BBC HD - strangely good
 

Like many people here, I've been unhappy with the picture quality of BBC HD
recently. I've signed that on-line petition recently, and complained on the
BBC HD boss's blog.

The consensus seems to be that it went wrong when the Beeb introduced a new
9Mbps codec. The Beeb, on the other hand, argue that the 9M codec works as
well or better than the original 15Mbps(?) codec.

Anyway, did anyone see the HD version of Silent Witness last night? I
thought the picture quality was excellent in every way: pin-sharp, good
colours and brightness/contrast, and no visible compression or motion
artifacts.

So, some questions:

1/ Did you see it and do you agree?

2/ Have the Beeb sneakily done a 'back to 15Mbps' test to see if anyone
noticed?

3/ Could the 9Mbps codec actually be really good, and the problem is with
the crappy source material they use most of the time?

SteveT

BBC HD - strangely good
 

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
Anyway, did anyone see the HD version of Silent Witness last night? I
thought the picture quality was excellent in every way: pin-sharp, good
colours and brightness/contrast, and no visible compression or motion
artifacts.

So, some questions:

1/ Did you see it and do you agree?

Sadly was out both days and can only record off FreeView.
Watched it last week in HD and thought it normal for HD drama - fog
filters in obvious use on the camera. But an excellent story. ;-)

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

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

BBC HD - strangely good
 

Steve Thackery wrote:

3/ Could the 9Mbps codec actually be really good, and the problem is
with the crappy source material they use most of the time?

The codec works very well at 9 Mb/s, the results are surprisingly good, but
it's a shame we can't see them at 15 Mb/s !

Source material plays a big part in this. On Monday, Hustle looked looked
totally crap, grainy and soft. 30 mins later was a well lit OB, without any
artistic video processing, 'The Richard Dimbleby Lecture'. That looked very good.

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

www.paras.org.uk

BBC HD - strangely good
 

Steve Thackery wrote:
Like many people here, I've been unhappy with the picture quality of BBC
HD recently. I've signed that on-line petition recently, and complained
on the BBC HD boss's blog.

The consensus seems to be that it went wrong when the Beeb introduced a
new 9Mbps codec. The Beeb, on the other hand, argue that the 9M codec
works as well or better than the original 15Mbps(?) codec.

Anyway, did anyone see the HD version of Silent Witness last night? I
thought the picture quality was excellent in every way: pin-sharp, good
colours and brightness/contrast, and no visible compression or motion
artifacts.

So, some questions:

1/ Did you see it and do you agree?

2/ Have the Beeb sneakily done a 'back to 15Mbps' test to see if anyone
noticed?

3/ Could the 9Mbps codec actually be really good, and the problem is
with the crappy source material they use most of the time?

SteveT
Probably because the sound was so crap the pictures looked good :-)

Richard

BBC HD - strangely good
 

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
The codec works very well at 9 Mb/s, the results are surprisingly good,
but it's a shame we can't see them at 15 Mb/s !

Source material plays a big part in this. On Monday, Hustle looked
looked totally crap, grainy and soft. 30 mins later was a well lit OB,
without any artistic video processing, 'The Richard Dimbleby Lecture'.
That looked very good.

On my TV, things where you wouldn't expect the camera(s) to be
deliberately 'softened' like the Antiques Road Show or the various natural
history progs , don't look so sharp as they did before the data reduction.

They look more like FreeView did before they dropped the data rate on that.

--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

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

BBC HD - strangely good
 

"Dickie Mint" wrote in message
...

Probably because the sound was so crap the pictures looked good :-)

Yes, I agree with that. The speech was quite unclear in parts.

What I don't understand is, we've been making TV programs for 60-odd years.
How come we still make fundamental mistakes like broadcasting inaudible
speech? You'd think by now it would be so completely sorted it would just
be routinely excellent.

SteveT

BBC HD - strangely good
 

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
What I don't understand is, we've been making TV programs for 60-odd
years. How come we still make fundamental mistakes like broadcasting
inaudible speech? You'd think by now it would be so completely sorted
it would just be routinely excellent.

The children who run TV these days seem have been brought up on the poor
sound of many imported progs and think that the norm. Add in actors who
don't act anymore and you get unintelligible speech.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

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

BBC HD - strangely good
 

In article , Mark Carver
writes
Steve Thackery wrote:

3/ Could the 9Mbps codec actually be really good, and the problem is
with the crappy source material they use most of the time?

The codec works very well at 9 Mb/s, the results are surprisingly good,
but it's a shame we can't see them at 15 Mb/s !

Source material plays a big part in this. On Monday, Hustle looked
looked totally crap, grainy and soft. 30 mins later was a well lit OB,
without any artistic video processing, 'The Richard Dimbleby Lecture'.
That looked very good.

Wouldn't you expect a bandwidth starved service to provide better images
with near static programme material than it would with dynamic programme
material?

I agree that the quality of source material is important, but you can't
cite the near static RDL as evidence that the new codecs can perform
well at 9Mbps on general programming.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

BBC HD - strangely good
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Mark Carver

Source material plays a big part in this. On Monday, Hustle looked
looked totally crap, grainy and soft. 30 mins later was a well lit OB,
without any artistic video processing, 'The Richard Dimbleby Lecture'.
That looked very good.

Wouldn't you expect a bandwidth starved service to provide better images
with near static programme material than it would with dynamic programme
material?

I agree that the quality of source material is important, but you can't
cite the near static RDL as evidence that the new codecs can perform
well at 9Mbps on general programming.

No, I don't know whether you saw the programme, but the stage, set, and room
were rather 'busy' with stuff, and close ups of the presenters' faces were
very detailed. I take your point though, and I'm certainly not defending the
Beeb's reduction to 9 Mb/s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE3pBIuAGk

The programme particularly leapt out at me, after an hour's worth of Hustle in
SD+.

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

www.paras.org.uk

BBC HD - strangely good
 

Mark Carver wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:

3/ Could the 9Mbps codec actually be really good, and the problem is
with the crappy source material they use most of the time?

The codec works very well at 9 Mb/s, the results are surprisingly good,
but it's a shame we can't see them at 15 Mb/s !

Source material plays a big part in this. On Monday, Hustle looked looked
totally crap, grainy and soft.


So the codec doesn't work "very well at 9 Mbps". It'll be the same as it is
for audio: the quality will be highly content-dependent, so if you want
consistently good quality they need to use sufficiently high bit rate
levels.


30 mins later was a well lit OB, without
any artistic video processing, 'The Richard Dimbleby Lecture'. That
looked very good.

--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

Check that I haven't accused James "pathological liar" Cridland of being
biased towards DAB and biased against Internet radio: Tick Check that I've
deleted all racist and/or homophobic language: Tick Check that there are no
funeral magazines and/or addresses of senior members of the DAB industry
included: Tick Check that I've observed Sean "My Personal Obsessive
Stalker" Inglis's (Usenet username: seani) "How Steve Must Behave on Usenet
Rulebook (Totally Inapplicable to Other Users Edition)": Tick