[Viewer66]

Originally Posted by mwardy

I don't think anyone has posted any A-B comparisons of the encoders here, so try these. Which do you think is which?

Thanks for the game. Here's my play on the snapshots.
For me A seems to have a more natural textural appearance (i.e. fabric like) showing more subtle detail whilst B looks blocky and washed (c.f. lego brick or watercolour rendition) with false (artificial) highlights. I prefer A.

[and36]

To me photo A looks the best whilst photo B looks like when you select the watercolour filter for a photo on photoshop, but why do I feel like I'm going to be surprised

[awesometeeth]

anyone watching doctor who right now about 3pm? would be interested to see if this is a bad picture quality show according to others

[TonyA]

1000+ signatories on the PM's petition site now... in just 2 days!

Petition to: require the BBC to meet EBU broadcasting standards by restoring the bandwidth allocated to BBC HD channel transmissions to the same levels as before they were reduced in August 2009, and that the BBC pledge to always provide the highest

There's also an interesting article (dated 11th Dec. 2009) on the Interactive TV and Online Video News website concerning the issue: informitv - BBC HD quality definition draws criticism from viewers

[awesometeeth]

very impressive numbers

but see im sitting here and doctor who is on in the background. now im not a big fan but the picture seems as good as anything ive seen or even had put up here as demo files of how good it used to be.

this just doesnt add up, im either still drunk or there is a more selective issue going on.

[Mike02]

...OK...erm....it's New Years Day....I think we'll all enjoy a little telly now....and forget about bitrate issues for a little while....before those little men in white coats...um....carts us all away!

Sorry couldn't resist that lol

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by mwardy

I don't think anyone has posted any A-B comparisons of the encoders here, so try these. Which do you think is which?

A zSHARE - A1.png
B zSHARE - B1.png

Before anyone asks the next question, they are both B frames. Captured on a satellite stb then imported into the PC.

OK, small drum roll...

A is the old encoder at 16 mbps, B the new one at 9. Thanks to the people who gave an opinion, all of whom were correct! In fact, Viewer 66 expresses it very similarly to how I did with a previous example:

BBC - BBC Internet Blog: Picture Quality on BBC HD: a response

@awesometeeth: it turns out that today isn't the day for trying to put video clips up, sorry. I'll have a go soon. But in the meantime a couple of things. First, I don't have access to HD atm, but when the previous Doctor Who was on lots of people pointed it out as a shining example of HD done right, and yes, this was on the new encoder. Why should that be when so much else is poor/indifferent? Who knows? Even more mysteriously, one episode of Paradox looked very good but the rest looked like clean SD. Of course, it does show that not all problems can be simply reduced to with bitrate.

But on bitrate: Surely the blocking and posterisation in B are classic features of bit starvation? You say that you need the video itself because the encoders behave differently. Well, fair enough, and as I say, I'll try, but I've taken a lot of grabs now, and in no case has the reverse been true and the old encoder behaves like this while the new one is artefact-free, or shows fewer artefacts. Not even close. It *never* artefacts like this. I have noticed that I frames can look slightly sharper on the new encoder, but that's not to say the old one's I frames were artefacted. So, do you think there is still no justification for saying there is a bitrate problem? (That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, in case it's not clear.)

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

very impressive numbers

but see im sitting here and doctor who is on in the background. now im not a big fan but the picture seems as good as anything ive seen or even had put up here as demo files of how good it used to be.

this just doesnt add up, im either still drunk or there is a more selective issue going on.

The fact that you are using a PC Card of some kind (care to mention the make and model please?), and the majority of us are using domestic equipment such as Sky HD or Humax HD boxes etc... may have some bearing on why you are oblivious to any problems.

Could it be that the PC Card is just "better" at coping with the HD material than the domestic boxes? As someone that has experience in this field, I should imagine that you wouldn't have bought just any old tat, and would have bought a highly spec'd card, whereas most domestic kit will probably use cheaper components.

I did ask this as a serious question previously, but you chose not to answer it. Which is rather weird, as you normally have to comment on any of my posts on this thread, to remind us all that you don't see a problem! But this is a serious question, and I would like to hear your opinion on it! Thanks.

[awesometeeth]

its a hauppauge dvb s2 card, hardly a speciality bit of kit.


It's not like i chose not to answer it specifically I wouldnt have thought it was that amazingly different as sadly all SD stuff is pretty much awful.

All im doing is trying to put another perspective up of someone whose had experience of H.264 over the years. I've seen plenty of stuff on BBC HD which exhibits no serious signs of a bit rate issue. See i dont think BBC HD was this uber channel which people have made out. I know ive seen plenty of stuff over this last year which looked average and the odd bit of poor.

pretty much the same as i see these days some stuff ive seen these last few weeks has looked pretty much fine to me, suggesting if there is an issue, it maybe a more specific one that the bitrate lowering.

[Alsone]

Originally Posted by mwardy

But on bitrate: Surely the blocking and posterisation in B are classic features of bit starvation? You say that you need the video itself because the encoders behave differently. Well, fair enough, and as I say, I'll try, but I've taken a lot of grabs now, and in no case has the reverse been true and the old encoder behaves like this while the new one is artefact-free, or shows fewer artefacts. Not even close. It *never* artefacts like this. I have noticed that I frames can look slightly sharper on the new encoder, but that's not to say the old one's I frames were artefacted. So, do you think there is still no justification for saying there is a bitrate problem? (That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, in case it's not clear.)

I took this a while ago, again off screen but thats academic as no video capture can induce macro blocking.

This is BBC HD - Free Running Championships August 2009.

Video shot with the playback in Fast Forward - yes I know you don't watch in fast forward but this helps to prove there's bit rate starvation - when was the last time you saw this on Sky HD when using FF in a programme? In fact I've never seen it on ITV HD either.

Macro Blocking on BBC HD: YouTube - FF Problem after new BBC HD Encoder

Fast forward speed is a measley 4 times.

[awesometeeth]

what does this video show???

it shows that the BBC HD stream is a little weird in its settings and can cause the odd problem like this. On the PC its quite common and needs a reset of the decoder.

it does not prove anything sadly, this is not macroblocking

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Hdr owners copy all 3 files to a usb stick and play back from their. PC owners only require the .ts file

4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download RobinHoodHD.zip

Graham,
How do I replay this on a Windows 7 PC? I've tried VLC, media player classic, and GOM
All of above only partially work, not really playing it properly.
Windows 7 media player doesn't work at all for me with this.

I am probably missing some codecs I know.

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by derek500

The current series of Gavin & Stacey has been very poor PQ. However, the repeat of the 2008 Christmas special was excellent PQ.

It's more down to the source material than the encoders.

I thought the 2008 Xmas special wasn't as good when it was shown again recently.

Ok so maybe the Gavin and Stacey team have forgotten how to do good HD, but did you see any of Sunshine(the drama) or South Pacific when they were repeated. Both seemed to loose their edge and sharpness.

Are you aware that Andy Quested from the BBC has recently admitted that some programmes (undisclosed) do look worse?

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by loz

Are there any programmes upcomming where the quality can be compared between BBC HD and other HD broadcasters?

Winter Olympics is on BBC and Eurosport - But how much HD content will overlap?

The World cup is a long way off, who knows that HD PQ will be like by then..

Anything else beyond that? I am thinking very little unfortunately.

It should be possible to do a direct comparison between Eurosport and BBC HD during the olympics (eg opening ceremony), especially useful as they use the same supplier for encoders (Eurosport running at twice the bitrate however)

Andy Quested has claimed his encoding results are better than Eurosport HD's picture previously (over the summer)

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Scoobiesnacks

Graham,
How do I replay this on a Windows 7 PC? I've tried VLC, media player classic, and GOM
All of above only partially work, not really playing it properly.
Windows 7 media player doesn't work at all for me with this.

I am probably missing some codecs I know.

Is your PC fast enough, the clip is 17mbps the same as BBC HD use for their foreign paid for service, so you need a pretty fast video card. I presume you don't have a hdr or access to one. Other than that I can't really help much - Sorry

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by Scoobiesnacks

Graham,
How do I replay this on a Windows 7 PC? I've tried VLC, media player classic, and GOM
All of above only partially work, not really playing it properly.
Windows 7 media player doesn't work at all for me with this.

I am probably missing some codecs I know.

I have CoreAVC professional 1.9.5 (it has to be the professional version for MBAFF) and it works fine for this file. CPU load less than 40% on core 2 duo + decent grahpics card though no hardware acceleration. (I can't use it open the video for current domestic BBC HD transmissions though--I think there is something odd about them.) Unfortunately they have stopped offering their 14 day trial, but it will resume on January 7 for version 2.0: https://customers.corecodec.com/know...available.html

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

what does this video show???

it shows that the BBC HD stream is a little weird in its settings and can cause the odd problem like this. On the PC its quite common and needs a reset of the decoder.

it does not prove anything sadly, this is not macroblocking

Alsone, I have to agree, I'm afraid.

@awesome: any thoughts about #157?

[grahamlthompson]

I have found a clip of the BBC HD preview loop from 16/12/2008 but it's 258Mb (58Mb larger than the max file size than the file limit of 4 share). Does anyone know a free site that can handle a file this large ?

[Saner]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

I have found a clip of the BBC HD preview loop from 16/12/2008 but it's 258Mb (58Mb larger than the max file size than the file limit of 4 share). Does anyone know a free site that can handle a file this large ?

Letitbit.net is a totally free file hosting. Speed and size of files are unlimited.

[Alsone]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

what does this video show???

it shows that the BBC HD stream is a little weird in its settings and can cause the odd problem like this. On the PC its quite common and needs a reset of the decoder.

it does not prove anything sadly, this is not macroblocking

What it shows is that the bit rate is inadequate.

Here are 2 clips I've encoded from my own HD camcorder to show you. These are normal speed playback.

Clip 1 is encoded MPEG 2 @ 2,000kbs

Clip 2 is encoded MPEG 2 @ 6,000kbs

When watched full screen in Windows Media Player, clip 1 shows compression aretfacts in the form of macro blocking just as on the BBC transmission and also considerable blur.

Clip 2 shows no macro blocking and is considerably sharper and clearer if far from perfect (it is MPEG2 after all!).

The only difference between the two files is the bit rate. Everything else has been kept at a constant.

PS I chose to use MPEG2 rather than MPEG 4 as its easier to demonstrate the bit rate effect with smaller files ie 2mbs and 4mbs rather than going to BBC levels of 9.8 and 16 mbs on MPEG 4 which would have required very large files to download.

Download clips here as a 23mb winzip: http://www.easy-share.com/1908893375...sion Clips.zip

[moonrakerz]

I made a formal complaint to the BBC about the reduction in picture quality on HD.
The response I got said they had not reduced the picture quality "as such" !!!!
To me, this was rather like my electricity supplier saying they hadn't switched off my supply "as such" - just removed the fuses !

I complained about the response I got to my complaint - response to that ? just totally ignored !!

What a useless bunch !!! wasting my money !

[awesometeeth]

im curious, what was your exact complaint about?

[moonrakerz]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

im curious, what was your exact complaint about?

The general reduction in picture quality.

I first got HD about a year ago and BBC HD was absolutely breathtaking in its quality at that point. I remember watching a "comedy" programme - which I never watched previously - and being absolutely mesmerised by the detail in one actor's coat - you could actually count the threads !!!
Later in the year I noticed a distinct reduction in picture quality and put it down to just a "bad batch" of programmes - until I started reading about the reduction in bit rate and the new coders which (according to the BBC) more than made up for this - hogwash !

In addition to the response I mentioned in my previous post, I was told that the whole thing was "explained" on a BBC blog. When I looked at this it was full of complaints from unhappy viewers with the same pathetic response being churned out time after time after time...............

[awesometeeth]

so you haven't seen a single thing on the HD channels since that actually looks any good? it all looks bad?

[mannyo]

I have also put in a complaint via the BBC website, and have not even had a reply, despite selecting the "I want a response" option. This was last week, so maybe christmas has delayed things somewhat.

[Mike02]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

so you haven't seen a single thing on the HD channels since that actually looks any good? it all looks bad?

That program about the whales - looked pretty sharp. Mind you I only saw it for a few mins


Mike

[moonrakerz]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

so you haven't seen a single thing on the HD channels since that actually looks any good? it all looks bad?

I didn't say it was bad, it is just nowhere near as good as it was. BBC HD is much better than SD, but I feel that the Beeb have shot themselves in the foot with the way they have reduced the picture quality and the pathetic way they have tried to deny it. They should be leading everyone else (they were !) they are now way behind everyone else

The trouble is with HD is that the improved picture definition does often not apply to the whole picture on the screen and sometimes there are bits of the programme that are just not HD quality. This does make it difficult to compare the quality of HD on different channels broadcasting different programmes - test card on all channels needed maybe ????

In my opinion the most consistent quality HD picture is Sky Sports; sport does tend to give the best "screen wide" HD picture (unless you were trying to watch that appalling shambles that ITV tried to put out earlier this evening !!!)
The best HD picture without a doubt is Luxe TV - shame about the programme content though !

I really don't what more the individual can do: I have complained to the BBC, got me nowhere ! Signed the petition, sorry but I don't think that will do much ! Perhaps we should get P D James to take up the cause, she made the DG of the BBC sound a right wally on the Today programme the other morning

PD James and the BBC: Here at last was someone saying what so many people feel - Telegraph !

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Saner

Letitbit.net is a totally free file hosting. Speed and size of files are unlimited.

Thanks for the link. Here's the Dec 2008 clip. (Use the free tab)

Letitbit.net is a totally free file hosting. Speed and size of files are unlimited.


hdr owners wanting to view it on their TV's will need to use AV2HDR to create the support files.

Graham

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Thanks for the link. Here's the Dec 2008 clip. (Use the free tab)

Letitbit.net is a totally free file hosting. Speed and size of files are unlimited.


hdr owners wanting to view it on their TV's will need to use AV2HDR to create the support files.

Graham

Downloading it now.... that site for the download is "interesting"!

Plus I've just had to download AV2HDR and install that into XP running in Parallels (as I'm a Mac user), so this is going to be rather a long process to get it converted and over to the HDR! LOL!

Thanks for supplying the file.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by TonyA

Downloading it now.... that site for the download is "interesting"!

Plus I've just had to download AV2HDR and install that into XP running in Parallels (as I'm a Mac user), so this is going to be rather a long process to get it converted and over to the HDR! LOL!

Thanks for supplying the file.

Sorry Tony I should have done the conversion at my end before uploading the files. Not sure if the two support files will work with the original (if renamed to match). If it's a big hassle post and I will check

Graham