BBCs Andy Quested & Danielle Nagler-Doing great things for HDTV ornot? Debate!

Intrigued by some of the posts in this group re Andy Quested. So is he
doing great things for HDTV in the uk or not?
Personally I dont understand what he is trying to achieve with half
baked HD transmission standards and gold plated HD production
standards
As for Danielle Nagler Head of HDTV at the BBC I wont waste my breath,
it would be too rude to post......

http://hdcampaign.kk5.org/

"Stewart Phillip" wrote in message
...
Intrigued by some of the posts in this group re Andy Quested. So is he
doing great things for HDTV in the uk or not?
Personally I dont understand what he is trying to achieve with half
baked HD transmission standards and gold plated HD production
standards
As for Danielle Nagler Head of HDTV at the BBC I wont waste my breath,
it would be too rude to post......

http://hdcampaign.kk5.org/

Just treat the BBC HD channel as another program in effect call it BBC 5
because to me that's all it is.
I'm all fed up of complaining to the BBC about HD pictures and I have
concluded to them it does not matter and they not going to change.
Regards
David

On Nov 9, 1:09*am, Stewart Phillip wrote:
Personally I dont understand what he is trying to achieve with half
baked HD transmission standards and gold plated HD production
standards

I would say Andy is doing everything he possibly can to maximise the
quality of HD transmissions, within the constraints he has to work
with. Average bit-rate is out of his control, because of 'political'
decisions governing platform neutrality (which I happen to agree with)
and the number of HD channels which 'the powers that be' have decreed
should be carried on Freeview.

So all he can do is to get the very most out of the limited bandwidth
available. Using the best available encoders is one thing (although
obviously that is a moving target) and, yes, "gold plated" HD
production standards help because the cleaner the signal you put into
the MPEG4 encoder (in terms of noise, aliasing etc.) the better the
end result at a given bitrate.

The other obvious reason why excellent production standards should
always be maintained, irrespective of transmission parameters, is that
the programmes will be archived at that high quality and can be made
available in other ways (e.g. on BluRay or via some future improved
transmission standard). In fact I argue that programmes should be
captured at the 1080p/50 standard (full HD resolution at 50
progressive frames per second) and downconverted for transmission, but
equipment availability and cost makes that impractical at the moment.

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

Richard Russell wrote:

Average bit-rate is out of his control, because of 'political'
decisions governing platform neutrality
(which I happen to agree with)

I'd agree with neutrality if it was applied to the *ALL* of the BBC's HD
channels on *ALL* platforms (AIUI bitrate is higher on DVB-C and non-UK
DVB-S than DVB-T2 and UK DVB-S)

[snip other stuff I agree with]

On Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 at 03:50:28h -0800, Richard Russell wrote:

because of 'political' decisions governing platform neutrality
(which I happen to agree with)

If you agree with the fiction of platform neutrality, are you
campaigning for the removal of 6 of the BBC interactive streams
on satellite so that satellite viewers have the same number, namely
one, as on Freeview?

On Nov 9, 1:27*pm, J G Miller wrote:
If you agree with the fiction of platform neutrality, are you
campaigning for the removal of 6 of the BBC interactive streams
on satellite so that satellite viewers have the same number, namely
one, as on Freeview?

No, I specifically meant in terms of picture quality, not availability
of channels or services. Everybody understands that the limited
capacity of terrestrial transmission will limit *quantity*, but I
don't think it should restrict *quality*. I would prefer that any
given channel has identical quality whatever the 'mainstream' delivery
method (and to the extent that isn't currently true, it does weaken
the BBC's position).

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

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:53:26 -0800 (PST), Richard Russell
wrote:

I would prefer that any
given channel has identical quality whatever the 'mainstream' delivery
method (and to the extent that isn't currently true, it does weaken
the BBC's position).

Wouldn't that mean restricting the quality of radio FM transmissions to
those of the equivalent AM transmissions? I appreciate that we're
discussing television but surely the same principles should apply.

--
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 Nov 9, 3:50*pm, Alan wrote:
Wouldn't that mean restricting the quality of radio FM transmissions to
those of the equivalent AM transmissions? I appreciate that we're
discussing television but surely the same principles should apply.

It's all down to what people have been led to expect. Nobody expects
AM and FM radio to provide the same quality; they never have done and
the impression has never been given that one would expect them to
(indeed FM was always promoted as a 'premium quality' service).

The situation is different with digital TV: DTT and DSAT (and cable)
have always been promoted as alternative ways of receiving effectively
the same quality signal. You can argue whether or not they should
have been, but (I would say) you can't now disappoint those people who
chose DTT on the understanding that the range of channels would be
worse but not the picture quality. If you did, they could reasonably
argue that they had been misled.

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

Richard Russell wrote:
: It's all down to what people have been led to expect. Nobody expects
: AM and FM radio to provide the same quality; they never have done and
: the impression has never been given that one would expect them to
: (indeed FM was always promoted as a 'premium quality' service).

BUT, a more relevant comparison for radio is between satellite (and
Freeview) vs DAB. Using your argument you could say that everyone should
have the inferior DAB sound quality replicated on other platforms.

: The situation is different with digital TV: DTT and DSAT (and cable)
: have always been promoted as alternative ways of receiving effectively
: the same quality signal. You can argue whether or not they should
: have been, but (I would say) you can't now disappoint those people who
: chose DTT on the understanding that the range of channels would be
: worse but not the picture quality.i

I would like to disagree! I would like the best possible picture possible
on each platform. The is only going to a slight difference on DTT!

In article
s.com, Richard Russell scribeth thus
On Nov 9, 1:09*am, Stewart Phillip wrote:
Personally I dont understand what he is trying to achieve with half
baked HD transmission standards and gold plated HD production
standards

I would say Andy is doing everything he possibly can to maximise the
quality of HD transmissions, within the constraints he has to work
with. Average bit-rate is out of his control, because of 'political'
decisions governing platform neutrality (which I happen to agree with)
and the number of HD channels which 'the powers that be' have decreed
should be carried on Freeview.

So all he can do is to get the very most out of the limited bandwidth
available.

Lowest common denominator. Why not do the best they can on each
platform?. It has always seemed to me their is much greater available
bandwidth via satellite, but this seems to have a real downer on it in
the UK suppose of Sky TV and its association with council houses;(...


Using the best available encoders is one thing (although
obviously that is a moving target) and, yes, "gold plated" HD
production standards help because the cleaner the signal you put into
the MPEG4 encoder (in terms of noise, aliasing etc.) the better the
end result at a given bitrate.

The other obvious reason why excellent production standards should
always be maintained, irrespective of transmission parameters, is that
the programmes will be archived at that high quality and can be made
available in other ways (e.g. on BluRay or via some future improved
transmission standard). In fact I argue that programmes should be
captured at the 1080p/50 standard (full HD resolution at 50
progressive frames per second) and downconverted for transmission, but
equipment availability and cost makes that impractical at the moment.

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

--
Tony Sayer