|
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
The picture quality was totally appalling on SD. Even on the still shots the
presenters clothes were totally covered in huge blocks and when the acts were dancing they looked like fuzzy shimmering insects thanks to those dot matrix video walls flashing behind them. This stuff is going at 4505kbps fixed bit rate and it's completely dire. Using H.264 would make no difference to quality at that high a bit rate so why are the BBC still using those flashing video walls behind performers and presenters? Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
Agamemnon wrote:
Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? The programme was not shown on BBC HD. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Mike Henry" wrote in message ... In , "Agamemnon" wrote: Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even on static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly justify using a bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the bandwidth of SD. It must look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks completely appalling. And if Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio HD whatever that is which is using more or less the same rate must look dire too. To get anywhere near decent SD quality you need at least 8000kbps and DVD uses at least 6000kbps on most movies, so the drop in quality compared to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on these HD stations must be hideous. HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or H.264 because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at 3000kbps which looks completely dire on live music with performers in front of those dot matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray which claim to have similar picture quality. HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD. |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
Agamemnon wrote:
HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD. Both DVD and BluRay mastering often uses multipass encoding, DVB uses 'on the fly' encoding, so you're not comparing like for like. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Agamemnon" wrote in message . uk... HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) the fact that you don't seem to know that blu ray can use the 264 codec also makes me wonder if the rest of what you say is untrue too. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD. Both DVD and BluRay mastering often uses multipass encoding, DVB uses 'on the fly' encoding, so you're not comparing like for like. If that is the case then it is obviously clear that DVB requires a much, much higher bit rate to get equivalent quality to DVD and BluRay, in fact it needs the maximum bit-rate available on DVD which is 8000kbps for SD using MPEG-2 and the maximum bit rate on HD-DVD which is 30000kbps using H.264, because all multipass encoding does is encode the complicated scenes where there is the most motion at a higher bit-rate. |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "Agamemnon" wrote in message . uk... HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) the fact that you don't seem to know that blu ray can use the 264 codec also makes me wonder if the rest of what you say is untrue too. Wrong. There is no way anything I have said could be possibly construed to imply anything of the kind. You are clearly a clueless troll who can't understand English. |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
In message , Agamemnon
writes "Mike Henry" wrote in message .. . In , "Agamemnon" wrote: Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even on static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly justify using a bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the bandwidth of SD. It must look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks completely appalling. And if Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio HD whatever that is which is using more or less the same rate must look dire too. To get anywhere near decent SD quality you need at least 8000kbps and DVD uses at least 6000kbps on most movies, so the drop in quality compared to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on these HD stations must be hideous. HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or H.264 because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at 3000kbps which looks completely dire on live music with performers in front of those dot matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray which claim to have similar picture quality. HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD. I have a Humax HD receiver, and a SD TV, and Luxe TV looks immaculate, even if I go right up to the screen to scrutinise it. The same goes for BBC HD. Is it possible your system isn't all you think it is? It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos. -- Ian |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy Damn, I missed it! -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Ian" wrote in message ... In message , Agamemnon writes "Mike Henry" wrote in message . .. In , "Agamemnon" wrote: Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even on static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly justify using a bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the bandwidth of SD. It must look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks completely appalling. And if Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio HD whatever that is which is using more or less the same rate must look dire too. To get anywhere near decent SD quality you need at least 8000kbps and DVD uses at least 6000kbps on most movies, so the drop in quality compared to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on these HD stations must be hideous. HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or H.264 because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at 3000kbps which looks completely dire on live music with performers in front of those dot matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray which claim to have similar picture quality. HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD. I have a Humax HD receiver, and a SD TV, and Luxe TV looks immaculate, even if I go right up to the screen to scrutinise it. The same goes for BBC HD. Is it possible your system isn't all you think it is? It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos. Filmed on U-matic from the look of them. How they can claim that is HD I don't know. It's not even SD, and look at the stereo audio bitrate which is only 128 kbps. This would indicate that the quality it is aiming at is the same as one of the BBC's interactive streams or worse. -- Ian |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
Agamemnon wrote:
e your system isn't all you think it is? It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos. Filmed on U-matic from the look of them. How they can claim that is HD I don't know. It's not even SD, and look at the stereo audio bitrate which is only 128 kbps. There are two versions of Luxe, one SD, one HD, both on the same t/p 12643 H HTH -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Agamemnon" wrote in message . uk... The picture quality was totally appalling on SD. Even on the still shots the presenters clothes were totally covered in huge blocks and when the acts were dancing they looked like fuzzy shimmering insects thanks to those dot matrix video walls flashing behind them. This stuff is going at 4505kbps fixed bit rate and it's completely dire. Using H.264 would make no difference to quality at that high a bit rate so why are the BBC still using those flashing video walls behind performers and presenters? Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at? The 'dot matrix video walls' cause the same problems on HD broadcasts, even with good bitrates - there's just too much changing detail for the encoders to cope with. I still have a recording of the 2008 Olympics closing party in London, and it is without doubt the worst quality I have ever seen on BBC HD, thanks to those video walls. The real question is which morons put these video walls on the stage, knowing the problems they cause. |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: e your system isn't all you think it is? It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos. Filmed on U-matic from the look of them. How they can claim that is HD I don't know. It's not even SD, and look at the stereo audio bitrate which is only 128 kbps. There are two versions of Luxe, one SD, one HD, both on the same t/p I know. The SD version looks like it's been sourced from U-matic so if it's broadcasting the same content as the HD version how can they justify calling it HD? The 128 kbps audio is on the HD stream too. 12643 H HTH -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.
"Graham." wrote in message ... shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy Damn, I missed it! -- Graham. %Profound_observation% I wish I knew what language these guys were talkin'........its all way too technical for me. I just select SD or HD and get what it sends............BBC HD is so good and I wish I had done it before. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com