[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/

[Mac User]

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.

[Bengbeng]

The bitrate hasn't changed

http://www.linowsat.de/

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by SimonH

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

No worries.
I can only comment on TW because that's the only BBC show I watch in HD, I watch Damages on BBC1 since it like TW (for the same reasons) isn't a good example of pristine HD.

[stranger]

I actually read somewhere (but can't for the life of me remember where) that since going from a 'trial' channel that the BBCs HD channel had dropped the bitrate from circa 20 bitrate to circa 17 bitrate. This would appear to equate with the general drop in picture quality.

[SimonH]

Originally Posted by stranger

I actually read somewhere (but can't for the life of me remember where) that since going from a 'trial' channel that the BBCs HD channel had dropped the bitrate from circa 21 bitrate to circa 17 bitrate. This would appear to equate with the general drop in picture quality.

I would say a 15% + drop in PQ (if that's how it equates) seems about right.

Hotel Bablyon truly looked superb, it was stunning , was like watching 1080p it was pin sharp, now it's just soft, that's the best word for it, some noise but overall just soft.

Torchwood to me looks flippen horrible in places, if you showed it to somebody as an example of HD they would never bother buying HD....

SKY on the other hand, even basic stuff like Weeds, Lost, etc looks vastly better than the BBC's offerings somehow.

[RMCF]

This thread is yet another one that I read on here that continues to convince me that I'm fine with SkySD for quite a while yet

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by stranger

I actually read somewhere (but can't for the life of me remember where) that since going from a 'trial' channel that the BBCs HD channel had dropped the bitrate from circa 20 bitrate to circa 17 bitrate. This would appear to equate with the general drop in picture quality.

The bitrate dropped to the current level a good 6 months before BBCHD lost it's trial status last November.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by RMCF

This thread is yet another one that I read on here that continues to convince me that I'm fine with SkySD for quite a while yet

I imagine many felt the same with that new fangled colour TV thingy

[ozzzy189]

Originally Posted by RMCF

This thread is yet another one that I read on here that continues to convince me that I'm fine with SkySD for quite a while yet

The onboard freeview on my plasma totally destroys my skysd pic quality wise, and the softness on the bbc hd stuff is unforgivable. Indistinct, almost out of focus, no detail, i could go on, but i'm becoming boring. HD when done right is jaw dropping, unfortunately, it's not done right anywhere near enough of the time.

[PWinwood]

I have just upgraded from a DS810XE HD receiver to SKY HD. I think the PQ from SKYHD is slightly inferior to the PACE receiver. Perhaps the decoder in the PACE box handles the data stream better? When I get some time - and suitable material on BBC HD I intend to do some back to back tests to confirm (or otherwise) my thoughts.

[Bengbeng]

Originally Posted by Starburst

The bitrate dropped to the current level a good 6 months before BBCHD lost it's trial status last November.

Yep. In May '07 the bitrate went from 20 to 16,3Mbit/s which is still the actual rate.

[stranger]

I stand corrected

[ozzzy189]

So is SKYHD the same bitrate then, or would that be different too ?

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by ozzzy189

So is SKYHD the same bitrate then, or would that be different too ?

Some of the channels are higher some lower, follow the link provided in Bengbeng's post earlier where you'll find daily updated figures for transponders.

[ozzzy189]

Thanks guys. I really want more of us to complain. Here is my response from the bbc.

Dear Mr Osborne

Thank you for your e-mail.

I understand you are concerned about he quality of services on BBC HD. I can assure you that we aim for the highest quality on all occasions. It is important to remember that BBC HD has only just recently launched fully and we intend to continue making improvements.

I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Adam Sims
BBC Information

[ozzzy189]

And this is my reply...

Dear Adam,
Thank you for your reply. The biggest concern i have is the dropping of the bitrate from around 20 to 16m/bits since last may when the channel went from a trail, to a 'proper' channel. I really am disappointed as i thought the bbc was pioneering hd tv in this country. I only recently got hd via sky, and was horrified to see how poor bbc hd was compared to how i remembered seeing it back a year ago. I trust steps will be taken to improve or increase the bitrate, and improve the picture quality, because as of now, it really is far too soft and extremely disappointing. I know you can't do repond just because one person complains, but there are a lot of avforum members who are very unhappy with bbc hd at the moment. Also, the 'other' new bbc hd logo is potentially damaging to some plasma screens, wheras the older semi-transparent one is a lot better and more unobtrusive in our opinion.
Thank you for your time,
Daniel Osborne.