|
|
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at
launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I watched - Film 2010 - the studio shots looked very soft. - The film afterwards, given it was letterbox format you'd expect even better picture quality. It was nothing special whatsoever. What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 05:29:53 -0700 (PDT), scoobie
wrote: What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I watched - Film 2010 - the studio shots looked very soft. - The film afterwards, given it was letterbox format you'd expect even better picture quality. It was nothing special whatsoever. Surely the film is broadcast as a 16:9 picture with top and bottom black bars. The black bars are part of the broadcast picture (they use pixels). A TV can handle only two aspect ratios, 4:3 and 16:9. A film at 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 has to be fitted into a 16:9 frame by the broadcaster, not adjusted to fit by the TV. What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
In article ,
scoobie wrote: What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? It's still bettter than SD? -- Richard |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On 04/11/2010 12:29, scoobie wrote:
What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I watched - Film 2010 - the studio shots looked very soft. - The film afterwards, given it was letterbox format you'd expect even better picture quality. It was nothing special whatsoever. What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? I also noticed the overall softness of BBC1HD (on Virgin cable)... G |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 05:29:53 -0700 (PDT), scoobie
wrote: What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? Some of us have been asking that since August 2009 when the bit-rate was chopped. -- Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
"scoobie" wrote in message ... What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I watched - Film 2010 - the studio shots looked very soft. - The film afterwards, given it was letterbox format you'd expect even better picture quality. It was nothing special whatsoever. What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? you could say that about SD too - SD broadcasts and dvd are both SD mpeg 2 but one looks far better. same for HD - you shouldn't expect the broadcast H264 HD to look like a blu ray that uses the same codec. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com you fight better when you have a bear! |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On 04/11/2010 12:29, scoobie wrote:
What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I watched - Film 2010 - the studio shots looked very soft. - The film afterwards, given it was letterbox format you'd expect even better picture quality. It was nothing special whatsoever. What's the point of HD if you don't do it properly? Unlike the BBC HD channel not all the programmes on BBC1 HD are actually HD. About half of last night's schedulr, including Film 2010, was originated in SD and upscaled. Better than the SD channel of course, by virtue of having a higher bit rate, of course, but that's it. Your criticism is a bit like criticsing an old monochrome film for not being broadcast in colour. In general though, i agree with you, based on watching BBC HD it's always the outdoor landscape/nature/wildlife programmes which impress more than studio-based productions. -- mb |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 4, 12:29*pm, scoobie wrote:
What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. I guess it depends on what you mean by "twice as good". If you mean the horizontal resolution only looked to be about 1440 pixels rather than 720 then that's because it's precisely what it is (the BBC doesn't broadcast 1920-pixel 'full HD'). Given that the vertical resolution of HD is *less* than twice that of SD (1080 lines rather than 576), and given the way the brain judges 'quality', the expected subjective improvement of BBC1 HD over SD is indeed only about 2:1. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
In article 7ae71c65-42fb-4511-a8d2-
, Scoobie wrote: What did you think of Picture Quality last night on BBC 1 HD at launch? I'd say it was about twice as good as SD, that's all. It should be miles better to be true HD. Since HD only has about twice the resolution of SD, what would you expect? The cameras in most mobile phones these days can manage more. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
"Richard Russell" wrote in message
... I guess it depends on what you mean by "twice as good". If you mean the horizontal resolution only looked to be about 1440 pixels rather than 720 then that's because it's precisely what it is (the BBC doesn't broadcast 1920-pixel 'full HD'). Given that the vertical resolution of HD is *less* than twice that of SD (1080 lines rather than 576), and given the way the brain judges 'quality', the expected subjective improvement of BBC1 HD over SD is indeed only about 2:1. The above post contains no mention of lossy compression and low bitrates, nor the fact that most content on BBC1 HD is currently upscaled SD (which includes a lossy deinterlace-rescale-reinterlace process). Richard is behaving like a typical BBC employee here by evading the main issues, it seems. jamie. -- |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 12:34*am, "j r powell" wrote:
The above post contains no mention of lossy compression and low bitrates, Why should it? The OP was reporting that the quality was about twice as good. That's what one would expect if degradation from the lossy compression on HD was no greater (relatively speaking) than that on SD, and therefore not an issue. If the OP had said the quality was significantly *worse* than twice as good as SD then maybe those factors would have been relevant, but he didn't. Richard is behaving like a typical BBC employee here I'm not a BBC employee. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:46:52 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote: Since HD only has about twice the resolution of SD, what would you expect? The cameras in most mobile phones these days can manage more. I'd expect it to be as good as the BBC HD channel on new content which it clearly isn't. BBC news in the studio, which I would expect to be good is fuzzy compared with studio stuff on the HD channel. I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:26:25 +0000, Geoff Berrow
wrote: I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring As I keep posting, since August 2009 when the HD bit rate was reduced. -- Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message ... On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:46:52 -0000, Roderick Stewart wrote: Since HD only has about twice the resolution of SD, what would you expect? The cameras in most mobile phones these days can manage more. I'd expect it to be as good as the BBC HD channel on new content which it clearly isn't. BBC news in the studio, which I would expect to be good is fuzzy compared with studio stuff on the HD channel. I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring Reminded my wife to select 108 and not 101 for BBC1 and watch with better pictures, "but why they are no better" So BBC there is one ordinary viewer you have lost for HD bet there are many, many more. Regards David |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 9:26*am, Geoff Berrow wrote:
I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring Are you saying that HD material (as opposed to upscaled SD) on BBC1 HD is of a significantly lower quality than the same material on the BBC HD channel? If so, I agree that is surprising and I wouldn't have expected it to be intentional. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
Alan Whit wrote:
As I keep posting, since August 2009 when the HD bit rate was reduced. But the Beeb say they improved the quality of the codec at the same time, which meant the perceived quality was the same. I didn't have HD back then, so I can't judge. SteveT |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:14:43 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote: On Nov 5, 9:26*am, Geoff Berrow wrote: I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring Are you saying that HD material (as opposed to upscaled SD) on BBC1 HD is of a significantly lower quality than the same material on the BBC HD channel? If so, I agree that is surprising and I wouldn't have expected it to be intentional. I've not had chance to make a direct comparison. I'm saying that Autumnwatch Unsprung, which is shot with a few of redheads in a makeshift studio and hand held cameras is significantly better than the studio shots on the flagship BBC News programme which one might reasonably expect to be shot in HD. The difference between SD and HD is marked for most programmes. (Antiques roadshow in particular). Not so SD BBC1 and BBC1 HD. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:32:48 +0000, Alan
wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:26:25 +0000, Geoff Berrow wrote: I can only conclude that they have degraded the HD stuff so that the transition between HD and upscaled SD is not so jarring As I keep posting, since August 2009 when the HD bit rate was reduced. Yes. I never expected it to be worse still for BBC1 HD. As someone else said the improvement is very slight and probably not even noticeable on lower end equipment. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:35:16 GMT, Steve Thackery
wrote: But the Beeb say they improved the quality of the codec at the same time, which meant the perceived quality was the same. The new codec made little difference. They also introduced variable bit rate, as a great innovation, but set the average bit rate at the post-August 2009 level so that didn't do much either. The 1440/1920 pixel setting also fails the EBU standard test for HD. I didn't have HD back then, so I can't judge. Pre August 2009 the quality was absolutely stunning. Post August 2009 it's just a bit better than SD. The sad thing is that BBC HD is available in Sweden(?) in full bit rate 1920 x 1080 so they are better off in terms of picture quality than we are. -- Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 10:40*am, Geoff Berrow wrote:
I'm saying that Autumnwatch Unsprung, which is shot with a few of redheads in a makeshift studio and hand held cameras is significantly better than the studio shots on the flagship BBC News programme which one might reasonably expect to be shot in HD. Reasonably expect? I would have expected news to be one of the last programmes to go HD, because although the studio shots could be HD, almost none of the actual 'news' material will be. If you're concerned about an offputting contrast when switching between HD and SD sources, then news should remain SD! After all, news has a special dispensation to use video sources of a far lower quality than would normally be acceptable (e.g. video over IP). The difference between SD and HD is marked for most programmes. (Antiques roadshow in particular). Not so SD BBC1 and BBC1 HD. I strongly suspect you're comparing SD with upconverted SD. Check again when BBC1 HD is really in HD! Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10: Reminded my wife to select 108 and not 101 for BBC1 and watch with better pictures, "but why they are no better" So BBC there is one ordinary viewer you have lost for HD bet there are many, many more. The vast improvement of images of Eurosport SD on HD are immediately obvious. -- Sadly my wife does not watch sport, so she will never see the difference. Regards David |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 11:20*am, Alan wrote:
Pre August 2009 the quality was absolutely stunning. Post August 2009 it's just a bit better than SD. I understand the purpose of hyperbole, but you know very well that the difference was not as great as that. For a lot of typical material the subjective quality pre- versus post- bitrate/encoder changes was pretty much indistinguishable. For some highly testing material the quality fell. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 04:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote: On Nov 5, 10:40*am, Geoff Berrow wrote: I'm saying that Autumnwatch Unsprung, which is shot with a few of redheads in a makeshift studio and hand held cameras is significantly better than the studio shots on the flagship BBC News programme which one might reasonably expect to be shot in HD. Reasonably expect? I would have expected news to be one of the last programmes to go HD, because although the studio shots could be HD, almost none of the actual 'news' material will be. It's the studio shots I'm talking about, which, to be honest are pretty dire even for SD. And yes I'd expect most UK news crews to be shooting in HD now. If you're concerned about an offputting contrast when switching between HD and SD sources, then news should remain SD! After all, news has a special dispensation to use video sources of a far lower quality than would normally be acceptable (e.g. video over IP). The difference between SD and HD is marked for most programmes. (Antiques roadshow in particular). Not so SD BBC1 and BBC1 HD. I strongly suspect you're comparing SD with upconverted SD. Check again when BBC1 HD is really in HD! If most of it is simply upscaled SD (as it appears) then they are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be BBC1 HD!! -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
Richard Russell wrote:
Richard is behaving like a typical BBC employee here I'm not a BBC employee. Well that's all right. Hil says I behave like a pig, but she knows I'm not a pig. Bill |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 04:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote: I understand the purpose of hyperbole, but you know very well that the difference was not as great as that. For a lot of typical material the subjective quality pre- versus post- bitrate/encoder changes was pretty much indistinguishable. For some highly testing material the quality fell. Yes, your probably right about hyperbole but I wouldn't agree about pretty much indistinguishable. -- Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 11:53*am, Geoff Berrow wrote:
If most of it is simply upscaled SD (as it appears) then they are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be BBC1 HD!! When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! There will be a lot of SD on BBC1 for a long time. Even some prestige programmes like Merlin are not made in HD, because the CGI would be too expensive. And what about repeats? You can argue about when there's enough HD content to justify starting a 'BBC1 HD channel', but there will always be a proportion of SD on it. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
There's some fairly relevant stuff he-
http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk -- Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 05:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote: On Nov 5, 11:53*am, Geoff Berrow wrote: If most of it is simply upscaled SD (as it appears) then they are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be BBC1 HD!! When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! There will be a lot of SD on BBC1 for a long time. Even some prestige programmes like Merlin are not made in HD, because the CGI would be too expensive. And what about repeats? You can argue about when there's enough HD content to justify starting a 'BBC1 HD channel', but there will always be a proportion of SD on it. Yes. SD that has been upscaled to be transmitted via an HD channel will be of higher quality when received than SD that has been transmitted via an SD channel. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 05:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote: On Nov 5, 11:53*am, Geoff Berrow wrote: If most of it is simply upscaled SD (as it appears) then they are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be BBC1 HD!! When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! When colour TV started (and yes, I remember) studio stuff and new material was always in colour. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect studio stuff and new material to be in HD. AFAICS ITV news is in HD. I can understand the likes of Sky and Virgin treating the viewer with contempt but not the BBC. What I can't understand is why you guys think this is OK. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Nov 5, 2:47*pm, Geoff Berrow wrote:
When colour TV started (and yes, I remember) studio stuff and new material was always in colour. Your memory is faulty. When colour first started on BBC2 (1967) plenty of programmes were still made in black and white because not all the studios had been converted to colour. Here are some dates: TC6 converted to colour in 1967 TC8 converted to colour in 1968 TC1 converted to colour in 1968 TC3 converted to colour in 1969 TC4 converted to colour in 1970 TC5 converted to colour in 1973 I don't think it's unreasonable to expect studio stuff and new material to be in HD. I think it's totally unreasonable. Who is going to pay for the studios to be converted and re-equipped? Who is going to pay for HD CGI on programmes like Merlin (time as well as money)? If it took something like 6 years to convert the BBC studios from B&W to colour, it seems perfectly reasonable for it to take a similar time to convert them to HD. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 05:08:18 -0700, Richard Russell declared:
When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! Surely the ITV companies were honest about this and the BBC were not? Prior to all programs on BBC-1 and BBC-2 there was an identification "BBC-1 Colour" and "BBC-2 Colour" even though the program was in monochrome, whereas the ITV companies only put "in Colour" when the program was in colour. Similarly today, there is a big logo in the top left of BBC-1 HD declaring BBC-1 HD on programs which are upscaled from SD, whereas on ITV-1 HD, only programs originating in HD have the ITV-1 HD logo displayed. It seems to me that the BBC continues in its policies of trying to fool the viewer. The same charge of misrepresentation can also be leveled at Channel4 and S4C who as far as I am aware display an HD logo even when the program is not HD material. |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 14:47:07h +0000, Geoff Berrow wrote:
AFAICS ITV news is in HD. Can anybody confirm that Granada Reports and London Tonight are now originated in the studio in HD? |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:47:07 +0000, Geoff Berrow
wrote: On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 05:08:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell wrote: On Nov 5, 11:53*am, Geoff Berrow wrote: If most of it is simply upscaled SD (as it appears) then they are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be BBC1 HD!! When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! When colour TV started (and yes, I remember) studio stuff and new material was always in colour. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect studio stuff and new material to be in HD. AFAICS ITV news is in HD. I can understand the likes of Sky and Virgin treating the viewer with contempt but not the BBC. What I can't understand is why you guys think this is OK. Can you not tolerate a transitional period? Should the BBC waste licence-fee payers' money by throwing away perfectly good SD equipment simply to replace it with HD equivalents. A phased replacement over a period of years is one thing, but doing all at one go would be silly. It would leave less money for making and buying programmes for a year or two. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
Geoff Berrow wrote:
AFAICS ITV news is in HD. It's not. No news programme that ITN currently produce is in HD. ITV1 HD are far more honest about what's upscaled SD, and what's native HD. Very simply if the ITV 1 HD DOG is on screen then the broadcast is native HD, if it's not there, then you're watching upscaled SD. The same applies for C4 HD I think, (I've not seen it for a while) Personally the current way in which BBC 1 HD is being 'presented' is very misleading, and frankly a disgrace. They should adopt ITV's presentational policy (if they *must* have a DOG at all). |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:28:50 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote: On Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 05:08:18 -0700, Richard Russell declared: When colour TV started a lot of the programmes were still in black & white. Was that a misrepresentation? Of course not! Surely the ITV companies were honest about this and the BBC were not? Prior to all programs on BBC-1 and BBC-2 there was an identification "BBC-1 Colour" and "BBC-2 Colour" even though the program was in monochrome, whereas the ITV companies only put "in Colour" when the program was in colour. Similarly today, there is a big logo in the top left of BBC-1 HD declaring BBC-1 HD on programs which are upscaled from SD, whereas on ITV-1 HD, only programs originating in HD have the ITV-1 HD logo displayed. It seems to me that the BBC continues in its policies of trying to fool the viewer. The same charge of misrepresentation can also be leveled at Channel4 and S4C who as far as I am aware display an HD logo even when the program is not HD material. Isn't the point that the BBC 1 HD logo is the channel name like all other channel ident logos? It does not say anything about the material currently being broadcast. ITV choose to do things differently with ITV-1 HD (which incidentally is of course still the name of the channel even when it is showing upscaled SD material). -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
J G Miller wrote:
: The same charge of misrepresentation can also be leveled at Channel4 : and S4C who as far as I am aware display an HD logo even when the : program is not HD material. You are wrong for C4 (not sure about S4C). It *ONLY* displays a logo for HD material - SD has nothing. Sky OneHD (AFAIR) has a logo for all material but only adds the letters "HD" for HD material. Also true for "Five" I believe. It is very much the BBC being out of step! |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
On Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 08:26:03h -0700, Richard Russell wrote:
Who is going to pay for HD CGI on programmes like Merlin (time as well as money)? But programs particularly of the type such as Merlin need to be in HD in order to maintain sales to the North American market. If it took something like 6 years to convert the BBC studios from B&W to colour, it seems perfectly reasonable for it to take a similar time to convert them to HD. Agreed, and the BBC should have started this process, probably 6 years ago so that it would be complete by the end of DSO. |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
If the material is good and better than the SD standards will it come out in HD? Cinema films being a good example if the BBC actually use 35mm cinema film or do they use some cheaper vehicle with poorer quality to equate to the lower standards of SD? Regards David |
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
|
BBC 1 HD Picture Quality - Any views?
Peter Duncanson wrote:
: Non-technical genius in the BBC: : But all programmes on the BBC 1 HD channel *are* in HD. The SD : programmes are converted to HD before transmission. I still contend that the C4/Five/Sky approach of logos either not appearing or, at least, losing the letters "HD" for upscaled material is more honest! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com