[Scoobiesnacks]

I hope this isn't true. There are reports that ITV HD has also cut picture resolution to 960x1088 .

First BBC HD cuts bandwidth by 40% a few weeks back , now ITV cuts resolution

These terrestial guys are just playing into Sky's hands aren't they? Sky must be laughing all the way to the (HD) Bank

ITV HD now 960x1088 - Freesat - Digital Spy Forums

[Donnacha]

Watched some of Rambo First Blood Part 2 on ITV HD last night and thought it was shocking. Not correct aspect ratio and my old DVD looked better!! At least BBC looks like HD!

[eiren]

If this were true, the picture wouldn't be in 16:9 ratio and would have borders.

Are they suggesting that ITV HD are broadcasting with non-square pixels?

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by Donnacha

Watched some of Rambo First Blood Part 2 on ITV HD last night and thought it was shocking. Not correct aspect ratio and my old DVD looked better!!

Agree with you. I flicked between SD and HD for Rambo for 10 mins and could hardly see a difference.

What on earth where they thinking about broadcasting it in that quality?

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by eiren

If this were true, the picture wouldn't be in 16:9 ratio and would have borders.

Are they suggesting that ITV HD are broadcasting with non-square pixels?

I know it sounds wrong but there has been a noticeable drop in picture quality - Wuthering Heights, Miami Vice

it's being posted upon here:

ITV HD now 960x1088 - Page 2 - Freesat - Digital Spy Forums

[eiren]

That could well be the case... but I am pretty sure that they're still broadcasting in widescreen ratio. So the explanation as to why doesn't seem likely as it's not possible to show 960x1088 as widescreen unless you change the shape of the pixels.

It's not a very reliable source is it? Some bloke from South Wales on Digital Spy

More than likely they've got some kind of digital satellite capture card on a PC which reported that resolution for a program that was 4:3 that it cropped for them.

Otherwise that's one of the most bizarre things they could ever try to do?!?!

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by eiren

If this were true, the picture wouldn't be in 16:9 ratio and would have borders.

Are they suggesting that ITV HD are broadcasting with non-square pixels?

I am afraid it does seem true, there is a second source now reporting the same thing.

Originally Posted by Media Info
General
ID : 1
Complete name : I:\DVB caps\ITVHD.ts
Format : MPEG-TS
File size : 14.2 MiB
Duration : 10s 820ms
Overall bit rate : 11.0 Mbps
Maximum Overall bit rate : 35.5 Mbps

Video
ID : 4113 (0x1011)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L4.0
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 4 frames
Duration : 10s 820ms
Bit rate : 9 956 Kbps
Width : 960 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate : 25.000 fps
Resolution : 24 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Interlaced
Scan order : Top Field First
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.384
Stream size : 12.8 MiB (91%)

Audio
ID : 4352 (0x1100)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Duration : 10s 816ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 256 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Video delay : -306ms
Stream size : 338 KiB (2%)

[Scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by eiren

That could well be the case... but I am pretty sure that they're still broadcasting in widescreen ratio. So the explanation as to why doesn't seem likely as it's not possible to show 960x1088 as widescreen unless you change the shape of the pixels.

It's not a very reliable source is it? Some bloke from South Wales on Digital Spy

More than likely they've got some kind of digital satellite capture card on a PC which reported that resolution for a program that was 4:3 that it cropped for them.

I take your point. It does seem bizarre.

Coincidently , they have just launched 6 ITV+1 channels. I am wondering where the bandwidth is coming from on the satelllite.

[eiren]

Well 960 x 2 = 1920 which is what should be the correct horizontal resolution.

I can't believe that they'd halve the horizontal resolution and expect the satellite receiver/box to deinterlace and scale it up to the required standard

[HDCriticalFan]

Originally Posted by eiren

If this were true, the picture wouldn't be in 16:9 ratio and would have borders.

Are they suggesting that ITV HD are broadcasting with non-square pixels?

Yes.

Most broadcasting is, and always has been, with "non-square pixels".

Since Sky Digital launched (in 1998) most SD has always been 720x576. This is clearly 5:4. It is neither 4:3 nor 16:9. So the "pixels per inch" in the horizontal and vertical directions are always different (i.e. "non-square").

In fact ITV has always championed the cause of low quality broadcasting. I believe that when they (finally) joined the digital satellite revolution in 2001 they started broadcasting ITV1 at 544*576 and have done ever since. Some cynics say that this was a deliberate ploy to make their digital terrestrial system (formerly OnDigital, then ITV Digital) look better and increase its chances of success as a viable alternative to Sky Digital. How did that work out for you guys ?

HD is often broadcast at 1440x1080 - a limitation created by some of the earlier HD cameras I believe. This was true of BBCHD, LuxeHD and (until recently apparently) ITVHD. Your Sky box is quite capable of simply s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g this out from 1440 to 1920. Your screen will then de-interlace this prior to display. Your screen may also down-scale this to 1366x768 if it is only "HD Ready".

Most of the other HD channels broadcast at a full 1920x1080 (i.e. square pixels). If your TV is "Full HD" then it can display this without further scaling (although it will of course have to de-interlace). That's not to say that some of the material within any given 1920x1080 broadcast may well include upscaled SD material and 1440x1080 material shot on older cameras which would therefore have originated in a non-square pixel environment.





Regards

[eiren]

You're referring to anamorphic stretching, but that wouldn't apply in the case above... surely?

[HDCriticalFan]

Originally Posted by eiren

You're referring to anamorphic stretching, but that wouldn't apply in the case above... surely?

No, I'm not referring to anamorphic stretching. As you state, that does not apply here (at least not in the strict 4:3 to 16:9 sense we're used to).

Anamorphic stretching is a reference back to anamorphic lenses used in cinema. In order to achieve a wide field of view and record it in the highest quality they used lenses which, put simply, squeezed a wide "oblong" of view along the horizontal axis to record it onto a "square" film frame - using the full height of the frame. This was played back in the cinema through a similar lens to create a wide image.

When widescreen TV broadcasting started they used a similar approach and squeezed wide programmes into "square" SD broadcasts. Your widescreen TV then did the anamorphic stretch to undo this and recreate the original 16:9 image. Some people leave this on (when they shouldn't) for normal 4:3 broadcasts - resulting in fatty-vision

[I'm ignoring the cerebral issue about whether or not the broadcast of a series of electronic values (analogue or digital) is truly "square" or "rectangular" in nature]

With HD the broadcast is already deemed to be 16:9 and so no "un-squeezing" is required.

[Although you could argue that spreading the incoming image details over a 16:9 screen is in essence the same as un-squeezing a 4:3 image]


What we're talking about here is slightly different (although quite similar).

The native resolution of an HD broadcast can vary. No matter how many (or few !) pixels, nor what "shape" they take, the image is deemed to be 16:9 in shape. The Sky box will create a 1920x1080 image from this image to send to your TV.

Upon reflection, the addition of pixels to fill out the 1920 "across the way" requirement is pretty much the same thing as anamorphically stretching the incoming picture actually. So perhaps I am being unduly picky.

The important thing is that HD broadcasts are often made with a resolution less than 1920 ... and do not result in black "pillar box" bars.





Regards

[Scoobiesnacks]

Within a week, ITV have responded, apologised and said they will put it back to the way it was before.

Digital TV - News - ITV HD screen res 'soon back to normal' - Digital Spy

I wonder if there is a lesson here for the Beeb?

[Starburst]

Perhaps one day the broadcasters may realise being upfront with the viewing public saves a lot of time and trouble and treating us like mushrooms is counter productive especially when trying to sell a border line service.

[Scoobiesnacks]

BBC Boss : Ok , so we're low on viewers on the BBC HD channel and we're getting LOTS of complaints. What can we do that pleases the audience?

Employee : Well , a lot of people want the HD service to get a new encoder to improve the picture quality back to the days when we had high bitrates like other proper HD channels.

BBC Boss : So.... They want the HD service to look different... I KNOW ! LET'S GET NEW ENCODERS AND CUT THE BITRATE TO THE LOWEST FOR A MAINSTREAM HD CHANNEL IN THE UK !!!

Employee : That's not what I said.

BBC Boss : WHO CARES? I'M BRILLIANT !!

Employee : (that's not what the customer's are gonna think..)

Based on an original idea by Peter(bobmarleypeople) on http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/index.p...nnel#comments>

[rovex33]

Nothing surprises me about ITV. Its SD quality is shockingly poor, almost like bad Youtube at times, so i expect nothing more from their HD efforts. Since F1 switched ive not watched ITV at all.