BBC HD

Apology from the boss!

I am on the case of Mocktheweek. It was thought to be in #HD, is not in HD, but trailing went ahead anyway. It was a mistake. Sorry.
from ……..
NAGLERHD on TWITTER
04-Jul-2011 @ 17:50

Glad to hear we're not being ignored.

looks like BBC HD at least is sticking to 1920x1080i they might as well do that with BBC One HD as well.

You may not feel ignored but I do, having had no reply about sound problems on BBC HD during Wimbledon.

BBC HD switching back to 1440 :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/07/hd_3d_tv_winding_down_from_wim.html

Quite rightly, he makes a very good point about what most cameras produce. Assuming you're not making high end drama on a RED or Alexa none of the "ENG" style HD cameras produce a 1920 picture on tape/card at the end of they day they all compress or scale the picture in some way. HD aqusition still had a way to go yet.

that's rubbish other broadcasters have no such issues except the BBC.

Yeah, the BBC's Head of Technology, BBC HD & 3D obviously has no idea what he's talking about.

David

Err - it's not rubbish, and it's not just the BBC.

Japan and France use 1440x1080 for their OTA HD broadcasts, and all Freeview HD is 1440x1080 (not just the BBC). ITV1 HD on Freesat is also 1440x1080 (though I think some of the Sky FTV feeds may be 1920x1080).

HD Cam and DVC Pro HD are both 1440x1080 formats - and the bulk of original acquisition for UK original location-shot shows is still on these two formats.

XD Cam HD 422 is becoming more widespread, and it allows 1920x1080 shooting, and high-end drama shot on F23/F35/Red/Alexa/Viper/Genesis etc. can be 1920x1080 when recorded using HD Cam SR tape or similar quality data recording devices. Eventually there will be a tipping point I guess.

However whilst the bulk of material that is delivered for HD broadcast has no resolution >1440x1080 there is little point in broadcasting at that resolution. Yes - some live content will show a benefit if broadcast at 1920x1080, but if broadcast at the same bandwith, then you may have to live with more artefacts as well.

If you show a diet of purely US TV content (like Sky) - which is often shot on film or high-end cameras that DO have 1920x1080 resolution, or if you show movies (like Sky), and have networks that show hours and hours of live sport (like Sky) then there is a greater argument for 1920x1080 transmission. Sky don't make that much original UK content, so don't generate much 1440x1080 content internally, so different arguments hold for them.

Sky also charge £120-£130 a year JUST for the ability to watch channels in HD (over the cost you pay for SD) - which is not much different to the amount you pay for every BBC service (so I'd expect them to have a gold plated premium quality service for that extra amount...)


(And don't forget that many other countries are using 1280x720 for HD - Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy etc...)

Yes - and no.

The Canon XF300/305, the SOny PDW 700/800 and the Sony KMW 500 (and the Sony EX1/EX3 and Sony KMW 350 shooting to Nanoflash rather than recording internally) all capture 1920x1080 4:2:2 don't they? They are all current low-end and mid-range lightweight and ENG style cameras.

The EX1/3+Nano and the XF300/305 are the BBC's HD self-shooting workhorses, and the KMW 500 is the first decent 50Mbs 1920x1080 solidstate tapeless camcorder (it's a PDW 700 with an SxS recorder instead of a disc drive). And yes there are P2s shooting AVCi 100 - but they haven't quite made the impact that Sony are... (Why record at twice the data rate or halve your recording time if you don't have to?)

However whilst HD Cam (1440x1080 3:1:1) and DVC Pro HD (1440x1080 4:2:2 when running 50i) are still the workhorse formats - and they are - the argument for 1440x1080 transmission still holds a lot of validity.

I suspect that there will be a switch to 1920x1080 at some point - probably when more and more production has switched away from HD Cam and DVC Pro HD acquisition to XD Cam HD 422 (and similar MPEG2 50Mbs codecs) or AVC Intra 100Mbs stuff.

Encoders are still improving as well.

So what do Sky Sports use they use HD 1920x1080i cameras surely or is it because it's a subscription channel so they can afford the high end cameras? I am pretty sure ITV HD is 1920x1080i as well maybe its some transponders that are using 1440x1080i presumably the Freesat ones you are referring to.

You're confusing location pre-recorded acquisition (which is shot on single-camera camcorders like HD Cam and DVC Pro HD) with live coverage, which is shot on multi-camera system cameras like LDK 8000s and HDC 1500s. These system cameras are just a camera, nothing else. They don't have a recorder in them, they have a cable (or a radio link) back to a truck where they are cut/mixed and/or recorded.

If your channel is mainly live/as-live multi-camera content, or edited highlights of this, then your system cameras will output 1920x1080, you'll cut it live, and output that straight to the viewers at home, or pre-record it and show it later. These systems use lots of power, on-site generators, with most of the gubbins in an air-conditioned truck the size of a large articulated lorry etc. Sky Sports is mainly this style of production. (If you pre-record it to HD Cam, or an EVS running DVC Pro HD codec, not HD Cam SR (or an EVS running a DNX 185 or ProRes codec) then you introduce a 1440x1080 process though)

If your channel is mainly single-camera location shot content, like documentary, specialist factual, current affairs, low-mid budget drama, then you will be shooting on small, self-contained battery powered camcorders. (Which are likely to be HD Cam or DVC Pro HD, and thus whilst the camera front-end may well be 1920x1080 - in fact it usually is - the back-end recorder is subsampling to 1440x1080 3:1:1 or 4:2:2)

You wouldn't cover a live football match with HD Cam or DVC Pro HD camcorders - they are for single camera operation. You wouldn't shoot a documentary with Michael Palin on an LDK 8000 - there's no recorder in it, you'd end up having to heft around a separate recorder, and lots of batteries...

It's like comparing Apples with Oranges. No - it's like comparing Apples with Broccoli!

The main issue with camcorders until very recently has been that it is very tricky to record a full quality 1920x1080 HD signal on a light, quiet, self-contained, battery powered camcorder with a decent recording time. To get enough data onto a small enough tape (or disc or flash card), but at a decent running time, you have to reduce the amount of data you record. Some of this can be done through data compression, but with the compression algorithms that can be supported (remember complex processing takes more computing power which usually means more battery power and more cooling) another way of reducing the amount of information that needs to be recorded is to subsample the horizontal resolution to 1440 (or lower - DVC Pro HD is 1280x1080 at 60i and 960x720 at 60p...) Both DVC Pro HD and HD Cam are now pretty 'mature' codecs - and newer standards are replacing them with the benefits of newer compression, more powerful processing etc.

Sky Sports will almost certainly generate a lot more 1920x1080 content via their live multi-camera coverage than BBC One HD will with it's mix of location single-camera content and multi-camera stuff. If the BBC ran an entirely sports based channel, or an entirely movie-based channel, or an entirely US-import channel, then there would be a much stronger argument for 1920x1080 broadcasting.

However whilst the bulk of their output is still 1440x1080 and only a relatively small proportion is originated 1920x1080, the argument is less persuasive. If they were doubling the licence-fee to provide me with HD (as Sky effectively charge over-and-above their SD channel costs at a little over £10/month) then I'd think differently.

I'd much rather have clean 1440x1080 than artefacty 1920x1080 if I'm honest.

And Sky Sports sacrifice a lot of their horizontal resolution by using too much artificial detail enhancement... (So their pictures 'look crisp' but artificially so)