Obama's Inauguration PQ SkyHD v BBC HD

derek500 · 20-01-2009, 4:11 PM

Any comments.

When looking at identical pictures, I think Sky has the edge. Cleaner and sharper.

Starburst · 20-01-2009, 4:27 PM

I reckon SKYArtsHD wipes the floor with the BBCHD broadcast, it has more detail than the BBCHD feed which is also showing some compression issues on the vast expanse of bland wall covering in the background. The long shows also hold up better as well as the fades on Arts, I actually reckon at least with this content the BBCHD broadcast needs a little higher bitrate or invest in the next gen encoder, it's not that it's bad it just not as good and that given both companies have the same feed should be cause for concern within the BBCHD department.
Interesting to hear from any VM mpeg2 HD viewers as well.

I wasn't going to fall into all the hype but I'm gonna leave it on now

wednesday83 · 20-01-2009, 4:48 PM

The Picture on Sky Arts HD looks far crisper to me and there seems to be far more detail in the pictures. This seems most noticable on the crowd waving flag scenes. I think the crowd shots show how poor the BBC encoders are compared to sky.

Also BBC have no HD cameras there. All the presenting is in SD and poor looking SD as well. Is there not a rule where you are not allowed more than 20% of SD on a HD broadcast??

Im not saying skys coverage is stunning, but it seems higher quality than the bbc.

wednesday83 · 20-01-2009, 5:02 PM

BBC Internet Blog

Feel free to let the powers that be at BBC HD know what you think about the quality.

BrianPK · 20-01-2009, 10:01 PM

Had one quick look at the BBC......said "oh my God, it's awful" and stayed with the excellent Sky HD coverage for the rest of the afternoon.It's possible I tuned in to an SD segment but that's the way it goes.....

wbabbington · 20-01-2009, 11:01 PM

As with others, I was much more impressed with the Sky Arts output then BBCHD. The Sky broadcast just 'popped' more (horrible way to describe it I know but I cant think of a beter way).

Although in saying that i actually watched it on CNN as their announcers were much better. When Sky said ""We understand that Obama is minutes away from the capitol hill building" and CNN were showing him actually walking through the building, I knew it was time to turn over.

richard plumb · 21-01-2009, 11:29 PM

10% for the two hour program as well! Wonder if the skyartsHD was lower bitrate?

brian s · 21-01-2009, 11:42 PM

As most I'm concerned at how well he may do at World politics. I couldn't give a danm about the picture quality.

Bri

Eltee · 22-01-2009, 9:34 AM

Another vote for Sky Arts HD here. Far sharper and cleaner.

bosque · 22-01-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian s

As most I'm concerned at how well he may do at World politics. I couldn't give a danm about the picture quality.

Bri

Then why post in a thread comparing the picture quality

Bachstrad · 22-01-2009, 11:00 AM

Yep, went with Sky Arts HD here too!

ATB

Max

MrHyde1969 · 22-01-2009, 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosque

Then why post in a thread comparing the picture quality

Yeah,,,what a plonker

Coffin · 23-01-2009, 3:59 PM

The ArtsHD broadcast was stunning

True Romance · 23-01-2009, 10:33 PM

yes must agree sky's coverage was much better, but I couldn't help but notice that the building were the oath was taken seriously needed a lick of paint....the down side of HD is it shows up all the flaws.

RMCF · 24-01-2009, 8:39 PM

I nip in and out of threads like this as I still want to be convinced that HD is the route to go, but I continually come away disappointed when I read comments about poor picture quality on HD programmes.

Whats the point? These should all be fantastic picture quality or else the world may as well stick with SD.

Starburst · 24-01-2009, 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMCF

I nip in and out of threads like this as I still want to be convinced that HD is the route to go, but I continually come away disappointed when I read comments about poor picture quality on HD programmes.

Whats the point? These should all be fantastic picture quality or else the world may as well stick with SD.

Comments about HD PQ are relative, for example the BBCHD broadcast was far better than their SD broadcast and that difference would be exasperated by the use of a flat panel especially as the screen size increases and of course we all have different displays and when we have the same they are liable to be setup differently.

Also remember that many people consider grain and noise to be faults with a HD source while others recognise they are the reality when dealing with a much higher resolution of source material. Movies especially are labeled as bad by many as they can retain the grain inherent in the filmstock used which was far less obvious on SD (DVD or Broadcast) and a director and his DP make manipulate the palette to generate a look, it's HD but it's not that crystal clear reference quality demo material.

If you want crystal clear, smooth HD pictures from every source and genre of programming then you will be disappointed and the only real way to avoid that is to stay with SD and put up with perhaps a smoother image with less detail or even obvious compression blocking on SD digital broadcasts or poor scaling of the TV itself.

badkarma · 24-01-2009, 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian s

As most I'm concerned at how well he may do at World politics. I couldn't give a danm about the picture quality.

Bri

It's alll about the grain mate, nothing else matters.

Mores to the point, was no one working that day