What's the quality of BBC HD like?

Mike Henry wrote:
In , "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:
The reason I asked is because according to this:

http://www.linowsat.com/0282/bitrate/2050/6940.html

the bit rate of the BBC HD stream has halved - not that I expected them to
stick at 20 Mbps forever, but halving the bit rate is a bit steep. Hopefully
it's part of the tests described on that blog.

Hmm - when I go to that page, I see a straight horizontal line that
looks as if it's around 19.5 Mbps every day from 2nd Oct to 11th Oct?

It does for me too, but when I looked at about 16:00hrs today it read
about 9.5 Mb/s.

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

Mark Carver wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:
In , "DAB sounds worse than
FM" wrote:
The reason I asked is because according to this:

http://www.linowsat.com/0282/bitrate/2050/6940.html

the bit rate of the BBC HD stream has halved - not that I expected
them to stick at 20 Mbps forever, but halving the bit rate is a bit
steep. Hopefully it's part of the tests described on that blog.

Hmm - when I go to that page, I see a straight horizontal line that
looks as if it's around 19.5 Mbps every day from 2nd Oct to 11th Oct?

It does for me too, but when I looked at about 16:00hrs today it read
about 9.5 Mb/s.


Yeah, it's doubled (it was about 9800 kbps), very odd. Presumably it's been
19.5 Mbps all along and there was a fault on the website.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Sorry, there was a fault in my bitrate calculation last night. Now you
see the correct bitrates.

Regards
Linowsat

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:38:59 +0100, Dom Robinson
wrote:

But how better SD could be if the BBC increased the bitrate

Hit the nail on the head there.

Unlike many, certainly most here, I get to see SD and HD at the
editing stage on proper monitors before any transmission compression.
The other day, I was watching HD material on an SD Ikegami (Grade 1)
and an HD Sony widescreen tube monitor (just in, £20,000 with a
discount). Anyway, I had to ask the editor to show me the difference!
This he did, but it was surprisingly small and you would NEED a
comparative test to spot it.

Clearly any significant difference between SD and HD, from the
consumer perspective, is simply down to the relative transmission
compression - the source material is irrelevant.

--
Z

"Zathras" wrote in message
...

Clearly any significant difference between SD and HD, from the
consumer perspective, is simply down to the relative transmission
compression - the source material is irrelevant.

....and the display system of course!

On Oct 13, 7:40 am, Zathras
wrote:

The other day, I was watching HD material on an SD Ikegami (Grade 1)
and an HD Sony widescreen tube monitor (just in, £20,000 with a
discount). Anyway, I had to ask the editor to show me the difference!
This he did, but it was surprisingly small and you would NEED a
comparative test to spot it.

Sony BVM-A32E1 ? What a beast :-) (and you got a good price )

I was in a control room the other day, with a football match being
broadcast. The downconverted HD images were being displayed on a 14
inch HD/SD dual standard monitor. Some suits came in, saw the monitor
with 'HD' written on its bezel, and said, "wow what a great HD
picture". I didn't have heart to tell them they were looking at an SD
downconversion. I must admit when switching feeds I look at the
576/1080 ident that flashes up to quickly tell the difference, on a 14
inch tube it's hard to tell by looking.

Stan The Man wrote:

Isn't the camera the most significant difference? I have an SD Panny
Viera plasma and there is no doubt that, for example, the Sky footy
broadcasts which are also shown in HD are much better/sharper in SD
than they used to be.

Yes, I've noticed the same within the OB truck. An HD camera with its
output downconverted to SD, looks better than an SD camera.

linowsat wrote:
Sorry, there was a fault in my bitrate calculation last night. Now you
see the correct bitrates.


Okay, thanks for letting us know. Good website BTW.

BTW, would it be okay if I used some of the bit rate info on your website on
my own website?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

In article , Zathras
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:38:59 +0100, Dom Robinson
wrote:

But how better SD could be if the BBC increased the bitrate

Hit the nail on the head there.

Unlike many, certainly most here, I get to see SD and HD at the
editing stage on proper monitors before any transmission compression.
The other day, I was watching HD material on an SD Ikegami (Grade 1)
and an HD Sony widescreen tube monitor (just in, £20,000 with a
discount). Anyway, I had to ask the editor to show me the difference!
This he did, but it was surprisingly small and you would NEED a
comparative test to spot it.

Clearly any significant difference between SD and HD, from the
consumer perspective, is simply down to the relative transmission
compression - the source material is irrelevant.

Isn't the camera the most significant difference? I have an SD Panny
Viera plasma and there is no doubt that, for example, the Sky footy
broadcasts which are also shown in HD are much better/sharper in SD
than they used to be.

Stan

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
And has the quality changed at all recently?


Have they removed the DOG from it yet ?

If not its completely worthless.