BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Alsone

Listed below are comments made by Alsone between Sunday, 25th October 2009 and Thursday, 10th December 2009 (21 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Mostly Testing (Or how to set up an encoder test) 1:50pm on 10 Dec 2009 @Tiggs #71, well pre launch of Freesat and even shortly post launch there was a lot of talking up done of the platform and informal marketing by I believe the BBC and others which led people to believe that it would offer better quality and choice than Freeview. The fact is people cannot be blamed for their expectations when they were built up by marketing.

However, irrespective of blame for potentially misleading statements mae about Freesat, I believe the BBC has to take a view on this and realise that whatever they intended, Freesat has grown beyond a mere Freeview fallback and has indeed become a platform for the serious viewer with many people investing large amounts of money in the service through PVR's, receivers, dish installations etc on the back of this.

As the BBC / Trust can't go back, the only way is forwards and given the audience for the platform ia already established, the only real way forward is to give the viewers what they want and seperate out Freesat and Freeview as 2 distinct propositions under which Freeview is the ordinary option for the casual viewer containing as much programming as it can hold, and Freesat the more expensive option for those who are serious about greater PQ, watch a lot of tv, or are more casual but can't receive Freeview.

Also, irrespective of the BBC's current position on Freesat this is something thats going to be forced on them anyway over the next few years. Freeview is totally blocked in by lack of bandwidth due to the government's sell off and as ever more programmes go HD or HD resolutions become ever more higher, Freeview cannot accomodate them and supply to the to the British public so the only options will be to deny the public these channels or to provide them via satellite.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Mostly Testing (Or how to set up an encoder test) 00:37am on 10 Dec 2009 I was unaware that Emma Scott had left the BBC. Obviously I've not been around here often enough recently.

Personally, I'm neutral on this although I think in the light of her recent comment which would seem to imply that we are an unsatisfied minority rather than a voice of many regulars users, maybe its not such a bad thing as I certainly don't perceive use as a minority, something thats backed up by the level of complaints on other less specialised blogs / forums such as Digital Spy.

In a lot of ways Andy its as I have said a long time ago. Freesat is more of a serious tv watchers platform (avoiding the use of enthusiast here as I believe thats a bit too minority implying). Most people who have joined Freesat have done so because of the potential of what it has to offer - quality and choice above that of Freeview. Many of those have better than average equipment. Many of those also watch more tv than average.

It seems to me that a lot of the reason why we are at loggerheads over quality is because the BBC / Trust still perceive Freesat as a fall back for those who can't receive Freeview, whilst the majority of Freesat users, perceive it as a quality free alternative to Sky.

Bearing in mind the investment required to receive Freesat (especially for anyone who has never previously had satellite), and the early marketing (although not necessarily official talk up of the platform), this is hardly surprising.

Personally, I still think the only way forwards if for the BBC / Trust to see Freesat as a platform in its own right and market it as the quality alternative to Freeview aimed at those more discerning viewers who want that little bit more transmission quality and who are prepared to pay more for the equipment to receive it. That in no way takes it away from its original role as a fallback for those who can't get Freeview, but it does satsify the majority of users who are already on Freesat and expecting that greater standard.

At the end of the day, no-one is expecting Freesat to have lots of premium programming that vies with Sky. However, most are expecting top quality transmission and as most parallel alternatives as Freesat can attract / the BBC can afford including maybe a 2nd BBC HD channel and hopefully other HD channels as well. Bearing in mind satellite's potential to carry more channels than Freeview, it also has the potential to offer greater choice.

We all know there is some shortage of space on 2D on narrow footprint transponders, but equally there are many solutions to this problem from getting Sky to relocate its encrypted transmissions from off the narrow footprint transponders onto the wide footprint transponders, to the Trust introducing a ranking system for contract renewall / offers to ensure that at renewal time, top rated channels get offered a place ahead of small minority appeal channels, to the Trust using wide footprint transponders for some Freesat content and encryption where the decrypt code is transmitted over the air using a Freesat signal itself on a narrowfootprint transponder thus making the decryption FTA but only receivable by those who fall within the narrow footprint. I'm sure there are other solutions as well.

The fact is though, the only way the BBC / Trust will ever lay this one to bed is to work with the users on the platform to achieve the standard they are expecting and for the Trust to finally recognise the platform as a quality platform in its own right not a 2nd rate Freeview fall back. Most users on here would love to work with the BBC to assist them in developing the platform, but whilst ever the BBC / Trust continue to see Freesat as the poor relation to Freeview and the users as a moaning minority, no progress will ever be made nor will 3/4 million viewers (latest figures for Freesat), be happy.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Mostly Testing (Or how to set up an encoder test) 2:12pm on 09 Dec 2009 @daveac, I'm not sure what your point is with regards to plasmas. They still provide the best picture quality for colour reproduction and are not quite sharp as LCD, so if a picture looks unsharp on BBC HD on an LCD think about all the plasma owners out there! I don't think you can carry an argument that the BBC should encode with LCD's in mind. If they encode for plasmas sharpness wise, then your guranteed a sharp picture on lCD. The same isn't necessarily true the other way around as something that might just be sharp on LCD could be soft on plasma.

Its also untrue to assume that higher resolution = better picture picture quality.

One of the best TV's ever made, the Pioneer Kuro is HD Ready (720P) but in WhatHiFI tests and most other expert tests around the net it outperformed most Full HD screens for picture quality by a vast amount. Sure it surrended a little detail, but extracted so much more detail than normal from 720P and from the picture in other ways that overall it simply looked better. Most reviews comment on the 3D appearance of the picture. So it just shows raw resolution isn't everything.

Andy, you mention eye sight as a method of testing. However, there's one fatal flaw to this in that without a reference point, the brain can find it hard to judge just how good something is. If its been a while since you last viewed razor sharp HD, then mediocre HD may still look good.

Personally I think it would be better to watch a razor sharp Blu Ray disc and then watch the BBC test programme (or even have them on adjacent screens) so that your brain has something to reference the BBC programme against. On the same subject, I'm going to suggest care when choosing Blu Ray's as we all know some are worse than DVD. Like everything there are soperb and poor with a range in between. Maybe the BBC's Life Footage from Plants (episode 9 of 10)(the closeup footage) should now be used as BBC reference footage?
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Mostly Testing (Or how to set up an encoder test) 1:55pm on 09 Dec 2009 On the subject of encoding, processing and picture quality:

Some praise for a change BBC's Life HD (Episode 9 of 10) "Plants" looked superb for perhaps 95% of the footage.

Now whether or not the fact that it was nearly all close up or slow motion footage had an effect I don't know. I'm kind of thinking along the lines that with such a shallow depth of field and frame by frame slow motion processing, the BBC Post Production Team applied a lot more sharpening in post than they do normally.

However, whatever the cause, it paid dividends.

Like I said 95% of the footage was razor sharp and crystal clear. If anything the the slightly less sharp shots were the longer ones so maybe this supports the theory.

Anyway, the BBC need to learn from this and repeat it across the board with all of their footage close ups, slow mo or longer shots.
Points of View and HD Picture Quality: a response 3:40pm on 23 Nov 2009 Added:

BBC HD Natural World Mamba, White Witch top

FIVE SD Megastructures Bottom

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9089/combined2.jpg
Points of View and HD Picture Quality: a response 11:46am on 23 Nov 2009 I agree with MikefromAberdeen entirely. No-one cares how its done, we just want to see a real HD quality picture again.

Here's another comparison showing how quality appears to have fallen even further.

This is Natural World Mamba, White Witch (top pic) back to back with Lost Land of the Volcano from a few months ago (which was in itself criticised a little for quality):

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1259/combineda.jpg

The terrible quality of Natural World is there for all to see.

Yes, the methodology of photographing a screen on pause is flawed but its equally flawed for both shots as they were done back to back under the same conditions so it still shows a valid comparison.
Points of View and HD Picture Quality: a response 11:53pm on 22 Nov 2009 Paul, there is one alternative here, I've been loathed to bring this up in the past but if the Trust fail to come through then you could resort to Legal Action and possibly forming a group action.

I understand the Trust are legally bound to adhere to the terms under which they operate as its a legal charter, which I understand includes the term on broadcast quality.

Therefore they can be subject to judicial review to see if they are operating Ultra Vires - ie. outside / beyond their legal powers in making the decision to allegedly reduce quality to a level that might be allegedly below that of the competition, something that might possibly allegedly conflict with their terms of operation.

There's also no reason why this could not lead to an equitable claim for damages as a group action. Even a nominal claim of £100 x 300,000 HD users would be a major hit on the BBC's finances excluding the costs they might incur in attempting to defend the action which could also run into millions. It should also be possible with a favourable verdict to seek an injunction to force the BBC to up quality to a level in accordance with the Charter (assuming of course the Court had found it to have been in contravention of that standard).

The BBC are currently relying in my opinion on the fact that no-one is going to go to the expense of mounting a challenge over free tv. Maybe its time to prove them wrong with a legal challenge if the Trust fail to re-raise the quality bar.
Points of View and HD Picture Quality: a response 11:14pm on 22 Nov 2009 Watched the BBC's Natural World tonight - recorded on Thursday - "Black Mamba, white witch".

Absolutely terrible picture all the way through.

In fact one of the worst HD pictures I've ever seen.

Soft throughout, no detail anywhere, on the faces the blur was so bad you couldn't see lines or wrinkles.

Reminded me of minor channel quality SD it was so bad for quality.
Picture Quality on BBC HD: a response 7:24pm on 26 Oct 2009 Another video to compare.

This again is shot on a Canon 7D stills camera in 720P mode.

I believe this also answers the questions HD_1080 had about colour punch earlier in the now closed blog. The Sky and reds and yellows are absolutely saturated and jump out at you and yet the skin tones are entirely natural. That's the colour power of HD as it should be.

The other thing that strikes you straight away is the clarity, detail and sharpness compared to BBC HD. bearing in mind this isn't the original you're watching but a flash conversion for the web, I think it speaks volumes about the quality of HD and volumes about what the BBC are currently delivering.

Andy, you're not really going to tell us that BBC HD exceeds this for quality are you???? (this isn't sarcasm but a serious question given some previous denials to come out in this blog). You know ultimately I am on your side so far as compression goes *provided* the BBC can deliver this kind of quality which to be frank, we didn't even see before the encoder change:

VIDEO HERE: http://vimeo.com/7197831
Picture Quality on BBC HD: a response 10:56am on 25 Oct 2009 @ Fireyab9. Excellent post.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Alsone