BBC NQHD (Not Quite HD) and likely to remain so.

On 13 Sep, 18:34, Alan wrote:
The BBC Trust has rejected a well argued and well presented complaint
concerning the current picture quality of BBC HD with particular
reference to the reduction in bit-rate of August 2009. Most people would
agree that the current picture quality of BBC HD is significantly poorer
than the picture quality prior to that reduction in bit-rate. Those of
us who were fortunate enough to see the demonstrations of HD at BBC
Research Department in the late '80s will know what the rest are
missing. Very sad.

Info he-http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/

Thanks for the link Alan.

Quite unimpressive. BBC HD was clearly degraded between August 2009
and June 2010. There's no argument about this - they recognise there
was a "mix/fade" issue (which popped it's ugly head up all over the
place) which wasn't solved until the switch to VBR (i.e. allowing the
bitrate to go up on problem sequences!).

Given that they knew they had a fault, and failed to solved it for 10
months, why not switch back to a higher bitrate?

No answer - and no reprimand for knowingly sending out sub-standard
pictures rather than implementing a no-cost fix.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:51:23 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

Thanks for the link Alan.

:-)

Quite unimpressive. BBC HD was clearly degraded between August 2009
and June 2010. There's no argument about this - they recognise there
was a "mix/fade" issue (which popped it's ugly head up all over the
place) which wasn't solved until the switch to VBR (i.e. allowing the
bitrate to go up on problem sequences!).

However, the VBR is capped at a level which still doesn't equate to the
pre-August '09 rate.

P.S. it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!

That is something which the BBC has resolutely refused to accept.

It's ironic that BBC HD is available abroad in full HD but that is
denied to us.

There's a BBC internet blog which includes a great deal of detailed
technical and subjective discussion about all this. This blog has now
been closed by the BBC 'now that you've had the weekend to discuss the
Trust's response as said in comment 817 I am closing this thread for
further comment'.

Says it all.

See:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...c_hd_a_vi.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...hd_a_vi_1.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...hd_a_vi_2.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...e=1#comme nts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...e=2#comme nts

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

On 15 Sep, 14:18, Alan wrote:
P.S. it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!
That is something which the BBC has resolutely refused to accept.

Not perhaps in its public utterings, but BBC engineers (I used to be
one) understand the science as well as anyone - and probably better
than most.

'I am closing this thread for further comment'.
Says it all.

Do you really think continuing the discussion would make any
difference?

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote:

Not perhaps in its public utterings, but BBC engineers (I used to be
one) understand the science as well as anyone - and probably better
than most.

So did I, which is what makes it so irritating.

'I am closing this thread for further comment'.
Says it all.

Do you really think continuing the discussion would make any
difference?

No, none at all.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

On 15 Sep, 15:10, Richard Russell wrote:
On 15 Sep, 14:18, Alan wrote:

P.S. it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!
That is something which the BBC has resolutely refused to accept.

Not perhaps in its public utterings, but BBC engineers (I used to be
one) understand the science as well as anyone - and probably better
than most.

I know - it's not the engineers who are driving this.

'I am closing this thread for further comment'.
Says it all.

Do you really think continuing the discussion would make any
difference?

No, since the official BBC line was always going to be right, no
matter what anyone else said.

Even when they implicitly admitted that they were wrong, by switching
the encoder to VBR (because the only way to solve the problem was to
increase the bitrate!!!!!!!), they didn't explicitly admit any such
thing. Ever. They're never wrong.

(though people in those threads moaning about the current average
bitrate are also wrong - it's what it _looks_ like that matters! I'm
not convinced there's anything obviously _wrong_ anymore - now it's
just "not quite as good as it could be" - which is quite different
from "there are obvious objectionable artefacts on some specific
scenes")


Sad thing is that the BBC trust has put the stance in black and white:
it's not the BBC's job to be the best in terms of technical quality.

We all know this has been their attitude for at least a decade, but
it's a very sad day when it's made public policy wrt their "state of
the art" broadcast channel.

I'll leave it for Steve or someone to ask the obvious question: is
anyone on the BBC trust qualified to make any comments on technical or
engineering issues?

No doubt they think they are - yet they'd be up in arms if we let
Daily Star readers make calls on what constitutes acceptable coverage
of opera from Glyndebourne.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. I enjoyed the NHK raw uncompressed 8k * 4k TV pictures screened
at IBC.

Steve Green's slightly-less-insane alter ego wrote in message
...

it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!

Although it's a significant improvement, it still looks far from "fine" when the
"bitrate cap is removed" (poor choice of words on your part but that's to be
expected).
Neither MPEG2 nor MPEG4 preserve that long-lost "film and video feel" [1] which
made TV and movies a pleasure to watch instead of, frankly, an effort.
They'd only come close to preserving it at bitrates way above those which DVB
could ever carry.

[1] long-lost in the UK. A number of other countries still broadcast PAL
directly on their analogue services.

jamie.
--

In article , Alan White
scribeth thus
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:51:23 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

Thanks for the link Alan.

:-)

Quite unimpressive. BBC HD was clearly degraded between August 2009
and June 2010. There's no argument about this - they recognise there
was a "mix/fade" issue (which popped it's ugly head up all over the
place) which wasn't solved until the switch to VBR (i.e. allowing the
bitrate to go up on problem sequences!).

However, the VBR is capped at a level which still doesn't equate to the
pre-August '09 rate.

P.S. it's hardly rocket science is it - when you cap the bitrate, the
most challenging content starts to look a mess. When the bitrate cap
is removed, it looks fine again. !!!

That is something which the BBC has resolutely refused to accept.


Yes do they think all the Brit publick are stupid or what?.

Once upon a time the BBC used to lead in high standards but now its all
just give them enough and tell them to shut it!..

Seen the German TV on Sat?, the HD channels .. excellent...


It's ironic that BBC HD is available abroad in full HD but that is
denied to us.

There's a BBC internet blog which includes a great deal of detailed
technical and subjective discussion about all this. This blog has now
been closed by the BBC 'now that you've had the weekend to discuss the
Trust's response as said in comment 817 I am closing this thread for
further comment'.

Yes, had a good online scrap about the bit rates on the proms where they
did an experiment using 320 K AAC and everyone who commented really
wanted it. I was just arguing the case that they should up the rates on
satellite which is a far more practical method for high quality home
listening.

That got closed waay too soon;!.....


Says it all.

See:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...c_hd_a_vi.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...hd_a_vi_1.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...hd_a_vi_2.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...a_vi_2.html?pa
ge=1#comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...a_vi_2.html?pa
ge=2#comments


--
Tony Sayer

No, since the official BBC line was always going to be right, no
matter what anyone else said.

Thats what they do.. Like sharks are killing machines ..

...thats what they do...


Even when they implicitly admitted that they were wrong, by switching
the encoder to VBR (because the only way to solve the problem was to
increase the bitrate!!!!!!!), they didn't explicitly admit any such
thing. Ever. They're never wrong.

Naturally..


(though people in those threads moaning about the current average
bitrate are also wrong - it's what it _looks_ like that matters! I'm
not convinced there's anything obviously _wrong_ anymore - now it's
just "not quite as good as it could be" - which is quite different
from "there are obvious objectionable artefacts on some specific
scenes")


Sad thing is that the BBC trust has put the stance in black and white:
it's not the BBC's job to be the best in terms of technical quality.


It used to be once upon a time. I once worked for Pye TVT , Rupert Neve
and Audix, it was a given in those days that if you supplied to the BBC
then your equipment was good enough for any other broadcaster in the
world if it was good enough for them..

We all know this has been their attitude for at least a decade, but
it's a very sad day when it's made public policy wrt their "state of
the art" broadcast channel.

I'll leave it for Steve or someone to ask the obvious question: is
anyone on the BBC trust qualified to make any comments on technical or
engineering issues?

Nope..


No doubt they think they are - yet they'd be up in arms if we let
Daily Star readers make calls on what constitutes acceptable coverage
of opera from Glyndebourne.

Yes..


Cheers,
David.

P.S. I enjoyed the NHK raw uncompressed 8k * 4k TV pictures screened
at IBC.

--
Tony Sayer

wrote:

P.S. I enjoyed the NHK raw uncompressed 8k * 4k TV pictures screened
at IBC.

So did I, though there were rather a lot of stuck pixels on their projector,
at least at the showing I attended, 12:35hrs Sept 14th.


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

www.paras.org.uk

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:08:07 +0100, Alan
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT), Richard Russell
wrote:

Not perhaps in its public utterings, but BBC engineers (I used to be
one) understand the science as well as anyone - and probably better
than most.

So did I, which is what makes it so irritating.

Your old lot got sold to Siemens..which kind of implies that the BBC
didn't want them!

--
Z