BBC HD critised in The Independent

BBC criticised over HD picture quality.

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Broadcaster accused of stifling complaints after TV shows lose their
sharpness
The BBC's high-definition (HD) television service has lost its
pin-sharp pictures, viewers are claiming.

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

The BBC has been accused of stifling the criticism by closing user
forums on its websites that contained negative comments from viewers.
Forums that have been re-opened have been bombarded with fresh
responses filling page after page. Viewers who claim they have been
"fobbed off" have contacted the BBC Trust, demanding that it
investigates the problem.

Protests began in August after the BBC changed its encoding system,
leading to claims that its HD service, available on the Freesat
platform, was little better than normal television. The Corporation's
main commercial rival Sky transmits HD programmes at a bitrate of
between 1MB and 15MB.

Viewers watching the BBC HD channel, which screens top shows such as
Gavin & Stacey, said they had seen a dip in picture quality.

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

"There are hundreds of people complaining all the time. The BBC will
open a forum, get hundreds of complaints, respond to them, shut down
the forum, and then it will start all over again." According to one
theory, the BBC changed encoders so that it could offer more
programmes on HD BBC1, which is due to be launched next year on
Freeview, where bandwidth is limited. But Nick Caley, a spokesman for
the BBC, rejected the idea, saying: "The reason the [encoders] were
replaced was because they had come to the end of their lives. We did
extensive testing which showed [the new encoders] could produce
pictures at the same or even better quality than the old encoders at
the higher bitrate."

Denying any stifling of dissent, he added: "We have actively debated
the issue of BBC HD picture quality, via our blog, with those viewers
who feel the bitrate change has affected picture quality. Only this
week the head of technology posted a blog per day addressing the
issues raised."

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

One blogger responded: "Sorry but the post seems to be the the usual
BBC HD fob-off. When the channel started out the picture quality was
stunning. Then the channel lowered the bandwidth and the quality went
down."

Link to article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...y-1837376.html

In article , Grappler wrote:
Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes? If only it was.

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

Clearly, I have been labouring under a delusion these past forty years
or so, that broadcast technical quality depended in some way on the
technology, and not the marketing people's beliefs.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 10/12/09 05:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Grappler wrote:

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes?

Per second? fortnight?

tThe problem here is not the on the face of it figures, but how accurate is
it at making the picture look right one would think. After all, on paper
lots of things seem to outperform their processors, even at lower bit
rates, but if the end result is in fact worse then someone should say, hey,
our paper specs do not reflect the actual experience, Lets go away and find
out why.
All too often this is not done.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/09 05:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Grappler wrote:

Hundreds of complaints have been posted online saying that broadcasts
became fuzzy and grainy after the Corporation lowered the bitrate of
its HD encoding technology from 16 megabytes to 9.7MB.

Megabytes?

Per second? fortnight?

Grappler wrote:

Danielle Nagler, the BBC's head of HD, admitted there had been "some
issues" with picture quality on certain shows but she did not believe
this "had anything" to do with the lower bitrate.

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

When pressed further, she proclaimed that they did not want to
have "just one look" for HD. So, even if they upped the bit rate,
they would still be using all those dreadful "filmic" effects to
throw away the detail.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still
looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act of adding grain and
softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and some of
those programmes now look truly dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is nothing short of
a disgrace technically IMHO.

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

www.paras.org.uk

On 10 Dec, 05:44, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , Grappler wrote:

"The BBC didn't tell anyone and now people are finding out and are up
in arms about it," said Paul Shakeshaft, of Alton, Hampshire. "Before
the quality used to be as good as Blu-ray. You would watch it and
think it was fantastic but now it is quite soft and grainy. The BBC
are saying the bitrate has gone down by 40 per cent and the quality is
better. It's not - it's worse.

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

In so many ways.

Let me remind you of two things...

1. They never admitted DAB had a quality problem after dropping
bitrates
2. They never returned DAB to its previous high quality

With DAB, everyone knew why they dropped the bitrates. For BBC HD on
Freesat, it's not yet clear. The space they've cleared is currently
just null packets - there's obviously "a plan" - something far more
important than providing decent picture quality - but we don't know
what it is yet.


FWIW I previously thought it was dropping Freesat HD down to Freeview
HD levels - but it's not _just_ that - Freeview HD will have a higher
bitrate!

A terrible thought is that they've actually decided Freesat is a very
bad idea and want to push people away from it, onto Freeview HD, ASAP.
There are certainly several "challenges" stopping the other PSB
channels join Freesat in HD, so maybe the BBC thinks it's a waste
money being there on its own, and intends to side-line it post-DSO.
Bizarre, but I wonder if there's any truth in it?

Cheers,
David.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still
looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act of adding grain
and softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and
some of those programmes now look truly dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is
nothing short of a disgrace technically IMHO.

--

I totally agree Mark, programmes such as the Antiques Roadshow Shot in the
grounds of a stately home in the middle of summer can look absolutely
stunning, whilst at the same time other programs such as the recent one
about Britain presented by Andrew Marr (yes I know he has a radio face!)
appeared to have resorted to a softening of the image, well at least in the
last episode, every time that there was a close up of him.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message ...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

Seems like the story of DAB all over again.

Yes, it's certainly going that way. Live studio and untampered video still looks good (sports OBs notably), but the deliberate act
of adding grain and softening up the images on dramas and comedy doesn't help at all, and some of those programmes now look truly
dreadful. Gavin and Stacy is nothing short of a disgrace technically IMHO.

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

www.paras.org.uk
When I worked for Granada Rentals, it was received wisdom amongst
all of the service (close your ears Paul) engineers, that Hitachi had
knobbled the luminance bandwidth on standard play on the first dual
speed model we offered, so long play didn't look as bad in comparison.
You could pull out a diode and restore full SP quality.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

What was also quite interesting, in the extended interview for
"Points of View", was her take on picture sharpness. She believes
that "HD is not simply about sharpness, it is about picture
depth". I have no idea how that parameter is quantified, nor, I
imagine, does she.

Picture depth? You must have one of those fancy 3D TVs - mine always has
flat images!

Paul DS.

P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist.