BBC HD channel poor choice

But as we approach Wimbledon, Euro 2008 and the Olympics I'd rather watch all these events in HD on BBC HD, not just the bits shown on BBC One. If BBC One are showing an SD Wimbledon court and BBC Two an HD court I want to see the HD court on BBC HD, not the SD one...

Similarly, I don't want to have to wait for BBC One to show Glastonbury before I see it in HD.

Until almost all shows on BBC One are made, commissioned or acquired in HD - which given the licence fee settlement is likely to take longer than first hoped (going HD whilst production budgets for shows are being cut significantly each year is a difficult task...) - then the "Best of" solution has to be better than a mainly SD-upconvert service.

If people don't like the quality of BBC SD services that is a different issue to arguing for a simulcast of SD stuff upconverted to HD to improve it.

I'm not necessarily arguing for a simulcast channel, I'm merely pointing out that after two years the BBC HD channel is naff. Four hours of repeats and a preview loop all with inherent sound issues just isn't good enough. In fact it's worse than the 'trial' as I originally pointed out.

You make a good case for a BBC HD Sports channel, but that's not going to happen is it? They can't even show all their 'crown jewells' events (e.g. The Open) in HD. Tonight's England match isn't in HD either, last year it would have been. I have three dedicated HD sports channels where sport is covered properly and in depth. Something the BBC will never be able to do sadly .... we're just leaving The Open now for the 3.45 at Sandown! :mad:

It's all very well defending the BBC if there is something to defend about BBC HD, at the moment there isn't IMHO. I've been watching BBC HD for two years and it's sadly lacking!

ATB

Max
 
I'm not necessarily arguing for a simulcast channel, I'm merely pointing out that after two years the BBC HD channel is naff. Four hours of repeats and a preview loop all with inherent sound issues just isn't good enough. In fact it's worse than the 'trial' as I originally pointed out.

Yep - though remember that the trial ran when the Beeb had a bit more money to splash around - and doing the Olympics and Euro 2008 and in HD isn't going to be low cost. There is a finite amount of money for HD production - BBC HD has a relatively small operating budget to fund the difference between SD and HD production costs for the shows it commissions the HD bit of. (AIUI BBC HD pay for some shows that would otherwise be made in SD to be made in HD, as well as showing shows that would be made in HD anyway as a result of co-production with HD partners?)

The licence fee is universal - as HD reception becomes more widespread the BBC can justify spending more on HD production. Remember that the BBC started colour TV with BBC Two at Wimbledon in 1967, but it wasn't until the mid 1970s that all shows were made in colour... (ISTR that the Norwich studios were the last to convert in around 1974?)

You make a good case for a BBC HD Sports channel, but that's not going to happen is it?

Hardly - how many times a week is there an HD sporting event for the BBC to show? There are peaks and troughs of HD sport - and getting a single HD channel past the BBC Trust and their Public Value Test took long enough...

They can't even show all their 'crown jewells' events (e.g. The Open) in HD.

Golf is notoriously hard to do properly in HD (in the US for many years it has been "HD" in name only with many holes covered in SD with SD wireless cameras and only the cabled cameras operating in HD - though this is now changing) - and it costs a lot to do it properly in HD... Contracts for resource provision at these kinds of events may be made over multiple numbers of years - and it may be that switching to HD has to wait until the resourcing contract is up for renewal.

People here seem to think that the BBC have a blank cheque to fund HD content - they don't. BBC HD has a finite - and AIUI relatively modest - budget.

Tonight's England match isn't in HD either, last year it would have been.

I have no idea if the trial had more or less funding than the channel has now... Could well be that it had more...

I have three dedicated HD sports channels where sport is covered properly and in depth.

And I suspect you pay a lot more than £150/year for the pleasure of those channels... In fact you pay Sky an additional £120/year just for the pleasure of watching these channels in HD rather than SD...

Something the BBC will never be able to do sadly .... we're just leaving The Open now for the 3.45 at Sandown! :mad:

With the demise of Grandstand this is less likely to happen - and The Open is carried as a Press Red service allowing you to watch continuing coverage whilst the linear channels switch away - albeit in SD.

It's all very well defending the BBC if there is something to defend about BBC HD, at the moment there isn't IMHO. I've been watching BBC HD for two years and it's sadly lacking!

It is a lot better than nothing at all... How much original production are ITV, C4 and Five providing in HD?
 
Yep - though remember that the trial ran when the Beeb had a bit more money to splash around - and doing the Olympics and Euro 2008 and in HD isn't going to be low cost. There is a finite amount of money for HD production - BBC HD has a relatively small operating budget to fund the difference between SD and HD production costs for the shows it commissions the HD bit of. (AIUI BBC HD pay for some shows that would otherwise be made in SD to be made in HD, as well as showing shows that would be made in HD anyway as a result of co-production with HD partners?)

The licence fee is universal - as HD reception becomes more widespread the BBC can justify spending more on HD production. Remember that the BBC started colour TV with BBC Two at Wimbledon in 1967, but it wasn't until the mid 1970s that all shows were made in colour... (ISTR that the Norwich studios were the last to convert in around 1974?)

So why bother? If they can't afford it, why provide a half-hearted service that only gives four hours of mainly repeats? Why not wait until they can do the job properly?

They may have been at the forefront of the change to colour transmissions, I remember it well. However, they are in the rearguard when it comes to HD, Sky have led the way and continue to do so. In fact it may be down to Sky's launch of their HD service, that the BBC felt it had to rush in to launch their HD trial ahead of when they could actually afford to fund it.

Hardly - how many times a week is there an HD sporting event for the BBC to show? There are peaks and troughs of HD sport - and getting a single HD channel past the BBC Trust and their Public Value Test took long enough...

You were making a case for it by advocating the BBC HD channel as the main vehicle for uninterrupted coverage of The Olympics & Euro 2008, I'm just saying a BBC Sports Channel isn't going to happen.


Golf is notoriously hard to do properly in HD (in the US for many years it has been "HD" in name only with many holes covered in SD with SD wireless cameras and only the cabled cameras operating in HD - though this is now changing) - and it costs a lot to do it properly in HD... Contracts for resource provision at these kinds of events may be made over multiple numbers of years - and it may be that switching to HD has to wait until the resourcing contract is up for renewal.

People here seem to think that the BBC have a blank cheque to fund HD content - they don't. BBC HD has a finite - and AIUI relatively modest - budget.

But everyone else does do it in HD. This is The Open we're talking about, not a Challenge Tour event. It's one of the BBC's exclusive sports coverage events, one in which they could provide HD coverage and feed it to the world to offset the expense. They have the exclusive coverage because The Open is considered to be one of the 'Crown Jewels' of British Sport.


I have no idea if the trial had more or less funding than the channel has now... Could well be that it had more...

May be it did, if the funding isn't adequate then I don't see the point in 'passing it off' as a channel, it's woefully inadequate IMHO.


And I suspect you pay a lot more than £150/year for the pleasure of those channels... In fact you pay Sky an additional £120/year just for the pleasure of watching these channels in HD rather than SD...

I pay £55 a month plus £10 for multiroom, so £2 a day. That gives me a value for money TV service, unlike my license fee. As TV is our main source of entertainment, I consider £2 a day an irrelevance particularly as that fuels my expensive TV with the HD content it deserves.

With the demise of Grandstand this is less likely to happen - and The Open is carried as a Press Red service allowing you to watch continuing coverage whilst the linear channels switch away - albeit in SD.

Yes, in SD ... not good enough when we're talking about one of the four Golf Majors and the other three are available in HD.

It is a lot better than nothing at all... How much original production are ITV, C4 and Five providing in HD?

I suspect ITV are producing some, the others probably little, or none! But what has that to do with BBC HD. ITV are going to only offer their HD via the 'red button' and CH4 HD is a simulcast channel that hides the fact that it has next to no HD programs with exceptional upscaled SD material. AFAIK, CH 5 don't have an HD channel. The BBC do have an HD channel and IMHO it's woefully inadequate, with all programs flagging DD5.1 when very few are transmitting in that format at all. This makes some soundtracks almost unbearable. The 'cock up' during Eurovision made it even worse and they couldn't even be bothered to screen an apology.

Sorry, I couldn't even begin to defend the BBC as you do. The return for my license fee is very poor indeed IMHO.

ATB

Max
 
So why bother? If they can't afford it, why provide a half-hearted service that only gives four hours of mainly repeats? Why not wait until they can do the job properly?

I guess thye have to start somewhere - and can you imagine how many people would have complained if they had decided to stop after the trial period had ended. I'd rather watch some BBC live sport and some BBC drama in HD than none.

I agree it is less than a perfect service - but the funding is less than perfect as well.

They may have been at the forefront of the change to colour transmissions, I remember it well. However, they are in the rearguard when it comes to HD, Sky have led the way and continue to do so. In fact it may be down to Sky's launch of their HD service, that the BBC felt it had to rush in to launch their HD trial ahead of when they could actually afford to fund it.

Well don't forget there was a colour licence fee that paid for the switch to colour. There has been no equivalent HD licence fee - or even a digital licence fee...

You were making a case for it by advocating the BBC HD channel as the main vehicle for uninterrupted coverage of The Olympics & Euro 2008, I'm just saying a BBC Sports Channel isn't going to happen.

Wasn't quite sure what the point you were making was :(

But everyone else does do it in HD. This is The Open we're talking about, not a Challenge Tour event.

But is every other broadcaster that does it in HD a non-commercial, publically funded one that can't accept programme sponsorship?

And until recently even US Golf has been only partially in HD - and some of it is still in SD...

It's one of the BBC's exclusive sports coverage events, one in which they could provide HD coverage and feed it to the world to offset the expense.
I very much suspect that if it were zero cost to the BBC to do it, and they were able to within their current contracts, they would.

My understanding is that it is likely to be covered in HD next year... Does that mean the BBC should close the BBC HD service for a year?

The BBC don't make money from selling sports coverage to other broadcasters - that is the province of the sports rights holders... The BBC don't sell the coverage - the rights holders do. The BBC are just contracted to provide the host broadcast coverage by the rights holders.

They have the exclusive coverage because The Open is considered to be one of the 'Crown Jewels' of British Sport.

Yes - and because ITV, Channel Four (and now Five) decided not to bid for it.

May be it did, if the funding isn't adequate then I don't see the point in 'passing it off' as a channel, it's woefully inadequate IMHO.

As was stated in the original Public Value Test submissions - the amount of HD content is likely to increase year on year. The non-trial service has only been running for 6 months after all...

I pay £55 a month plus £10 for multiroom, so £2 a day. That gives me a value for money TV service, unlike my license fee. As TV is our main source of entertainment, I consider £2 a day an irrelevance particularly as that fuels my expensive TV with the HD content it deserves.

Yep - if you are happy to spend nearly £800/year on subscription TV that is your right. However to expect the BBC to deliver similar levels of HD sport and other content at £150/year is asking quite a lot - particularly when the BBC licence fee funds more original production than any other TV or Radio service in the UK - and a lot more HD than any of the other terrestrials.

Yes, in SD ... not good enough when we're talking about one of the four Golf Majors and the other three are available in HD.

But then again - Sky's not doing much HD interactive yet are they?

I suspect ITV are producing some, the others probably little, or none! But what has that to do with BBC HD. ITV are going to only offer their HD via the 'red button' and CH4 HD is a simulcast channel that hides the fact that it has next to no HD programs with exceptional upscaled SD material. AFAIK, CH 5 don't have an HD channel. The BBC do have an HD channel and IMHO it's woefully inadequate, with all programs flagging DD5.1 when very few are transmitting in that format at all. This makes some soundtracks almost unbearable.

Yep - my comparison with BBC HD is with ITV, C4 and Five - the other terrestrials. I'd rather have BBC HD than not. It could be better, and no doubt will continue to improve as more and more shows are commissioned in HD.

Don't forget that it took a while for BBC HD to be approved as a full service. Until it was approved no shows could be commissioned in HD for BBC HD only (just the HD co-pros could be made in HD) - the HD trial was extended to cover the gap between the end of the formal trial and the decision about the launch of the approved service. Given that many shows run on a 6-12 month commissioning period - there is a commissioning gap currently - particularly in documentary, but also in drama. Hopefully now that BBC HD is up and running they will be able to commission more HD shows over the next 12 months.

Nothing in broadcasting is instant - particularly when discussing long-term commissions, or long-term rights contracts. (Wimbledon was 4:3 long after most other events were 16:9 because the multi-year rights contract was for 4:3 coverage...)

As for the 5.1/2.0 issues - this is exactly the same as at least one US network... Far from ideal I know.

The 'cock up' during Eurovision made it even worse and they couldn't even be bothered to screen an apology.

Yep - I agree that was a really poor fowl-up of the highest order. Very poor that it happened, that it took so long to sort, and that no apology was made. (though I suspect that the tiny audience figures for HD channels meant that the production team didn't feel that the disruption to the 90%+ SD audience was warranted - and BBC HD doesn't have live continuity, so the best they could have done was a caption - if that)


Sorry, I couldn't even begin to defend the BBC as you do. The return for my license fee is very poor indeed IMHO.

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect - far from it. What I am saying is that I'd rather have the current BBC HD service than not have it. Sure we'd all like more HD content on it - and we're all impatient to have as many of the shows and events we like covered in HD. However to expect everything to happen in such a short timescale is just not realistic.

It is right to ask whether the Beeb should be doing HD at all given the current licence fee settlement - but given that the Beeb are making stuff in HD for co-production reasons anyway it is probably justified running an HD service to make these shows available to the people who paid for them until more domestically funded HD production becomes financially feasible.
 
I should point out that I was in no-way commending the way the BBC is handling how they show content on the HD channel, but that I agree with them that a simulcast is not the way to go. The main reason for this is that it confuses consumers hugely. I agree with many other views aired here for and against how the BBC is currently running BBC HD.

However, whilst anyone can tell whether something is in colour or not, people have a much harder time discerning SD and HD. We all know the stories of people thinking they're getting HD through their freeview aerial whilst watching ITV 4 because they bought an HD Ready set.
 
Sorry, I couldn't even begin to defend the BBC as you do. The return for my license fee is very poor indeed IMHO.

In regards to HD output I would have to strongly disagree with this.

If you compare the amount of people able to receive BBC HD with those who watch in sd the current proportion is miniscule.

Then look at the horrendously poor picture quality on BBC 1 at times and the clearly woefully inadequate bitrate for the vast majority of its licence paying viewers then I don't see that people can really complain at the lack of investment the current hd channel is receiving.

I would consider it a poor use of licence fee funds to use too much of it on a service that few are equipped to receive whilst delivering a substandard service for the rest
 
I should point out that I was in no-way commending the way the BBC is handling how they show content on the HD channel, but that I agree with them that a simulcast is not the way to go. The main reason for this is that it confuses consumers hugely. I agree with many other views aired here for and against how the BBC is currently running BBC HD.

The confusing thing is when they hold over HD shows for weeks until their HD showings.

e.g. the Frankie Howerd, Steptoe, Hughie Green and Hancock drama/docs. They had loads of showings on BBC4 but took weeks to turn up on HD. Hancock still hasn't.

It's impossible to check listings more than two or three weeks in advance, so unless, like I do, contact BBC HD direct, you never know whether to watch SD versions or hang on for a possible HD showing.
 
In regards to HD output I would have to strongly disagree with this.

If you compare the amount of people able to receive BBC HD with those who watch in sd the current proportion is miniscule.

Then look at the horrendously poor picture quality on BBC 1 at times and the clearly woefully inadequate bitrate for the vast majority of its licence paying viewers then I don't see that people can really complain at the lack of investment the current hd channel is receiving.

I would consider it a poor use of licence fee funds to use too much of it on a service that few are equipped to receive whilst delivering a substandard service for the rest

Exactly ... and that's why I made my comment. I was picking Stephen up on his defence of the BBC and my disappointment about the return I get for my license fee, this wasn't just about HD from the BBC, but my feelings about the organisation as a whole. Funnily enough I have to watch BBC SD too you know! ;)

ATB

Max
 
I guess thye have to start somewhere - and can you imagine how many people would have complained if they had decided to stop after the trial period had ended. I'd rather watch some BBC live sport and some BBC drama in HD than none.

I agree it is less than a perfect service - but the funding is less than perfect as well.

The trial period promised so much, the content was better, the bitrate was better. Programs were aired at the same time as they were shown on BBC 1, we had HD football and many new programs. Now we have repeats and more repeats and they can't be bothered to show HD programs that they have in the bank. What happened to Rome? etc etc. If you're happy with the four hours of repeats, then that's fine with me. Not everybody is though, especially those who have been watching for the past two years. Initially, BBC HD set the standard, it certainly doesn't now. I would have complained if the service had been cancelled after the trial, but then I and I'm sure many others, were expecting much more than we're getting from the channel currently.

Well don't forget there was a colour licence fee that paid for the switch to colour. There has been no equivalent HD licence fee - or even a digital licence fee...

So why get involved if funding isn't available to make a 'proper' job of it? The BBC have led the way in the past, but if they can't now afford to do that now with HD, why go off 'half cocked'? They'd be better spending what income they have to get the rest of the service up to scratch.

But is every other broadcaster that does it in HD a non-commercial, publically funded one that can't accept programme sponsorship?

And until recently even US Golf has been only partially in HD - and some of it is still in SD...


I very much suspect that if it were zero cost to the BBC to do it, and they were able to within their current contracts, they would.

My understanding is that it is likely to be covered in HD next year... Does that mean the BBC should close the BBC HD service for a year?

The BBC don't make money from selling sports coverage to other broadcasters - that is the province of the sports rights holders... The BBC don't sell the coverage - the rights holders do. The BBC are just contracted to provide the host broadcast coverage by the rights holders.

So are you saying the BBC provide the coverage for nothing? Do you think the rights holders specified an SD only feed for The Open? Let's not forget the other three Major golf tournaments, are they in SD? No they're not! AFAIK the BBC isn't just publicly funded they are involved in many business activities, or do they give all the profits from DVD rights and program sales directly back to the Treasury?


Yes - and because ITV, Channel Four (and now Five) decided not to bid for it.

So then does the fact that the BBC got one of the world's premier sporting events by default, as you suggest, give them carte blanche to give us an inferior presentation? I hardly think so. What would you say if they decided not to take an HD feed of The Olympics? It would save money if they didn't, more people take part in golf then ever track and field sports, never mind all the other minority sports that comprise The Olympics. But the BBC are going to cover it in HD, when they couldn't show England in HD tonight. Last Saturday I watched Bristol City v Hull City in HD from the same stadium. Neither teams have the same status as our National Team surely?

As was stated in the original Public Value Test submissions - the amount of HD content is likely to increase year on year. The non-trial service has only been running for 6 months after all...

Yes and instead of getting better, it's got worse! Was that a pre-requisite part of the Public Value Test submissions?


Yep - if you are happy to spend nearly £800/year on subscription TV that is your right. However to expect the BBC to deliver similar levels of HD sport and other content at £150/year is asking quite a lot - particularly when the BBC licence fee funds more original production than any other TV or Radio service in the UK - and a lot more HD than any of the other terrestrials.

I am happy to spend £800 a year for my TV entertainment, it's excellent value for money. If as you say, that the BBC can't afford to do the HD service justice, then I'd be happier if they spent my TV license fee in a better way.


But then again - Sky's not doing much HD interactive yet are they?

They've done HD football matches via the interactive service, but with three HD sports channels, there's not a great need to do it anymore.


Yep - my comparison with BBC HD is with ITV, C4 and Five - the other terrestrials. I'd rather have BBC HD than not. It could be better, and no doubt will continue to improve as more and more shows are commissioned in HD.

Don't forget that it took a while for BBC HD to be approved as a full service. Until it was approved no shows could be commissioned in HD for BBC HD only (just the HD co-pros could be made in HD) - the HD trial was extended to cover the gap between the end of the formal trial and the decision about the launch of the approved service. Given that many shows run on a 6-12 month commissioning period - there is a commissioning gap currently - particularly in documentary, but also in drama. Hopefully now that BBC HD is up and running they will be able to commission more HD shows over the next 12 months.

Nothing in broadcasting is instant - particularly when discussing long-term commissions, or long-term rights contracts. (Wimbledon was 4:3 long after most other events were 16:9 because the multi-year rights contract was for 4:3 coverage...)

Some of the co-pros haven't even come to air yet, why not? They're paid for and done and dusted! We had Rome series 1 in HD, Series 2 was also made in HD and it's yet to see the light of day. As for 4:3, my local news has only just gone 16:9 recently, I would have sooner had that dealt with two years ago if I'd known the HD channel was going to be four hours of repeats a day.

As for the 5.1/2.0 issues - this is exactly the same as at least one US network... Far from ideal I know.

Far from ideal? It's apalling, it doesn't happen on any of the Sky channels so there is no excuse for the BBC to take so long to sort this issue out. IMHO the US network situation has no relevence here, that's not a valid excuse. Sky One HD in particular switches seamlessly between audio formats, if they can get it right there's no reason why the BBC shouldn't either.


Yep - I agree that was a really poor fowl-up of the highest order. Very poor that it happened, that it took so long to sort, and that no apology was made. (though I suspect that the tiny audience figures for HD channels meant that the production team didn't feel that the disruption to the 90%+ SD audience was warranted - and BBC HD doesn't have live continuity, so the best they could have done was a caption - if that)

I'd have been happy with a caption, but we didn't get one did we? The way they dealt with the situation was very poor indeed, not what you'd expect from the BBC.

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect - far from it. What I am saying is that I'd rather have the current BBC HD service than not have it. Sure we'd all like more HD content on it - and we're all impatient to have as many of the shows and events we like covered in HD. However to expect everything to happen in such a short timescale is just not realistic.

It is right to ask whether the Beeb should be doing HD at all given the current licence fee settlement - but given that the Beeb are making stuff in HD for co-production reasons anyway it is probably justified running an HD service to make these shows available to the people who paid for them until more domestically funded HD production becomes financially feasible.

I'm not expecting a mirror image of the whole output of the BBC in HD, nor do I expect an unrealistic timescale, on the contrary. However, I do expect the BBC HD channel to be better than four hours of daily repeats. It isn't and as such I do question whether the BBC would have been better to wait until they had a better HD service to offer. The trial led us to expect great things and rightly so, but the reality of the channel is very poor indeed IMHO. One of my 'beefs' is that they are not making these HD co-production shows you refer to available on BBC HD, I helped pay for them too!

ATB

Max
 
I should point out that I was in no-way commending the way the BBC is handling how they show content on the HD channel, but that I agree with them that a simulcast is not the way to go. The main reason for this is that it confuses consumers hugely. I agree with many other views aired here for and against how the BBC is currently running BBC HD.

However, whilst anyone can tell whether something is in colour or not, people have a much harder time discerning SD and HD. We all know the stories of people thinking they're getting HD through their freeview aerial whilst watching ITV 4 because they bought an HD Ready set.

I don't think the simulcast route is at all confusing personally. All you have to do is watch the HD channel and you'll see all the available HD material that's broadcast, with the added bonus of far superior, upscaled at source, SD material. I have a great personal solution, if I press the CH 4 button on my Harmony, it tunes to 140 and not 104, same for Sky One, 175 instead of 106, even my wife isn't confused by that!

The main limiting issue with the simulcast route is where the broadcaster has multi channels. Not having a dedicated HD channel prevents the possibility of sourcing HD material from across the channel range.

ATB

Max
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom