BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

BBC criticised over HD picture quality.

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Broadcaster accused of stifling complaints after TV shows lose their
sharpness
The BBC's high-definition (HD) television service has lost its
pin-sharp pictures, viewers are claiming.

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

The BBC has been accused of stifling the criticism by closing user
forums on its websites that contained negative comments from viewers.
Forums that have been re-opened have been bombarded with fresh
responses filling page after page. Viewers who claim they have been
"fobbed off" have contacted the BBC Trust, demanding that it
investigates the problem.

Protests began in August after the BBC changed its encoding system,
leading to claims that its HD service, available on the Freesat
platform, was little better than normal television. The Corporation's
main commercial rival Sky transmits HD programmes at a bitrate of
between 1MB and 15MB.

Viewers watching the BBC HD channel, which screens top shows such as
Gavin & Stacey, said they had seen a dip in picture quality.

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

"There are hundreds of people complaining all the time. The BBC will
open a forum, get hundreds of complaints, respond to them, shut down
the forum, and then it will start all over again." According to one
theory, the BBC changed encoders so that it could offer more
programmes on HD BBC1, which is due to be launched next year on
Freeview, where bandwidth is limited. But Nick Caley, a spokesman for
the BBC, rejected the idea, saying: "The reason the [encoders] were
replaced was because they had come to the end of their lives. We did
extensive testing which showed [the new encoders] could produce
pictures at the same or even better quality than the old encoders at
the higher bitrate."

Denying any stifling of dissent, he added: "We have actively debated
the issue of BBC HD picture quality, via our blog, with those viewers
who feel the bitrate change has affected picture quality. Only this
week the head of technology posted a blog per day addressing the
issues raised."

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

One blogger responded: "Sorry but the post seems to be the the usual
BBC HD fob-off. When the channel started out the picture quality was
stunning. Then the channel lowered the bandwidth and the quality went
down."

Link to article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...y-1837376.html

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article , Grappler wrote:
Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes? If only it was.

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

Clearly, I have been labouring under a delusion these past forty years
or so, that broadcast technical quality depended in some way on the
technology, and not the marketing people's beliefs.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On 10/12/09 05:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Grappler wrote:

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes?

Per second? fortnight?

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

tThe problem here is not the on the face of it figures, but how accurate is
it at making the picture look right one would think. After all, on paper
lots of things seem to outperform their processors, even at lower bit
rates, but if the end result is in fact worse then someone should say, hey,
our paper specs do not reflect the actual experience, Lets go away and find
out why.
All too often this is not done.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/09 05:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Grappler wrote:

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes?

Per second? fortnight?

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

When pressed further, she proclaimed that they did not want to
have "just one look" for HD. So, even if they upped the bit rate,
they would still be using all those dreadful "filmic" effects to
throw away the detail.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still
looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act of adding grain and
softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and some of
those programmes now look truly dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is nothing short of
a disgrace technically IMHO.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On 10 Dec, 05:44, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , Grappler wrote:

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

In so many ways.

Let me remind you of two things...

1. They never admitted DAB had a quality problem after dropping
bitrates
2. They never returned DAB to its previous high quality

With DAB, everyone knew why they dropped the bitrates. For BBC HD on
Freesat, it's not yet clear. The space they've cleared is currently
just null packets - there's obviously "a plan" - something far more
important than providing decent picture quality - but we don't know
what it is yet.


FWIW I previously thought it was dropping Freesat HD down to Freeview
HD levels - but it's not _just_ that - Freeview HD will have a higher
bitrate!

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.
There are certainly several "challenges" stopping the other PSB
channels join Freesat in HD, so maybe the BBC thinks it's a waste
money being there on its own, and intends to side-line it post-DSO.
Bizarre, but I wonder if there's any truth in it?

Cheers,
David.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still
looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act of adding grain
and softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and
some of those programmes now look truly dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is
nothing short of a disgrace technically IMHO.

--

I totally agree Mark, programmes such as the Antiques Roadshow Shot in the
grounds of a stately home in the middle of summer can look absolutely
stunning, whilst at the same time other programs such as the recent one
about Britain presented by Andrew Marr (yes I know he has a radio face!)
appeared to have resorted to a softening of the image, well at least in the
last episode, every time that there was a close up of him.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message ...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act
of adding grain and softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and some of those programmes now look truly
dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is nothing short of a disgrace technically IMHO.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
When I worked for Granada Rentals, it was received wisdom amongst
all of the service (close your ears Paul) engineers, that Hitachi had
knobbled the luminance bandwidth on standard play on the first dual
speed model we offered, so long play didn't look as bad in comparison.
You could pull out a diode and restore full SP quality.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Picture depth? You must have one of those fancy 3D TVs - mine always has
flat images!

Paul DS.

P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:43:01 -0000, "Graham." wrote:

When I worked for Granada Rentals, it was received wisdom amongst
all of the service (close your ears Paul) engineers, that Hitachi had
knobbled the luminance bandwidth on standard play on the first dual
speed model we offered, so long play didn't look as bad in comparison.
You could pull out a diode and restore full SP quality.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in
the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

That certainly applied to ICL 2900 series mainframes.
However in that case the 'concept' was that you were paying for computing
power, not just buying some hardware, and the total package included
hardware, software and on-site engineering support.
ICL were selling several different power ranges of computer, and worked out
that instead of manufacturing several different internals, they could just
produce one set of boards and then set the power rating internally.

I think IBM and Cray worked on similar principles - you paid to have the
wick turned up.

It does my head in sometimes working out if this is reasonable (buying a
certain amount of power) or a con (hang on - I've already paid for this
hardware).

You will probably find the same principle applied to modern automobile
engines. For example the 160 bhp and 180 bhp engines may well be identical
apart from the programming of the ECU.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:44:53 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:32:36 GMT, pete wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:57:31 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:22 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

And I thought the computer industry was bad enough. Actually it was,
and probably still is. In the days of the first hard disks being in
cabinets the size of a washing machine, one household name firm (don't
ask, I no longer have the book and I can't remember which of the two
most likely candidates it was) had a model that could be 'upgraded' to
double the capacity.

After it had paid for a couple of upgrades, a client firm got
suspicious - IIRC they secretly watched or filmed the next one. The
'upgrade' procedure consisted of removing the lid, a furtive look
around to make sure no one was watching, changing settings on a
dip-switch, and replacing the lid!

There was a mainframe computer (in the 1960s or 70s) that was capable of
having its speed increased substantially. It took one or two engineers a
full working day to make the necessary modifications. The contract
required that they had the whole computer room to themselves.

Eventually someone discovered that the modification was the removal of a
single component.

Or so I was told.

You're not thinking of the overclocking of Vaxen that was widespread in
the
early 80's are you. All that required was to replace the clock generator's
crystal with a faster one. It voided your warranty (natch) but the outfit
that did it would sell you a service contract.

No. That doesn't fit the story that I was told. The computer would be
legitimately modified by its manufacturer's engineer(s) in exchange for
money. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

That certainly applied to ICL 2900 series mainframes.
However in that case the 'concept' was that you were paying for computing
power, not just buying some hardware, and the total package included
hardware, software and on-site engineering support.
ICL were selling several different power ranges of computer, and worked out
that instead of manufacturing several different internals, they could just
produce one set of boards and then set the power rating internally.

I think IBM and Cray worked on similar principles - you paid to have the
wick turned up.

It does my head in sometimes working out if this is reasonable (buying a
certain amount of power) or a con (hang on - I've already paid for this
hardware).

It is still widespread today. A lot of high-end suppliers provide CoD (capacity
on demand) services. This entails a server having many more processors
built in than are used / licensed by the client. If you want more, you just
get the supplier in (or even do it over the 'net) to enable more and your
account gets billed the requisite amount. The box doesn't change, just the
amount of it you're permitted to use. Likewise some top-end software is licensed
on a per-CPU basis. So the same binary and the same level of support will cost
more, or less, depending on the power of the server it runs on.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

wrote in message
...

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.

I regret to say that is quite possible that is what they have decided.

I don't have any inside info, only going by what seems to be going on
elsewhere, but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only. I have in mind the Italian, French and Belgian broadcasters
who still operate FTA sat services but are introducing packages that need a
specific decoder box and card available free to a national address.

On Italian satellite (SD) television Mediaset Canale 5 is setting the
trend, the previously FTA sat service has had the bit rate significantly
reduced at the same time as a full bit rate encrypted version has started on
an adjacent channel but needs their specific Tivu decoder box and a free
viewing card. I suspect that the other services of RAI and Mediaset on
these transponders will go the same way and the FTA services be terminated
eventually.

It is said that Germany will not go encrypted on satellite because their
audience has traditionally been FTA via either cable or satellite with
little terrestrial broadcasting. Stations that have tried going encrypted
have had to reverse the move. However the Mediaset example calls this into
question because the Italian audience was also equally split FTA
satellite/terrestrial and yet (AIUT) following the digital switch over (just
happening) terrestrial is encrypted and the full sat package requires a Tivu
decoder.

So if these changes are happening in Europe where transponder space doesn't
seem to be a problem, but because of pressure from rights holders, then
perhaps that will happen here too. Could the BBC re launch its services
on satellite as an encrypted HD package, but with free viewing card with
your TV licence to keep them happy ?

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform, and though this may
well be because Sky made the better commercial offer, and there may not be
room on the FTA transponders, the issues with rights holders and FTA HD
might well have come into the equation.

As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

Roger R

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On 11 Dec, 11:13, "Roger R"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.

I regret to say that is quite possible that is what they have decided.

I don't have any inside info, only going by what seems to be going on
elsewhere, but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only.

This is exactly what I've been hearing.

*I have in mind the Italian, French and Belgian broadcasters
who still operate FTA sat services but are introducing packages that need a
specific decoder box and card available free to a national address.

On Italian satellite (SD) television Mediaset Canale 5 *is setting the
trend, the previously FTA sat service has had the bit rate significantly
reduced at the same time as a full bit rate encrypted version has started on
an adjacent channel but needs their specific Tivu decoder box and a free
viewing card. * I suspect that the other services of RAI and Mediaset on
these transponders will go the same way and the FTA services be terminated
eventually.

It is said that Germany will not go encrypted on satellite because their
audience has traditionally been FTA via either cable or satellite with
little terrestrial broadcasting. Stations that have tried going encrypted
have had to reverse the move.

HD+ (for Germany) launched properly at the start of November. It
features rather strong encryption on HD versions of SD FTA channels. I
have no idea how it's doing. What I've heard (no idea if it's true) is
that this may start a migration of higher value content from the free-
to-air/state television broadcasters to the freeish-to-view private/
commercial broadcasters. Things like recent movies and top-tier
American shows will move out of the reach of FTA channels.

* However the Mediaset example calls this into
question because the Italian audience was also equally split FTA
satellite/terrestrial and yet (AIUT) following the digital switch over (just
happening) terrestrial is encrypted and the full sat package requires a Tivu
decoder.

So if these changes are happening in Europe where transponder space doesn't
seem to be a problem, but because of pressure from rights holders, then
perhaps that will happen here too. * Could the BBC *re launch its services
on satellite as an encrypted HD package, but with free viewing card with
your TV licence to keep them happy ?

Do all Freesat boxes have CI slots? My Humax HDR does - and I can't
imagine who uses them now because it's a pain in non-Freesat mode. So
maybe they're there ready for a BBC/PSB CAM! Even so, CI modules are
out of date because the output is in-the-clear; it would probably need
to be CI+ now (as with HD+ going forward) - but hopefully (again, like
HD+) there'd be a first generation of CI modules available for people
with existing kit.

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform, and though this may
well be because Sky made the better commercial offer, and there may not be
room on the FTA transponders, the issues with rights holders and FTA HD
might well have come into the equation.

As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

Well, it's fine for the BBC if it's only showing its "own" content -
but if CH4, five, and others never join them on the platform, it's a
bit pointless.

We might end up with a worse case scenario - the rest of Europe uses a
competitive non-proprietary FTV model, while our "free" broadcasters
are stuck behind Sky's system and on the piecemeal roll out of
Freeview HD with inadequate bandwidth.

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

I hope we've both got it all wrong! :-)

Cheers,
David.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:26:52 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:01 GMT, Chris J Dixon
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image. Often, when it's a 'busy' image it's
better to have only the subject in sharp focus. I have a copy of the
BBC film 'Galapogas' in both HD and SD and the SD version is better to
watch because the fussy background has less definition, whereas the HD
version makes the background as sharp as the subject.

The position there seems to be that the background is more detailed than
the subject so that a lower resolution representation has more effect,
from the viewer's POV, on the background than on the subject. A higher
resolution will give an image that is closer to the original as seen
through the camera lens.

HD will give a more accurate representation than will SD.

You have described a case in which a film 'Galapogas' looks better to
you personally in a lower resolution version. Fair enough.

As our eyes
naturally focus onto the sharper part of the image (where there is a
difference) our brains process the main content and are not distracted
for whatever goes on in the background. This is a basic technique in
photography and has the advantage that less light is needed because
the apeture is open wider.

Depth of Field is described he
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...h-of-field.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...mls/depth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Depth of Field can be small (subject in focus, everything else blurred)
or large (everthing equally sharp).

Chris J Dixon (above) quotes the BBC's head of HD who believes that "HD
is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture depth".

Assuming proportionately equal compression in transmission the only
difference between SD and HD is picture sharpness[1]. Any differences in
visual apearance are related directly to sharpness, aka definition or
resolution.

[1] I'm assuming that HD TV transmissions have the same number of bits
per pixel as SD.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Kay Robinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:01 GMT, Chris J Dixon
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image.

I thought depth of field was dependent on the lens on the camera (so smaller
aperture = more depth).

Assuming the content was recorded just once (presumably on HD equipment),
how can HD and SD have different background depth? If the HD image has a
background equally as sharp as the subject, that must be the case on SD too?

--
Bartc

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

Roger R wrote:

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform,

'As launching' ? C4 HD has been available on Sky for a couple of years now,
though E4-HD is launching on Sky next week.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

wrote in message
...
On 11 Dec, 11:13, "Roger R"
wrote:
wrote in message

...


but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only.


As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

Well, it's fine for the BBC if it's only showing its "own" content -
but if CH4, five, and others never join them on the platform, it's a
bit pointless.

We might end up with a worse case scenario - the rest of Europe uses a
competitive non-proprietary FTV model, while our "free" broadcasters
are stuck behind Sky's system and on the piecemeal roll out of
Freeview HD with inadequate bandwidth.

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

I hope we've both got it all wrong! :-)

Cheers,
David.



IRC didn't the mainly U.S. copyright holders try this on when the BBC went
FTA from satellite, and wasn't the BBC's response simply to drop those
programs?. Perhaps if our so called 'European Union' took a firmer stand by
making it clear that copyright would have to be negotiated on a 'Pan
European' basis, not individual countries, or Europe would boycott their
programmes altogether, then I reckon that they would soon begin to see
sense, after all, what's the difference between granting copyright to the EU
or to the whole of the U.S?

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"bartc" wrote in message
m...

"Kay Robinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:01 GMT, Chris J Dixon
sharpened a new quill and scratched:

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image.

I thought depth of field was dependent on the lens on the camera (so
smaller aperture = more depth).

Assuming the content was recorded just once (presumably on HD equipment),
how can HD and SD have different background depth? If the HD image has a
background equally as sharp as the subject, that must be the case on SD
too?

--
Bartc

Perceptually, a difference in background depth is possible, because the
lower resolution image will appear out of focus for background objects.
However, perceptually, most of us think the reduction in quality that has
been forced upon us is very obvious and detrimental. In the real world, if
my eyes stray from the key part (foreground) of an image to a background
part of the same image then they will re-focus to adjust for the depth of
field. Given the size of flat-panel displays it is now possible (and
likely) that my eyes will stray in the same way with an artificial image.
However, no measure of re-focussing will bring a low resolution background
back into focus, whereas the high resolution background is already in focus.

All of this, whilst interesting, remains academic. I venture to suggest we
are universally agreed that the lower resolution "HD" image on BBC is now
degraded to the point where it meets neither the potential of the equipment
or our expectations as viewers. I have little doubt that the very clever
people at the BBC know all of the technical arguments and - if they really
cared about their output enough to fight the accountants (or whoever else it
is that are forcing the Beeb down this route) - then they would do something
about it. As it is I am being taxed (via the licence fee) for a service
that I am no longer getting. Regardless of the finer points of the
technical and perceptual arguments there used to be a day not so long ago
when HD was so good that I felt that I could almost recognise a face on the
football terraces. Now it's just the same old pink smudge that it used to
be. Well Done, BBC. Well Done.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On 11 Dec, 14:12, "Ivan" wrote:
wrote in message

...


On 11 Dec, 11:13, "Roger R"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

but IMO the 'rights holders' are pushing the BBC in this
direction, as they appear to have pushed a number of European national
satellite broadcasters away from FTA for all to FTV for registered
nationals only.

As all Europe moves towards encrypted 'packages' is the BBC FTA HD model
sustainable ?

Well, it's fine for the BBC if it's only showing its "own" content -
but if CH4, five, and others never join them on the platform, it's a
bit pointless.

We might end up with a worse case scenario - the rest of Europe uses a
competitive non-proprietary FTV model, while our "free" broadcasters
are stuck behind Sky's system and on the piecemeal roll out of
Freeview HD with inadequate bandwidth.

(Hope I have at least some of that right :-)

I hope we've both got it all wrong! :-)

Cheers,
David.

IRC didn't the mainly U.S. copyright holders try this on when the BBC went
FTA from satellite, and wasn't the BBC's response simply to drop those
programs?. Perhaps if our so called 'European Union' took a firmer stand by
making it clear that copyright would have to be negotiated on a 'Pan
European' basis, not individual countries, or Europe would boycott their
programmes altogether, then I reckon that they would soon begin to see
sense, after all, what's the difference between granting copyright to the EU
or to the whole of the U.S?

The argument put forward by those at the BBC is that it's only the HD
programme that they are being asked to protect, not the SD version.

The difference in income for a rights holder between selling just an
SD version to the BBC, and selling SD+HD versions to the BBC, is very
little.

So the claim is that rights holders are quite happy to say "fine - you
won't protect the HD version - you can have (and pay us for) the SD
version".

It sounds quite plausible to me. Firstly, these decisions aren't
always rational. Secondly, if the increment really is small (or zero),
then keeping a product well away from FTA broadcast, even later on its
life, may pay dividends many times over in terms of Bluray income.
It's not as if BluRay is cheap - you'd only need a tiny fraction of
those prevented from seeing/copying the movie to go out and buy it to
make the decision pay off.

Strange thing is there are 6 channels of FTA HD in many American
markets. That launched well before BluRay though.


I'm not sure broadcasters can band together in quite the way you
suggest. Wouldn't it count as a cartel? Aren't there laws against such
things?

I'm sure they're free to individually refuse to protect HD and see
what happens.

Cheers,
David.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On 11 Dec, 13:16, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Depth of Field is described hehttp://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...Depth_of_field

Depth of Field can be small (subject in focus, everything else blurred)
or large (everthing equally sharp).

Chris J Dixon (above) quotes the BBC's head of HD who believes that "HD
is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture depth".

Assuming proportionately equal compression in transmission the only
difference between SD and HD is picture sharpness[1]. Any differences in
visual apearance are related directly to sharpness, aka definition or
resolution.

[1] I'm assuming that HD TV transmissions have the same number of bits
per pixel as SD.

I think what they're trying to say is much simpler - and matches with
my perception (but not Kay's).

The background is usually out of focus - much much softer than the
resolution limits on SD or HD. So it looks the same on both.

The foreground (subject) should be pin-sharp. This is much sharper on
HD than SD.

So the _difference_ in sharpness is more pronounced on HD than SD -
which makes the foreground (subject) "stand out" more in HD.

It is (I think) why people describe good HD pictures as looking "3D"
when of course they're not - but the subjective impression of being
"3D-like" makes perfect sense to me.

Cheers,
David.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Roger R wrote:

Ch4 are announced as launching HD on the Sky platform,

'As launching' ? C4 HD has been available on Sky for a couple of years
now, though E4-HD is launching on Sky next week.


Ok, that's one error spotted...tick.

No excuse.

Roger R

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

At 11:05:01 Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Chris J Dixon wrote:
What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

I may be completely wrong, but isn't the notion of "picture depth"
associated with contrast and richness of colour? If an image lacks
contrast then people say it looks "flat". Conversely, high contrast
images have "depth". HD is not simply about sharpness...

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image. Often, when it's a 'busy' image it's
better to have only the subject in sharp focus

Quite so. All the more reason for not reducing the digital bit rate, one
of the effects of which is often to produce exactly the opposite effect,
where the background, being identical in successive frames, is pin
sharp, while a talking head in the foreground is moving and ends up
looking blurred.

This is not helped of course by employing self-op reporters who don't
know how to prefocus a camera for the distance at which they intend to
stand, but low bit rates will make their efforts look worse even if they
get it right.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article , John Legon wrote:
I may be completely wrong, but isn't the notion of "picture depth"
associated with contrast and richness of colour? If an image lacks
contrast then people say it looks "flat". Conversely, high contrast
images have "depth". HD is not simply about sharpness...

HD is just television with more lines. Signal levels and colorimetry
are just the same as they always were, and vision control (when they
bother with it at all nowadays) is done in exactly the same way.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article ,
Kay Robinson wrote:
Depth of field was probably what she was referring to. An SD image may
have total pin sharpness of the subject but that sharpness will
deterioate in the rest of the image whereas HD will give an equal
sharpness over the entire image. Often, when it's a 'busy' image it's
better to have only the subject in sharp focus. I have a copy of the
BBC film 'Galapogas' in both HD and SD and the SD version is better to
watch because the fussy background has less definition, whereas the HD
version makes the background as sharp as the subject. As our eyes
naturally focus onto the sharper part of the image (where there is a
difference) our brains process the main content and are not distracted
for whatever goes on in the background. This is a basic technique in
photography and has the advantage that less light is needed because
the apeture is open wider.

Surely it's one of the most basic of production techniques to make sure
other parts of the picture don't detract from the important part? Usually
done by the correct choice of lens and exposure to give the required depth
of field. And of course avoiding having distracting things happening in
the background. But is the same in principle no matter what the medium.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote

Surely it's one of the most basic of production techniques to make sure
other parts of the picture don't detract from the important part? Usually
done by the correct choice of lens and exposure to give the required depth
of field. And of course avoiding having distracting things happening in
the background. But is the same in principle no matter what the medium.


But shouldn't this be done by the director and cameraman at the time of
shooting the scene and not by some accountant trying to force more
channels into the limited bandwidth which requires at post production
higher compression and/or heavy low pass filtering?

The discussion here appears to be that the BBC are claiming the new
encoders produce a "better" picture because the background becomes
de-focused - but only as a result of the new encoders and a reduction in
transmission bit rates.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:35 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

full HD being 1290x1080

1920x1080

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

Ken wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:35 +0000, Kay Robinson
wrote:

full HD being 1290x1080

1920x1080


I assumed it was a typo.

--
Adrian

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

At 11:07:40 Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roderick Stewart wrote in article
en.co.uk:
In article , John Legon wrote:
I may be completely wrong, but isn't the notion of "picture depth"
associated with contrast and richness of colour? If an image lacks
contrast then people say it looks "flat". Conversely, high contrast
images have "depth". HD is not simply about sharpness...

HD is just television with more lines. Signal levels and colorimetry
are just the same as they always were, and vision control (when they
bother with it at all nowadays) is done in exactly the same way.

So there's no increase in "dynamic range" with HD?

One obvious flaw with SD as often broadcast is the compression which
affects the number of colours that can be displayed. Typically, the
continuously varying hues of a blue sky appear step-wise as a finite
number of different shades, with distinct boundaries.

When Danielle Nagler said "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about
picture depth" I assumed she meant maintaining the contrast and colour
range, which might be said to give "picture depth" while have nothing to
do with picture sharpness. Throwing backgrounds out of focus by reducing
the depth of field is surely not what she had in mind?

--
John Legon

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

John Legon wrote:

So there's no increase in "dynamic range" with HD?

One obvious flaw with SD as often broadcast is the compression which
affects the number of colours that can be displayed. Typically, the
continuously varying hues of a blue sky appear step-wise as a finite
number of different shades, with distinct boundaries.


Someone correct me if I have this wrong but surely that's a standard
JPEG-style artefact caused by lack of bandwidth - the codec can't send
all the detail, so reckons that as this block is nearly the same colour
all over, that'll do.

Andy

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
John Legon wrote:

So there's no increase in "dynamic range" with HD?

One obvious flaw with SD as often broadcast is the compression which
affects the number of colours that can be displayed. Typically, the
continuously varying hues of a blue sky appear step-wise as a finite
number of different shades, with distinct boundaries.


Someone correct me if I have this wrong but surely that's a standard
JPEG-style artefact caused by lack of bandwidth - the codec can't send all
the detail, so reckons that as this block is nearly the same colour all
over, that'll do.

Andy

That is exactly what I perceive on BBC HD broadcasts now - large blocks of
colour look 'fuzzy' / blocky.
BBC say the new encoders are 'revealing new detail', but for any of us who
have encoded video into MPEG4 or H264, it looks to me like any video encoded
with too low a bitrate - large blocks of one colour are the first thing that
the encoder thinks it can save some bandwidth on.
Ms Nackers comparison with MP3 reminds me that MP3 encoders are based on
'Psycho-acoustics', or removing audio that you don't notice. But bitrate
still makes a big difference.
I wonder what the video encoder sales reps call it - psycho-vision? Sounds
about right.

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article , Kay Robinson wrote:
[...]
If I recall correctly it was
Eastman-Kodak that estimated that to create a digital image equal to
25ASA you would need a camera capable of around 400 megapixels. We're
a long way off at present but will eventually get there (it can be
done now but the size of the camera and the cost would run in £m).

That might be true, but it would be pointless because it would be
recording vastly more detail than anyone would see in a typical viewing
situation. Film happens to record excess information because of the way
it works and there has never been any extra cost in doing so. However,
if you need to record and broadcast a signal electronically, extra
information requires extra transmission bandwidth and extra storage
capacity, and this has a price. Broadcast television pictures are
designed to be viewed at a particular distance from the screen, at
which the line structure is just beyond the limit of visual acuity, so
there is no point wasting money recording and broadcasting detail which
will not be seen.
[...]

I recall watching a BBC documentary in which it was said that to get
the best full HD it was neccessary to use film and convert to digital
at the required definition.
[...]

It certainly seems to be the case that better fine detail is captured
by photographing at a higher resolution than the final version will
need, and then downconverting. SD produced from an HD camera usually
looks better than from an SD camera, and you can confirm this by doing
your own experiments with digital stills cameras of various
resolutions. Maybe to get really good HD, we need to design a camera
which has greater resolution than HD and then downconvert it
afterwards. Using film would be one way of doing this, but not the only
possible one.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

A lot of what is said here is above my head.
Now what is simple to me is we all agree was BBC HD was ok now it not.

What I can't understand is the BBC thinking the opposite. They seem to be
telling me the Emperor has got a new suit of clothes on, when he hasn't!
They truly believe this HD transmission is very good.

Regards
David

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

In article , David
wrote:
A lot of what is said here is above my head. Now what is simple to me is
we all agree was BBC HD was ok now it not.

What I can't understand is the BBC thinking the opposite. They seem to
be telling me the Emperor has got a new suit of clothes on, when he
hasn't! They truly believe this HD transmission is very good.

some 30 years ago, I had to go and see the head of Ceefax about his
reception. His BBC2 pictures were so noisy, I couldn't bear to watxch
them. "That's not a very good picture" I remarked. "I wouldn't know, I'm
only a journalist" he replied. He obviously never noticed the pictures in
the studios where he worked.
(and he had been "science correspondent" in his previous job - I assume
because he could pronounce long words correctly ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

BBC HD critised in The Independent
 

David wrote:
A lot of what is said here is above my head.
Now what is simple to me is we all agree was BBC HD was ok now it not.

What I can't understand is the BBC thinking the opposite. They seem to
be telling me the Emperor has got a new suit of clothes on, when he
hasn't! They truly believe this HD transmission is very good.

Actually David, I quite like your suggestion you posted in uk.tech.tv.sky, in
response to someone quoting this article:-

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...15497982?f=rss

Of course Sky have spun the issue to their benefit, and even perhaps imply
that BBC HD looks better via them, than Freesat, which of course is nonsense,
because it's exactly the same signal.

However, as you suggested,it might be worth complaining to Sky about the
quality of BBC HD. Sky do have performance and quality criteria that have to
be met before a channel is allowed on their platform. They certainly won't
want what are perceived as 'damaged goods' as part of their service. It would
be interesting if they received enough complaints, and/or there's any more
'bad press' over BBC HD, so see if they'd remove the service from the EPG. (I
think that's unlikely, but it would certainly give the Beeb a poke in the eye).


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk