Excellent article on BBC HD picture quality issue

In article , Paul Heslop wrote:

It was almost a whitewash though - lots of comments about what Danielle
Nagler thought on the matter and precious little about what people were
actually complaining about.


aye, but then they have their own jobs to protect :O)

It has been said that you will never convince somebody that a thing is true
as long as their job depends on it not being true.

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

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Probably find the monitors they use at the beeb are not HD ones in any case.
You may laugh, but this is the BBC, the same one who sold all the family
silver and got rid of their engineers.

It's possible to shoot a programme on HD without using HD monitors. It's not
ideal of course, but it can be done, because out in the field the techniques,
both photographic and electronic, are essentially the same regardless of how
many lines there are in the picture. I've worked on a location production where
the only HD monitor failed after the first day, so we carried on using the SD
downconverted output from the camera. We didn't see the pictures properly util
later but they looked superb.

I'm sure they were, because at that stage no idiot producer has got hold
of the images, chucked away every other field, added grain, and stuffed
them through a filter to make them look 'arty'.

There is quality HD monitoring in studio control rooms and OB trucks,
but that's way upstream of where the problems start. You're still
looking at uncompressed 1.485 Gb/s signals at that stage.

There's no close attention paid in the Beeb's (Red Bee) playout centre
to quality. The weekend before last all the BBC HD programmes were
suffering random green line flashes. These persisted all weekend. It was
only after many (myself included) posted observations on Andy Quested's
blog, that the fault was acknowledged and subsequently traced to an
overheating mixer main frame on the Monday morning. It should never have
got to that stage, someone at Red Bee should have noticed, and by-passed
the faulty equipment, at least during the programmes. Very easy to do,
with what every Pres suite should have, a separate emergency cut bus. In
fact you do get the impression watching the channel, that the whole
thing is just on 'auto-pilot'. Not acceptable, for what is supposed to
be a 'flagship' technical service.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:32:18 -0000, "jamie powell"
wrote:


"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/

I certainly didn't know this bit:

"Strangely, the BBC continues to broadcast high-definition to the rest of
Europe at around 16Mbps in Full HD 1920x1080."

Unbelievable!


I agree totally, but nontheless one has to assume that the masses of viewer
complaints made on this issue, which are currently clogging up the BBC's forums
and comment sections, are merely a typical example of the brainless masses
instinctively jumping on yet another bandwagon and piling onto an easy target
for cheap kicks.

I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.

What change was this? I still get a better than VHS quality picture
from analogue channels.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Dec 17, 11:03*am, Mark
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:32:18 -0000, "jamie powell"



wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/

I certainly didn't know this bit:

"Strangely, the BBC continues to broadcast high-definition to the rest of
Europe at around 16Mbps in Full HD 1920x1080."

Unbelievable!

I agree totally, but nontheless one has to assume that the masses of viewer
complaints made on this issue, which are currently clogging up the BBC's forums
and comment sections, are merely a typical example of the brainless masses
instinctively jumping on yet another bandwagon and piling onto an easy target
for cheap kicks.

I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.

What change was this? *I still get a better than VHS quality picture
from analogue channels.

So do I , but don't let reality get in the way of a good winge.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:03:28 +0000, Mark
wrote:

I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.

What change was this? I still get a better than VHS quality picture
from analogue channels.

There wasn't one. The Runt's talking out of its arse.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels
(watched at the time by a great majority of people on their main TV
sets) switched overnight from having a world-leading picture quality,
to a sub-VHS one.

What change was this? I still get a better than VHS quality picture
from analogue channels.

But any VHS jamie owned would obviously better broadcast quality.

--
*Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

jamie powell wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/

I certainly didn't know this bit:

"Strangely, the BBC continues to broadcast high-definition to the rest of
Europe at around 16Mbps in Full HD 1920x1080."

Unbelievable!


I agree totally, but nontheless one has to assume that the masses of
viewer complaints made on this issue, which are currently clogging up the
BBC's forums and comment sections, are merely a typical example of the
brainless masses instinctively jumping on yet another bandwagon and
piling onto an easy target for cheap kicks.


I totally disagree. I think there will be some people who're knowledgable
about picture quality, so what you say doesn't apply to them. Then there
will be people who thought to themselves "this doesn't look as good as it
used to do" but wouldn't know why - until they stumbled across the BBC
Internet blogs discussing it.


I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels
(watched at the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets)
switched overnight from having a world-leading picture quality, to a
sub-VHS one.


This is a good example of why I don't believe that you're a 19/20 years old
student. Why would you "recall no complaints" being made in 1999 if you were
only 9 years old? 9 year old kids boys play with Action Man or similar. They
do not know anything about TV picture quality, let alone the number of
complaints the BBC will have received about it.

Sorry, but you've come out with a load of different things that simply don't
stack up. You are Dave the Gasman from Grimsby, and I claim my five pounds.


Most people wouldn't know high quality if it hit them on the head and then
smacked them in the face.


I certainly agree that 9 year old children wouldn't have a clue about
picture quality.


Thus most of the current complainants have
probably never even seen the BBC HD channel, let alone genuinely noticed
the dip in picture quality.


That's obviously ********.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

Check that I haven't accused James "pathological liar" Cridland of being
biased towards DAB and biased against Internet radio: Tick Check that I've
deleted all racist and/or homophobic language: Tick Check that there are no
funeral magazines and/or addresses of senior members of the DAB industry
included: Tick Check that I've observed Sean "My Personal Obsessive
Stalker" Inglis's (Usenet username: seani) "How Steve Must Behave on Usenet
Rulebook (Totally Inapplicable to Other Users Edition)": Tick

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

I totally disagree. I think there will be some people who're knowledgable
about picture quality, so what you say doesn't apply to them. Then there will
be people who thought to themselves "this doesn't look as good as it used to
do" but wouldn't know why - until they stumbled across the BBC Internet blogs
discussing it.

Only a minority have an accurate perception of picture/sound quality.
You obviously have to pretend otherwise though, in order to justify your little
DAB "campaign".



This is a good example of why I don't believe that you're a 19/20 years old
student. Why would you "recall no complaints" being made in 1999 if you were
only 9 years old? 9 year old kids boys play with Action Man or similar. They
do not know anything about TV picture quality, let alone the number of
complaints the BBC will have received about it.

You have no idea... I was a really weird kid.



Sorry, but you've come out with a load of different things that simply don't
stack up. You are Dave the Gasman from Grimsby, and I claim my five pounds.

I thought we'd established my true identity already - I am Bill Wright's alter
ego - the one and only outlet for his years of repressed homosexuality, and a
means of atonement for the social persecution he feared so much in his youth.

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:03:28 +0000, Mark
wrote:

I can recall no complaints in 1999 when the BBC analogue channels (watched at
the time by a great majority of people on their main TV sets) switched
overnight
from having a world-leading picture quality, to a sub-VHS one.

What change was this? I still get a better than VHS quality picture
from analogue channels.

There wasn't one. The Runt's talking out of its arse.

Ratface wouldn't know - he scavenged his main TV set out of someone's dustbin.

On Dec 17, 9:08*am, Mark Carver wrote:

I'm sure they were, because at that stage no idiot producer has got hold
of the images, chucked away every other field, added grain, and stuffed
them through a filter to make them look 'arty'.


You watch "Strictly Come Dancing" don't you.

--
Maurice