[awesometeeth]

Originally Posted by Geoff_W

Totally agree!

We start off with superb performance and then the dead hand of the accountant reduces it to rubbish. Happened with LP > CD > MP3, then FM > DAB (High Bitrate) > DAB (Low Bitrate), now HD Hi-PQ > HD? Poor PQ. The problem is, the discerning listener/viewer is outnumbered by the uninformed majority who happily accept 2nd- and 3rd-rate quality.

Just like most things in this world, progress doesn't necessarily mean better!

Geoff

this is a little funny as mp3 is pretty much replaced by AAC and is fantastic quality, even at lower bitrates.

the problem is that they have to make a choice. quality v. quantity and so often money make the choices.

Also, DAB is far better than MW so its a plus in some areas, albeit small ones

[awesometeeth]

oh man, that kids prog Raven is on now and its truly awful.

ive seen other shows that are probably as complext to encode, yet something is badly wrong on this.

[TonyA]

The petition 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 is now over the 1500 mark!

[awesometeeth]

what next though?

[Mike02]

....a petition for ITV 1 HD to go 24/7 on ch 103

[Davey H]

Originally Posted by Mike02

....a petition for ITV 1 HD to go 24/7 on ch 103

They'd need to commission some programmes actually worth watching first

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

what next though?

Well with any luck the BBC will stop treating us like idiots, and answer the questions that are being posed of them. Andy Quested their HD Technologist appears to be incapable of answering a single straight question. If you look at the BBC Blog, its getting like the Paxman v Michael Howerd interview!

[loz]

I am reaching the conclusion that people are wasting their time complaining.
The BBC are no longer debating the topic, just constantly refering back to what they have said before, regardless of the fact that it is this which is the source of further complaints in the first place.

They are not going to answer any questions, but just stonewall.

So you are wasting your breath.

Better off putting you energy into the campaigns to abolish the licence fee. That is the only way they will be forced to listen to their viewers...

[awesometeeth]

you could always drop an email to your local MP and see if they can escalate the issue to maybe bring some awareness to the point as the petition has the numbers behind it now.

the general state of UK TV is an utter disgrace. Most SD channels are actually worse than youtube, which is insane when you think about it.

[WGLOVER]

I am watching 'Come Dine With Me' on 4HD.
This is what HD is all about.
What are they doing right that the BBC can't?

[Viewer66]

I spotted Paul Murphy's BBC Internet Blog Round up: Thursday 7 January 2010
BBC - BBC Internet Blog
This highlights the Which? report and paraphrases the headline finding by saying that BBC HD quality is as good as it was before the changes in encoders and bit rates.

Spinning that headline overlooks the impoverished basis on Which? chose to make their conclusion.

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

you could always drop an email to your local MP and see if they can escalate the issue to maybe bring some awareness to the point as the petition has the numbers behind it now.

the general state of UK TV is an utter disgrace. Most SD channels are actually worse than youtube, which is insane when you think about it.

Indeed... the state of PQ generally has been affected by "digital", where they have tried to squeeze as many channels in as they can. I wonder if the whole issue should be taken to OFCOM.

With all the political parties gearing up for a general election now, one of them might jump on the bandwagon!

[loz]

Originally Posted by Viewer66

I spotted Paul Murphy's BBC Internet Blog Round up: Thursday 7 January 2010
BBC - BBC Internet Blog
This highlights the Which? report and paraphrases the headline finding by saying that BBC HD quality is as good as it was before the changes in encoders and bit rates.

Spinning that headline overlooks the impoverished basis on Which? chose to make their conclusion.

Given he had already reported that in his 28th December blog, it looks like he and the other BBC HD execs are just going to repeat it ad infinitum until we all believe it....

Pity the BBC prefer to repeat the opinion of 1 person who can't see a difference, than draw attention to the 1575 who can, and signed the No 10 petition that was set up since his last blog, but which he failed to mention...

[loz]

Originally Posted by awesometeeth

you could always drop an email to your local MP and see if they can escalate the issue to maybe bring some awareness to the point as the petition has the numbers behind it now.

the general state of UK TV is an utter disgrace. Most SD channels are actually worse than youtube, which is insane when you think about it.

ITV being a prime culprit amongst the big broadcasters, using only 544x576 resolution over satellite, and simply awful PQ when sport is involved with terrible artifacting. Thank god they at least broadcast the Champions league on ITV HD now.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by loz

ITV being a prime culprit amongst the big broadcasters, using only 544x576 resolution over satellite, and simply awful PQ when sport is involved with terrible artifacting. Thank god they at least broadcast the Champions league on ITV HD now.

ITV 1 West Country (10832 H) is 704 x 576 and a bit rate 20% higher than BBC1 is available using add channels/non-freesat mode and by using a suitable postcode on a freesat box.

[Viewer66]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Here's the Dec 2008 clip

In the BBC HD Picture Quality blog
BBC - BBC Internet Blog: BBC HD Picture Quality: some myths laid to rest
In post 646 Andy Quested says

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.

grahamlthompson,
If you are able, and feel it appropriate, please could you ask Andy Questard to make a comparison using the new encoder against the Dec 2008 clip.

[pdoherty76]

I am loving the poll results.

I suspect the 95% who voted yes are just "geeks" with poorly calibrated TV's.

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by pdoherty76

I am loving the poll results.

I suspect the 95% who voted yes are just "geeks" with poorly calibrated TV's.

Oh that's a cynical view You don't work for BBC HD do you? LOL!

[pdoherty76]

Originally Posted by TonyA

Oh that's a cynical view You don't work for BBC HD do you? LOL!

You got me, I am Danielle "bitrate doesn't relate to PQ, honest guv" Nagler.

[Viewer66]

Originally Posted by mwardy

Thanks to the people who gave an opinion, all of whom were correct!

mwardy
Given that Andy Quested has now asked viewers to let him know which programmes they believe do not meet the standard they expect, would you be able to tell Andy about the programme from which your screen grabs were taken so that he can compare the (new) transmitted signal to the original.

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by Viewer66

mwardy
Given that Andy Quested has now asked viewers to let him know which programmes they believe do not meet the standard they expect, would you be able to tell Andy about the programme from which your screen grabs were taken so that he can compare the (new) transmitted signal to the original.

Already done.

[WGLOVER]

Does anyone agree that 'Survivors' on BBC HD last night was very poor quality?

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by WGLOVER

Does anyone agree that 'Survivors' on BBC HD last night was very poor quality?

Indeed... Not good at all. Lots of "smearing" on faces, motion blur etc... the usual below-par HD we've come to expect on this channel.

Earlier in the evening I watched the Hairy Bikers: Mum's Know Best and the motion blur there on the scene where they were shaking the apple tree was laughable.

HD highlight of the week for me so far has been ITV's Law & Order UK - it was pretty near perfect, and there was some really great moments in it, including the scene in Trafalgar Sq. with the traffic cones in the foreground which was really stunning!

Why is ITV's part-time offering getting this so right, and the Beeb's dedicated channel getting it so wrong, and not even listening to the viewers?

There's nearly 800 comments on Ms. Nagler's blog now, untold complaints that have been raised officially to the BBC, 1700+ votes on the Prime Ministers web site, and as someone pointed out on the blog, if there was this sort of feedback concerning program content (Manuel-Gate is a good example), heads would be rolling at the BBC by now, but because this is a "technical issue" they can just put their head in the sand, and ignore the viewers who are complaining!

[gibbsy]

Originally Posted by WGLOVER

Does anyone agree that 'Survivors' on BBC HD last night was very poor quality?

Awful, could hardly see the difference from SD. Why that should be as Portillo's railway journey looked very good, but overall I do find BBC HD to be somewhat disappointing.

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by TonyA

There's nearly 800 comments on Ms. Nagler's blog now, untold complaints that have been raised officially to the BBC

And that's just the current blog. Before that there have been at least 3 or 4 sizeable ones, one of which reach 900 posts. And Ms Nagler had the bad faith to say in an interview on the BBC news site that there had been one official complaint! The news item was left uncorrected for several days--long enough for other journalists to see it, no doubt. I was a bit shocked at this, but perhaps I'm just naive.

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by mwardy

And that's just the current blog. Before that there have been at least 3 or 4 sizeable ones, one of which reach 900 posts. And Ms Nagler had the bad faith to say in an interview on the BBC news site that there had been one official complaint! The news item was left uncorrected for several days--long enough for other journalists to see it, no doubt. I was a bit shocked at this, but perhaps I'm just naive.

"bad faith"?? I think they now refer to that as "spin".

She was well aware that there was more than one complaint to the BBC. I think how she "span" that one, is that there had only been one complaint that had gone as far as the BBC Trust, which Paul Eaton is now appealing against since he has a body of evidence, and even more support behind the campaign now.

Danielle has stepped back out of the debate now, which has left Andy Quested defending the "company line" on the blogs.

I think the BBC have totally underestimated how the public would react in this matter, and the more the issue is being highlighted in the press, the more people are actually commenting on the blogs, voting on the PM's petition etc...

[mwardy]

@TonyA: Yes, I must get into the new millennium.

It was a very unedifying spectacle really. Denialle said there was one formal complaint with the clear intention of minimising the actual backlash. She didn't define what a formal complaint is, and never has AFAIK. I think the viewers have assumed she must as you say have meant an appeal to the BBC Trust, which as you know can only happen at the end of a complicated procedure that requires a lot of staying power. And this one had at least 300 names attached to it. No ordinary reader of the news pages would have understood it to mean this.

Then there were many requests for a definition of a formal complaint on the blogs, which were evaded for days and never properly answered as far as I remember. It got to the point where the blog host basically said it wasn't his job to correct factual errors on the news site and pointed to, ha ha, the complaints page.

None of this is what I would have expected from the BBC. I'm looking forward to the no 10 petition reaching full HD horizontal resolution, i.e 1920... I must be a geek.

[METATRON12]

Originally Posted by WGLOVER

Does anyone agree that 'Survivors' on BBC HD last night was very poor quality?

It was worse than poor it was a disgrace and could not be genuinley described as "HD". At its best (which is not very often) BBC HD can only be described as "GOOD" NOT STUNNING as they advertise. It was Stunning before the bitrate cut and the introduction of the new encoders. I know it is cliched but the "WOW" factor is now no where to be seen on this channel after a few seconds viewing this is obvious. Unfortunatley people without experience of the pre bit rate cut cannot appreciate this. The BBC must now be really regretting ever transmitting their HD channel at 19MB's as they obviously cannot or will not for reasons best known to themselves turn back the clock. All they can hope for is that pre-bit rate reduction people like myself are in the minority and therefore complaints will be minimal when compared to the true volume of viewers. What a shame, what an injustice, thousands are being shortchanged and they do not even realise it.


Mike

[TonyA]

Originally Posted by mwardy

@TonyA: Yes, I must get into the new millennium.

It was a very unedifying spectacle really. Denialle said there was one formal complaint with the clear intention of minimising the actual backlash. She didn't define what a formal complaint is, and never has AFAIK. I think the viewers have assumed she must as you say have meant an appeal to the BBC Trust, which as you know can only happen at the end of a complicated procedure that requires a lot of staying power. And this one had at least 300 names attached to it. No ordinary reader of the news pages would have understood it to mean this.

Then there were many requests for a definition of a formal complaint on the blogs, which were evaded for days and never properly answered as far as I remember. It got to the point where the blog host basically said it wasn't his job to correct factual errors on the news site and pointed to, ha ha, the complaints page.

None of this is what I would have expected from the BBC. I'm looking forward to the no 10 petition reaching full HD horizontal resolution, i.e 1920... I must be a geek.

The BBC did state that complaints should be raised via their complaints procedure e.g. BBC Complaints - Homepage.

However, the ironic thing is, if you raise a complaint via that mechanism concerning the BBC HD PQ, they just point you back at the Danielle Nagler's blog!

I raised a complaint regarding that, when they pointed me at the blog, stating that as Danielle had now "drawn a line" under the issue and was not responding to this issue any more, how they can justify ignoring complaints in that manner - I've never had a response to that complaint!

I believe this is a disgusting way for a public service broadcaster to behave.

A decision has been made at a certain level in the BBC, for whatever reason it is (although I think we all know its so that they lower the PQ to the lowest common denominator e.g. FreeView HD, so that one platform does not out-shine another), and they are using spin, and smoke and mirrors to try and pull the wool over the public's eyes - which couldn't make watching BBC HD any worse IMHO! LOL!

It's a shame that we have to suffer with an inferior PQ on satellite, just so that the channel can be received terrestrially.

[awesometeeth]

Originally Posted by WGLOVER

Does anyone agree that 'Survivors' on BBC HD last night was very poor quality?

wonder if its the one that's on now?

the mix of smoke and grain gives a very odd effect in a lot of scenes, not so much a bitrate issue though as that would be very obvious in such shots.

its probably up there with the most complex scenes to encode.

otherwise it looked fine to me.

i dont do "wow" factor, its a baseless phrase that means nothing. cant complain about quality and use such terms, gotta be precise and scientific, take your emotion out of the equation.