"Life" on BBC HD

Badger0-0 · 12-10-2009, 8:14 PM

Is probably the worst quality BBC HD nature programme I've ever seen.

It's being shown at the same time on BBC1 and having switched back and forth a few times, I can't tell the difference.

Good job we have these new-fangled encoders, I don't think.

Well done Beeb

Jai · 12-10-2009, 8:22 PM

But those slow motion shots are epic!!!

Im watching on BBC1 btw

Badger0-0 · 12-10-2009, 8:32 PM

Don't get me wrong, the programme is fine.

It just doesn't look "HD" at all, to me.
It's incredibly "soft".

Watching on VM, by the way.

Jai · 12-10-2009, 8:34 PM

Is this a one off programme or is there a series? Im hoping to get Virgin HD around next month.

Badger0-0 · 12-10-2009, 8:40 PM

I think it's a series mate

Badger0-0 · 12-10-2009, 8:52 PM

Ah, so it took 3 years to film it

That probably explains it.

I'm expecting good things from this programme in that case

Jai,

I don't know what package you're going to get, but hopefully you'll be able to get the whole series via "on demand"

Ethan2000 · 12-10-2009, 9:04 PM

I thought it looked ok, not as great as the previous BBC efforts but ok.

The programme itself however was epic. The film, the score, the Dolby Digital and of course the narration.

Who is ever going to replace Sir David ?

Could have been sharper visually, but otherwise what the BBC does best. Loved it.

Badger0-0 · 12-10-2009, 9:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan2000

I thought it looked ok, not as great as the previous BBC efforts but ok.

The programme itself however was epic. The film, the score, the Dolby Digital and of course the narration.

Who is ever going to replace Sir David ?

Could have been sharper visually, but otherwise what the BBC does best. Loved it.

Totally agree

Chanser · 12-10-2009, 10:19 PM

I was underwhelmed picture wise, but the programme was good.

Shaun666 · 13-10-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Is probably the worst quality BBC HD nature programme I've ever seen.

It's being shown at the same time on BBC1 and having switched back and forth a few times, I can't tell the difference.

Good job we have these new-fangled encoders, I don't think.

Well done Beeb

Check your telly

It looked good on mine and HD was much better than the SD version.

Badger0-0 · 13-10-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun666

Check your telly

It looked good on mine and HD was much better than the SD version.

It's not the telly

They were using Panny cameras, which I'm guessing were not HD, as I think they use Sonys (I might be wrong there).

As I said filming started 3 years ago, which would explain it.

Short clips of it were ok, but on the whole nowhere near the quality I've previously seen on the demo loop for example.

Just an opinion

Scapegoat · 13-10-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

It's not the telly

They were using Panny cameras, which I'm guessing were not HD, as I think they use Sonys (I might be wrong there).

As I said filming started 3 years ago, which would explain it.

Short clips of it were ok, but on the whole nowhere near the quality I've previously seen on the demo loop for example.

Just an opinion

The producer was on 5Live yesterday - and it was described as "HD porn". No mention of certain cameras / timer periods being non-HD.

Not seen it yet (its on the planner) but I thought it would have to be shot with HD cameras to be on BBC HD - don't they have rules about the cameras used?

Badger0-0 · 13-10-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

but I thought it would have to be shot with HD cameras to be on BBC HD - don't they have rules about the cameras used?

It's speculation on my part, but you actually saw clips of a cameraman and he was definitely using a Panny.
It stated in the commentary that the series took 3 years to film, so I'm making a logical assumption that seeing as it was the first one, you'd expect it to be the oldest?
Of course, that might be an incorrect assumption and I'm just trying to make excuses for it

Whatever, it wasn't a particularly good picture on the whole and barely a step up from the SD transmission, after switching rapidly back and forth about 8 times.

My missus agreed with me, but after a few switches she did see an improvement, as did I. The point is, the difference used to be night and day.

I think Chanser summed it up well;

Quote:

I was underwhelmed picture wise, but the programme was good

Jason56d · 13-10-2009, 2:12 PM

I watched it when I got up this morning and thought the picture was not up to the BBC's more recent nature efforts.
The program was great and I will be glued to the next 9 episodes, hoping for a improvement in picture quality!
At the end of the show when they have the "Making of" or whatever it is called bit, I did notice when the cameraman was filming the seal being stalked by the orca's, could not tell you the make of the camera like some, but it definitely had a big HD on the side!

Badger0-0 · 13-10-2009, 2:34 PM

Quote:

but it definitely had a big HD on the side!

Bang goes my theory then

redshift50 · 13-10-2009, 6:01 PM

If it was HD,then it was poor,

Sorreltiger · 13-10-2009, 7:54 PM

I would say that the PQ was rather variable. 'Life on Earth' was the same, of course. The best shots were great, but there were a few that looked like upscaled SD.

johny1980 · 16-10-2009, 9:04 AM

I could see some bits that were poor

But, mostly i was impressed

Basil Plumley · 22-10-2009, 12:35 AM

I don't know what some people are expecting from HD...I thought this was stunning - but it seems I'm in the minority for some reason...then again, both my PJ and plasma are ISF callied and watching through either one, it smashed the SD BBC transmission into the ground...(I recorded both on the first episode to compare them)

chrishull3 · 22-10-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun666

Check your telly

It looked good on mine and HD was much better than the SD version.

Mine too, hd cameras have been used for 4 years at least , they could not see HD on the cams in some shots, brilliant on my tvs.And basil they just love to moan.

Badger0-0 · 22-10-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

I don't know what some people are expecting from HD

I don't know about anyone else, but I expect it to be as good as it was 3 years ago and trust me, it just isn't, not by a long shot, imo.

Quote:

And basil they just love to moan.

If the PQ was as good as we know it can be, we wouldn't have to moan would we?

chrishull3 · 22-10-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

I don't know about anyone else, but I expect it to be as good as it was 3 years ago and trust me, it just isn't, not by a long shot, imo.

If the PQ was as good as we know it can be, we wouldn't have to moan would we?

Well luckily for some of us it is, programns vary some look softer than others if it is all poor why does countyfile look poor on my tvs compared to life, and why does the gavin and stacy picture resolution look so sharp it jumps out at me almost.
Last chance to see brilliant as well.

Jason56d · 22-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Have only watched about 10 mins of this weeks episode so far (love the bouncing Rock Toad!), and the quality does look better than last weeks offering. Maybe as the series was filmed over a number of years, the latter filmed events should, in theory, look better?

The BBC produce & make fantastic nature shows, possibly the best, and in HD they are even better. So it is a disappointment to some, ie me & Badger, when the picture does not look as good as it has or could be.
Will keep my fingers crossed for the rest of this episode and the future ones.

Basil Plumley · 22-10-2009, 12:01 PM

I suppose next year some people will be saying the world cup doesn't look as good as it did 4 years ago...well how do they know. Have they 3 or 4 year old archived footage on their HDD's?
Wagon wheels used to be bigger - so did Curly Wurly's...so they say...

When Sky HD first came out (and yes - I did watch the world cup and The Great British Summer on it's first run...), people used to run it down then as well...why can't they just accept it's what we have and just enjoy it...or go back to Sky SD and complain about something else entirely.

Badger0-0 · 22-10-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

if it is all poor why

Who said it's all poor? I was talking about Life.

The point is nature programs such as Life on earth are made for HD and showcase it in the best possible way.
Why do you think the programme was raved about for it's PQ?
It's because it was so good.

Life, imo, isn't a patch on it PQ-wise and if it was I'd have raved about it.
Fact is it isn't and I'm not the only one saying it, if you read.

Look, if you're happy with it, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.

But I thought it was poor so I'm moaning

*rovex33* · 23-10-2009, 8:58 AM

Half the time i think these complaints are just people getting used to HD. Unless you have 'Planet earth' recorded from a BBC HD broadcast you cant compare it to 'Life' seen as a BBC HD broadcast.

You cant compare it to the Planet earth blu-ray, or rely on memory.

Jason56d · 23-10-2009, 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rovex33

Half the time i think these complaints are just people getting used to HD. Unless you have 'Planet earth' recorded from a BBC HD broadcast you cant compare it to 'Life' seen as a BBC HD broadcast.

You cant compare it to the Planet earth blu-ray, or rely on memory.

Sorry but I have to disagree. I may be getting on, but I am not too ancient at 40 that my memory has gone that much that I cannot compare things from my recent past!

I have had SkyHD for nearly 2 1/2 years now, and while I still think alot of the HD material is very good, every once in a while IMO, some falls short of what it was in other equivalent shows.

This is not directly at you, but it makes me laugh that people slag us of for having a moan about, what appears to some of us, as a inferior quality image. What difference does it make to those who think it is ok? Say you think it was good/great/fantastic by all means, but do not put down those of us who do not.

I thought the idea of these forums is for us to express of views and opinions, not to argue that our minds/eyes/equipment may not be up to scratch!

*rovex33* · 23-10-2009, 9:43 AM

My experience in the gaming industry tells me that people of all ages have very short and selective memories of image quality. They swear one driver changes things when a pixel by pixel analysis shows there is no difference at all.

People claim to be able to see better colours and contrast with more expensive HDMI cables, again its rubbish.

Im not saying its the case here, but until you can really see the side by side comparisons you cannot be sure and you cannot trust your memory.

postmaster · 23-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Watched it last night in HD on Catch Up tv. The pq was jaw droppingly good and I was stunned at the beauty of the programme. The fighting hippos churning up the water turning it into cascades of glittering droplets and the birds literally walking on water during their courtship ritual were just two of many highlights the programme produced. If this was poor quality HD more please.

Jason56d · 23-10-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by postmaster

Watched it last night in HD on Catch Up tv. The pq was jaw droppingly good and I was stunned at the beauty of the programme. The fighting hippos churning up the water turning it into cascades of glittering droplets and the birds literally walking on water during their courtship ritual were just two of many highlights the programme produced. If this was poor quality HD more please.

I agree with you, in one of my previous posts, I did say that this weeks episode was better quality than the 1st episode. If this is the quality for the rest of the series then I will be more than happy, I think, if my memory lasts long enough to compare each week!

Sorry............. what was I saying.............where am I?