BBC HD Poor Quality Complaints ?

philip2009

philip2009

philip2009

Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
1,377
The quality of pictures broadcast on the BBC High Definition (HD) channel have been criticised by viewers who complain of fuzzy and grainy images.

The head of the channel, Danielle Nagler, says that despite a series of tests, no technical fault can be found.

Not all HD programmes have the "bright, crisp look which for some is synonymous with HD", she wrote on the BBC's internet blog.

Camera and production techniques all affect the overall quality, she added.

The BBC replaced the encoders which process HD pictures in August 2009.

The replacement encoders work at a bitrate of 9.7Mbps (megabits per second), while their predecessors worked at 16Mbps, the standard for other broadcasters.

The BBC HD website describes HD as "exceptionally clear, crisp pictures with vivid colours and up to five times more detail than standard definition."

Some disgruntled viewers think the new encoders have affected this viewing experience.

...

In her blog post, Ms Nagler said that 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.

...

The majority of those leaving comments on her blog post disagreed.

"Even my wife can see a reduction in picture quality and she's got cataracts," wrote one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8415636.stm
Click to expand...

I've been reading quite a few complaints about BBC HD quality since the encoder change. Does anyone have any opinions on this (I don't currently have HD) ? :confused:
 
a lower bitrate is going to be lower quality when the same encoding is used, did they state why they are now using a lower bitrate?

To me BBC HD looks good, but it's the only HD channel I have so I have nothing to compare it against....
 
The full article says that the testing they did with the new encoders produced the same or better quality than the old encoders/higher bitrate. But unless lots of people with HD equipment are hallucinating I tend to believe that there must be something going on.
 
MikeHunt79 said:
a lower bitrate is going to be lower quality when the same encoding is used, did they state why they are now using a lower bitrate?
Click to expand...

Even within the same standard (MPEG4 AVC) newer encoders can deliver the same result at a lower bitrate. It does appear that in this case they went too far.
 
It definately uses less space on the hard disc going by the length of the orange bar before and after. I'd say the quality has noticably dropped.
 
I can barely tell the difference between the non-HD and HD downloads on iPlayer on my 42" TV (ie the HD download isn't very good and certainly not HD), but BBC HD has always looked good to me tho I haven't watched it much recently.
 
I didn't realise that they had dropped the bitrate but it does explain why I was thinking it didn't look as good as it used to. There is more obvious artifacting and colour banding, some of this could be down to the quality of the cameras used pre compression, but I'm comparing the Olympic footage form last year with Top Gear and some of the World Athletics, IMO the latter were noticably poorer.
 
Depends on the encoder and how efficent the first one is... it could be theres no apparent difference on an average 32" TV - but someone with a decent 50" plasma or projector sees it plainly.
 
AbsenceJam said:
Every HD station has done this, nothing new. They only have so much spectrum.
Click to expand...
On terrestrial maybe, but the BBC are paying for a 16mbps transponder and only transmitting data on a portion of it, the rest is transmitting null packets, they have wasted space that they aren't doing anything with but is costing them money.
 
I have to say, IMO, BBC HD has got THE best quality out of all the HD channels on Virgin.

Also, its the only channel which does 100% HD programming, none of that C4/sky1/etc simulcast BS.
 
bam0 said:
On terrestrial maybe, but the BBC are paying for a 16mbps transponder and only transmitting data on a portion of it, the rest is transmitting null packets, they have wasted space that they aren't doing anything with but is costing them money.
Click to expand...

They'll be using the rest for something else later or even squeezing in another HD channel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom