Digicruiser Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Yep on tonight - first part. Not marked HD in the TV book though
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Holy smoke, Batman!! The HD PQ is up there with the NineHD loop! Someone should send copies to Ten execs and program directors to show them what HD looks like! (No point sending it to 4+3 ... let them stay as the odd man out!).
Digicruiser Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Nah, send it to $even, let them suffer by being reminded how bad their equipment and station is...
BlueDusk Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 The PQ is really fantastic. Amongst the best I've seen I'd say. Here's a screenie for SC10/nonHD people: http://img21.exs.cx/img21/8278/11176.jpg
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 The PQ is really fantastic. Amongst the best I've seen I'd say. Here's a screenie for SC10/nonHD people: http://img21.exs.cx/img21/8278/11176.jpg <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone who thinks that HD is the same as SD - or that HD is a waste of money - should look at Winston's capture! For those who care: Ten is running 'The 4400' here (Brisbane) at 13.4mbps, 1440x1080i. The NineHD Loop runs here at 13.6mbps, 1920x1080i.
apfsds-t Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 Yeah - i thought it looked pretty good & it hadn't really been promoted as being in HD. Thats why i thought I would alert you guys - sorry for such late notice. It also highlights that point, where some people have made mention of "poor PQ" on Ten's HD - in shows like NCIS or L&O etc, that what you are seeing is actually the way the show has been produced - and is not to blame on Ten's transmission. As a BTW - I was told today of a viewer having problems with their HD - They called channel 7 & in the conversation the channel 7 person (unsure of position - could have been engineer, tech or receptionist) said "10 & 9 don't do HD properly". I thouhgt that this was a rather broad & sweeping statement - which is not necessarily true. Never mind - enjoy the other 2200 - i.e. the other half of the 4400...
Champion_R Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 For those who care: Ten is running 'The 4400' here (Brisbane) at 13.4mbps, 1440x1080i. The NineHD Loop runs here at 13.6mbps, 1920x1080i. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where are you getting your bitrate figures from? Ten HD is 12.8mbit 1440x1088 nationwide and Nine HD in Brisbane was 12.8mbit 1920x1088 last time I checked.
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 For those who care: Ten is running 'The 4400' here (Brisbane) at 13.4mbps, 1440x1080i. The NineHD Loop runs here at 13.6mbps, 1920x1080i. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where are you getting your bitrate figures from? Ten HD is 12.8mbit 1440x1088 nationwide and Nine HD in Brisbane was 12.8mbit 1920x1088 last time I checked. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just quoting the bitrates and resolutions reported to me by FusionHDTV. Should I report this "bug" to DVIco?
Champion_R Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Just quoting the bitrates and resolutions reported to me by FusionHDTV.Should I report this "bug" to DVIco? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it'd be a bug. Most players don't report the correct bitrate.
Vermin Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Nice of them to let it run 20 minutes over the advertised finished time. Real professional V.
Spoonfed Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 yeah but was the show any good? haha 20min!!! hmm wonder if my capture got all of it.......... MAYBE someone should send them a clock BEFORE a capture? Will have to look at the screen cap later on the CRT monitor. Bag 7 all you like but a few shows...... Threat Matrix, BoomTown as examples have much better PQ than many other shows........ be it on HD or SD...... more to image than just number of pixels. That NCIS looks like crap in comparison. The "newer" CSI eps also are not as good the older CSI eps actually look better PQ wise. Cold case on 9 seems while has and "effect" like CSI and CSI miami it seems to have nice detail. Threat Matrix i think i like as they dont seem to use annoying filters (ie yellow bigtime in CSI miami), colours are nice and rich but not over saturated, contrast is nice and detail also. NOTE i don't watch the "raw" image watch it resized with a sharpen + denoise.... THIS makes these better shows truely enjoyable. (FFDShow)
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Just quoting the bitrates and resolutions reported to me by FusionHDTV.Should I report this "bug" to DVIco? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it'd be a bug. Most players don't report the correct bitrate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it is "not reporting it correctly" then ... it IS a bug! I'll forward this thread to Renura and HR and have them pursue it with DVIco.
Champion_R Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 If it is "not reporting it correctly" then ... it IS a bug!I'll forward this thread to Renura and HR and have them pursue it with DVIco. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not a bug, the bitrate can change because it uses VBR encoding but it averages out at the bitrates I said before. The DVICO software will show the bitrate that was active when you flicked onto the channel. I remember discussing this issue before in the PCI cards forum.
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 If it is "not reporting it correctly" then ... it IS a bug!I'll forward this thread to Renura and HR and have them pursue it with DVIco. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not a bug, the bitrate can change because it uses VBR encoding but it averages out at the bitrates I said before. The DVICO software will show the bitrate that was active when you flicked onto the channel. I remember discussing this issue before in the PCI cards forum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahaah!! So which card/software should I use to find out the "real" bitrate?
kenneth1503559512 Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 If it is "not reporting it correctly" then ... it IS a bug!I'll forward this thread to Renura and HR and have them pursue it with DVIco. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not a bug, the bitrate can change because it uses VBR encoding but it averages out at the bitrates I said before. The DVICO software will show the bitrate that was active when you flicked onto the channel. I remember discussing this issue before in the PCI cards forum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahaah!! So which card/software should I use to find out the "real" bitrate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Record the full transport stream using FusionHDTV (1 minutes enough. Make sure that the record current channel option is off) and then open the TP file in TSReader.
ijd Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Record the full transport stream using FusionHDTV (1 minutes enough. Make sure that the record current channel option is off) and then open the TP file in TSReader. Thanks, Kenneth and ChampionR. Champion has prompted me to search back through some posts from more than a year ago and I've now got some [small] idea of the issues. But this prompts another question: Is it fair to be quoting average bitrates? Correct me if I'm wrong [highly likely] ... but isn't it the peak bitrate that determines whether we see artefacts? or whether the STB spits the dummy? or whether the fine detail makes it through to the display? Another question: Is the peak bitrate on one subchannel within the mux limited to a predetermined max? or is it dependent on the simultaneous bitrates of all the other subchannels combined at the same instant in time? Cheers, Ian PS. Kenneth: Do you mean I should check or uncheck the "Current Subchannel Only" box? I usually 'check' it.
Champion_R Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Correct me if I'm wrong [highly likely] ... but isn't it the peak bitrate that determines whether we see artefacts? or whether the STB spits the dummy? or whether the fine detail makes it through to the display?Cheers, Ian <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The peak bitrates are created by the VBR encoding. Bitrate is lowered for a static scene then raised for the upcoming action (this VBR is heavily restricted by the encoders buffer which is only a few seconds at most) but it can only add what it took away from the static scene which means the average bitrate is the true bitrate. Each subchannel has it's own slab of bitrate on free to air. Channels can't take bandwidth from each other. It is possible to do this (they call it statistical multiplexing, I think) but it's only useful if you have a lot of channels.
ChrisM Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 "The 4400" was shot on Thomson Viper HD Video cameras. These cameras output uncompressed 1920x1080 to a field recorder. I'd expect the image quality of this show to be pretty much state of the art. It's a pity it's not being transmitted that way. There's an article about it here:http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/...le.jsp?id=27175
apfsds-t Posted October 11, 2004 Author Posted October 11, 2004 "It's a pity it's not being transmitted that way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When the average viewer has a display capable of resolving 1920x1080 - rather than downconverting in some way shape or form, then it probably will. In the meantime there is some valuable bandwidth being saved - thus giving less artifacts & thus a better picture. This is arguable - continue reading the posts after this one for an example of these arguments.... and - indeed there is a fine line between less res & less artifacts etc, however, channel 10 have obviously chosen this option.
Champion_R Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 When the average viewer has a display capable of resolving 1920x1080 - rather than downconverting in some way shape or form, then it probably will.In the meantime there is some valuable bandwidth being saved - thus giving less artifacts & thus a better picture. This is arguable - continue reading the posts after this one for an example of these arguments.... and - indeed there is a fine line between less res & less artifacts etc, however, channel 10 have obviously chosen this option. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think there is much reduction in artifacts broadcasting at 1440x1088 instead of 1920x1088. The maths suggest there should a reduction in the raw data rate of 25%. But figure this out, Ten HD with 1440x1088 @ 12.8mbits has far more artifacts than Nine HD Perth with 1920x1088 @ 14mbits plus the later has the benefit of square pixels. If networks were serious about reducing artifacts, they'd be increasing the bitrate and not lowering the horizontal pixels. It has very little effect on picture quality whereas a 1.2mbit gain in bitrate has a significant gain in quality. Ten have an insanely high SD bitrate of 7mbits. They could reduce SD by 1mbit and add it to HD and that would have a drastic effect on the picture quality.
Star1503559755 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Well... The WIN HD loop at ~9mbps at 1920x1080 was terrible. The WIN HD loop at ~10mbps at 1440x1088 makes a MASSIVE difference, really the diff. between 1920 and 1440 makes the world of difference! While agree a higher bitrate would be much nice than reduced pixels, but the difference is very small between the two resolutions. Re: 4400, Looked great on SC10 SD!
Champion_R Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Well... The WIN HD loop at ~9mbps at 1920x1080 was terrible. The WIN HD loop at ~10mbps at 1440x1088 makes a MASSIVE difference, really the diff. between 1920 and 1440 makes the world of difference! While agree a higher bitrate would be much nice than reduced pixels, but the difference is very small between the two resolutions. Re: 4400, Looked great on SC10 SD! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The extra bitrate would of made the majority of the difference. Also 1440 would help more so at 10 or 12mbits than at 14mbits which is still low mind you. The difference between Nine HD (1920x1088 14mbits) vs Ten HD (1440x1088 12.8mbits) is huge when it comes to artifacting, Nine HD has far less. If only Nine would allocate 1mbit from their null space (1.19mbits) to the HD channel, it'd push it upto 15mbits which would again improve the picture quality and reduce artifacts.
Master of the Obvious Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Nice of them to let it run 20 minutes over the advertised finished time.Real professional V. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank Australian Idiot for that. The 4400 didn't start until about quarter to 9 here in Perth.
apfsds-t Posted October 11, 2004 Author Posted October 11, 2004 [Ahaah!! So which card/software should I use to find out the "real" bitrate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well - I could tell you. The SD is running at 7.7 & the HD is running at 13.3 And no - the SD bitrate was not lowered last night. It just always runs at the same rate.
Recommended Posts