Lets Dance for Comic Relief picture quality.

The picture quality was totally appalling on SD. Even on the still shots the
presenters clothes were totally covered in huge blocks and when the acts
were dancing they looked like fuzzy shimmering insects thanks to those dot
matrix video walls flashing behind them.

This stuff is going at 4505kbps fixed bit rate and it's completely dire.
Using H.264 would make no difference to quality at that high a bit rate so
why are the BBC still using those flashing video walls behind performers and
presenters?

Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at?

Agamemnon wrote:

Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at?

The programme was not shown on BBC HD.

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

www.paras.org.uk

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , "Agamemnon"
wrote:
Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at?

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php

Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even on
static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge
blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly justify using a
bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the bandwidth of SD. It must
look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks completely appalling. And if
Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio HD whatever that is which is using
more or less the same rate must look dire too. To get anywhere near decent
SD quality you need at least 8000kbps and DVD uses at least 6000kbps on most
movies, so the drop in quality compared to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on these HD
stations must be hideous.

HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or H.264
because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at 3000kbps which
looks completely dire on live music with performers in front of those dot
matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray
which claim to have similar picture quality.

HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for the
video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality HD
with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using
16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings. If
they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they
should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD.

Agamemnon wrote:

HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio
quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC
justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for
commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1
SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD.

Both DVD and BluRay mastering often uses multipass encoding, DVB uses 'on the
fly' encoding, so you're not comparing like for like.

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

www.paras.org.uk

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...


HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality
HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2)



the fact that you don't seem to know that blu ray can use the 264 codec also
makes me wonder if the rest of what you say is untrue too.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality
HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using
16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings.
If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then
they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD.

Both DVD and BluRay mastering often uses multipass encoding, DVB uses 'on
the fly' encoding, so you're not comparing like for like.

If that is the case then it is obviously clear that DVB requires a much,
much higher bit rate to get equivalent quality to DVD and BluRay, in fact it
needs the maximum bit-rate available on DVD which is 8000kbps for SD using
MPEG-2 and the maximum bit rate on HD-DVD which is 30000kbps using H.264,
because all multipass encoding does is encode the complicated scenes where
there is the most motion at a higher bit-rate.

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...


HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality
HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2)



the fact that you don't seem to know that blu ray can use the 264 codec
also makes me wonder if the rest of what you say is untrue too.

Wrong. There is no way anything I have said could be possibly construed to
imply anything of the kind. You are clearly a clueless troll who can't
understand English.

In message , Agamemnon
writes

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
.. .
In , "Agamemnon"
wrote:
Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at?

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php

Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even
on static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered
in huge blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly
justify using a bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the
bandwidth of SD. It must look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks
completely appalling. And if Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio
HD whatever that is which is using more or less the same rate must look
dire too. To get anywhere near decent SD quality you need at least
8000kbps and DVD uses at least 6000kbps on most movies, so the drop in
quality compared to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on these HD stations must be hideous.

HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or
H.264 because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at
3000kbps which looks completely dire on live music with performers in
front of those dot matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used
by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray which claim to have similar picture quality.

HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio
quality HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC
justify using 16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for
commercial recordings. If they were using the same bitrate ratio of
BBC1 SD compared to DVD then they should be using at least 22000kbps
for BBC HD.


I have a Humax HD receiver, and a SD TV, and Luxe TV looks immaculate,
even if I go right up to the screen to scrutinise it.

The same goes for BBC HD.

Is it possible your system isn't all you think it is?

It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos.
--
Ian

shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge
blocks and everything looking fuzzy

Damn, I missed it!
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Agamemnon
writes

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
. ..
In , "Agamemnon"
wrote:
Was the HD quality any better and what bit rate is it going out at?

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._bit_rates.php

Considering that 4500kbps wasn't good enough for Lets Dance in SD even on
static shots of the presenters without their clothes being covered in huge
blocks and everything looking fuzzy how can Luxe TV possibly justify using
a bit rate of only 6196kbps when HD has 6 times the bandwidth of SD. It
must look completely dire. Luxe TV SD already looks completely appalling.
And if Sky Comedy is using only 7670kbps and Bio HD whatever that is which
is using more or less the same rate must look dire too. To get anywhere
near decent SD quality you need at least 8000kbps and DVD uses at least
6000kbps on most movies, so the drop in quality compared to HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray on these HD stations must be hideous.

HD should be at least 24000kbps irrespective of weather its MPEG-2 or
H.264 because there's virtually no difference between them on SD at
3000kbps which looks completely dire on live music with performers in
front of those dot matrix video walls, and comparing the bit-rates used by
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray which claim to have similar picture quality.

HD-DVD used H.264 at 30000kbps and Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 at 40000kbps for
the video alone (6x8000kbps is 48000kbps for comparison of studio quality
HD with studio quality SD using MPEG-2) so how can the BBC justify using
16383kbps which is half the bandwidth required for commercial recordings.
If they were using the same bitrate ratio of BBC1 SD compared to DVD then
they should be using at least 22000kbps for BBC HD.


I have a Humax HD receiver, and a SD TV, and Luxe TV looks immaculate,
even if I go right up to the screen to scrutinise it.

The same goes for BBC HD.

Is it possible your system isn't all you think it is?

It's a shame Luxe don't show anything but hotel promos.

Filmed on U-matic from the look of them. How they can claim that is HD I
don't know. It's not even SD, and look at the stereo audio bitrate which is
only 128 kbps. This would indicate that the quality it is aiming at is the
same as one of the BBC's interactive streams or worse.

--
Ian