Eastenders - BBC HD quality

It was unfortunate for the BBC that the changeover coincided with a couple of especially poorly recorded programmes (Garrow's Law in particular was appalling - not for lack of sharpness but for some very intrusive artefacting in porrly lit scenes) and a few technical issues with the new encoders.

Interestingly, season two was shot on Red cameras whereas the first was on Sony F35s.

Also they purpose built the prison sets for season two. Season one's were shot on location.

It was so much better.
 
Sky installed new encoders and reduced their own bitrates several months before the BBC did and there was nowhere near the outcry. The few posts there were on forums like this were along the lines "my movies are taking up much less space on my hard drive these days - great innit?"

It was unfortunate for the BBC that the changeover coincided with a couple of especially poorly recorded programmes (Garrow's Law in particular was appalling - not for lack of sharpness but for some very intrusive artefacting in porrly lit scenes) and a few technical issues with the new encoders.

The reason there was not the outcry when Sky reguced bit rates ws because they installed an encoder that was tested and proven, and use bit rates that are consistantly higher than BBC HD.

You say it was unfortunate for the BBC that the changeover coincided with a couple of especially poorly recorded programmes - So are you saying shows such as Dragons den that were mid way through the series changed production methods part way through the series???? Bizare they would do such things if so.
 
Also I have a copy of Wall-e on my box and I notice it is on BBC HD1 today, a perfect chance to compare. Then again maybe the BBC demanded the film be re produced so it looks poorer when they screen it.
 
Also I have a copy of Wall-e on my box and I notice it is on BBC HD1 today, a perfect chance to compare. Then again maybe the BBC demanded the film be re produced so it looks poorer when they screen it.

The reality is that the rest of the country will see it in the glorious style it's meant to be shown, for you however the BBC have employed 27 people (who satisfy the required cultural, ethnic, racial and gender mix), 2 OB presentation units and a specially BBC commissioned, designed and built WBPIU (wednesday83 blotched picture intervention unit) that beams a distorted picture solely to your TV's (and the TV's of any person or store you're visiting at the time).

This has been justified by the BBC and the BBC Trust at the highest level of expenditure approval as it's important contribution to care in the community.

When questioned about the clinical benefits Dr Shar P Pxel, Head of Community Interventionist Services stated that society benefited from this method of treatment as it avoided another individual "going postal".
 
I have had the oppurtunity to watch a few Eastenders episodes over the Christmas holidays and agree the picture quality is very poor for HD and looks very upscaled I wonder if it is a full HD production including editing and colouring or just shot on HD cameras and then edited in SD then upscaled until they get new facilities installed in the New Year
 
Just sent email off to BBC to see what they say about being a full HD production or whether still some in SD
 
Pretty much all the indoor shots look HD, but many outdoor scenes clearly upscaled. Maybe the outdoor shots were shot before they started in HD. Its just a shame BBC cannott get HD right yet ITV can.

Just to comment on Wall-e from earlier. It was actually pretty decent. Not quite as good as Disney cinematics showing, but not bad.
 
Pretty much all the indoor shots look HD, but many outdoor scenes clearly upscaled. Maybe the outdoor shots were shot before they started in HD. Its just a shame BBC cannott get HD right yet ITV can.

Just to comment on Wall-e from earlier. It was actually pretty decent. Not quite as good as Disney cinematics showing, but not bad.

Don't forget that ITV makes very little of it's HD content at all.
As for movies, Mars Attacks! The other night was the worst quality HD screening of a movie on any channel
 
The dog was gone today!!
 
;)What I am finding increasingly bizarre is the reluctance among the BBC PQ protesters to target the real source of the problem i.e. the programme makers. As derek500 and a few others of us keep banging on, if the encoders and bitrates were at fault then there would be no good HD stuff at all coming from the BBC - and we all know shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Upstairs Downstairs look just fine.
There are undoubtedly multiple reasons why different programmes look the way the do on BBC HD, including production techniques such as choice of camera, focus, filters, set design, make-up, etc.

Nevertheless, that would not explain why the same programmes, broadcast before the 40% cut in bitrates and introduction of new encoder, look so poorer now than before the changes. I have some programmes recorded on my Sky box from spring 2009 and they are of a totally different quality to the same broadcasts made following the cuts in bitrate. They are the sort of picture which, rather than agreeing 'That is a good picture', would bring about a reflex reaction of "Wow - that is amazing!".

Additionally, whilst I would agree that bitrate is not the only factor, it is obvious to most that the PQ of BBC HD improved, (though not to the quality of prior to the bitrate reduction), when they introduced what many had called for for over a year, i.e. Variable Bit Rate (VBR), which has the effect of providing more bandwidth where needed, within the limits set by the broadcaster.

john
 
Now I really do hate to be agreeing with Ms Nagler on anything, but I'm afraid bandwidth has nothing whatever to do whether something is HD or not!
Bandwidth is directly related to resolution, and resolution is what makes a programme HD or not. Starved of bandwidth, a picture will be reduced to blocks and macroblocks, effectively (and greatly) reducing its practical resolution.
Sky installed new encoders and reduced their own bitrates several months before the BBC did and there was nowhere near the outcry. The few posts there were on forums like this were along the lines "my movies are taking up much less space on my hard drive these days - great innit?"
You don't remember all the vehement complaints about the reduction in Sky's bitrates resulting in worse quality pictures then? Many of them came from wednesday83.
 
Bandwidth is directly related to resolution, and resolution is what makes a programme HD or not. .

I did not mean to imply that bandwidth and resolution were unrelated - just not causally related. Low bitrates do not lead to a reduction in resolution.

You don't remember all the vehement complaints about the reduction in Sky's bitrates resulting in worse quality pictures then? Many of them came from wednesday83.

Yet a few posts earlier he says it was OK for Sky to do it :).

Progress in video compression by its nature will always attract the nay-sayers :D. The fact is I have just been watching a show (Stargazing), recorded under low light conditions challenging to cameras and encoders alike and transmitted by the BBC at bitrates probably averaging only one third of those four years ago, and it looked absolutely superb :smashin:.

I do not watch Eastenders but have seen the quality of its HD. What I don't get is why people can't see that if this show was transmitted at 50 mbps it would look just as bad!
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside technical arguments because I do not know enough to contribute i must say it is hard to see much improvement in EE now it is native HD. Is this because we have become accustomed to good source upscaling? Dont know.
Corries picture has changed and did so for some location shots before HD was implemented. I am still watching in SD as I live in NI but for some time have noticed there seems to be a difference in colour. Better perhaps, certainly more appealing and perhaps warmer. Dierdre's back room is still pretty dark and gloomy. I cannot see any deliberate set changes unlike the candy coloured new Queen Vic.
As an aside, I do not remember the door to the private room in Cath's caf before last night, at least I do not remember it opening before last night. Set development?
 
Nevertheless, that would not explain why the same programmes, broadcast before the 40% cut in bitrates and introduction of new encoder, look so poorer now than before the changes. I have some programmes recorded on my Sky box from spring 2009 and they are of a totally different quality to the same broadcasts made following the cuts in bitrate. They are the sort of picture which, rather than agreeing 'That is a good picture', would bring about a reflex reaction of "Wow - that is amazing!".

Exactly, well said. Sadly its like hitting your head against a brick wall trying to explain this to some people. Some just want to blame production for the snow we have had lol.
They must think that even though its the same show, production staff deliberately refilmed shows to make them look worse. The mind baffles.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom