Quote from Danielle Nagler, Head of BBC HD re quality

Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders are
more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3 music,
pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and tranmitted as a
stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of bits of information
sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new encoders
revealed some issues for the first time, like background 'noise'...across
the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new technology is delivering
clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and then
never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that this is all
Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many use lossless audio
encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she refers to looks like the
classic fuzziness you get when a video is compressed too much, rather than
"new detail"!

"GTS" wrote in message
news
Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders are
more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3 music,
pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and tranmitted as a
stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of bits of information
sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new encoders
revealed some issues for the first time, like background 'noise'...across
the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new technology is delivering
clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and then
never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that this is all
Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many use lossless
audio encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she refers to looks like
the classic fuzziness you get when a video is compressed too much, rather
than "new detail"!

I agree - that is Boll**ks. Give us back the old HD, warts 'n all. What's
the point in watching a wart-hog on the TV if you can't see his bleedin'
warts?

Chas

Chas Gill wrote:
I agree - that is Boll**ks. Give us back the old HD, warts 'n all. What's
the point in watching a wart-hog on the TV if you can't see
his bleedin' warts?

Or indeed Catherine Tate's )

(kim)

Sounds to me like they have been forced to use inferior gear and are just
making excuses.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"GTS" wrote in message
news
Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders are
more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3 music,
pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and tranmitted as a
stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of bits of information
sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new encoders
revealed some issues for the first time, like background 'noise'...across
the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new technology is delivering
clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and then
never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that this is all
Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many use lossless
audio encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she refers to looks like
the classic fuzziness you get when a video is compressed too much, rather
than "new detail"!

So, then, we do not actually have hd, we have sd which is worse than
analogue, and hd is better than sd, but.. oh gawd, thank goodness I can't
see it any more!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"GTS" wrote in message
news
Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders are
more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3 music,
pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and tranmitted as a
stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of bits of information
sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new encoders
revealed some issues for the first time, like background 'noise'...across
the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new technology is delivering
clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and then
never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that this is all
Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many use lossless
audio encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she refers to looks like
the classic fuzziness you get when a video is compressed too much, rather
than "new detail"!

I agree - that is Boll**ks. Give us back the old HD, warts 'n all.
What's the point in watching a wart-hog on the TV if you can't see his
bleedin' warts?

Chas

In message , Brian Gaff
wrote
So, then, we do not actually have hd, we have sd which is worse than
analogue, and hd is better than sd, but.. oh gawd, thank goodness I can't
see it any more!

Possibly they have paid a fortune for the new encoders and cannot admit
that it is money wasted?

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

GTS wrote:
Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders are
more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3 music,
pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and tranmitted as a
stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of bits of information
sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new encoders
revealed some issues for the first time, like background 'noise'...across
the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new technology is delivering
clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and then
never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that this is all
Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many use lossless audio
encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she refers to looks like the
classic fuzziness you get when a video is compressed too much, rather than
"new detail"!



I was watching some blu-ray on a demo in a store the other day. First I
had to explain to my wife what it was, and how you wouldn't see that
quality on a broadcast. (this was a Sony demo loop).

Then I had to explain my amazed "wow" as they switched to a different
clip and it had carefully encoded all the film grain from the original.

You don't want _all_ the detail.

On the other hand, you don't want blocks or dirty windows...

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
GTS wrote:
Not sure if anyone noticed the quote in last week's radio times;
"In August we upgraded some of the equipment we use. The new encoders
are more efficient and have enabled us to drop the bitrate - like MP3
music, pictures can can be broken down into digits or bits, and
tranmitted as a stream if information. the bitrate is the numbers of
bits of information sent every second.
"Because HD pictures contain a lot more information than standard
definition, they show up things viewers can't see in SD. The new
encoders revealed some issues for the first time, like background
'noise'...across the range of material BBC HD broadcasts, the new
technology is delivering clearer pictures."

I know Ms Nagler put the same or similar quote on a BBC HD blog, and
then never responded to the many replies. Does everyone agree that
this is all Boll**ks? Even the MP3 analogy ignores the fact that many
use lossless audio encoding like FLAC. The background 'noise' she
refers to looks like the classic fuzziness you get when a video is
compressed too much, rather than "new detail"!


I was watching some blu-ray on a demo in a store the other day. First I
had to explain to my wife what it was, and how you wouldn't see that
quality on a broadcast. (this was a Sony demo loop).

Then I had to explain my amazed "wow" as they switched to a different
clip and it had carefully encoded all the film grain from the original.

You don't want _all_ the detail.

"Slowest ship in the convoy" springs to mind.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:

I was watching some blu-ray on a demo in a store the other day. First
I had to explain to my wife what it was, and how you wouldn't see that
quality on a broadcast. (this was a Sony demo loop).

Then I had to explain my amazed "wow" as they switched to a different
clip and it had carefully encoded all the film grain from the original.

You don't want _all_ the detail.

"Slowest ship in the convoy" springs to mind.


I don't understand the application of the simile. Despite "Three
Corvettes" being on the shelf behind me.


But if I can tell grain from detail the CODEC should be able to too.

Andy