD is actually a on-going programme to transform all BBC and BBC Worldwide joint venture channels over to HD.
@paul_geaton
The radio times will only want short snappy questions, but I think you should push through with the letter to the Trust.
Will they allow third parties to write within your response?
The latest information on the Freeview HD platform shows that left unresolved BBC HD on Freeview HD will end up better than on satellite.
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
Danielle reports to Roly Keating who reports to Erik Huggers who is the boss of Andy Quested. Roly and Erik reports to Jana Bennett, Director of BBC Vision who reports to Mark Thompson.
The FOI release never named who put forward the cut in the bit-rate, see Post 85/86.
Replacing anyone want solve any of the issues you raise, at least the current staff are being informed of why the fixed bitrate isn't needed and why it is wasting so much transponder space. Enough to launch a red button HD stream and unfix BBC HD.
Another industry article that shows that only equipment can produce a filmic look and not bit-rates.
''The second season of Twentieth Century Fox Television’s hour-long thriller, “Dollhouse,” is being shot with the Panasonic VariCam 3700 solid-state P2 HD camcorder.
The AJ-HPX3700 combines VariCam’s filmic-look, variable frame rates and subtle tone control with master-quality, 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra recording as well as dual-link RGB 4:4:4 output. ''
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/archive/fox-tvs-dollhouse-transitions-1006/
Complain about this comment
#83: the iPlayer version is the long one. At least it doesn't contain the calumny, as the broadcast version did, of transforming the viewer comment (good one zubeirp :)) that there has been a 40% decrease in bitrate into a question which equates that with a 40% reduction in picture quality.
I can think of one post that did make that assertion on the blogs, way back when, but it's not a view that any informed person (including the the rest of zubeirp's message, and remaining approx. 2000 posts) would want to argue for. The problems, while obvious, are a bit more subtle than that!
If Ms Nagler was badly briefed, so was Mr Vine.
Complain about this comment
@ SkyCaddie Post 92
The BBC doesn't need DVB-S2 until it needs to broadcast 4 HD channels.
For now there is enough capacity via DVB-B and the latest MPEG 4 enconders for BBC HD, a red button HD stream for when live sport clashes with strictly come dancing and other programming like extended coverage of The Winter Olympics, The World Cup and The Commonwealth games.
And there is enough space to leave the two MPEG2 channels on the transponder.
Complain about this comment
I have just seen Life: Mammals time-shifted with Sky+HD. This series has to be one of BBC HD Flagships.
If DN has the facilities of seeing it using the current bit-rate and the compare using BBC facilities of what it would have looked liked using the previous higher bit-rate and old encoders on higher end HD receivers and TV and let us know what she perceives this would be instructive. If she honestly can see no reduction in Picture Quality then I think we all have a problem. If AndyQ can do the same then this is curtains for all of us who are convinced that there has been a significant reduction in PQ.
Programme content: 10 out of 10
Sound: 10/10
PQ: Seemed good for SD, but no HD wow factor, when compared with my memories of the last series.
Complain about this comment
Hmm. I've just looked again at the broadcast version and the extended version (which is, fingers crossed, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mysv ). Actually, that equation of 40% bitrate reduction=40% drop in picture quality lies between the two platforms! The broadcast version has zubierp's comments, followed up by a neutral question. The extended version replaces that with an opening question saying that quite a few people people think that 'since August, there has been a 40% reduction in picture quality'.
I'm glad that the broadcast version wasn't as sloppy as I remembered it, but the conclusion remains the same. If Ms Nagler was badly briefed, so was Mr Vine.
Complain about this comment
Just a general comment to all relating to PQ this evening, ATWIED wasn't up to much, but I thought Jools was great (again) and then the Dr Who trailer that followed that was simply stunning. Does anyone else agree. How can it be so variable?
#97, Andrew the Trust's rules say the complaint should be clear and concise. It should not exceed 1,000 words (around 4 pages). In exceptional circumstances longer appeals will be entertained, however when you submit your appeal you should: 1. identify the reasons why your appeal exceeds 1,000 words; and 2. provide a 1 page summary of your appeal.
I think this is open to interpretation, but it suggests to me that there is a degree of slack to allow for properly justified additional information, backing up the main letter. In my work so far I have decided to include several annexes, which I am steadily building up. To date they include technical detail, picture evidence and other items such as a petition of names, and several complilations of the better contributions to these Blogs (including yours) etc.
If you want to author and contribute an annex of possible BBC Courses of Action, along the lines of your very sensible suggestions posted here, or to make another proposal then please email me directly. I think you know where to find my email address.
Complain about this comment
I must admit that 4 months of bloging has failed to get any significant response from the BBC. I am suprised that Sir Michael chairman of the BBC trust has not interviened already. I agree that the question needs to be carefully framed. I have been considering lobbying memebers of the Media Parlimentary Committee. I understand they have the power to summons BBC Executives to explain themselves. Up to now I have refrained from doing this as I don't like Parliment interfering with the BBC. The trouble is so far the Trust has not shown any interest in the breaking of the Licence conditions they gave for BBC HD.
Complain about this comment
#99, HD_Fan428 if your "one post that did make that assertion on the blogs" is my DN's PQ Blog #304, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/picture_quality_on_hd_a_respon.html#P86274650), then I'd just like to make the point that it was said entirely tongue-in-cheek!
Complain about this comment
#101: I absolutely understand why you are asking what Danielle Nagler would make of an old encoder/bitrate version of Life. I agree that throughout it has been superb content with underwhelming presentation. However, I'd like to know what she or someone else, ideally Andy Quested, makes of the evidence above (post 37) that we can all see before she talks about her reaction to pictures inaccessible to the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
@HD_fan428
The better question is why has the BBC HD satellite feed been reduced by so much which will lead to the BBC HD Freeview feed being significantly better?
The latest EBU report and slide show from Andy Quested show the platform will have a large amount of capacity.
Per channel BBC HD on Freeview HD will have more bandwidth to use and as it isn't fixed it will be in an even better position than BBC HD on satellite.
Currently about half the transponder on satellite is being wasted, there is enough room for a red button HD stream.
Complain about this comment
@107
Andrew, why do you keep going on about this red button? I'm not interesting in a red button service at all as long as the pq is ok. I thought the beeb had scrapped the red button because no-one uses it?
Complain about this comment
#105: Not at all, it was a post that seemed like it meant it. :) I'm not going to wade through to find it though.
#107 a better question than what? You are presenting really useful info, some of it on the basis of very recently announced developments, that makes the current HD strategy seem baffling. But as the thread is on the pov interview I'd rather wait for an official response to the evidence presented about picture degradation than assume that the point is taken by the BBC. Or have I missed something (entirely possible)?
Complain about this comment
@94 Paul_Geaton
Not sure what the deadline is but I think the RT has a fairly swift turnaround. As Andrew says the questions I would think should be quick and snappy.
Kyle
Complain about this comment
Just got my TV listings and Danielle has been messing about with the scheduling again. Antiques Road Show has been moved to Monday 8:00pm. Garrow's Law moved to Sunday 10:00pm. I do hate it when she starts moving things in the middle of series.
Complain about this comment
Various sound and picture faults (including pixellation and talkback) for the first Two minutes of this morning's Westminster Abbey Armistace day service on BBC HD. BBC One sound and pictures were OK.
Complain about this comment
#111 Unfortunately the petrolheads get a simulcast and Garrow's Law gets bumped!! I think Danielle should have kept its run intact, but I expect she's banking on big figures for Top Gear, after all the requests for it to go HD.
Latest BARB figures showing an all time high for the channel's reach. w/e November 1, 1,351,000.
Complain about this comment
Simple solutions Danielle:
1. Increase bit rate on current Grass Valley Encoders.
2. Use original encoders on 16 mb/sec and return the current one back to sender.
Result:
1. Restore your integrity and the channels status to its previous glory.
2. satisfy the licence payers immensly and restore their faith in the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Disappointing response from Danielle.
Regardless of her excuses, BBC HD has simply gone from being a showcase HD channel to an also ran. If I want to show off HD to anyone, I don't use BBC HD any more.
The BBC can trott out all the excuses they want, but the evidence in front of mine and others eyes is simple.
Yet more of my licence fee that doesn't deliver what I would like to see.
The BBC management behave more and more like politicians. Rather than listen to people and respond, they simply stonewall and tow the party line. They are right, we are all wrong.
Very poor.
Complain about this comment
Its nice to know that its everyone else who is at fault, and not the BBC.
I honestly thought it couldnt be me who was seeing a quality difference, but after watching that it must be.
do you have some kind of deal running with Specsavers ?
Complain about this comment
Just caught the end of Waterloo Road, switched from BBC1 to BBC HD, hardly any difference at all :-( The HD picture really is nothing special at all nowadays. Beginning to think I wasted my money buying the sat dish etc. This has went on for months now and it's obvious after the POV programe on Sunday, that its not gonna change :-(
Complain about this comment
WOW a promo on BBC1 before Waterloo Road for the upcoming Children in Need Royal Albert Hall special mentioned it was also in HD!!! A small step forward but a giant leap for HD promotion.
Also a DOG less Waterloo Road!!
Dont suppose we can have Strictly with proper sound this week ? Fingers crossed everyone.
Sadly the promo for Doctor Who that followed the programme failed to mention it was in HD but hey, one step at a time.
Another vote taking place on another website re BBCHD quality.
http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/
Is it true Danielle is the new promo girl for Specsavers or just a rumour.
Complain about this comment
other opticians are available ;-)
Complain about this comment
Another article in the press- Cnet UK
Head of BBC HD says 'reducing bit rate has no impact on picture quality'
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49304233,00.htm
And they are quoting this blog and HD_fan428
Complain about this comment
It's good to see independent voices saying that Danielles statement was absurb. I think that Sky must be laughing all the way to the bank. The POV interview must have been the best Christmas present Sky could have wished for confirming that Freeview HD and Freesat HD is not going to cut the mustard.
Complain about this comment
@ 120, one of the quotes from the Cnet uk article that is bang on is this: "Put simply, Nagler is saying that despite people strongly disliking its presence, SHE DOESN'T CARE FOR THEIR LICENCE FEE-PAYING OPINIONS."
Also as well on the free sat website the poll is conclusive that most people have seen a quality reduction.
So come on Danielle stop acting like an MP and admit theres an issue and get it sorrted.
If you have no commitment to sorting the problem out (which it appears you have not) then why are you still there? Im not having a dig but if you do not care about the quality and its viewers (which appears you dont - please feel free to reply and deffend yourself) then why not resign and let someone else do the job who does care??
All us viewers cannott be wrong.
Complain about this comment
Can we save BBC HD picture quality before Christmas TV ? I hope so. We need an extra push though I think.
If you've got time please help where you can - BBC Trust, BBC Complaints, Press, Twitter, Facebook, wherever you feel - write in and complain! Danielle may not be listening, but you never know who may be.
Complain about this comment
I think Danielle has to start listening for her jobs sake.
Complain about this comment
Great to see the CNet article.
Danielle and the policy makers that she's fronting must be rubbing their hands with delight that the enormous number of complaints on these blogs are "hidden" under their control.
The only way forward is to publicize in the outside world, not in a BBC controlled website, which seems to suffer from a "referred to moderator" censorship.
Complain about this comment
IanMac1 - without wishing to add fuel to the flames in what sense are comments on this blog "hidden"? Comments are removed if they break the house rules and left up if they don't.
Complain about this comment
Nick, the "hidden" was clearly in inverted commas; it's a reference to the fact that the comments are on the BBC blog, and not visible in the wider world to those HD viewers who are unaware that this debate exists. All that they know is that their picture quality isn't as good as it once was.
The more that the outside agencies of press and other websites can highlight the issue of sub-standard HD in which all of us invested our own money to buy expensive kit (and support the BBC platform), the better.
We've all been slapped in the face by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I see my earlier comment was deleted. No doubt because I had the audacity to complain. Let me see if I can phrase it better...
HDTV is simply all about picture quality. Nothing else. It only exists to give us to better PQ than we have been used to with SD.
If it doesn't do that - provide a clear and noticable advantage over SD - it has no point.
Fortunately, there are several excellent HD channels that demonstrate this. Sadly, BBC HD is no longer one of them.
It used to be. I have had BBC HD since day one, and marvelled at Planet Earth, the World Cup, the Beijing Olympics, the early series of Jools Holland to name but a few. But since those early days, BBC HD has gone steadily downhill in terms of PQ. It has lost it's sparkle. It has lost the clear and noticable advantage over SD. Hence it has lost it's point. It has no reason to exist.
It is actually fortunate that we still have the BBC HD DOG. Otherwise, I wouldn't know I was watching HD - well supposed to be...
Complain about this comment
Could someone point out to me the official complaints process? Who/how/where to I contact the proper authorities at the BBC in order to voice my complaints about BBC HD?
I have tried using the web forms, but they seem contrived to have you complain about a particular programme, not a complete channel.
Who is the best person to write to who might actually listen? Is there some identied contact who we can all complain to on masse?
Complain about this comment
Just to update you all that we're expecting another blog post from Danielle soon - possibly by the start of next week.
Complain about this comment
citizenlz-129
Complain here:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
You dont have to complain about a specific program. On the form where it asks just leave that bit of info blank and click next.
Complain about this comment
Thanks tagmclaren
I have used that form before, but all I ever got was a stock reply "thanking for contacting BBC".
Oh well. I have submitted a further complain.
Perhaps I should write to the governers. Does anyone know if they take heed?
Complain about this comment
"It is actually fortunate that we still have the BBC HD DOG. Otherwise, I wouldn't know I was watching HD"
So we have finally dicovered the reason for the DOG then!
Complain about this comment
If i remember there is a "do you want a reply" box to tick somewhere.
I certainly have had replies when I have contacted them in the the past.
You will need to start with this and then progress further, ultimately to the trust if you are not satisfied with the answers given.
Complain about this comment
I would like to say guys, that there is a lot of frustration out there about the issues.
In my humble opinion, It doesn't help to vent one's frustration on someone personally or to attack their competence without all the facts. In fact, that will only force retrenchment and opinions ON BOTH SIDES to harden.
The amount of posts that have been deleted troubles me for that indicates opinions beyond what is quality debate.
If we want things to change then we have to back up our complaints/issue/point with facts and/or thought out opinion. A shining example is HDFan428 who has taken the time and trouble, not only to cite examples but provides the evidence in screen shots.
Your complaint/observation may well be valid; PLEASE just take a little more time to justify it.
With deepest respect,
Complain about this comment
#130 - Hopefully with FULL rollout details for Freeview HD.
Complain about this comment
I have made a formal complaint to BBC complaints and the first reply was very unacceptable as the BBC employee had quite clearly not read my complaint as I had put about being a poster on this blog and on how Danielle did not believe that anything was wrong. All he did was refer me back to this blog which shows it was just a stock reply. I then replied again to BBC complaints to say that they had not answered any of my questions and how i expected them to read my complaint before replying, I further added the information gained from the FOI request and asked for comments on that.
I have today recieved a reply from them saying that the whole of the BBC believe the picture quality is good and how in fact they had market leading broadcast picture and technology which is obviously a very negative approach. At the bottom of the email was a link to say how to escalate the complaint further to the BBC trust which is what I am going to start shortly and further to complaint about BBC HD i shall also be raising the issue of the BBC complaints department as I believe they have failed to do their job to the required level. I do know somebody else with high level industry knowledge and support is taking the complaint via the OFCOM route as he believes he has the evidence and papers to confirm that the BBC are complying to the conditions that were set for BBC HD to operate as a channel and has supporting documents from programme makers raising the issue on how BBC HD is damaging the uptake of HDTV in the UK.
Complain about this comment
I see the Culture Show is on BBC HD twice again this evening, what a total waste of the limited airtime.
7pm-8pm The Culture Show
11pm-12 midnight The Culture Show
Complain about this comment
Re 137 "I have today recieved a reply from them saying that the whole of the BBC believe the picture quality is good and how in fact they had market leading broadcast picture and technology"
From social exchanges know for a fact that many within the BBC, especially those with any technical remit, will not subscribe to that answer.
It has been suggested to me by someone within the BBC that the POV slot by Danielle and the initial airing of my video complaint insert earlier would have been due to increasing internal frustration over technical cutbacks and shortcomings.
I'm told that these days the BBC seem to buy "any old tat" off the shelves, with decision-making often seemingly in the hands of ill-advised management who believe whatever sales-pitch they've been fed, often despite heartfelt pleas from those who actually know and understand how the stuff works.
Also that virtually everything in the BBC these days is done cut-price and to less than satisfactory standards. Technical matters are probably worst affected as very few managers understand them.
I'm also told that they have broadcast-critical failures on a fairly regular basis now that the public would previously never have noticed because they'd have been spotted and dealt with before getting to air, or the in-system redundancies would have taken up the slack and by-passed them.
So the strength of feeling here on the blogs over technical shortcomings is more than echoed by the staff who have to work with it - even though there may be a 'party line' to be followed.
Complain about this comment
@Nick
You say that Danielle is going to produce another blog soon. Well quite frankly after her outburst on POV I don't want yet another blog from her. She has not engaged in conversation on any of her recent blogs and she demostrated that she is not technically comptent to discuss picture quality. I think what I would like is from somebody on your technical staff to do a blog who will be able to discuss the issues raised intelegently. We were all hoping that Andy would do a blog on how the BBC tested the encoders before they were deployed but that has not materialized. This situation has now dragged on for over 4 months now and no progress has been made.
One of the major issues is why did the BBC needed to cut the bit in any case. The transponder is has not been used for other channels and just sits out in space not doing not very much. We have spectulated on why they did it but the BBC has not given an answer.
Complain about this comment
I am looking forward to the new blog - I hope it's not the usual spin and that we actually get some answers to the many direct questions and claims asked on here or the direct emails to Danielle which get ignored as well.
Complain about this comment
Re: Post #140
I agree Trevorjharris.
If Danielle has nothing positive to say and listen to the complaints of the "Licence Payer", then theres no point on another blog with more spin.
Complain about this comment
Good to see the CNET Crave blog giving this some coverage. Hopefully this kind of thing will draw the problems to the attention of a wider audience
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029474,49304233,00.htm
Complain about this comment
Well we have to give her a chance guys. We go on about her lack of interest here so lets hope she suprises up with some good responce to the critism. (now dont let us down Danielle)
Maybe specsavers have been in contact since the weekend.
Complain about this comment
@NickReynolds Thanks for you message Nick, do you know what the subject matter is please?
The first distinct areas is around bandwidth.
With so much bandwidth being wasted on the satellite transponder BBC HD could unfix its fix and there is still enough for a second HD channel that could be run as a red button stream to carry HD broadcasts where there is a channel clash.
Freeview HD will used DVB-T2/MPEG-4 with no fixed bitrates, with 40.2Mb/s overall capacity BBC HD will start with an average of 13.4Mb/s of capacity, that is 38% more than BBC HD on 9.7Mb/s. Of course with it being unfixed it could reach up to 20Mb/s for short periods of time when needed so the channel could end up having up to double the capacity of BBC HD on satellite.
Even when Five HD joins the platform the MPEG-4 codec will roughtly have been improved another 30%.
That would leave the platform with an effective total rate of 52.2Mb/s so each channel would still have an average of 13.05Mb/s.
Also as the broadcasting industry knows you don't need a low bandwidth to bring various styles of HD, BBC HD should be unfixed so the broadcasts can be shown as they are intended to be, not manipulated by arbitrary bandwidth restrictions.
The second major issue to be addressed is programming.
How is BBC HD going to deal with non-stop coverage of The Winter Olympics from 4pm-4am from February the 12th-28th?
Will there be a red button HD stream to provide programmes like Heroes in HD while BBC HD brings non-stop coverage?
And what about the lack of using the outside broadcast equipment in HD that covers events like Rugby Union, it would be possible for BBC HD to bring both the Wales and Scotland games in HD this weekend.
The Wales game takes place on a Friday evening and won't interrupt any new programming and the Scotland game will take place in the early afternoon on Saturday so it won't cause a problem for BBC HD.
Future Autumn Internationals can also be covered in HD with no problems.
There are few reasons as well with the continued expansion of HD outside broadcast facilities, it's becoming harder and harder to book a non-HD unit as they are being upgraded.
The BBC could send one to Ireland to provide next years 6 nations in HD for UK,French and Italian broadcasters and also work with local French and Italian outside broadcasters to bring those games in HD.
BBC HD could expand its coverage of this years darts without affecting its current schedule.
It could also bring The Grand National in HD and show viewers coverage of French and Australian Open Tennis including matches involving Andy Murray, the semi finals and finals.
It could also bring viewers Formula One which is what many viewers want.
Also there is also studio programming and programming that is now being filmed in HD that isn't going out in HD.
Flight of the Conchords is avaliable to show in HD.
And studios are now ready or soon will be to show QI,The Graham Norton Show,Have I Got News For You and University Challenge.
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm another blog..... Wonder if this will be like all the others where there is a total denial of problems and most questions unanswered.
Please Danielle be honest in your next blog, admit the quality reduction and answer some questions we want answering about the quality.
Theres no point in doing another fob off blog.
Complain about this comment
@wednesday83
Freeview HD will used DVB-T2/MPEG-4 with no fixed bitrates, with 40.2Mb/s overall capacity BBC HD will start with an average of 13.4Mb/s of capacity, that is 38% more than BBC HD on 9.7Mb/s. Of course with it being unfixed it could reach up to 20Mb/s for short periods of time when needed so the channel could end up having up to double the capacity of BBC HD on satellite.
There is enough information out there now, even Andy Quested has posted a slide show, see post 85.
It shows how Freeview HD will actually have more capacity than Satellite so BBC HD will if no changes are made look better on Freeview HD.
At least half the satellite transponder that BBC HD is on is being wasted.
BBC HD could be allowed to have the same bandwidth as it will get on Freeview HD and there will still be enough room for a overspill red button HD stream.
Complain about this comment
#129, @citizenloz, welcome.
I'm about to complain to Sir Michael Lyons at the BBC Trust, which is the final stage in a long process of escalating complaints up through the levels that I embarked on over a year ago. If you want to add your real name to the many others who've already signed up then you can find my email address in this BBC document I posted here:
http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/downloads/RFI20091332_-_final_response.pdf
from the home page of my blog here:
http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/
and if you want to look elsewhere to complain, then the Daily Telegraph media correspondent, here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/urmee-khan/ has been in contact with me regarding the situation.
Incidently, both the Telegraph and the BBC staff email addresses can be easily found by putting their first and last names together, separated by a full stop followed by either, @telegraph or @bbc dot co dot uk
And if you use the facility the BBC provide to look up my past posts you'll find plenty of other info in them too.
Complain about this comment
As all has already been said, I too found the comments made by Danielle on POV to be very disingenuous, and in my honest opinion, deliberately misleading. I don't for a minute believe that Danielle actually believes almost anything she said, especially the frankly laughable comment about the lack of link between PQ and bitrate, nor the DOG helping people to navigate, and it is my opinion, that the "conversation" alluded to on these very blogs, is almost entirely one sided, with Danielle making some statements, then failing to respond to any subsequent questions.
I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is and start the complaints process also, but you just know it'll be a (very long and fuitless) hiding to nothing! :(
Matt.
Complain about this comment
#149, Matt, I've already gone through that long and arduous complaints process and I'm now nearly at the end.
So, I appeal to you, and every other commenter on this and Danielle's Blog to help me through that final hurdle because I sense we are about to make a breakthrough.
I would like everyone here to click your own name on one of your comments, then look through all of your past posts and cut-n-paste the points that you would like me to take to the Trust for you into a Word (or Notepad) document. As a guideline, I would appreciate it if you keep the documents to a limit of 1000 word each. Please also put your real name, and if you wish to reveal it to the Trust your email address too, at the end. Then save it with your BBC ID as the title.
You may then email it to me, using the email address at the link that I gave in #148. I will then attach these documents to my complaint.
I request that you keep the comments civil, repect the rules that Nick applies here, and please make sure that you select your very best points, including technical argument too where you are sure of your facts, and of course you may add illustrations if you wish.
I promise to include every single document that meets these criteria in my Trust submission, which I have now decided to send the weekend after next, Sun 21. This gives you over a week, so please take your time to make them perfect representations of your views on BBC HD PQ. Thank you all, in advance, for your contributions, because depending on the size of the response I may not be able to thank you all individually.
Complain about this comment
I'm going to do a proper post later, but I hope somebody is recording Defying Gravity. It's stupendously bad. Unfortunately I'm having some technical problems that mean I might not be able to get any of it.
A box brownie would show up the problems on this one.
Complain about this comment
@ andrew Knight As said before BBC HD could cover loads more sports in HD, but they haven't got the budget to do it. Also, it's not for the BBC to contract HD trucks and send them to Ireland to cover a rugby match, where they are not the host broadcast.
For the small audiences they get, it's hardly fair on the majority of licence payers who don't get BBC HD.
Perhaps you should be addressing Roger Mosey's blog. I believe it's his budget that has to pay for HD coverage. He is the one who has explained why certain sports are or are not covered in HD. As you can guess, money is nearly always the stumbling block.
Complain about this comment
OK, I managed to get up and running for the end of Defying Gravity. As I posted earlier, some parts of this looked shockingly poor; a good an example of how you could be uncertain as to whether you are watching HD or SD. Here are some screen grabs. As ever, these are from the raw bitstream, and you need to double click to get the full scale image.
Some scenes which are dominated by codec artefacts and poor definition:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7141/df1d.jpg
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3559/df4.jpg
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7237/df5m.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9668/df12.jpg
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9229/df6v.jpg
(That one looks *weird* on the right hand side)
Meanwhile, the CGI sails through looking great:
http://img35.imageshack.us/i/df8g.jpg/
and well lit scenes are also good, though in a minority in the part I recorded:
http://img44.imageshack.us/i/df14.jpg/
A key consideration is that this is a programme with a deliberate ‘grainy’ look, in the sense of an added post production effect. When done well this can be very effective, or at least I think so, basically adding an expressionist element to the image. But from what I’ve read, as well as from the evidence of the images, getting this right is a demanding task for the encoder, certainly more demanding than a picture without such treatment. And when it’s wrong, the results are dismal. That’s what I think is pretty obviously happening here: the encoder can’t cope and turns grain into artefacts.
In previous weeks I’ve noticed that there is more grain on the SD picture, as if the HD version had been ‘scrubbed’ somehow so that the encoder has had an easier time of it. If so, it didn’t happen this week.
It’s hard to capture some aspects of the problems in stills since they really depend on a live picture, but the following two grabs make another point. They are consecutive frames. The thing to look for is not the outline of the objects and the actor but the large changes in the texture of the static areas, for instance the side of the bunk bed above the actor and the bedclothes on top of it, and especially the ‘fog’ at the bottom of the image. The frames are very different because in one the encoder manages a decent render then goes to pieces in the next one.
http://img109.imageshack.us/i/df22.jpg/
http://img5.imageshack.us/i/df23.jpg/
And that’s just two frames. This is a pattern evident in previous images I’ve posted but it’s especially damaging in this sequence. It makes for a fragile, messy and unengaging picture.
All of this makes one reach for the remote to check it’s really BBC HD. Again, I think this is evidence that substantiates widespread comments on these blogs, in this case that people are sometimes not sure what channel they are on, and the grim humour about the real purpose of the DOG being to let them know because the picture doesn’t.
Complain about this comment
Right, latest report made, I’d like to say thank you for the very kind words directed towards me in previous posts in this thread and others. Cheers guys.
It’s gratifying to see the story taken up beyond this blog in the Cnet article, and I hope it spreads from there. In the meantime I’ll obviously be contributing to paul_geaton’s submission to the Trust as per post #148, as I hope many other contributors on here will do.
But I’m also looking forward to Danielle Nagler’s next post, on the expectation that it will take into account the feedback on this blog on her pov appearance. It really needs to. Just one thing: I hope she will not try to shoot the messenger and call into question the integrity (either moral(!) or technical) of the evidence I’ve posted. It’s not that I’m expecting it, but somehow I feel it’s worth saying anyway.
#139, mikefromaberdeen: Interesting stuff!
Complain about this comment
Sorry,I meant post #150 from paul_geaton, obviously.
Complain about this comment
Another news article panning the Points of View Q&A:
http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200911125197/bbc-cuts-hdtv-bit-rate.html
Complain about this comment
Now the first podcast about BBC HD picture quality .
Listen to the first three minutes.
http://www.frequencycast.co.uk/blog/2009/11/audio-update-12-nov-09-bbc-hd-and-3d.html
Complain about this comment
@ Matthew Collier
Daneille has always been kind enough to listen to posts, Top Gear will be now shown in HD after listening to the views.
Even the European Broadcasting Union in its latest report shows how channels shouldn't be fixed to get the best out of the latest technology so hopefully posters views will be listened to.
@derek500
It's becoming harder and harder to book a non-HD outside broadcast unit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/a_day_in_the_life_of_the_head.html
See posts 141 and 151.
Between several companies they have over 30 outside broadcast units that can handle HD and they aim to replace the rest in the coming future.
Costs will be falling as there is greater competition in the market.
Also events like Australian Open and French Open tennis are provided in HD by other broadcasters.
I have put some comments on the BBC Sport blog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/rogermosey/2009/11/vancouver_lights_the_way_for_l.html
Complain about this comment
The short piece in Rapid tv news referenced in #156 is interesting.
Ms Nagler does not have a technical or engineering background. Appointed to the HD job in July 2008, she had previously worked as head of Mark Thomson’s (the BBC’s DG) office. Prior to this she worked on the BBC’s Charter Renewal project.
So it looks as though Danielle has no television production experience either. So why on earth did they make her Head of HD. I notice that the BBC expenses revalation show that Mark Thompson took Danielle out to dinner at our expence.
Complain about this comment
@ Andre Knight. I'm sure the majority of the BBC's SD sports coverage is produced with HD enabled OB trucks. That's not the issue.
It's the extra costs of delivering the HD pictures to our screens that makes it an SD/HD decision.
ROger Mosey stated he could have carried the Super Bowl in HD, but the extra expense couldn't be justified.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Andrew I made you French!!
Complain about this comment
#160, derek500, we discussed this before at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/01/bbc_hd_creeping_dogs.html#P75257534 when you quoted the following to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2009/02/gearing_up_for_the_super_bowl.html
but I'd love to know how Roger feels the expense is not justified. Back in Feb they were showing it on BBC1 I think, and if I recall correctly it might even have been only in 4:3.
It was, nevertheless, a fantastic spectacle, including what has to be the most amazing touchdown: http://machronicles.com/2009/02/02/james-harrisons-amazing-touchdown-for-superbowl-2009/. For that alone it would have been worth any expense to be shown in widescreen, high-def and 5.1.
Roger, if you're reading, I say damn the expense and please just put the next Superbowl on in HD! Goodness knows, a glance here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6551214/Top-100-BBC-bosses-salaries-and-expenses-revealed.html shows that, in certain circumstances, the BBC is quite good at damning expenses (although, @Stuart Wilson, I know I mustn't go there).
Complain about this comment
Two things for the discussion....
We are all blaming the reduction in quality here to the reduction in the bit rate and the introduction of new encoders/codecs. Does anyone know if there have been any changes to the BBC's SD transmissions ? I only ask as i feel that the quality from BBC2 and BBC1 has also been reduced. (last nights SCD take2 was so horrible, we watched it on analogue.) There's no reason why we should put up with digital artefacts on SD either.
As far as the HD broadcasts are concerned the transmission needs to be transparent. What we see on our HD TV's should be exactly what the producer wanted us to see. If that means softness or grain then so be it. As that's what it's supposed to look like.
What we don't want is artefacts introduced by the encode -> transmission -> decode path. Now that is NOT what we are seeing ... i could forgive the occasional minor artefact, but when the image has macroblocking crawling across the screen or horrible posterization on a clear blue sky, then something is just plain wrong.
BBC .... i don't care what bitrate you use or what codec ... I just want HD quality images.
To paraphrase president Clinton ... It's the "image quality" stupid.
Andy
Complain about this comment
We've just published a new blog post by Danielle about this topic. So I'm now going to close this one for comments.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS