BBC squeeze HDTV quality on DTT

[Analoguesat]

From Media Network Weblog

BBC starts not-so-high definition TV tests
The website about-electronics.eu reports that the BBC has confirmed that it is conducting a series of technical tests on its BBC HD channel “to determine what is deemed an acceptable level of quality for HD consumers.” In other words, the quality will be reduced by various amounts to see if anyone notices.

According to about-electronics, the changes are intended for those on the terrestrial HD trial; it’s unclear [sic] as to whether the quality adjustments will also be visible on broadcasts using the Sky HD platform. Says the BBC HD team: “The tests will help us test the range of standards for optimum range and quality of potential future services.” The Corporation’s technical trial began yesterday morning and will last for five days.

Andy Sennitt comments: It looks as if the policy regarding HDTV in the UK will be the same as for Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB): quantity before quality. Clearly, if the consumers don’t complain too much when the bandwidth is reduced, the BBC will go with the lower quality, as it will be able to squeeze in more services. All these elaborate displays at trade exhibitions will mean nothing if the quality offered to consumers is significantly below what is technically possible. I don’t have HDTV, but if I did invest in it, I’d be more than a little miffed if the broadcasters were not delivering the highest possible quality.

[BGonaSTICK]

To be fair, it would be ridiculous if the BBC didn't do this. In fact it would pee me off no end!

I'd be furious if they just spammed the airwaves with a big fat HD transmission that scoffed up untold bandwidth.

They will obviously reduce the quality as low as they can. As long as that's NOT significantly noticeable to Joe Public (when compared to full-detail), then that's great. Maybe there will be room left over for another HD channel. You can knock loads of detail out of the full HD resolutions before most people's HDTV picture will look any different.

The days of bandwidth gobbling behemoths, like the American gas-guzzling cars of the 50's, are gone. It's a lean mean world now!

Idiots who are still clinging-on to the unrealistic ideals contained in the digital video specifications handbooks are probably the same people that light candles and place them strategically around the edge of a bathfull of hot foam and rose petals.

Rant over! :roflmao:

[diapason]

I have to agree with Stick. I remember when we had BBC ONLY, on 405 lines and we had a "Pilot" TV with a "daylight screen". The whole thing was in a wooden cabinet and gave a good picture and great sound. Then we progressed to a dual standard, where you could switch from 405 to 625 lines, still in monochrome. I received 625 lines using a homemade aerial and we were astonished at the clarity. Then came colour and now satellite, first analogue, and I must say that the quality of pictures was much better than our local terrestial transmitter could produce. Now we have Digital.

After all that, I agree with Stick, because what is the point of having the full high definition of over 1000 lines when the broadcasters are transmitting grainy copies of feature films made years ago, where the original definition is nowhere near what can be transmitted. We're beginning to be approaching the resolution of the human eye and the frequency range of the human ear and any definition, visual or audible above those levels wouldn't be detected by the average human anyway. I know that I used to be able to hear up to 19,500 Hz when I was 25 andI can still hear the tv line whistle which, I believe, is 15,725 Hz or thereabouts (which, I suppose, is not bad for an ageing 58 year old!!

Mind you, the other side of the coin is that I undertand BBC Radio 3 stole some bit rates so they could broadcast talk progammes and that now Radio 3's sound is better quality in old analogue than in new DAB format.

Still think I would prefer additional channels in good quality AND transmitting good quality programmes - clear cr*p is still cr*p.

Epistle to the Populace now at an end!!

[jdc]

Well, I have to say that I do not agree. If we are going to invest in the best technology then it should be the BEST and not a watered down version of it.

It's seems rediculous to accept a low quality start-up with the possibility of further reduction in definiton as more programmes/channels come on stream. I do agree about the quality of programme. For me I would sooner have the highest quality picture even it means fewer quality programmes.

I realize what you say about losing frequencies as you get older, which you do, but it's not the case that you are actually aware that you have heard a particular frequency. I have a high-end hi-fi system with super-tweeters that will go to 40,000 hz but when I use my second set of speakers that only go to 22,000 I certainly know about it and I am a few years older than you.

DAB is a good indication of what they will do if we are prepared to accept anything but the best. I have a forty something years old valve FM tuner and the quality reproduction from that knocks the socks off any DAB tuner.

jdc

[BGonaSTICK]

But the point is that there is only a finite amount of available bandwidth, which is already full.

If you take 1% of that bandwidth for a single HD channel when 0.75% would give a visibly identical picture to the vast majority of people then that's ultimately less channels you are going to be able to receive.

Mind you, many would say that's not a bad thing. Whilst I would rather have fewer channels with better quality A/V and wonderful programming, the fact is that commercial pressure will inevitably take us down the route of excessive-channel-USA whether you like it or not.

From a technical perspective, they're not trying to cheat you out of quality, they're just making the numbers add up.

If HD goes the way of DAB, I'll be the first one ranting and raving.

[jdc]

Well STICK, you are probably right BUT we are paying a hefty license fee and therefor we should not be dictated to and brainwashed to accept inferior broadcast quality.

If you listen to the adverts for DAB then we are lead to beleive it's the best thing since sliced bread. A good quality might well be available at the highest bitrate but we all know that nobody is broadcasting at this rate and consequently we get inferior quality. But we are up against a generation of MP3 and iPod download users and if that is accepted as the quality standard then there is no chance of acheiving consistent high quality broadcasts. I have nothing againt MP3 and iPods in themselves but if this standard becomes the quality standard then we are going to be short changed as far as future broadcasting goes.

We have already seen the effects of "dumbing-down" on content and now we are to be subjected to the same with audio and vision, well that's my take on it for what it's worth.

jdc

[BGonaSTICK]

LOL, I get your point.

HD is undoubtedly a step forward in both audio and video quality though, whichever way you dice it