Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!

I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how
bad it could look, but...

I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night,
and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before.

I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on
a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it
down. Great programme.

However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

In the PAL days, even in "component" studios, people monitored a
composite PAL version to see what it would look like at home. That
way, they could avoid including fine detail that was simply going to
be lost in cross-colour artefacts.

Yet now, in these "MPEG-2" days, no attempt is made to avoid content
that stands no chance of surviving MPEG-2 encoding. It must look great
in the production gallery - but if it was possible to feed a
synchronised MPEG-2 encoded version to a big screen in the gallery
(impossible because of the encoding/decoding delay), I bet some
different decisions would be made.

It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with
what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC
execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem
they have.

(and hit any of them who mentioned a "competitive multi-channel
environment" or "ITV looks even worse")

Cheers,
David.

wrote in message
ps.com...
I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how
bad it could look, but...

I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night,
and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before.

I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on
a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it
down. Great programme.

However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson.



In the PAL days, even in "component" studios, people monitored a
composite PAL version to see what it would look like at home. That
way, they could avoid including fine detail that was simply going to
be lost in cross-colour artefacts.

Yet now, in these "MPEG-2" days, no attempt is made to avoid content
that stands no chance of surviving MPEG-2 encoding. It must look great
in the production gallery - but if it was possible to feed a
synchronised MPEG-2 encoded version to a big screen in the gallery
(impossible because of the encoding/decoding delay), I bet some
different decisions would be made.

It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with
what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC
execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem
they have.

(and hit any of them who mentioned a "competitive multi-channel
environment" or "ITV looks even worse")

Cheers,
David.

On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:

Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson.

You normally take the pee, not insert it.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:

Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson.

You normally take the pee, not insert it.

Can I have a "P" please Bob?

(kim)

In article .com, Mark
Carver scribeth thus
On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:

Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson.

You normally take the pee, not insert it.


Perhaps that Thompson is good at hiding the digital deficiency;!...
--
Tony Sayer

"Edster" wrote in message
...
snip

Like all the other UK broadcasters at the moment, the BBC seems to
be
trying to shed as many viewers as possible, with low quality and
coming next banners all over the place. Presumably when only the
blind
are the only viewers left they will be able to save lots of money on
costume dramas or whatever.

Hmm, if TV was more like 'radio with pictures' I suspect that there
would be far less style and more substance to the programmes...
--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server.
Someone managed to break the other one!

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:19:53 -0700,
wrote:

However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

You are surprised?

It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with
what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC
execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem
they have.

It looks great on a 2" screen though. What's yer problem?
Why don't you get the hi-def version if you want qwality?

In message
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:


wrote in message
ps.com...
I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how
bad it could look, but...

I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night,
and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before.

I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on
a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it
down. Great programme.

However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson.

There's no such make.

--
Richard L.

On 28 Aug, 22:16, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:19:53 -0700,

wrote:
However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

You are surprised?

That the technology can't cope at that bitrate? No. That someone tries
to broadcast that content at that bitrate? Well, yes. Even now, I find
it unbelievable. I'm watching on a nice CRT - goodness knows how bad
it looks on most modern flat panels.

It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with
what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC
execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem
they have.

It looks great on a 2" screen though. What's yer problem?
Why don't you get the hi-def version if you want qwality?

I'm sure that's where we're heading. The main problem with that is
that lots of content won't be on the HD channel, leaving the
increasingly bitstarved SD channel as the only source.

If the BBC said "we'll simulcast all our channels in HD on DSat and
leave DTT for portable TVs" that would be fine. Unfortunately, it has
as much chance of happening as "we'll simulcast all our radio stations
in high bitrates on DSat, leaving DAB for portable radios".

This would be a technically sensible solution, but would show the
bandwidth limited platforms up as the second class systems that they
are. The BBC couldn't possibly have that, so will instead limit what's
available on all platforms, so as not to outshine the worst.

Maybe I'm being too cynical - to be this scheming implies that someone
in charge understands and appreciates technical quality issues. I
doubt this is the case.

Cheers,
David.

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:19:53 -0700,
wrote:

However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems
~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement,
detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.

You are surprised?

It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with
what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC
execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem
they have.

It looks great on a 2" screen though. What's yer problem?
Why don't you get the hi-def version if you want qwality?

Do broadcasters still put a line of colour bars in the vertical interval?
I'm sure they all used to do this last time I checked (early 90's) and often
had a 2T pulse too.

Graham Harvest