BBC HD is not up to the required standard

[ozzzy189]

As the title suggests, i am really not happy now. The bbc hd channel last year was a bechmark by which all other hd broadcasts were judged. Now it's become little better than a decent freeview picture. Robin hood is so soft it looks like ice cream, hotel babylon, green green grass and torchwood even worse. Watch the antiques roadshow to see how it can be done. Ross Kemp and 'Lost' on sky one blow anything the bbc is outputting into a cocked hat. What's happened bbc ? have you dropped the bandwidth to unaccepably low levels ? All i know is, this is simply not good enough, and i hope you'll all join me in emailing to complain via the link below. Remember, the more complain, the more chance we have of getting a result. Cheers, Ozzzy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

[metalhead72]

Did you email the BBC ?

[ozzzy189]

Well, i've complained, here is what i have written as a starter.

This email is to complain about the quite frankly embarrassing quality now being outputted and displayed by 'bbcHd' Last year the programmes looked stunning, sharp and truly wonderous, now, apart from 'antiques roadshow', it's little better than a good freeview picture. Why are they all so so soft now ? Have you dropped the bandwidth ? Hotel babylon, torchwood, green green grass, and robin hood are nowhere near the quality of old. Look at the ross kemp stuff on sky one, or lost, to see a proper, decent 1080i hd broadcast. quite frankly, this is what we expect from hd, not the poor output from the bbc we are now getting. I have started an av forum thread to deal with this issue because what we are now getting is unacceptable. I will take this matter as high as possible in the hope to get what we are paying for, not for what we are getting now.

Hope we get some answers eh ?

[Starburst]

A lot of the issues go beyond bitrate, the production choices between film and HD video have a huge impact and well while good old 35mm does seem to have the edge in PQ terms the savings on using HD video are overwhelming and the PQ can be seen to be improving with every generation of camera.

If you take Torchwood this season we see scenes which don't have optimal lighting can show noise, same for Damages also on the BBC so like it or not there may be some shows that won't be made in HD if budgets don't allow for film and all the associated costs.

The problem for the BBC is that they are no longer a trial yet HD is still very much a in progress technology

[ozzzy189]

But to go drastically backwards surely is not a good sign ? I can't believe how bad the new series of said programmes looks. The only benefit above sd is the lack of noise and artifacts IMO. Simply not good enough, and i think we should complain more.

[SimonH]

Message sent, something isn't right, what I don't know but Babylon, Torchwood and others look soft and noisey compared to Sky's offerings.

[SimonH]

Originally Posted by ozzzy189

As the title suggests, i am really not happy now. The bbc hd channel last year was a bechmark by which all other hd broadcasts were judged. Now it's become little better than a decent freeview picture. Robin hood is so soft it looks like ice cream, hotel babylon, green green grass and torchwood even worse. Watch the antiques roadshow to see how it can be done. Ross Kemp and 'Lost' on sky one blow anything the bbc is outputting into a cocked hat. What's happened bbc ? have you dropped the bandwidth to unaccepably low levels ? All i know is, this is simply not good enough, and i hope you'll all join me in emailing to complain via the link below. Remember, the more complain, the more chance we have of getting a result. Cheers, Ozzzy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Did you send it under complaints or feedback or I have a question etc?

I used complaints although it seems that channel may be more directed towards offensive content etc.

[stranger]

Content of my complaint

"Since the HD channel ceased being a trial and received the go ahead for full channel status the picture quality has dropped by quite a margin. It appears to me as though you have lowered the bitrates to save bandwidth. This is not only a disgrace to the BBCs Hd tv service but is dishonest in that you have shown HD at a great quality in order to obtain full status and then reduced said quality I am frankly disgusted at your actions and have lost confidence in the BBC.
I am a member of the largest AV forum in the UK and many other members feel aggrieved as do members of other forums in the UK."

[ozzzy189]

Originally Posted by SimonH

Did you send it under complaints or feedback or I have a question etc?

I used complaints although it seems that channel may be more directed towards offensive content etc.

I used complaints too, i suppose it wasn't geared to our comments, but i thought it'd have more chance of being read. Cheers guys. has anyone had a reply yet ?

[Nor]

I've found the quality of BBC HD to be very poor too. Like others have said, the only thing that looked great was the Antiques Roadshow.

[ozzzy189]

So why if the bandwidth is still pretty high, are the programmes looking so awful ? Surely they are not using poor gear and bad set up techniques ?

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by ozzzy189

So why if the bandwidth is still pretty high, are the programmes looking so awful ? Surely they are not using poor gear and bad set up techniques ?

It depends how you define awful
Take the second season of Torchwood that has been criticised for it's fluctuating image quality which has been quite grainy in dark/night shoots and pretty sharp in the studio sets. We see very much the same thing but a little more subtle in football with stadiums with excellent lighting producing some stunning pictures but the older less well designed grounds not quite upto the same standard.
It's really no surprise Ross Kemp in Afghanistan looked incredible during the day

It does tend to come down to lighting and the camera technology used. Using a very expensive film production can side step a lot of the issues with lighting but the far cheaper HD video technology is a little more sensitive. It may be the cameras the BBC are currently using are not state of the art, they may not fully be upto speed with the technology unlike MGM up in Vancouver shooting the SG franchise plus so many other HD shows or the director/dp choose a grainy look to certain scenes.

Never forget that this is art and choices made are not always about making the most sterile/clean image.

[SimonH]

Originally Posted by Starburst

It depends how you define awful
Take the second season of Torchwood that has been criticised for it's fluctuating image quality which has been quite grainy in dark/night shoots and pretty sharp in the studio sets. We see very much the same thing but a little more subtle in football with stadiums with excellent lighting producing some stunning pictures but the older less well designed grounds not quite upto the same standard.
It's really no surprise Ross Kemp in Afghanistan looked incredible during the day

It does tend to come down to lighting and the camera technology used. Using a very expensive film production can side step a lot of the issues with lighting but the far cheaper HD video technology is a little more sensitive. It may be the cameras the BBC are currently using are not state of the art, they may not fully be upto speed with the technology unlike MGM up in Vancouver shooting the SG franchise plus so many other HD shows or the director/dp choose a grainy look to certain scenes.

Never forget that this is art and choices made are not always about making the most sterile/clean image.

Are we saying that a guy running around with a camera on his back in insane heat with sand flying everywhere, produces a better solution than Torchwood can in a studio with a million retakes and perfect studio conditions?

Something just doesn't seem right to me.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by SimonH

Are we saying that a guy running around with a camera on his back in insane heat with sand flying everywhere, produces a better solution than Torchwood can in a studio with a million retakes and perfect studio conditions?

Something just doesn't seem right to me.

Like I said the studio shots for Torchwood look considerably better than the external location scenes mainly due to the better lighting conditions, if you don't agree that is the case or at least still don't consider the studio shots to be good enough then fair enough

Regardless of the above you have two shows one which is purely a camera pointing at a subject with no setup/production being taken and another where a director and his DP are creating an effect.
You may not like the effect or consider it's implementation to be not good enough but that does offer a reason why the two shows mentioned can be worlds apart.

It's the same basic principle why wildlife programming tends to look good, it's simply point and shoot with lots of natural sunlight and the total absence of artistic choices in production.

[SimonH]

Even internal studio shots on TW don't compare to external totally uncontrollable ones on RK In AF, external Torchwood shots don't come close to what SKY seem to be able to manage to my eyes and if the lousy PQ, noise, softness, artefacts, lack of detail, poor colour etc are added by the director/producer they need firing IMO.

I'm much more convinced this is a problem with the BEEB, I'm no expert, granted but I know a good picture when I see one and the HD channel from the BBC is NOT as good as has been, I know what I'm looking at.

Bablyon for example is nowhere near the pin sharp beautiful picture it was in the previous season, it looks utterly flat.

I don't buy it, something ain't right AFAIAC.