Loading ...Dec 29 2009
A petition has been raised on the Number10 website for BBC to increase the picture quality of BBC HD back to how it was before the bit-rate reduction. The petition hasn’t been created by us but following the vote result (left hand side) showing overwhelming opinion that the rate has reduced quality we thought you might want to put your name down in support of action:
December 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Not that this will change anything but I hope it does, the bbc used to have the best HD picture quality, now it has one of the worst.
Lee BQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Well now I have heard it all. With all the current problems in the World, I find it amazing that anyone has the time to waste on such a pointless exercise. Life is just too short for such triviality.
DenisQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Great idea!!
I’ve signed up.
I echo what LeeB says.
BBC HD has gone from the best to the worst HD channel in 6 months.
Al (Original)Quote
December 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Surely, the picture quality has deteriorated on all channels in the past few weeks hasn’t it; or is just on my system? Previously I had near perfect pictures at all times, (except very heavy rain of course) but now I am seeing pixilation and fuzziness particularly on faces at some time during each evening.
I’ve added my name to the petition, I my not be able to save the world but if I am to apathetic to at least let the BBC know there is a problem then I guess we get what we deserve.
PeterQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Do the BBC change the quality from TV program to TV program?
The reason I ask is that I recorded the Gruffalo on Christmas day and the definition looked VERY GOOD. Plenty of definition depth, depth of field, colourh and excellent sound quality. Much better than the freeview version I taped on terrestial TV.
Perhaps they are transmitting SD material over the HD channel and it is just showing up.
Pete
Pete WoodsQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Thats not going to make a difference they need 10,000 signitures for the PM to look into it.
RossQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This won’t solve anything, and it probably will be dis-regarded and not looked into. But I do agree that quality has decreased somewhat.
Peter (bobmarleypeople)Quote
December 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“With all the current problems in the World, I find it amazing that anyone has the time to waste on such a pointless exercise. Life is just too short for such triviality.”
Gald to see you are busy doing something less trivial like posting on here, Denis
WhatQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
If a good number of people vote at least the BBC can’t sweep it under the carpet.
Lee BQuote
December 29th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Well done
I have been complaining about this very subject for months, but the BBC even refuse to acknowledge there is a problem with the quility of the HD channel in their email reply to me!.
I have signed this petition and sent an email with the link to all my friends and workmates as well, hopefully we will achive the 10,000 signitures required
OyodiQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 12:16 am
#5 Pete Woods
The BBC HD picture quality is variable as you have noticed. The current low transmission bit rate can cope with some situations adequately, but when a program contains significant camera panning or movement such as football, that is when a deterioration in picture quality is noticeable. It is not surprising that this deterioration happens on BBC HD as they are only transmitting at 9.7Mb/s whereas the minimum EBU recommended bit rate for the encoders used is 12.1 Mb/s!!
#2 Denis
If this subject is such a triviality to you, then I’m surprised that you spend the time commenting.
Derek (Original)Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 9:03 am
If you buy a product you do not expect it to stop performing properly after six months you would take it back.
robert eQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Signed – Ms Naglers comments annoyed me more than the picture quality, fancy going on tv and saying that PQ and bit rate “are not related”, sure the relationship may not be linear, but any fool with 5 minutes intro to digital video will understand that they are two sides of one coin.
SteveQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Waste of time signing it. Brown will just brush it aside like he does at prime ministers question time when he is asked a question. He responds by attacking the opposition instead of answering the question.In any case its not up to the government its up to the BBC governors and the BBC trust which is as it should be.
Richard CrichtonQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 10:25 am
What a sad, sad world..
HudgeQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 10:40 am
signed ! .. maybe it’s trivial to some people .. but we all pay a fortune for the TV license .. so we deserve top quality and value for money!
lizQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
If I wasnt paying for my licence fee,I wouldn’tcare. But my money is partly going towards a now crap quality(some of the time) HD channel. ITV HD after all their glitches are now showing better picture quality HD, no 5.1 on their channel but picture quality is far more important. Don’t let the BBC get away with it, sign up the petiotion now, and spread the word.
ZubQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:19 am
who cares about Recession,the war on terror ,swine flu-lets have a petition about BBC HD (The worlds gone mad
)
darnall42Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Definately BBC HD picture quality is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
I used watch the picture quality with my jaws open. Now it is more like a good SD picture.
Come on BBC get back to the good old days!
YasarQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@Darnall42 #18, the world always was mad so go sign the petition.
At least it will give you something to watch whilst they carry your neighbours out black death style, as victims from terrorism and swine flu!
Al (Original)Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@Richard Crichton
So, if “Brown” isn’t Prime Minister when the poll closes, do you think there’s a chance something might be done?
The only reason I’m asking is that you singled out “Brown” which means you either didn’t look at the details of the online poll or you believe that he’ll still be the Prime Minister after the next General Election – which will take place before the poll closes.
John_MQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I saw the BBC promotional material, which was masquerading as a new item on the BBC website a couple of weeks ago.
The BBC gave “the head of the channel, Danielle Nagler” an open platform to “vindicate” the changes to the BBC HD service.
In contrast, the BBC openly mocked the publics’ complaints of the service. They failed to challenge the substance of “what they were told” and opted to end the article with the following:
“”Even my wife can see a reduction in picture quality and she’s got cataracts,” wrote one.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415636.stm
John_MQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Want some good reasons for signing the petition?
1) Many, many people invested in HD equipment based on the BBC HD picture quality transmitted up to August this year. Having parted with their cash, the BBC then surreptitiously reduced the picture quality for reasons best known to them, hoping the change wouldn’t be noticed. It can get away with doing that because it doesn’t have to rely on advertising revenue based on viewing numbers.
2) The BBC is treating its licence payers like 2nd class citizens. Why? The BBC HD transmissions to Scandinavia are transmitted a bit rate more than 50% greater than that used for domestic BBC HD transmission
Derek (Original)Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I have signed. I thought the people on this site were all for better quality HD and more of it. So why all these apathetic posts. Go for it and spread the word, we need 10k+
Derek BQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
This is absolutely pathetic!
So, the quality of TV broadcasts is the most important thing the government has to worry about is it? …complete tosh!
Use the correct channels for complaining if you have a problem with picture quality. I, for one, see nothing wrong with the current BBC HD picture quality. Just because the bit rate has dropped does not neccessarily mean the quality has gone down – do you complain when the size of your phone or ipod gets smaller?
Al CatrazQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
#25 Al Catraz
Who said it was the most important? Do you think we pay the salaries of the goverment for them to only deal with one issue at a time? I don’t think so.
Would you be happy if you turned up at a petrol station, pleased that the price was the same as your last visit but instead of the price being per litre, it was now per pint?
I rest my case your honour
Derek (Original)Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Al Catraz – Well said. Agree if people have a gripe over this issue then use the correct channels. The phrase “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” comes to mind.
DenisQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I thought this was a forum about Freesat. It isn’t my first recourse if I want to protest about the recession, the war on terror or swine flu, but it is the correct channel, I would have thought, to see a debate about the quality of HD pictures on Freesat. Perhaps I’m crazy.
Laurence UptonQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I have complained direct to the BBC at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
Sign the petition and send a complaint, the BBC require feedback to improve the service.
KevQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I mentioned earlier the very poor BBC News article. A “far superior” article can be found @ http://informitv.com/news/2009/12/11/bbchdquality/
John_MQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I understood that the reduction in bit-rate was part of a change which saw the compression algorithm improved to enable HD to make more efficient use of the bandwidth. The combination of better compression and lower bit rate was supposed to bring us back to where we were before.
Is it possible that some receivers are not decompressing the new signal as well as they did before? Perhaps, when the Cabinet take time off from the recession to deal with the petition, they will have to tell some manufacturers to try another OAD.
HD-ScepticQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Laurence @ 48.i have no probs with this blog debating BBC HD/Freesat ,but i think Petioning 10 downing St is just Bizzare
darnall42Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Trivia ? – Maybe
Free Speech – Definitely !!
Phil OwersQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
After 4 months, you’ll get a reply saying that it’s not down to the PM, but the BBC says lalala…, not really the right avenue for protest IMHO.
MarkCQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Denis # 27, Quote: “Al Catraz – Well said. Agree if people have a gripe over this issue then use the correct channels”
People have already complained to the BBC and to the Trust – in I understand fact Paul Geaton who has his own web site has submitted a comprehensive complaint to the BBC Trust linking many of the thousands of BBC HD blog posts about the issue. However the Trust haven’t listened so far, or at least may have listened but haven’t seen fit to make any change back to the previous standards leaving many Freesat and Sky BBC HD users with a disappointing quality of picture.
Also, the Government’s petition web site is a “correct channel”. It was set up specifically for users to create petitions over issues such as these where other channels have failed. Lets not kid ourselves into thinking that were it not for a petiton about Freesat, world poverty and other issues would be solved overnight as some posts above seem to suggest.
A properly formatted petition on the governments own web site set up specifically for petitions of this nature is a perfectly correct and proper channel to use.
Al (Original)Quote
December 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
For all those with a lethargic attitude toward expressing dissatisfaction about the deterioration in the HD quality. I wonder what their stance is on politicians expenses? I am sorry to be so sarcastic but just because a problem is small when weighed against more serious issues it doesn’t mean to say that they should be ignored.
AlanQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I think there’s two problems with this:
First, a lot of viewers really can’t tell the difference, and the evidence of the independent “Which?” survey will back this up:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a193011/which-backs-bbc-hds-picture-quality.html
Secondly, whatever anybody says or does, it’s clear from Nagler’s and Quested’s blogs that the BBC are going to carry on saying that there isn’t a problem.
Whilst I myself CAN see a difference, I think what Andy Quested was trying to get across in his recent blogs was that there are a lot of factors which can affect picture quality – and indeed some BBC HD broadcasts are visibly worse than others.
Sad to say, I think we’re just going to have to get used to the current situation, hope it isn’t made any worse in the future, and look forward to whichever new HD channel is going to occupy the other half of the bandwidth formaly used by BBC HD.
Brian DamageQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
If it gets 10,000 signatures how can the BBC sweep it under the carpet then?
Lee BQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
After seeing all the hype on TV about this fantastic leap in picture quality, then being convinced by every retailer with endless in store demos, I finally decide to part with nearly £250 of my hard earned money. I then eagerly scroll to my one and only HD channel and……………….I wish I had bought comfy slippers. Good deffinition yes, high definition, NO.
john mackQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
HD-Sceptic @ 31
Using a more efficient comperssion algorithm doesn’t necessarily mean the bitrate HAS to be reduced. It should have been used to increase picture quality at the existing bitrate.
Brian Damage @ 37
The “Which?” article is NOT evidence. It is the *opinion* of the person who conducted the unspecified testing. It should also be noted that “Which?” didn’t compare BBC HD against the HD channels of other broadcasters
31 & 37
The European Broacasting Union have recommended a *minimum* transmission bitrate of 12.1Mb/s for the encoders and resolution the BBC HD channel uses.
MikeCQuote
December 30th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
@MikeC, well said I agree 100%
Lee BQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 12:32 am
This is very interesting as it tells you the transmission bit rate of all the HD channels and, guess what; $ky1 has the highest at almost twice that of the BBC, and to me it differently shows as I noticed at my friends house.
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/satellite_hdtv_bit_rates.php
I do fell somewhat cheated by the BBC HD service because as a licence fee payer I was proud of the BBC HD service, but now they tell me that the reduced rate makes no difference to the picture quality; am I going mad, because to me, even thou it is good, it is not the eye candy it use to be.
OyodiQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:41 am
@MikeC
True, but the comparison was between BBC HD now and BBC HD before the changes. The bit rates used by other broadcasters is not relevant to this.
And you’ll note, this is is only supporting evidence. I still contend that the for the majority of viewers, the quality of BBC HD has not significantly changed.
As I mentioned before, some programmes are visibly better than others – and many are still better than BBC SD, so I still beleive that for the majority of viewers this is not a problem.
Sad, but true.
Brian DamageQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 9:53 am
Brian Damage @ 43
The problem with the Which? article is that it contains no technical detail of the testing methodology and programme items used. Therefore, its value as “evidence” or “proof” is questionable. It has no more weight than anyone else’s opinion unless they provide much more detail.
I agree, some programmes are visibly better than others; but that is no indication of the overall quality of the channel. I, and many others, have noticed a degradation over the last year. That is why it needs to be compared to the HD channels of other broadcasters.
Finally, the EBU recognise the need to use bandwidth efficiently and they’re still recommending a *minimum* bitrate of 12.1Mb/s for the setup the BBC have in order to provide acceptable quality HD. Over 20% more than the BBC are using!
MikeCQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
one good thing from this is that we now have a dedicated “bit rate discussion” thread, so lets hope this stops the constant hijacking of all the other threads with this topic from now on.
Al CatrazQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 10:56 am
darnall42 @ 32, I guess it is because the BBC is funded by the licence fee, and how they use it is controlled to some extent by the government. The BBC have been tackled on the issue and are publicly in denial of the problem. At present, HD is only a small percentage of the TV output, but it is the way all TV will be going, so it is important to set a line in the sand at the outset.. Look at broadband: a minimum of 2 Mbps, the ambition of the government, is already hopelessly unrealistic before the program is even underway.
Laurence UptonQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I think I concede that some viewers do find a perceived difference in the quality of the BBC HD picture as against what it was when the service first started.
Surely though it is a bit (no pun intended) over the top to put a petition on the Number 10 site. The argument would I would have thought had more credability and gained more repect if the BBC themselves have been tackled directly with some meaningfull discussion at the highest level.
The problem with going to Number 10 is that you have played your final card before exausting all other possibilities. If it fails you have nowhere else to go and that will be the end of the story.
Best of luck but I am afraid such a heavy handed approach can only end in failure.
DenisQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 11:13 am
What is the point of having a body such as the EBU if the likes of the bbc totally ignore its recommendations. Surely the bbc should be providing the licence fee payer with the best possible quality. I know nothing about bitrate, bandwidth, but I have noticed a reduction in picture quality on both my panasonic idtv and humax hd box, which is connected to a samsung hd ready tv. Maybe its about time sky was forced to remove their encrypted channels off the narrow beam satellites to free up space for more, and better quality hd.
RussQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 11:26 am
@21 John_M
He may well be. No I don’t think anything will be done if he is or isn’t Prime Minister. It’s not anything to do with any government what bitrate the BBC choose to use for their HD satellite channel. We need less government control not more.
Richard CrichtonQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
#47 Denis
There have been many attempts to engage the BBC at the highest level, but the head of BBC HD, Danielle Nagler seems very reluctant to take part in a 2 way interchange in any meaningful way. Complaints aplenty have been made to the BBC using their own complaints system to no avail. According to Danielle Nagler, they don’t count as formal complaints. There is currently a “class action” complaint in the BBC Trust complaints loop on behalf of many hundreds, if not over a thousand disgruntled BBC HD viewers. The No 10 petition is just another way of letting the BBC know the strength of feeling about this issue.
Derek (Original)Quote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@ Richard Crichton
Thanks for the reply.
The problem here is that there is a perceived difference in picture quality since the BBC introduced the lower bitrate. I accept the broad point that there may be many viewers who have not noticed any change in their picture quality. However, the broad point fails to acknowledge that the viewers’ equipment can play a major part in revealing, or not, picture quality differences.
Unfortunately, HD ready televisions come in many varied specifications; screen size and dynamic contrast ratio being 2 key variables.
To quote Ms Nagler “…the services was created to be at its best for “typical viewing set ups” and that user groups with standard equipment were happy with the service.”
It is very easy to say, but it would have been useful to define what the BBC sees as the “typical viewing set up”. The pace of change in HD ready televisions has seen dramatic improvements in picture quality. In time, more viewers will purchase “better” televisions. But given the BBC seems to want to set their broadcast standards against unspecified “typical setups” it remains to be seen if they will review such setups on a regular basis, or even tell us where they are setting that particular standard.
John_MQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I’ve been watching French High Definition channels TF1, France 2, M6 and arte for several months through TNT, the French version of Freeview, and the quality has been almost universally excellent – so I was looking forward to getting Freesat in order to see BBC and ITV1 in HD.
I have to say that for whatever reason the BBC HD picture cannot compete with the French channels (lack of detail, over-resolved compression artifacts) . The difference is particularly noticeable during football matches. In one case I was able to directly compare the same live game.
I have no experience of the original BBCHD so cannot comment on whether the picture quality has worsened. Hope this adds to the debate.
AndyQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Today I mailed my MP about this. I suggest you do the same. Your MP would rather put his time into something like this then dealing with letters from people demanding that they bring back hanging and dog licences. And since 90% of them have contact with the BBC at least once per month every little helps.
PS – have you noticed how the BBCHD poll replies for “as good as ever” has shot up in the last few days – wonder if that can be traced back to the BBC?
TheDukeOfHunsletQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I believe that the reason the number 10 petition has been started is because, probably like me, replies from the BBC totally ignore that there is a problem with the picture quality since reducing the bit rate.
OyodiQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
There was virtually no difference in picture quality in last nights drama Turn of the screw between the freeview bbc1 and the hd channel.
I am now finding myself turning on my Humax box only to watch the channels that i cannot get on freeview.
My parents were around over christmas and asked if there was anything good on the bbc hd.
When i replied that they were watching the HD channel they were shocked at the poor quality compared to their previous visits.
They said that they were going to ask me to buy the best freesat box for their new television, but have now opted for a bluray player instead.
TonyQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Much of this discussion reminds me of the golden days of Hi Fi. Those who could afford it kept refining their amps, tuners, turntables, speakers, connecting cables . . . . . Eventually their kit was so good it would show up the shortcomings of nearly every input source. By heading for sonic perfection they ended up with very little that they could really enjoy.
I would be interested to see a table of the kit used by those who can see the difference caused by the changes, and those who remain satisfied. Do the recent changes only show up above a certain screen size? Particular HD box? Dish alignment? Quality of LNB? 720p or 1080i? Make of TV?
How about it Admin? You could collect a list of yeas and nays and what they’re using, and help us to spot whether there is a common thread.
HD-ScepticQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I agree that there is now little difference between SD & BBCHD for the majority of programmes – in fact I think the HD version is rather soft. As a result I now tend to record in SD, as there’s no point in filling up the hard disc for little discernable improvement in quality – The Royle Family Christams special was a good case in point – really struggled to see any difference between the HD & SD versions when I switched channels.
If this is as good as it gets, I’d rather see HD abandoned in favour of more money into better quality programming in SD
jonboy1959Quote
December 31st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
HD-Sceptic @ 56
I’ve been critical so I’ll go first. I’ve been an electronics engineer for 30+ years and my TV is set-up as well as it can be using the HD test card – even the bright-white and dark-black dots in the grey scale are showing correctly.
My TV is a Tosh 32WLT66 (yes, a 32″ screen) and posterisation effects on gradients and blockiness in dark areas are visible where they weren’t visible a year ago. Many programmes also contain an excessive amount of motion-blurring.
If you dig out the BBC acceptance criteria for *SD* submissions, those effects being visible would prevent BBC acceptance at even that level. We are being short-changed.
Mike
MikeCQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Having just bought a freesat TV last month (Sony KDL40W5810), I am disappointed in the quality of BBC HD, I was expecting it to be much better. Getting the channel was the deciding factor on opting for the Freesat model over the Freeview only model. This has cost me IRO £100 plus installation of a dish at £65. As we have no analogue in the westcountry the freeview signal is now very good.
I’m starting to think I may as well have stuck with a Freeview only model, although it is nice to have FilmFour+1! Hoping this wasn’t a wasted investment and that BBC sort out their HD and more HD channels come soon. I’ve signed the petition.
neilQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Interesting to see the name count is approaching 1000, but I struggle to see any female names there. Wonder what that says?
MartinQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Not a bad figure for this early on, the BBC no doubt think they are all geeks or mistaken, after all the BBC think bitrate and picture quality are not linked!.
Lee BQuote
December 31st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
A good example of a comparison between HD and SD TV is Luxe TV as they broadcast simultaneously in both formats. I can see a difference. When it comes to BBC HD the picture quality is better in HD however it does depend on the program. When I first saw Heroes in HD I was was very impressed. Some of the comedys such as the Catherine Tate Show do not appear so impressive, however Torchwood looked good.
However even SD looks fairly good on my Panasonic TV. I wonder if it is partly due to upscaling? I am pleased to have HD but I must admit it is not as mind blowing as it is portrayed in the ads.
Kevin Ver1Quote
December 31st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
It should be noted that Luxe use a much lower bitrate than BBC HD but they pre encode their programmes which optimises the quality. Also there is very little motion and nearly always daylight.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 12:38 am
Wishing everyone a 1920×1080 @ 16mb/s New Year!
Cheers,
Mike
MikeCQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 2:52 am
Nearly at 1,000 on the petition already. Wow!
scoobieQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 8:30 am
I watched Jules Holland’s New Year programme last night and the HD picture was fantastic.
DenisQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Pity it’s not fantastic all the time. I don’t understand why some shows look great and others look almost SD. What is going on it’s not just the lower bitrate there is a lot more to it than that. As they say rubbish in rubbish out.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Richard @ 67
In addition to effects caused by the transmitted bitrate, I have a theory that programmes intended for resale/export (e.g. Jools Holland and Top Gear) are archived at a very high quality whilst those intended for domestic consumption only (e.g. Gavin and Stacey) are archived at a lower qualty to save on storage capacity. Live events (e.g. Festival of Remembrance) tend to look better because they haven’t been through the archiving process.
Sound plausible?
MikeCQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 12:56 pm
As the person who launched the No 10 petition, you can read some of my reasoning behind this in my blog entry http://lwsgadget.blogspot.com/2009/12/bbc-hd-campaign-to-improve-picture.html
LawrenceQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Some myths laid to rest about BBC HD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
@Lawrence – A very well written and concise statement of the facts. I agree with all the points, quality is certainly down and no amount of wafling by the BBC will change that and it certainly won’t change peoples perception of the quality. The BBC blog from Naigler comes across as a load of hogwash designed to blind us all with words. This situation requires a higher public profile and a no.10 petition should at least achieve that.
Keep up the good work
peterhbQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 8:11 pm
As I understand it, the same BBC HD transmission is used by both Freesat and $ky HD. Are $ky customers suffering in the same way as us? As they are paying serious money for the service, I guess they would make a serious fuss if they were aware of a drop in quality. Some of the guys who post here write as though they still have the $ky HD service. If so, what is your experience?
JockQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 8:11 pm
70 Richard Crichton – Read the article and it makes good sense. I would suggest that it makes the arguments re the quality of BBC HD dead in the water. I have thought for a long time that this was the case with HD.
Lets hope now we can move on and finish this debate.
DenisQuote
January 1st, 2010 at 9:14 pm
#70 Richard Crichton
A careful read of Danielle Nagler’s blog shows that the only myths laid to rest in her blog are those raised by Danielle herself. The real issues raised by the viewing public were expertly sidestepped by her.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
@Denis (Original) #74, I agree entirely Denis.
Just how stupid does Ms. Nagler think we are? Improvements in video codecs can allow for some small reduction in bit rates to take place in that improvements in compression technologies can alllow for greater compression without visible quality loss when compred to before, but there are limits and thus the whole idea that somehow bit rate and quality are not linked is utterly stupid. I don’t think there are many people who believe that you can jump from 16mbs to 9.8mbs, a cut of almost 50% without some loss. Improvements from codecs tend to be marginal not vast.
..and if bit rate and quality weren’t linked as Ms. Nagler claims, then there’d be no difference between Blu Ray or even DVD picture quality and broadcast. There is, at the end of the day its the same film, the only difference between the two is the increased bit rate that the shiny silver or blue discs carry.
Al (Original)Quote
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Ms Nagler need to get real and do a job she could do well, BBC tea room maybe.
Lee BQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
I have just signed up to the petition. Unlike some posters I do not think this is a trivial matter. The BBC is paid for by the licence fee payers and as such to ignore the views of a considerable body of those fee payers is a serious matter. Surely at a time that the country is suffering from a recession it is more important that the BBC provides us with the best quality entertainment and factual programming.
Like a lot of people I feel shortchanged by both BBC and ITV.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
The point is that the subject (Hd Tv) of the complaint may be “trivial” when compared to other more important issues in this troubled world. BUT the actions used by the BBC over this matter and the way they have carried them out are not trivial they are in fact dispicable. Very simply the BBC seduced punters in the early days with “stunning” 19.7mb HD picture Tv signal. After getting thousands of people on board they then surreptisiously lowerd the standard and quality of the HD signal hoping no one would notice. They then use their size and “non accountibilty” to deny there is a problem and argue that black is white (or rather good sd is hd), it’s arrogance in the exterme which needs to be brought to book.
mike dQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@72 The Sky sub doesn’t go towards BBC HD, we se the same as Freesat viewers.
I’m sure if Gavin and Stacey or The Royle Family were shown on Sky1 HD they would look just as bad. It’s in the production. The grain can be seen just as clearly in SD or HD. If an SD picture is noisy/grainy, HD won’t improve it
The other night BBC HD repeated last year’s G&S Christmas show, the PQ was excellent. For some reason, maybe different cameras, the last series of G&S was poor (both in SD and HD). Both HD editions of The Royle Family have been poor, but so has every series of The Royle Family. It was filmed with intentional grain, which HD makes worse.
This year’s Cranford was slightly softer than the 2007 series, but different cameras were used, so we can’t compare.
I thought The Turn of the Screw was excellent and if you read the article on the DP’s filming technique/artistic vision you will understand why it looked as it did.
http://image-forum-org.domain-ref.http.carbon.lon.periodicnetwork.com/case-studies.php?sid=41
Someone on another forum was comparing the outdoor scenes to a BBC HD travelogue!! Why would you expect a ghost story set in 1920 to ‘look’ the same as a documentary?
derek500Quote
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I too was seduced by the BBC HD into buying FreeSat for the stunning picture quality. I remember being told that the difference between SD and HD was the same visual effect as changing from black and white to color, and I must say that I was blown away by the stunning pictures, but now I see a real downgrading of the quality on broadcasts now, this was particularly noticeable over Christmas when watching repeated programs that were first aired on the BBC HD channel in the first six months of last year, for example: Hotel Babylon ,the picture quality was stunning when first shown.
I have no idea why some people posting on this website cannot see this, I can only think that maybe this problem only shows up on larger TV’s and perhaps the better quality TV’s.
OyodiQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I had a perfectly adequate 42inch Panasonic plasma sd tv, but like many thousand more, decided the superior picture quality on bbc hd was worth investing in new equipment. I purchased a 50inch panasonic idtv, A humax hd receiver and samsung lcd for my bedroom. I too feel cheated by the reduction in picture quality on bbc hd. I also wonder how the manufactures of these products feel, as their equipment no longer show off their true potential.
RussQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@75 Al origional.
Wrong you cannot blame the quality difference all on bitrate.
Blu-ray is 1920×1080 is not encoded in real time and uses variable bitrate.
BBC HD is 1440×1088 and is encoded in realtime with a fixed bitrate so straight off there will be a noticeble difference that cannot be put down to bitrate.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I think the BBC has been required to reduce the Quality of the picture to make way for other channels on Freesat(My Own View Here).I more upset that after More then year now we are still stuck with only one real HD channel and a Red button service from ITV.
Freeview later on this year will be getting The full five main TV channels in HD and the hardware will be cheaper to buy within six months if not from the off then Freesat Hardware.
Eric ProcterQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Richard @ 82
It’s fairly obvious that broadcast HD will never match Blu-Ray, however…
Before the reduced bitrate and new encoders were introduced, the BBC HD picture was better and more consistent, even at 1440×1080. The (allegedly) better encoders should have been used to further enhance the picture quality rather than as an excuse for drastically reducing bitrate and, therefore, picture quality.
MikeCQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
@Richard #82, Do you think the BBC buy in a special version pre-sized to 1920*1080? I’d put money on them buying in a for professional display Blu Ray edition with Broadcast Rights and downscaling it to 1440*1080. Also, downscaling has very little effect quality wise on a picture (unlike upscaling).
I seemed to have confused the issue slightly with the Blu Ray reference, we all know that broadcast cannot equal Blu Ray. The reason I threw this in was because the reason it can’t equal Blu Ray quality is because of bandwidth and thus bit rate issues. I threw Blu Ray in simply because the major difference between Blu Ray and broadcast is level of compression ie the bit rate on playback. Blu Ray uses around 50-70mbs for playback compared to current BBC HD rates of 9.8mbs for broadcast.
Thus the real difference is the bit rate which is also where your point about encoding comes in. In order to be able to encode on the fly the BBC are forced to use a lower bit rate and also make the encoding single pass only. That explains the difference between Blu Ray and Broadcast, – the compression level, which is exactly the same as bit rate as the level of compression is proportional to the bit rate as what compression does is throws away non vital bits of information or substitues smaller bits of information for larger blocks thereby reducing the number of bits per second of information and thereby reducing the file size.
Al (Original)Quote
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I have just been on the official freesat website. Click onto the hd link, and it is still telling us hd is bright and beautiful. Also that hd is up to 5 times more vibrant than sd. Not on my equipment!!!. Another worrying point is that Archie Norman, soon to be head of ITV has been quoted as saying that he is considering turning ITV2 & ITV3 into pay to view channels. Are we about to lose these channels on freesat ? If this is the case, again the information on the freesat site is very misleading.
RussQuote
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Eric @ 83
Apologies..but do we have a “Red Button Service” from ITV?
Have you looked today?
ChazzerQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:53 am
1245 sigs at 11.52am on 3 Jan so well on it’s way to 10,000 – tell your friends!
C EllisonQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Hmmm, doing very rough calculations shows we should have 10,000 in about 40 days but if growth is semi exponential maybe 20 days or so. By June 29th we have maybe 40,000 with linear growth or maybe 80,000 sigs if semi-exponential (All very ‘on the back of a Fag-packet’ maths)
The best thing to do is mention it in any and all Forums and discussion groups (with a link of course)
C EllisonQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
#89 – C Ellison I think you are taking a slightly simplistic view here. The people who know AND care about this issue will, no doubt, rush to boost the numbers. You might find that the growth rate quickly flattens off once the most-aggrieved HD viewers have got it out of their systems.
And what if it turns out that our receivers are (at least partly) to blame for decoding the new signal properly?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
@ hd sceptic.
Lets not forget that all freesat equipment was manufactured to freesat specification if I am not mistaken. Therefore if it is at least partly to blame for the reduction of pq, surely we are still entitled to feel aggrieved about the loss of quality. I purchased my equipment on the strength of the picture quality as of october 2008. Yes I do feel cheated, and yes I have signed the petition.
RussQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
@91 Freesat is only an EPG. They are not broadcasters and have nothing to do with the transmission of BBC HD.
derek500Quote
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
@derek
Maybe so, but the bbc are partners in freesat are the not ?
RussQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
sorry, should read, maybe so but the bbc are partners in freesat are they not.
RussQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
#91 – Russ – Freesat has evolved continuously since it started and we have seen a steady stream of OADs. I am not clear how Freesat validate each update. We have recently seen things go wrong! My worry is that perhaps one or more boxes are not coping properly with the new bit rate and encoder. Did we ever find out if $ky HD customers are experiencing the same loss of quality as Freesat? Presumably the petition is just as relevant to $ky susscibers?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
#95 HD-Sceptic.
This is nothing to do with the equipment people own. Prior to early August 2009 a consistently good HD picture was being received on the complete range of Freesat equipment available to decode BBC HD transmissions. There was a step change in picture quality on the same range of equipments, coincident with the BBC changing its encoders and simultaneously (and erroneously) droping the bit rate to 9.7 Mb/s. It just muddies the waters to suggest people’s equipment may be at fault, and the evidence does not support that suggestion
Derek (Original)Quote
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I don’t enjoy eastenders in HD because I don’t enjoy eastenders in SD – yes I notice the difference, but the BBC must have their reasons. Enjoy telly, SD or HD – have you ever watched a programme and said, oh this is only being broadcast in 9.7 mb/s so it is rubbish and I refuse to watch it? – please there is a lot more going on than this!
mr no nameQuote
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
#96 – Derek (Original) _ I am interested in what you say because I have not seen evidence to say that all HD receivers misbehave in the same way. What I have seen is a series of OADs to prepare receivers for the new transmission standards. Some posts here report no problems with the new standard. I am merely suggesting that a site like this could help us to refine the target so that we use our ammunition more effectively.
Before all of this started there was friendly banter here to the effect that Humax boxes performed better that Harvard HD boxes, and that Technisat beat Humax. In there somewhere are the iDTVs. What this shows is that the HD receivers were achieving different standards before the changes. Does the evidence really say that there are no differences among the boxes since the changes?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 12:02 am
#98 HD-Sceptic.
I think our lines have become crossed somewhere. I am not suggesting there aren’t performance differences between the various Freesat HD receivers as clearly there will be, given the price differentials. Maybe I didn’t make my point clear. After the BBC changed its encoders and reduced the transmission bit rate in August 2009, the drop in picture quality was reported from viewers using all the various official Freesat HD receivers.
I think you may be misinformed about OADs in this context. All Freesat HD receivers have had, by definition, the ability to receive BBC HD transmissions without the need for any software updates. The change in encoders and transmission bit rate reduction by the BBC in August did not require any software updates as the transmission standard remained the same. What the BBC did then, was to introduce better performing encoders, but negated the benefits by reducing the transmission bit rate to a level lower than that recommended by the EBU for those particular encoders. Net result – an inevitable drop in HD picture quality which was widely reported by viewers before it was generally known that the BBC had made any changes.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 4th, 2010 at 12:39 am
@97
You say you notice a differance beatween HD and SD in Eastender, but Eastenders is not transmitted in HD on the BBC HD channel, so I dont know what you are compearing this with???
OyodiQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 9:48 am
sorry this not about bbc hd anyone else having problems with itv hd no picture only sound any ideas anyone?
joeQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 11:42 am
85@Al Origional
I doubt that the BBC buy in anything on Blu-ray. It would be on D1 videotape or on XD CAM disc unless things have changed.
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowContent.action?site=biz_en_GB&contentId=1165494376647§iontype=BC+CaseStudies+XDCAM
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Should have said they do not buy in anything on Blu-ray more likely to be on Sony HDcam tape which is the worldwide de-facto standard used by broadcasters.
Blu-ray is a consumer format not a pro format used by broadcasters.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
amazed at the suggestion equipment could be to blame for deteriation in hd quality, i’ve use the same 42 inch 1080i panny + humax hd pvr for approx a year now and i have noticed a big drop in bbc hd output and itv has lost the plot on it’s hd footy over the last two nights, if this continues you would expect a drop in freesat take up as word of mouth gets around.
billy irvingQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Joe @ 101 & Billy @ 104
The ITV HD Schedule stream has raised this concern. Apparently the drop outs on ITV HD can be resolved by going to “factory reset” on the Humax foxsat HDR, (you will lose all reserved items in your schedule) don’t know how other equipment may be resolved. If there is a software upgrade that needs to happen with the Humax, the question needs to be asked. Otherwise all you can do is complain to ITV.
ChazzerQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
@#103 RichardCriton, point on the format acknowledged. My point was its downscaled. If shot in HD then in most likely shot in 1440×1080 on a broadcast camcorder. If a film shown on TV then it will be shot way above even Full HD for cinema release and downscaled for tv viewing. Either way, downscaling doesn’t significantly degrade picture quality, in fact its widely acknowledged that downscaled HD looks better than native SD. a good practical example of this is the downscaled HD programmes often shown on Ch4 / 5 that look significantly better than most other SD offerings across the BBC and sometimes in parts challenge even BBC HD for colour and sharpness albeit not ultimate detail.
Overall I’m not saying that there aren’t other factors other than pure bit rate – the quality of the codec itself is one of those factors, however, I’m not sure they have a big part to play here. BBC HD was fine until the bit rate was reduced which clearly indicates that the current bit rate is too low to maintain previous quality even in the face of an improved encoder.
Here’s a good example of what insufficient bit rate does to a recording:
2 identical HD clips I shot on my HD camcorder.
Clip 1: MPEG 2 @ 2,000 kbs
Clip 2: MPEG 2 @ 6,000 kbs
Only difference between the 2 clips is the bit rate. Everything else is a constant.
Clip 1 shows clear macro blocking, movement artefacts and generally quite bad blurring. Clip 2 shoes no macro blocking, much improved sharpness.
Watch FULL SCREEN in your media player to show the defects best.
Encoded as a lowly MPEG 2 to help show the differences more easily on a small screen.
Clips are 720×480 and file is 23mb zipped: http://www.easy-share.com/1908893375/Compression%20Clips.zip
Kind of makes Daniels claim that bit rate has no effect on picture quality look rather silly in my opinion.
Al (Original)Quote
January 4th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I came across a poll carried out on another forum for sky hd viewers. 94% said they had noticed a reduction in picture quality on bbc hd. Can we all be wrong ?
I have come up with a cunning plan. If the bbc were to up the bitrate to 12.1 as recommended by the EBU for a trial period, and their theory that the bitrate reduction is not a deciding factor, they could then prove to us the loss of picture quality is just a figment of our imagination. Anyone at the bbc willing to put it to the test ?
RussQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Al (106) – All your clips demonstrate is that a lower bit rate in any particular codec reduces the quality – can’t argue with that.
I think the beeb are saying that if you improve the compression algorithm you can reduce the bit rate and still maintain the quality.
Al CatrazQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Anyone watch The Incredibles in HD on Christmas Day? The picture quality was stunning.
I’ve no idea what everyone is complaining about I really don’t.
Mark HQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
@ Mark H, the problem is that some programmes look great and others look pants(second rate pciture quality). Its inconsistent, you should have seen some of the current epsisodes of Gavin and Stacey and then you will see what people are moaning about, some scenes were shockingly bad, the channels a complete mess.
ZubQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
AlCatraz (108) – Thats not what many have written so I responded to what had been allegedly said ie that there is no connection between bit rate and quality. If what you said is what the beeb are saying, then I would think in that instance it’s true. However, there are limits. An improved codec should allow a lower bit rate whilst maintaining the same quality eg if I re-did the above clip as MPEG 4 at 2,000kbs then I’m sure it would exceed the 6,000kbs MPEG 2 for quality as MPEG 4 was a huge leap forward.
However, such advances are very rare and the problem as I see it is that the improvement in codec used by the BBC is probably a lot less dramatic and thus the 40% approximate cut in bit rate has been in mine and many others opinion far more than the improved codec can handle without visible loss of quality. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Beeb being able to achieve some reduction over the previous level without quality loss, but it seems in many viewer’s opinions, 9.8 mbs has not been achieved without visible quality loss. I personally believe the no loss point lies somewhere between the old rate and the new rate, probably more towards the old rate end. This is also reflected by the EBU’s recommendations which suggest 12.1mbs minimum. Given that the BBC is supposed to broadcast class leading quality, you wouldn’t expect them to use the minimum recommended rate.
Al (Original)Quote
January 4th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
The point that is being “skipped” over is that codec’s obtain enhanced levels of compression by being “more clever” at reducing image quality. That’s what compression does, it takes quality away. So when someone says the codec is more efficient at processing the data, what they mean is that the codec is “more clever” at deciding what data to remove from a particular image.
I’ve been looking at episode 5 of Torchwood: Children of Earth (July vs. December broadcasts). What is clear is that when you examine frames with movement (those are the frames that require the higher bitrates) its clear that the current codec produces a markedly increased amount of noise in the image; especially the close in shots featuring lots of head and body movement.
So to me it isn’t surprising that people are noticing reduced picture quality when the broadcast has significantly more noise in it. Yes, it might well pass as a HD picture to some, but there is no escaping the fact that this picture is not of the same broadcast quality.
John_MQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The incredibles will look good in sd as well . So will any CGI .
The pictures on bbc hd are good but not as sharp now days.
Is it me ? or has bbc sd channels got worse as to make the bbc hd look better still ?
DeanQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
John_M @ 112
I agree 100%. I’ve written lossless compression functions in my time and once you pass their lower limit you *have* to start throwing data away. As you say, all “more efficient” compression algorithms do is be more clever at trying to hide/fudge what they’ve done. The lower the transmitted bitrate, the more aggresively the encoder has to remove data. It doesn’t matter how good the receiver’s decoder is; the lost data can *never* be recoverd and the original picture restored.
MikeCQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Many poster here seem to think that going on about poor service is trivial. This country over the past 10 years has fallen to what can only be described as third world standards.
If we can’t show the world that we can be the best then I am afraid we are going to have to get use to third world TV, railways, roads, hospitals,banks, and I could go on and on.
Unless you complain then the minimum will do and as things are it will be the highest price for the cheapest systems.
Lets hope all these things are sorted by 2012 or else we will be the laughing stock of the world and the world plc will be moving there factories and finances elsewhere.
The only way to make Britain great again is to complain about the crap we get in the name of service.
ChrisKQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
@ChrisK
Hear Hear……………………
We seem adept at kidding ourselves that we are the best of everything. Thus, in reality, making ourselves the laughing stock and suckers to the rest of the civilsed world.
BBC HD – now a shadow of its former self
Broadband – pitiful in comparison to other [some less developed nations] and outrageously expensive.
Fuel – taxed beyond belief
Beer etc – taxed beyond belief.
The list can go on and on and on and I accept the last 2/3 are off topic, but symptomatic of the mailaise within the UK and the apathy and acceptance of most people to accept whatever [crap] is dished out to them. Look at the audience figures for brain dead TV on a Saturday evening!!!!!
It is essential that people who are still awake and care stand up and shout that we are being screwed and want to get what we originally paid for and expect – certainly from our national broadcaster, the one that supposedly sets international quality standards and that we all have to pay for whether we like it or not.
Come on BEEB – step up to the plate and deliver for heavens sake/.
Paul S WattsQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
@ ChrisK
‘This country over the past 10 years has fallen to what can only be described as third world standards.’
Hmmm. How many countries have you lived in then? Every country has it’s plus and minus points – it’s naive to suggest otherwise.
With regards to BBC HD, I’m still not convinced that there has been a noticeable reduction in quality and I’ve had a Humax Foxsat HD box from day one. Quality between programmes has always been variable, but this is the same with Blu Ray films too – hence the in depth reviews of picture quality that many websites do for each Blu Ray release.
The camera, shooting conditions and post processing plays a far bigger part in the quality of a HD broadcast than many of the complainers realise. HD exposes poor camera work, lighting or simply challenging conditions far more than SD ever did.
Mark HQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Watched the Antiques Roadshow on BBCHD tonight, and I have to say the quality, clairity of definition was absolutely stunning. The detail was amazing.
DenisQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Just a thought – will those pre-election televised debates among the party leaders be offered in HD?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 4th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
#115 _ ChrisK Says:
“Many poster here seem to think that going on about poor service is trivial.” Simply going on about poor service is whinging. What is needed is to identify exactly who is failing us and then complain appropriately. Posts 117 & 118 above suggest that some receivers still deliver good results with the reduced bit rate, so is the BBC the right target?
JockQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 12:13 am
#120 Jock
With all due respect, “some receivers still delivering good results” is not what HD is about. SD delivers good results. We expect BBC HD to deliver spectacular results, as can be seen on some subscription channels, and which is exactly what the BBC was delivering before it ‘tampered’ with encoders and bit rates. We know it is possible as we have seen the BBC provide it.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 5th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Without a doubt the BBC is the right target. The bit rate is significantly lower than the EBU recommended minimum. The Head of BBC HD is refusing to reply to numerous complaints and queries and there is growing evidence to prove that BBC HD has reduced the picture quality.
The BBC is a public body and as such has a public duty. I believe that the way the BBC has handled this matter is a disgrace and that Mark Thompson the current DG should consider his position as it is clear from this and other issues he should resign. Did anyone else hear the interview between him and the author PD James on the Today program on Radio 4 on Thursday? She made mincemeat of him.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“…described as third world standards…”
You really have no idea, do you? Unbelievable…
SteveQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Steve – I agree with you.
I really think the negative comments about BBC HD are now getting way over the top. As I have already said the HD picture on the Antiques Roadshow last night was stunning. Hardly third world.
Yes some may be experiencing a lower standard of HD picture but get real the HD picture is still pretty amazing. I am more concerned about programme content quality, after all poor quality content is still poor quality even if it is in HD.
DenisQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Maybe people should stop complaining and make a comparison
zagQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
There is a programme on Radio 4 tomorrow Wed 5th Jan at 12.04 asking why so many people are complaining about BBC HD picture quality when ‘Which’ have found no difference.Will it be a whitewash job I wonder.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Update.The programme is on Radio 4 FM only. I assume by that they mean it will not be on LW but I assume it will be on DAB? You are invited to phone or e mail the programme to air your opinions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/work_in_progress.shtml
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
#124 Denis
….”Yes some may be experiencing a lower standard of HD picture” …
Not some Denis, by far a very large majority according to the various on-line polls.
I suspect the majority is even greater than the polls indicate as some of those who think the BBC HD picture quality is acceptable may not have seen it in the early days when it really was stunning. Since those early days, the BBC have made 2 bitrate reductions, so it is not surprising that the picture quality has suffered.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 5th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I have had freesat HD since it started, and I previously watched some BBC HD on a Sky Box.
Sorry I cannot see any difference. It strikes me that those that are objecting or complaining are simply criticising the BBC for being the BBC, as all too often happens. At least the BBC are tranmitting a full schedule, unlike ITV who are obviously not very serious about producing or transmitting in HD quality. ITV HD is a waste of space – at the moment.
I think that the complaints would be better directed to other broadcasters, including the publicly supported Channel 4 who refuse (I will not agree to say are unable, as has been suggested) refuse to transmit their HD programmes on Freesat, but prefer to continue to support the Money Grabbing SKY system. I have no complaints whatsoever about those who want to watch & pay for SKY, but I do feel that our public broadcasters such as Channel 4 should broadcast in the clear on Freesat.
JayWQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
128 Derek
I have read extracts from the Which report and must say I concur with everything it says. As a matter of interest I have had Freesat since the first month that it started. So whilst, yes there have been some differences in the HD on some BBC programmes, for me personally it is of a very minor difference. The majority of BBC HD programmes are stunning and even those that are not are still of an extremely high picture quality.
Still I suggest we will have to agree to differ on this issue. I will be able to be content to continue to enjoy BBC HD for what it is, whilst you will have to watch with a certain degree of disatisfaction.
DenisQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
#124 Denis et al
One of the things which turned me into a sceptic a year ago was the way people were banging on about counting pixels rather than commenting on programme content and what HD did to enhance it. If ever content was mentioned, it was football!
HD, and services like Freesat, are still evolving. By all means provide feedback. If it became a straight choice, would you prefer the BBC picture restored to its former glory, or to add one or more HD channels? The issue on Astra 2D seems to be one of bandwidth. We should be supporting efforts to use that bandwidth more efficiently to secure more HD channels, and there might be a few setbacks on the way.
I still have this feeling in my water that the decoders in some receivers are not making the best use of the revised BBC HD signal. However, people complaining in this thread never seem to tell us what kit they are using – it’s not just the TV. And, to echo a point from an earlier post, none of the complaints seem to come from women.
HD-ScepticQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I would ask the BBC, if they are confident that picture quality has not suffered as a result of the reduced bit rate, that they apply the the same criteria to overseas HD broadcasts.That would convince me, of thier belief, in the product
they are trying to sell to the rest of us.
ASKQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
#132 ASK – The BBC are not trying to sell us HD. They are providing it as a free add-on to the services they provide in return for the licence fee. And, in addition to what they’re doing on Freesat, they’re rolling out the iPlayer service and tweaking Freeview to carry a number of (free) HD channels.
JockQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
#130 Denis
Until Which? publish the details of their tests, they should be given no more credence than the subjective views of you, me or anyone else.
What I found difficult to rationalise in the Which? review was the fact that they referred to the recent negatve reports in the national press about BBC HD picture quality. There seemed to me, very little time from when those press reports appeared, for Which? to organise the tests, get archive footage from the BBC for comparison purposes, carry out the tests and then produce and publish the report. Indeed, getting the archive footage from the BBC in that timescale, was no mean feat, and would have needed great assistance from the BBC. I think we should all draw our own conclusions from that.
I agree, we will continue to have differing views, but one thing I am sure of. When the campaign to restore the picture quality succeeds, we will ALL benefit, even those who are currently happy with the picture quality.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 5th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I have only had Humax HD box for a short while, so is difficult to comment about the progs before. I did however recently watch an HD prog. and then straight away changed to SD, I found very, indeed if any difference. However, if I then compare my sky box to the SD Humax box, the picture qualitry on Sky is well below the SD Humax showings. The reason is probably that sky is only connected via scart, whereas Humax via hdmi lead.
footyQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
@JayW – the BBC haven’t yet got a full HD schedule. It reminds me of the time Ch4 started broadcasting for the first time
)
I agree with your view of ITV HD.
@Denis 130 – please post a link to the Which? report – what I saw on their site amounted to a couple of paragraphs that said they’d used 2 40″ televisions (no specs stated) to compare archived and live broadcasts – no indication of whether they’d watched the same programmes on both sets.
I couldn’t help but smile when you said you agreed with everything the extracts said, without identifying which extracts you’d read – your description was as clear as the current BBC HD picture
))
@ people in general – there is certainly more noise in the programme I looked at that, that was broadcast after the changes, than could be found in the same programme that was broadcast before the encoders were changed. Whether or not you personally think the picture quality has deteriorated aesthetically is in the “eye of the beholder”. However, technically, the picture quality has reduced and for anyone to suggest that increased noise could lead to a picture of equal or better quality is to stretch the limits of credulity – but there are those who appear to believe it.
I’ve yet to see anything that suggests the BBC have admitted the new picture contains more noise, artefacts, pixelisation or however you want to refer to images that are not consistent with the original and that would have been better rendered by the old encoders at the higher bitrate.
John_MQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
John M – As requested – http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/12/bbc-hd-in-the-clear-says-which-labs-192980
DenisQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
#133 jock- I use the term sell in the sense that they are trying to convince people, that the steps they have taken has not affected the picture.As for the licence fee I have paid the same since 1962 without complaint,and due to spending all my life in north Dumfriesshire have had a to make do with a poor service compared to many parts of the UK, but remain a firm supporter of the licence fee.
ASKQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Thanks Denis – that’s what I’d previously seen.
There wasn’t a single shred of “proof” in that article to substantiate the heading “Which? proves no loss of quality in BBC HD signal”
John_MQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
#138 – ASK – Sorry mate. The problem with an on-line forum is that you’ve only got the written word to go on. You’ve probably read earlier threads where some people seem to have had unreasonable ideas about what the BBC should provide for “free” out of the licence fee. I took “sell” literally.
Let’s hope Digital Switch Over + Freesat bring better coverage to your patch.
JockQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
#140- jock- No offence taken. That was my first blog ever, after reading them for about sixteen months, and only replied because if you picked it up wrong, then so might others. All the best for 2010.
ASKQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I have been of the opinion that Which has for a long time been an irrelevant organisation. I used to read the Which magazine in the public libraries but came to the conclusion their testing methodologies were inapproriate for my needs. You seldom get any useful technical info from their reviews. HD is supposed to up to 5 times more detail than SD, however most of the current HD content on BBC can only be described as good as opposed to stunning.
However despite my resevations of Freesat, I have a feeling that the HD content available on that platform will be superior than available from Freeserve. At the moment Freeserve is being broadcast in my region at low power and my local transmitter only broadcasts a small selection of channels. Freeserve is unwatchable with my current aerial despite the transmitter only being a few miles away. The analogue channels are extremely poor as I believe the analogue transmission have had the power reduced (to accomodate Freeserve), Even when they switch off the analogue channels in 2012, I doubt if the power levels will be raised significantly because they will need to accomodate the other Freeserve channels as well. Some of the bandwidth will be reallocated to mobile phone companies.
Without sufficient power and bandwidth I doubt if the new HD channels will have steady reception. I suspect it will be a repeat of the problems with DAB radio.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 5th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
@ John_M
The BBC have actually admitted that occasionally the new encoder will show more noise in a particular scene than the same scene shown through the old decoder. However this is only only when that noise is visible in the original source material i.e. the new decoder shows a picture which is truer to the original source.
They’ve also said that it’s something they are currently looking into improving.
Mark HQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
@ Kevin Ver1
Freeserve – a dead ISP?
The new Freeview HD service uses DVB-T2 which means it needs less bandwidth for a given channel. The HD channels should therefore look great but we’ll have to wait and see.
Mark HQuote
January 5th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
@ Mark H
Thanks for the reply
I’ll believe it when I see it
If what you’ve said is accurate, and I don’t doubt that it is, the BBC are either suggesting that their encoder has, or will have, the ability to recognise noise in the source material and be able to reduce that noise in the encoded file (presumably by replacing it with its own noise, rather than remastering the video), or they are saying that they are going to tweak the encoder so that it performs like the old encoder, so that it doesn’t notice the noise.
roflmao
John_MQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Whoops I meant Freeview not Freeserve! However only the new HD channels will using DVB-T2. The existing channels will be using the exiting system. Even so HD channels require more bandwidth than SD so I would doubt DVB-T2 could support the same number of HD channels. DVB-T2 only gives a 30% more data than DVB T. Just using rudimentary maths seems to indicate that the bandwidth will need to be expanded to allow for all the new channels.
If the bandwidth is not available then we can expect the bitrate to be reduced for both HD and SD services. Add other factors such as interference I forsee a recipe for a poor TV experiance.
Oh by the way before anyone suggests transmitting all the Freeview channels in DVB-T2 do not forget that DVB-T2 receivers are not yet commercially available. Joe Public would not be amused if his new digital TV is incapable of receiving terestrial transmissions.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 6th, 2010 at 9:06 am
@ John_M
I think the old encoder must have applied some form of smoothing to excessive noise. The new one isn’t doing that – yet.
Of course it’s up to the programme makers to sort out the noise at there end too. You could get away with an awful lot in SD which you can’t get away with in HD. It’s all a learning process for everyone involved.
@ Kevin Ver1
I believe the analogue channels take up quite a bit of bandwidth (especially as neighbouring regions can’t overlap each other). Freeview HD will only be available in areas where analogue has been switched off so there should be plenty of spare bandwidth for the 4 or 5 planned HD channels, especially as DVB-T2 allows statistical multiplexing which will make best use of the available bandwidth.
Mark HQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 10:04 am
@Mark H
“I believe the analogue channels take up quite a bit of bandwidth”
But that bandwidth is to be divided up so TV does not get 100% of it. Where I live in the South East we have always been poorly served. I doubt if it will improve in 2012.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 6th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
I have just finished listening to the You and Yours programme discussuion on HD PQ. Not impressed, started with a repeat of Ms Nagler saying its OK and nothing is wrong. Then the “Wich” technology expert states that its down to the weather, and if your watching “via satellite”! How else are you supposed to watch it! Even if you record a programme it was broadcast via satellite! Then its put down to a viewers expectations and what we remember a broadcast looked like!
Or that the BBC TOP Gear Polar expedition looked softer, than the recording I had when it was first broadcast!. Unfortunately my wife deleted it as “we have watched that one” Grrrr.
Never mind the fact that a friends wife who is renowned for not being technical, commented to me the other day that she thought my HD TVprogramme she was wtaching, did not a seem as good as it was when I demonstrated it to them in the summer. She now is questioning her husbands decision to buy a freesat box!
Oh well back to my dreamland of what HD used to look like!
Lone_RiderQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I was watching that 3 parter detective thing last night and the night before on ITV1 HD, the picture quality was only just better than SD. Certainly not 5 times better, much the same as BBC HD in recent times. My wife and daughters’ always say there is no difference between HD & SD! But my son and I try and defend the indefensible. I’m now beginning to believe they are right!!!
Derek BQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
@Derek B
ITV was superior to BBC HD over the last few weeks up until last night. I was watching “Above Suspicion” last night and when I swapped between SD and HD on Freesat via my humax box and the built in tuner on my panasonic TV not a lot of difference. Then we started getting picture breakup, because of the snow, so I switched to Freeview on the TV and not a lot of difference was noticable!
Maybe that particular series was shot grainy etc.
Lone_RiderQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The picture has got worse also since the so called update the box isn’t working properly. Those who are saying it’s a waste of time, get a life. If you sit on the fence nothing would ever get done
Mike LQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Watched The Hairy Bikers lat night-the picture did seem far superior to recent showings, so perhaps it depends on what is actually in the shot. I think one problem is that all the latest Tvs are so good. that even in just SD the picture rivals any of HD content. My last TV was not a patch on my new one for picture quality.
footyQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
So you are all saying that the WHICH blind testing where they compared before and after footage and found no difference is a load of rubbish.That is what you are claiming. To claim that ITV HD looks better than BBC HD is a preposterous claim as it’s clearly not.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@footy
It is what is known as upscaling.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
While watching the liverpool match last weekend ipressed the red button for hd everything ok for ten minutes then the screen went blank sound still on but hd never came back so I watched the rest ofthe game in sd. was this general or was I unlucky?
Ernest SabertonQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
post 156@Ernest.
The issue was general, had the same issue on my Humax PVR and also affected some other ITV HD programmes. Factory reset cures the problem.
ZubQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Richard @ 154
The “Which?” article makes no mention of blind testing. Unless they publish the full detail of what archived recordings were used, the source of the archives, playback equipment used, the programmes compared, types of display used and tests performed, the article has absolutely no technical credibility at all. It is merely the opinion of the author.
MikeCQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The main problem with the BBC today is poor management. Just because someone is paid a large salary does not mean they are more capable. I think BBC management went down hill when Birt was in control. The BBC used to be famed for their independent minded news. Now they are obsessed with image rather than substance. The BBC was once renowned for its dramas but now they only seem to be able to produce costume dramas. Why does the BBC show the National Lottery? DAB radio is a joke and the changes to BBC HD are indefensible.
I have always been a great believer in public TV and radio, however it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend it.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
#154 Richard Crichton
Not sure who you were replying to, but as I have mentioned previously, Which? have not yet released details of their testing, so until they do so, their opinion should carry no greater weight than anyone elses. I have requested the test details from Which?, but they haven’t materialised yet.
On the subject of BBC HD vs ITV HD, its not surprising that some people think ITV HD has a better picture quality than BBC HD. I am fortunate to live in the West Country where ITV (SD) is transmitted at a variable bit rate on Freesat. You might be interested to know that at various times over the last 10 days, that variable bit-rate regularly reaches and some time exceeds the fixed bit-rate of 9.7 Mb/s used by BBC HD. This results in a superb ITV SD picture and when ITV HD is transmitting, that picture quality is noticeably better.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 6th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Footy 153 – Yes you are right. Some of the latest TVs are of such a superior quality that even SD pictures on some programmes can be excellant. Panasonic are particularly good. eg The SD BBC2 picture is at times amazing on programmes such as Gardeners World.
Interestingly the Freeview recordings that I get on an old PACE box that I use for recordings give some excellant results.
DenisQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Thanks Denis (161) My TV is actually a Technika brand 26″ from Tesco, far better than my previous Philips 23″ model. I have as others have said noticed a difference of picture quality on some days. Some idiot recently said it was because we use Satalite, perhaps they get theirs fom a roving pigeon!!!
footyQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Footy – Again well said. I think this puts a sense of perspective on the arguement about BBC HD. If you think about it this issue about the quality of the HD picture is only really about a very small difference in quality. I can understand the issue, in that once something small niggles you that is all you can focus on. Perhaps given time the issue will settle down and we can focus on the quality of programme content.
DenisQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Some while ago I was advised on this site that it was difficult to spot the advantages of HD on anything less than about a 37″ TV.
I would prefer to see a more focussed discussion on content. The site that everyone’s moaning about is only on for a few hours each day, and much of it seems to be showcasing past programmes. There’s an occasional offering from ITV – and that’s it!
We should not lose sight of the fact that this thread is about asking the PM to give us the best bit rate possible.
HD-ScepticQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
@ Denis
Intersestingly enough, not all people are consumed by niggles. Though, perhaps this topic is your niggle and that’s why you can’t seem to focus on the quality of programme content.
On the topic of “very small differences in quality”:
How would you determine the quality threshold of a programme based on content when you are seemingly oblivious to the real change in image quality on BBC HD?
I would like to see you construct an argument to the BBC that stated some of their programme content was not of sufficient quality – which programme would you start with? LOL
John_MQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
@HD-Sceptic
I have to disagree with you about the posts on this thread. It isn’t about asking the PM to give us the best bit rate possible; that petition has started and will run its course.
This thread has been debating whether there has actually been a reduction in BBC HD picture quality. Some think there has, some think there hasn’t, some people are able to form a view.
I’m happy for you to disagree, but the majority of the posts in this thread speak for themselves.
John_MQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
When are they going to update this website? It hasn’t been updated since December 29th
RossQuote
January 6th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
What do you want us to update it with? There hasn’t been any Freesat news since? Other than ITV HD making a mess again but neither them nor Humax or Freesat will accept responsibility so there isn’t really a story in that one…yet!
adminQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 12:55 am
After watching Nurse Jacky on BBC HD, There was a lot of picture noise present, and in fact when I switched to SD there was very little difference in the picture quality. I must say to those who say that picture quality of BBC HD has not been degraded since August, can only be perhaps down to the TV they have. On my Pioneer 50” Kuro some BBC HD programs are fantastic, but some are quite poor, and this was not the case last year.
Also I don’t quite understand transmission bit rates but if this does not matter then why do we have BluRay at around 50mbs, if 9mbs is just as good with the right decoder?
So not understanding the science behind this, I just rely on my own eyes! And I do see a deterioration in the BBC HD picture quality.
OyodiQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 8:03 am
John M – I did not say I was disatisfied with BBC programme quality, it is just I feel that is a greater priority than the quality of HD.
DenisQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 9:11 am
@ Denis – I’m not interested in playing word games with you.
Please be clear about the point you are making, that way it is possible for people to have a discussion about it.
You’ve now written, “I did not say I was disatisfied with BBC programme quality” – So you have still not confirmed or denied that you believe there is a problem with the content of BBC programme quality.
You’ve also written, “it is just I feel that is a greater priority than the quality of HD.” – So, it would be helpful, at least to me, to understand why you seemingly wat us to focus on programme content, when you are apparently reluctant to say that there is actually a problem with BBC’s programme content.
John_MQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 11:56 am
John M – I think you have missed the point. The first priority as I see it with making any programme is the quality of the content. The quality of the picture comes further down the list. As I have said before a poor quality content is still poor quality even if it is in HD.
Yes there are programmes I do not rate on BBC but then I can just turn over channels. However if you want a recent specific programme which I felt was a waste of licence payers money then the best example I can give was the Christmas “Royle Family”. I thought parts of that, that the humour was of a very lower standard and totally unneccessary. Still I won’t bother to watch if its on next year.
So yes the majority of BBC programme quality is of a high standard but there is always room for improvement.
DenisQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@ Denis – Thanks for the reply.
Whether or not you see programme content higher or lower on your “list”, both issues can be dealt with simultaneously; I can’t understand why you would think otherwise.
In terms of public support, would you happen to know how many complaints the BBC received about the quality of the Christmas “Royle Family”? I know that it was the second most watched show on Christmas day with 10.2m viewers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8430815.stm
With that kind of following, you would be hard pressed to persuade the BBC that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the programme content.
From my perspective, it is easier to identify and argue that there’s a problem with the quality of the BBC HD picture, because there is something tangible to point at. Disagreements over the content of a programme are very much harder to quantify and argue about.
To pick up on last comment, “the majority of BBC programme quality is of a high standard but there is always room for improvement” – that suggests to me you are talking about “tweaks” in terms the number of programmes relative to the total output.
The problem with the BBC HD picture is a far more fundamental problem because the current encoders form the basis of broadcasting the entire range of BBC HD programming.
Therefore, there is a stronger case to suggest BBC HD picture quality is a topic worthy of more attention than programme content.
John_MQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
#166 – John_M
Have you read the petition? It includes the phrase “and that the BBC pledge to always provide the highest possible picture quality by using the full bandwidth available on BBC HD for the given transmission medium.” And this thread is headed “Petition About BBC HD Picture Quality”. Even if posts have been discussing the price of fish, this thread is about the petition.
HD-ScepticQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
@158 MikeC
It was stated there was blind testing by Matthew B of ‘Which’ on the ‘You and Yours’ programme on BBC R4 on the 6th of Jan. It is at approx 23’25″ into the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pjqbx/You_and_Yours_06_01_2010/
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
John M – I accept that the “Royle Family” had a very large viewing audience that is why I understand that such a view is very subjective. Still as I said, I will not be watching it again.
Again you missed my point. Quality of content must always be first on the list in terms of programme production. I liken it to the early days of colour TV we would watch anything just because it was in colour, evenually the novelty wore off and we got back to being more concerned with the content. The same will be true of HD.
DenisQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
@ Denis
I missed your point the first time because you weren’t very clear.
I didn’t miss it the second time, I actually disagreed with it.
John_MQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
@ HD-Sceptic
If the majority of people had been debating the price of fish in this thread, then it would be inescapable that the thread was about the price of fish.
As it states at the top of the thread, the petition wasn’t started by Joinfreesat.co.uk “but following the vote result (left hand side) showing overwhelming opinion that the rate has reduced quality we thought you might want to put your name down in support of action”
Though in the interests of friendly relations, if you want to make a comment about the petition, I am prepared to read it. But having reviewed your contributions in this thread to date, I can see you’ve only made a single oblique reference to the petition itself, and even that was a general comment that could apply to any petition
(see #90)
To para-phrase the often cited anecdote:
Just because it says OXO on the side of a bus, don’t expect it to be full of gravy fans.
But if you were actually discussing the petition elsewhere in the thread, please feel free to correct me.
John_MQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
John M – Yes and I disagree with everything you have said as well – end of!!!
DenisQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
@ Denis – Though you clearly disagree with me, you’re not very good at articulating why my view is “wrong”.
@ Richard Crichton – thanks for the link
Surely, Matthew Bath, Technology editor at Which? realises that the very poor account he gives reflects badly on Which?
And if Mr Bath happens to read this, I hope he takes note of the comments made above by other contributors about the Which? report.
Has anybody seen the BBC quoting this study as evidence to support their position? I haven’t, which speaks volumes about the BBC’s view of it; the BBC would draw some flak if they tried. But also, I’m sure Which? would be called to provide a more lucid account of their “scientific” study, than the superficial versions we’ve heard to date.
The BBC is not so foolish as to undermine their own position by relying on something as poor as Which’s review.
At best, Which? have shown that HD and HD Lite can’t be compared accurately when you show different programmes on screens that are next to each other
John_MQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
@ Oyodi
I too watched Nurse Jacky and noticed the noise (though on most TV’s at a reasonable viewing distance it would be hard to notice). However it was clearly camera noise rather than encoder noise. Did you notice that the title sequence leapt out of the screen in stunning HD whereas the programme itself was technically quite poor? This again points to a production rather than broadcast issue.
Also have you watched Nurse Jacky On BBC HD before August? If not then how can you say this is a new encoder problem?
Mark HQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
John M – It is really a case of you not understanding ( or not trying to understand) the point I was making.
To be honest I know you understand exactly the point I am making but there are some people are just not prepared that others may have a a vailid arguement.
Just because you choose not to not understand another person’s point of view, it is very insulting to say they are not very good at articulating it. Perhaps one day you may fall off your high horse and realise that there is a real world out there with real down to earth people.
DenisQuote
January 7th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Back on point please guys
adminQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 12:44 am
going back to Oyodi’s (comment 100) reply to my post, how do you think I would know if Eastenders was broadcast in HD or not – I don’t watch it! It is clear you have no concept of the English language, so learn to spell before you try to begin to understand irony and context!
mr no nameQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 12:56 am
@Denis
There is a a real deterioration in the picture quality of BBC HD. It can be seen best when there is movement in the picture. Another point to consider in relation to the quality of BBC HD pictures is that the HD element in some shots is enhanced by blurring out large portions of either background or foreground. In such scenes it is conceivable that the “clever” encoder will remove data from the blurred scene and leave the framed item in shot. Often such shots are of stationary subjects, which in itself reduces the need for a high bit rate.
The overall effect of such techniques is that the viewer is left with the impression of a stunning HD shot. The fact is, that is “window dressing”. Lets have some serious action movies, football, wimbledon or the olympics and then we’ll see how bad the pixelation gets.
I don’t mean to be overly critical, but its a good idea not to criticise people for having an interest in something just because YOU think its trivial. It just makes you look high-handed, rather than down-to-earth. You are after all, surfing on a website that discusses Freesat issues: not world poverty, global warming or the planet’s inability to sustain unfettered growth in the world’s population.
Denis wrote (#2):
“Well now I have heard it all. With all the current problems in the World, I find it amazing that anyone has the time to waste on such a pointless exercise. Life is just too short for such triviality.”
John_MQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 7:56 am
John M – I do not agree with you and vice a versa so we will now have to agree to disagree.
DenisQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 9:11 am
@Denis
Given the way you appear not to engage with an alternative viewpoint, I daresay that happens to you a lot.
BBC HD picture quality has deteriorated and you have failed to present a cogent argument that the BBC should not be taken to task.
Interestingly enough, the BBC provide a guide to programme makers regarding the standards required to achieve a high definition programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/hd.shtml.
Included on that page is a “jargon-buster” which includes the following definition of “Bit Rate”:
Bit rate is measured as “bits per second” (bps) and refers to the rate at
which data is transmitted. As a general rule the more data the better the
resulting pictures/sound.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/docs/hd_jargonbuster.pdf
Clearly, there is a key relationship between the picture quality and the bit rate.
John_MQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
John M – Your trouble is you have again attacked the person instead of the viewpoint.
Back to the point. I accept that you have a view on this HD issue, which may or not be correct, I just so happen not to agree with that. Hence we agree to disagree.
DenisQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@187 John_M
You and others say BBC picture quality has deteriorated but Which say there is no significant difference.Which are supposed to be experts in testing so why would they risk their reputation by saying there is no significant difference if there is?
The BBC have said the previous bitrate was unsustainable and since they know more than we do about it I will take them at their word. Compression algorithms will improve over time and I am sure we will all be wondering in a year or two why the BBC uses such a high bitrate.
I will not be signing the petition.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Richard Crichton 189 – Excellant points. My sentiments exactly
DenisQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Every time an expert independent or otherwise looks to compare the current BBC HD output to the pre August output they have found little or no difference. If you look for problems on an average HDTV then you will surely find them as none of them will show a perfect picture.
I suspect a lot of people were perfectly happy with the BBC HD picture until a vocal minority started to complain. A lot of people then seem to have jumped on the bandwagon with no real justification.
Unless of course someone can send me a link to a genuine broadcast expert who has done before and after comparisons and found a serious difference in quality?
Mark HQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Mark H – Well put, totally agree. I personally am extremely happy with my BBC HD picture. Whilst some clearly have a grievance over this issue one of the major problems with HD issue is the huge variation in equipment amongst viewers.
DenisQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@Richard Crichton
Thanks for the reply. You ask the same question I raised about Which? @#180
Kevin Ver1 @#62 made the point that Torchwood looked good. I was able to compare episode 5 Torchwood (#112) and noted an increase in the noise levels.
Despite what Denis thinks (#188) I am NOT attacking the man when I say that “repeating” the same points at me time and time again is a poor way to make a point. I have introduced observations and suggested reasons for the apparent discrepancies between the BBC (and Which?) and members’ of the public perception of the deteriorated picture.
Why have the “nay-sayers” chosen not to address those points?
Why do people put stock in a Which? report that would get a fail mark in a Junior school?
However, as I seem to be the only person willing to evaluate the strength of the opposing view, I’ll leave you to your “victory”.
John_MQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I still don’t understand why people are being so shy about detailing the equipment they use when adding posts to this thread. Some people are satisfied with the new arrangements and some are not. What are the differences between the two groups? What make of box are you using? What software version is it on? Is it properly connected to your TV with the right HDMI cable? Tell us about the TV. Have you got HD eyes? We don’t seem to be using any science to understand what is going on.
Freesat must have sold approaching a million receivers by now – most of them HD capable. This site’s vote on reduced bit-rate degradation attacted just over 2000 votes, of which 1400+ said they could see a difference. The petition has attracted 1600 signatues. This is out of a poulation of nearly a million Freesat viewers. The petition does not close until the end of June, by which time there wiil have been a General Election. Even if Gordon gets back, he will have to concentrate on fulfilling his manifesto. If he decides to act on the petition, it will be a long way into the future. With a bit more self help (as opposed to slanging matches) we might be able to improve things for ourselves before the beaurocratic machine grinds slowly into action
HD-ScepticQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
HD Sceptic – For info I have a 32″ Panasonic LCD plus a version 1 Goodmans HD Freesat Box. Totally satisfied with the quality and standard of picture and sound.
DenisQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
@ 189 Richard
I have had access to BBC HD for about 18 months and the picture did change noticeably when the new encoders and reduced bitrate were introduced. As I’ve said before, the “Which?” article has no credibility unless the full detail is published. I’ve had to write many technical reports in the last 30 years and they had to contain an awful lot more detail than me asserting that something was true or not, even though I am considered expert in my field (Air Traffic Control data-processing).
The BBC have never explained what they meant by “unsustainable”.
I’ve written compression algorithms in my time and, as I’ve said before, they can improve but video compression will always involve throwing away data that can never be recovered. The bottom line is that with any form of lossy video compression the picture quality will always go down, not up. When compression is taking place in real-time, the bitrate should be as high as possible.
Some facts and not my opinion:
a) The BBC do not transmit a full-resolution HD picture.
b) They use a bitrate about 25% lower than the European Broadcasting Union recommended rate for their encoders.
MikeCQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
For what reason has the bit rate reduced ?
Are we getting more HD Channels,or is it BBC iplayer and freeview HD tests that are supposed to happen this year, eating into BBC s bandwidth allowance ?
john DQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
@MikeC
Your posts in this thread have been excellent: clear, concise and informative.
I listened to the Which? interview (thanks to Richard Crichton for the link) and was unimpressed by the interviewer and interviewee (though there might be extenuating circumstances for the interviewer being insipid, given that the BBC had a stake, however small, in a positive outcome).
A little background reading highlighted a BBC Press Release that spoke about the BBC Trust’s intention to review the impartiality of science coverage; still, I wasn’t convinced that the Which? report would qualify as a story of scientific interest, just because they’d used the word “scientifically”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/january/science_impartiality.shtml
However, a bit of further reading led to a BBC document called “Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf
Though the document does not make a direct link that where there is a conflict of interest, insipid programming is to be avoided, it is not difficult to infer such from the content.
The document is well written and should be re-circulated around the BBC. The BBC should reaffirm its commitment to impartiality and recognise that where the BBC’s view conflicts with views expressed by the general public, the BBC should not use its own assets to promote its own case, unless it is prepared to assign a credible journalist to “test” the veracity of the claims being made. It should also avoid juvenille antics such as presenting “cheap” comments about cataracts as being indicative of the argument against the BBC’s viewpoint.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415636.stm
____
____
Interestingly enough, there was a line in the BBC document that reminded me of Ms. Nagler’s post when she signed-off on this topic:”It is not the BBC’s role to close down debate.”
Ms Nagler said, “There will be no “closing down” of this debate, any more than there has been to date.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html
John_MQuote
January 8th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I notice that BBC HD are repeating Robin Hood. I would persume this program was encoded at the previous high bit rate. I did watch a bit of the program and the picture quality looked pretty good to me. Great production values but it appeared to be too PC for my liking.
I agree to a point with Denis that the quality of a program is important. A good script, story and acting can overcome limited production value (I Cladius being a good example), however a good story can certainly be enhanced if care is put into picture quality. Some programs such as nature programs are much better in HD.
I believe that the BBC should alway strive for excellance. It is what they did when they introduced BB2.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 9th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Kevin Ver – Thanks for agreeing to my point about the quality of the program.
As I pointed out when colour TV was new we would more or less watch anything just because it was in colour. Once the novelty had worn off we went back watching because of the content. Yes the HD picture will enhance some programs.
DenisQuote
January 9th, 2010 at 9:56 am
@194 – Mine’s a panny txl37g10 and I have no problem with the BBC HD picture quality.
Al CatrazQuote
January 9th, 2010 at 10:06 am
#200 Denis.
I hope the ‘we’ in your post refers only to yourself and those people you have consulted about the subject, as the comments attributed to ‘we’ certainly can’t be assumed to apply universally.
I will be less definitive here and offer a different scenario.
The novelty of colour TV transmissions may have prompted viewing for that reason alone for some viewers. Once the novelty wore off, and monochrome had been left behind, then settling down to enjoying the content probably became the norm for those viewers.
However, having been a viewer through that phase, I don’t recall either the BBC or ITV, shortly after introducing colour transmissions, reducing the picture quality. I don’t doubt had they done so, and it was perceivable with the technology available to the consumer then, there would have been a similar outcry to the one we are seeing now with respect to the drop in BBC HD picture quality.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
#201 Al Catraz
It doesn’t surprise me that you have no problem with BBC HD picture quality with your Panasonic TV as it is working hard for you as the following text about the TX37G10 indicates:
“Providing 800 lines of moving-picture resolution thanks to Panasonic’s 100Hz Intelligent Frame Creation technology, the new TXL37G10 boasts an exceptional motion image sensing capability. This function precisely detects and analyses vertical, horizontal and diagonal movements, then creates accurate new intermediate frames.
And the result of this new technology? Clear, razor-sharp motion-image playback with minimal blurring.”
What Panasonic are doing is artificially ‘smoothing’ the picture by the introduction of extra data, so that the motion blur is much reduced.
You invested your money wisely.
However, the debate about the reduction in BBC HD picture quality looks as if it is distilling down to the change in the level of motion blurring pre and post early August 2009. For people like yourself, that change wouldn’t have been noticeable if you had that Panasonic set before August.
The BBC however, cannot assume that all HD viewers will have receiving equipment that can artificially compensate for the shortcomings of the transmitted signal.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Derek – The “we” is my immediate group of family & friends etc.
Interesting point about Panasonic as I also have one.
I also have not noticed any reduction in quality. Also a point about motion was raised recently in programmes such as football. Again the picture is excellant. I guess I am one of the lucky ones.
The point about equipment brings a whole new dimension to the arguement. The BBC obviously have a responsibility to broadcast programmes to a certain standard of quality of picture. Depending on your equipment then there will be a difference in the standard of picture that an individual receives. I do not have a view on this but the BBC may argue that the picture quality depends on the equipment an individual has. I am not saying I agree with that but it is another arguement.
I know I will be shot down in flames but it is like audio and radio, the quality of sound an individual recieves is highly variable because of the wide range of quality, standard and makes of equipment used.
I suppose in the end it all comes down to the individual and what they find acceptable and how much they are prepared to invest. In addition I appreciate that there are those whose equipment has shown a marked difference in the HD picture since August and lets hope those will get a satisfactory conclusion to this issue.
DenisQuote
January 9th, 2010 at 11:48 am
#204 Denis
I don’t think in this case it is about what an individual finds acceptable, nor about how much someone is prepared to pay for their equipment. Posts on other blogs suggest that the motion blurring problem is occuring on very high end equipment too and that it wasn’t apparent pre August 2009 on even low end equipment. The purists would probably argue that they don’t want artificial data introduced to correct transmission deficiencies and I would find it difficult to counter that argument
Derek (Original)Quote
January 9th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I have lost BBC HD on my Humax- When I flick over to ch108 it puts up a message on the screen “incorrect video format” Any body else has this problem or how do I get it back!
AnthonyQuote
January 9th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
No problem with motion blurring
DenisQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
#206 Anthony
I am still receiving BBC HD on my Humax receiver. If the problem hasn’t gone away, have you tried resetting the your Humax box?
Derek (Original)Quote
January 10th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
It is quite interesting that two of the “satisfied” customers both have panny TVs. As HD Sceptic said in post 194, perhaps there is a pattern that the broadcasters and manufacturers should be looking at. Could it be the humax receiver isn’t handling the new BBC codec as well as it should?
Al CatrazQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
having said that, I support the argument that the BBC shouldn’t assume everyone has kit to handle a reduction in transmitted quality.
Al CatrazQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
@Al Catraz
Did you also notice that those 2 “happy panny” customers also expressed particularly strong views about this topic?
#2 “I find it amazing that anyone has the time to waste on such a pointless exercise”
#25 “This is absolutely pathetic!”
I suspect that its just a coincidence that they both own a Panasonic screen; and it comes as no surprise that both would say that they see no problem with the BBC HD picture.
However, 3 other panasonic screen owners were less damning about this topic and less sure of the BBC HD picture quality. See posts #62, 81, 151
John_MQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Quote “Well now I have heard it all. With all the current problems in the World, I find it amazing that anyone has the time to waste on such a pointless exercise. Life is just too short for such triviality.” Quote
Well Denis, I am amazed you wasted your time commenting – Shouldn’t you be on some other forum saving the World ?
htQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Has anybody noticed that there is a small number of posters that find it difficult to accept that some viewers are happy with their BBC HD picture.
Now I acknowledge that there is a large group that are experiencing problems and I suppose I am one of the lucky ones, which seems to be, so we are told is due to the technology of the TV I own.
DenisQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
#213 – Dennis
If it is true that the benefits of HD are difficult to discern on screens less than about 37″ diagonal, then your 32″ panny is well within the comfort zone.
Did your STB survive the Harvard OAD? Which software version are you on?
JockQuote
January 10th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
One piece of equipment has not come under undue attention is the satellite dish. I wonder if some of the people who are complaining only have a 43 cm dish? I have a 80 cm dish and I get a pretty good signal. I would imagine that a high bit rate would to a degree compensate for a poor signal. The logic being that the loss of a few bits of data are not so critical.
To me it does seem illogical for the BBC to go to great effort to produce programs with a superior picture quality only to broadcast in a manner that does not provide a matching experience.
Kevin Ver1Quote
January 11th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Jock – I have a Goodmans HD box which I purchased within the first month of Freesat commencing. The box did survive the Harvard OAD. I believe I am on the latest software as I had a successful update fairly recently.
DenisQuote
January 11th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
a belated thanks to chazzer for his helpful info on itv hd prob thanks mate billy
billy irvingQuote
January 11th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
on software updates humax pvr set for automatic the update last update november
26th 2009 is this the latest, anybody help cheers.
billy irvingQuote
January 11th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
January 14th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Signed. I thought it was my imagination, but have just found this searching the web. The BBC HD picture quality is nowhere near as impressive as it was.
Steve FQuote
January 15th, 2010 at 10:58 am
@196 MikeC
The resolution transmitted matches the resolution of the Sony HD cameras they use. If you check you will see they match exactly.
I wondered why they do not transmit full hd res and now I know.
No argument about the bitrate being lower than that recommended by the EBU but who says they are the gods of what is the best bitrate to use. I have no idea why the BBC lowered their bitrate but no doubt they have their reasons.
@General
As regards motion blurring this is a shortfall of LCD screens that does not happen with modern plasma screens. Anyone who has a LCD and is complaining should realise that motion blurring depends on the response time of their screen and is not something the broadcaster can influence.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 15th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
@Richard Crichton
I’m not too sure what point you’re making when you question the “supremacy” of EBU’s view on bitrate, whilst also commenting that the BBC must have had their own reasons for lowering the BBC HD bitrate.
Are you saying that the BBC is free to establish its very own HD standard?
I would just like to understand what point you’re making when you clearly question the EBU’s view of the “HD standard”, yet are seemingly willing to merely accept the BBC’s view without question.
John_MQuote
January 16th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
#221 Richard Crichton
It might be better for all concerned if you didn’t make misleading statements.
Blurring can be visible on all types of screen if the transmission data rate is not high enough to provide enough digital data when transmitting a dynamic scene. That is the effect currently now being reported by a very large number of BBC HD viewers (direct to the BBC) with both LCD and Plasma screens. The cause? Almost certainly the dramatic drop in transmission bit rate by the BBC last August.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 17th, 2010 at 10:51 am
@222
I’ll make any statements I like.
Motion blurring is a well known defect of LCD screens. Fact
Obviously if you pan the camera fast enough you will get blurring. Everyone accepts that. I was just pointing out that LCD screens vary in their performance and Plasma is much better in this respect.
No use continually harping on about the bitrate. It’s not going to go back to what it was no matter what some people may think.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@222
Are you suggesting that the BBC should be dictated to by the EBU? Seems like it to me.
Richard CrichtonQuote
January 17th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
#225
The BBC is a member of the EBU. It takes part in the formulation of EBU recommendations. Why the BBC has chosen to ignore the recommendations for the new encoders being used for its HD broadcasts only it will know. Technically, if it followed the recommendations, there is very little doubt in my mind that the BBC HD picture quality would be better. I can only imagine its decision to ignore the recommendations was made on financial or political grounds. Some have suggested that it is delliberate so that the Freesat broadcast doesn’t have a better picture quality than its upcoming Freeview HD service which limited bandwidth is a fact of life for the number of HD channels envisaged.
With respect to the blurring issue:
Yes, you can make any statement you like, but presenting specious arguments just confuses the issue.
Yes, LCD do exhibit more motion blur than some other technologies
Yes, fast panning will result in blurring on any screen if it is in the original source material. However, what people have been picking up on is that blurring and smearing of the BC HD picture is now occuring on scenes where fast panning isn’t happening. A symptom that can be explained by the lack of adequate bandwidth, and a symptom that wasn’t so widely reported before the BBC reduced its transmission bit rate late August.
You seem to know that the BBC will not be putting the bit rate back to previous levels. Do you or is that just speculation?
Derek (Original)Quote
January 17th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
@ Richard Crichton #225
With regards your comments about motion blur, what do you say to the people who have noticed a BBC HD picture on the same LCD they owned pre-August ’09?
“no matter what some people may think”
That’s a strong boast. Is this because you don’t believe the BBC will change its position or you know that the BBC won’t change its position AND know that political pressure won’t force a change?
The sad fact remains, the BBC HD picture was significantly superior to the SD feed. These days, there is little to be gained by switching from BBC 1 to BBC HD to see the “HD” version.
My view is that for the BBC to be reasonably able to justify investing in a HD channel, that HD channel needs to offer a significantly superior viewing experience over that which can be experienced on the standard definition feed.
At the moment, the BBC HD feed is a poor substitute to the previous feed and not such an improvement over the SD feed to justify continued investment.
My position is simple, provide a genuine HD feed or drop the whole idea.
John_MQuote
January 17th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I was amongst the first 100 to sign the petition. Since then my wife has decided she would also like to sign. She filled in her details on the No 10 site, clicked to sign and was told in a new window she would receive an e-mail which she would need to click on for her name to be added to the petition. No e-mail arrived so she filled in the form again. After going through the same procedure she was once again told they had sent an e-mail. Once again nothing materialised. I wonder how many more have been trying to sign in vain ?.
RussQuote
January 17th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I have a Panasonic LCD TV and there is no sign of motion blur. I admit that it was sold on the fact that it has the technology to combat that problem.
DenisQuote
January 17th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
#228 Russ – Have you considered that it might be limited to “one per household”? If your wife signed from you mother-in-law’s address, that might work. What do you think the new government will make of the petition?
JockQuote
January 18th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Jock – I think with all the political turmoil that will take place this year, that the petition will just be lost in the mists of time. Even it is accepted that there is a case to answer for it is hardly going to be very high up on the agenda of a new government.
DenisQuote
January 18th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Don’t dismiss the political dimensions of this debate.
To date, the BBC have failed to provide any evidence that their enhanced compression has provided, as they claim, the same and sometimes better picture quality.
The public purse is being used to fund a High Definition channel, but there’s a significant number of viewers claiming that the picture quality has in fact declined since the BBC introduced the new method of encoding the signal.
It will be interesting to see whether the National Audit Office has a view on the funds being used for the returns being seen. I’m sure the NAO will not be fobbed off by the psuedo-technical reports of Which? or the “promise” of improvements made by the BBC. They will expect to see a proven case that supports the BBC’s view that the technical changes have not in fact diminished the picture quality; that is going to be difficult given the current position of public complaints and debate, and the obvious deviation from the EBU’s recommendations.
We should also not lose sight of the fact that 2009 saw a sharp focus on probity, with MP’s expenses coming under close scrutiny. The Government (regardless of which government) would be hard-pressed to ignore the significant public voice that is challenging the BBC’s view that a HD picture is being delivered, when it is being funded by the public purse.
The fact remains, that for the BBC to move away from the dominant view of what is required in terms of “bit rate” to deliver a high definition broadcast, they themselves have sparked questions regarding that standard. It is only right and proper for a public organisation to demonstrate that the value of the service they are providing hasn’t been undermined by the changes they’ve made.
John_MQuote
January 18th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
John M – It may be a case of the right issue but in the wrong year. A case of bad timing.
DenisQuote
January 18th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I nelieve that the main reason that we only have one regular HD channel on Freesat is the lack of bandwidth on Astra 2D. If the engineers can find a more efficient way of using bandwidth, we might get two. Which would you prefer – An HD service which looks great when viewed on a 50″ plasma across a small bed-sit, or two HD channels which look good when viewed under average conditions?
This site is in a great position to collect detailed data about the kit people are using so we can look for common factors between those who are satisfied with the lower bit rate and those whose viewing enjoyment is seriously impaired. I bet there are people out there with ginormous pannys connected to their TechniSat HDFS STBs by SCART cables and complaining about the quality. So far Dennis is about the only one to get near listing his set-up. The petition currently stands at about 1897 men having signed, and three women!
If only we knew which link in the chain was vulnerable to the reduction in bit-rate – perhaps something an STB maker could fix, we might be on our way to multi-HD Freesat.
HD-ScepticQuote
January 19th, 2010 at 12:33 am
HD-Sceptic – you’ve asked about the equipment people are using multiple times without offering up your own.
Collecting information regarding the equipment people are using is particularly futile. You and I might have exactly the same setup, yet have different contrast settings, sit at differnet distances from the screen, view at a different angle, have differing ambient lighting…the list goes on. Perhaps, if the BBC provided details regarding the setups they’ve used, then there might be something to discuss, because we would have a benchmark to unpick; people might even be able to comment on having the same equipment. But without the benchmark we have no worthwhile point of reference.
However, the discussion to date has primarily focused on the point that the new encoders provide a worse picture than the old ones. Given the variables I’ve described above and the many variables I haven’t described, the problem is more fundamental than “what equipment are you using”.
Also, the point you’ve raised about the 2 channels or one, was phrased differently by you at #131 where you wrote, “If it became a straight choice, would you prefer the BBC picture restored to its former glory, or to add one or more HD channels?”
The fact is, we don’t need 1 average HD channel, nevermind suggesting 2. Why have 2 avarage HD channels when you could have 4 SD channels? SD channels have been serving us well for years. Why change?
Well, the reasons for changing from SD to HD are the same reasons for not skimping on the bit rate of the HD channel.
John_MQuote
January 19th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
#235 – John_M
Thanks for your interest in my modest set-up. A Goodmans SD box (s/w 1.6.28) drives a 29″ Sony Trinitron which I watch from about 8 feet in the prevailing lighting conditions. I also have a Humax PVR9200T for Freeview+. I can’t see how any of that is relevant to the present debate about BBC HD bit rates.
As a reader of this thread, I have become intrigued by the way the August changes have upset some viewers and not others. I thought a new encoder (to put the same quality onto a lower bit rate) would need to be matched by a new decoder in the receiver. I wondered if some manufacturers had done it well and others had done it badly.
Your second paragraph implies that, if people were to set up their TVs properly, they would not have problems – an interesting thought. I would speculate that most prople are watching their TVs under the same circumstances as before. The two things we know to have changed are the bit rate and the encoder. Your third paragraph over-simplifies the problem. The new encoders have not provided a worse picture to all viewers,
Politicians – both the parliamentary kind and the BBC managerial kind – are great procrastinators. The petition gives them the ideal excuse not to do anything until after the election. Surely we on this thread can do something to refine the problem and help ourselves. If seeking to correlate the symptoms with the receiving equipment is a futile exercise, what do you suggest we do to pass the time until the petition expires?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 19th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
@ HD-Sceptic #236
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my note. I haven’t got the inclination at the moment to dispute “everything” you’ve written
Regarding your query about what I suggest people do to pass the time until the petition expires; that’s nothing to do with me. If they want to follow your suggestion then that’s up to them.
John_MQuote
January 19th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
OMG, anyone watching Man City vs Man Utd match on BBC HD????? I could swear I was watching SD…the quality is dreadful. I dont care what the BBC experts say, the quality is down the pan. All these arguments about different TV’s and different equipment is smoke, this is appalling!!
BigNickUKQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 8:08 am
BigNick – Well I have to say I thought the HD picture for the Man City match was excellant.
DenisQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 8:59 am
@BigNickUK
I agree with you.
John_MQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Last night my wife was watching eastenders so I decided to watch footy in the bedroom. when I turned the tv on the match had started. As there was no dog present, by that I mean the bbc hd logo and not my wife !!! I thought the tv had been left on bbc 1. In fact I tried to change to channel 108 not realising I was already on it. I too agree with BigNickUK I thought the picture quality was very poor.
RussQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
It is interesting the wide difference in the quality of HD picture. I can honestly say the picture was excellant.
DenisQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Subjective statements about how good or bad the picture is, are purely that, subjective. One person’s “excellant” (sic) may actually be worse in reality than another person’s “very poor”. What is more telling is the problems people are identifying with the BBC HD picture when compared to other channels.
Derek (Original)Quote
January 20th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
@Derek (Original)
I fully agree with you about the vagaries of “subjective statements” – unfortunately, your comments now invite those same (regular) people to now write that the difference between BBC HD and a.n.other channel is “great”
I’m sure we’ll be equally amused when that happens
John_MQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Derek – If you are trying to say my excellant may be worse than another person’s poor then I take that as a slight on my reasonable judgement of the quality of TV picture. Yes it is subjective but it is just not my view that I get an excellent BBC HD picture but that of my friends and family who have remarked on many occasions on the superb BBC HD picture.
I guess I must just be lucky and I am not saying that some do not experience problems. However it cannot just be down to the transmission by the BBC, the equipment an individual uses must also have a part to play.
DenisQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Derek – Also someones very poor may equally be a totally unreasonable assessment of an excellent picture.
DenisQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Denis, I appreciate your views. All I can say is I dont watch a lot of TV and have not been following this whole discussion closely but what I can say is that when I first used to watch football on BBC HD it was pin sharp, you could see blades of grass etc. This is I think the first match I have watched since the “change” and I personlly think there is a marked drop in quality, to the point where I was changing channels to BBC SD and couldnt see an awful lot of difference. In the dark parts you could see macro blocking everywhere. So unless they have downloaded a software update to my Alba HD box which downgraded the quality surely there has to be some truth in the transmission argument? I cannot comment on why yours was good
BigNickUKQuote
January 20th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Since this traumatic experience with BBC HD bit rates, we seem to have heard nothing about the quality of the ITV HD picture. How do they compare now? The guys who used to count the blades of grass at football matches preferred the Beeb – is that still the case?
JockQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 7:54 am
BigNick – It is strange that there is such a wide variation in the quality of picture.
I have to say last nights Villa match by any standards was a very high quality HD picture. All I can say is that with all the variations in equipment for each individual viewer there is a lot more to this issue than just bit rates.
Jock – Personally I think depending on the programme the ITV HD picture has improved. Of the recent HD football I have seen on ITV, I cannot complain about the picture quality.
DenisQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 11:19 am
@Jock #248
ITV HD do seem to have “technical” problems delivering a HD picture. All too often we have broken transmissions, SD transmissions and upscaled transmissions being broadcast instead of their HD picture.
In terms of “acceptability”, that’s subjective. The only thing I would say is that because the SD ITV picture is so shockingly bad, the HD picture (when they get it right) is a welcome change.
Regarding last nights villa – blackburn game; the only time I thought the picture gave a HD feel to the pitch/spectators was at the end of the game when the fans came on. Throughout the match, the difference between BBC 1 and BBC HD was negligible in my view. Though as I said, at the end of the match, there was a clear difference.
John_MQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 11:52 am
Clearly this is a very subjective issue. For me the HD on the Villa match was stunning.
I think this is one of those issues that will just run and run where some will never be satisfied with picture and others like myself will be happy with the quality. Still thats life!!!
DenisQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@ Dennis,
(where some will never be satisfied with picture).
Dennis I think most people were very satisfied with bbc hd picture quality before the changes in August 2009. I am very happy for you that you find the quality stunning, but unfortunately the majority of posts on this site do not agree. In fact in one poll of sky hd viewers 94% said they had noticed a reduction in PQ.
If your theory that some will never be satisfied with picture quality is a valid point why did the bbc not receive thousands of complaints before the changes?
RussQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Russ – I agree yes that a large number of viewers are not satisfied with the picture. However when some describe the reduction in PQ as being a very poor quality picture is probably a bit over the top for what I would suspect is still a very good picture.
DenisQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Dennis & Russ
Dennis – you watch HD on a 32″ screen which has been engineered to minimise many of the artefacts of fast movement on an LCD screen. No doubt you view the picture from a sensible distance. Can you imagine what would happen if you simply substituted a 50″ cheapo for your panny?
One of the reasons for HD is to make a better job of joining up the dots on screens large enough to reveal the faults. It does add other value as well,of course. I wonder how many of the people who are troubled by degraded PQ watch on screens less than, say, 37″.
And, as ever, it seems the only content attracting comment is football.
JockQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Jock – It would be interesting if those that comment always stated what equipment they were using.
DenisQuote
January 21st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@Russ #252
Your question was very good. I would like to have seen it answered.
@Jock #254
Football will tend to bring out the worst in the picture because of the bitrate required to provide a decent HD picture.
HD sport in general is problematic for the BBC, or so Danielle Nagler suggests. It would be interesting to get clarification of what she meant when she wrote;
“We would not want to develop an HD offer which could not suit all the available HD platforms, and the capacity limits on Freeview are therefore a limiting factor at the moment.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/sport_on_bbc_hd.html
Ms. Nagler subsequently wrote;
“The reduction in bitrate is not specifically related to Freeview HD…” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html
A fortunate coincidence? It seems we aren’t being given the the full picture
John_MQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:40 am
It seems that while the there is this variation in technology used by both broadcasters and users in respect of HD that the picture quality will be problematic for any viewers with screens greater than 32″.
As regards the quality of HD picture for football, I have to say that it is on such programmes that I see the best quality picture. Guess thats down to have a tiny 32″ TV.
One small point about that as we all know there is a formula for the distance you should sit from the TV in relation to the screen size. It would be interesting to know just how close to the TV viewers sit who have screens greater than 32″ who also have concerns about the quality of the picture.
DenisQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
@ Denis,
Like myself, I would imagine most people are sitting in front of the same television at exactly the same distance as they always have. Pre August 09 it was stunning, In my opinion that is no longer the case.
RussQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Russ – I am sure you are right. I would also expect that most people sit far closer to the TV than is recommended and therefore quality of the picture will be much more of an issue for those than those that sit further away.
Yes I agree that there is obviously a huge issue about the quality of the HD picture but even if that was resolved you would still have issues raised about quality because of all the other variables that the individual introduces into the mix.
I suppose if the BBC did revert back to the pre August 09 system then perhaps then we could get back to on here discussing the equipment you need to get the best results out of the signal
DenisQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
@ Denis
“I would also expect that most people sit far closer to the TV than is recommended…”
Why?
John_MQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
#260 John_M
Because they believe it will enhance their viewing experience and involve them more in the action. Or because the man in the shop fed them a load of cr*p and sold them a TV which is too big for their room.
What is the recommended viewing distance for your screen, and from what distance do you view it?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:09 pm
@HD Sceptic #261
I’m interested in why Denis holds the expectation he stated. Your reply is not an answer to the question; only Denis can answer why he holds a particular expectation.
John_MQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:57 pm
If as suggested by some posts that the distance we are sitting from our screen is a deciding factor in our BBC hd viewing experience, Why then, is our sd channel, dvd and blu-ray viewing not also compromised ?
RussQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
John M – You are being too exact. HD Sceptic hit the nail on the head.
In most average homes there will probably be a big variation in viewing distances within an individual room. For example on one seat in my lounge I would only be 3ft from the TV. The seat I normally watch TV from is about 8ft from the TV. The point is if a family is sitting down together watching TV there is a reasonable likelyhood that their viewing distances will vary greatly.
No doubt you will disagree.
DenisQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Viewing distances:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.php
DenisQuote
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
@Denis #264
I’m not being too exact, I just want to understand the points you are trying to make.
You’ve now written “in most average homes” – what does that mean???
Average in what sense?
Rather than ignoring the point Russ has made, why don’t you concede the facile notion that problems with the BBC HD picture are being exacerbated by people sitting too close to the screen?
John_MQuote
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 am
John M – You are being too exact.
The viewing conditions across homes are obviously going to many and various. I think anyone will realise that. So whilst there is clearly a problem with BBC HD, it is difficult to compare viewing experiences because of all the other variables.
DenisQuote
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
@ Denis,
Thanks for the link to viewing distances,
After checking it out I can now state with some confidence that I for one am not sitting too close to my screen. One point springs to mind, Why are some people quite happy to accept the recommendation that a minimum distance from their screen is paramount to their viewing experience, but are unwilling to accept another bodies finding that a minimum bitrate of 12.1 is required for the type of decoder bbc hd are using to give a satisfactory hd picture.
RussQuote
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:06 am
@Denis 267
So how does your comment at #267 relate to your post at #259? And how is your post at #259 relevant to this topic?
Why are you still posting on this thread after expressing a rather strong view at #2?
Are you a troll? I suspect you are!
John_MQuote
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:49 am
John M – Most certainly not.
I accept that as in all things we all have different views on things. However some individuals find it difficult to accept that others may have another view and resort to personal comments on the individual such as suggesting they might be a Troll.
As for answering your questions, there seems no point if insults are all that I get in return.
DenisQuote
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Russ – Thats ok.
DenisQuote
January 26th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
As this thread seems to have died out, I’d like to leave it with a little closing thought.
If you wanted a reasonable, rational assessment of the complex interactions between the HD picture bit rate and perceived artefacts such as motion blur, pixel purity and overall HD quality, would you ask a bunch of football supporters?
HD-ScepticQuote
January 26th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“Equally would you ask anyone who sees everyone one as stereotypes”
DenisQuote
January 26th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@ hd-sceptic,
I am going to treat your comment with the contempt it deserves.
RussQuote
January 26th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Russ – Well said.
DenisQuote
January 31st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/bbc_hd_picture_quality.html?page=2#comments
See post 646 by Andy Quested.
Richard CrichtonQuote
February 1st, 2010 at 12:57 am
Andy Quested writes:
“[Q] “ANDY i can see poor picture quality. and it was very good before august, it did have the WOW FACTOR..” [A] Please can you let me know which programmes you believe do not meet the standard you expect – all I can do is compare the transmitted signal to the original.”
Have the BBC HD team provided details of the “before and after” comparisions they’ve done with broadcast materials? Have they disclosed what the “typical” set-up they’ve mentioned actually comprised?
John_MQuote
February 1st, 2010 at 7:30 am
Andy Quested has presented a reasonable case as to why the HD picture does vary.
AlanQuote
February 1st, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Have had Freesat since June 2008, and was so impressed with my first look at BBC HD that I purchased the Humax HDR when it came out.This is linked to a Sony KDL- 40W2000.
I have no evidence, other than my own eyes,but, I feel that BBC HD is not up to the standard it delivered before the change.
Certain experts posting tell me it could be my equipment,well I can’t afford to change, some say I am to close to the screen, some say I am to far from the screen. If I had known watching TV was going to get so technical I would have kept my old CRT. Please feel free to ignore this post, as I am a Football Fan.
Could I thank the owner of this site, I have only posted 3 times as I am old and not very computor litterate, but have had many of my queries answered in the last 16 months,without having to ask the question. Thank You.
ASKQuote
February 1st, 2010 at 5:24 pm
@ Alan #278
Andy Quested has addressed variability in picture quality. He has not reasonably addressed the point that the new encoders render a poorer picture.
Their case has been repeatedly that it produces a picture that is as good, if not better, than the previous encoder despite the dramatic reduction in bit rate.
So, though I would agree that Andy Quested gave reasonable case as to why the HD picture does vary, he did not give a reasonable case as to why the new encoder is “as good, if not better” than the previous encoder.
IF that is the case, why is it so difficult for the BBC to provide actual evidence to support its case, rather than the continual assertions we get?
John_MQuote
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
280 John M – Clearly this arguement will run and run. Personally I do not see a solution in the near future that will satisfy all sides.
Personally I am just going to enjoy what is by any evidence still a very good HD picture and just leave others to the arguement.
AlanQuote
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Andy Quested’s comments seem to reiterate what was being said when HD was just around the corner. HD exposes all the shortcomings in the recorded material (nothing is live these days – with the possible exception of football!). If a programme was recorded with a coarse, grainy effect, that’s how it will be shown. It used to be said that all of the programme makers would have to lift their game as any faults in production would be glaringly obvious in HD transmission.
One way of reading Andy’s comments is that the lower bit rate and improved encoders are performing brilliantly, showing up all the faults in the programmes production. Some HD viewers are seeing everything – warts and all.
And #279 ASK – I have kept my CRT and I’m well satisfied with Freesat.
HD-ScepticQuote
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
HD- Sceptic – I guess then this is something we just have to live with. All this discussion is not really going to change anything in the short to medium term. Some of us will be happy and others unhappy. Oh well such is life.
AlanQuote
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 am
HD-Sceptic- Gave my CRT to my son, it was either a bigger TV or new specs, and don’t recall saying I was not satisfied with Freesat.
By the way, still have some gear from ” the golden days of Hi Fi .”
ASKQuote
February 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Did anyone notice how good the picture was on HD for the rugby this weekend ? Seems like there was an improvement or a change was made
KeithQuote
April 7th, 2010 at 4:12 am
I’ve just had HD installed in my home and I’m very disappointed the quality of the picture. I first saw HD TV in a local store and was quite amazed at the sharpnest of the images. It seems the BBC are not interested in giving the best service to us OWNERS. They sholud get their act together and give us what we deserve.
RoyQuote