Round up: Freeview HD
Post categories: Freeview,ÌýFreeview HD,ÌýHDTV
| 18:34 UK time, Thursday, 3 December 2009
Yesterday's technical launch of Freeview HD was the big news in Internet Blog Towers and there's some good coverage out there.
(syndicated from ) is full of patriotic enthusiasm while pointing out that consumers shouldn't get down the High Street quite as yet:
"The technical launch, as Freeview bigwigs are calling it, makes Britain the first nation in the world to operate the new DVB-T2 standard. Yay, go us! But in itself, that causes problems. Since the UK is the only country using DVB-T2, few manufacturers are geared up to provide kit to go with it."
naturally enough, gives a description of the kit on show:
"Four manufacturers had prototype receivers on show at the launch, with set-top boxes from Pace and Vestel, together with integrated Freeview HD TV sets from both Panasonic and Sony. In order to qualify for the Freeview HD logo, receivers will need to be IPTV-capable."
And there's a going on in their forums.
Broadband TV News's report quotes the Beeb's acting controller of distribution Graham Plumb belief that any initial problems with the new encoders in the summer are now resolved:
"I've been backwards and forwards to the Kingswood labs and compared the old coder with the new coder side by side and I have to say that the quality is as good if not better than with the original coder even though we're running at that lower bitrate".
And finally for today, Digital Spy's intriguingly reports that:
"The 91Èȱ¬ has revealed that it is currently evaluating staged technical demonstrations of 91Èȱ¬ HD to alleviate the controversy around picture quality,"and quotes Graham Plumb:
"I am thinking about that, because in terms of openness and transparency in what we do, I am trying to think of ways that we can demonstrate this to the public. Whether it's for the technies out there to see recordings of the new coder and the old coder - we could play them back-to-back so that people can actually see the things we are seeing."
Watch this space, as they say.
Paul Murphy is the Editor of the Internet blog.
Comment number 1.
At 3rd Dec 2009, Keep F1 on the 91Èȱ¬ wrote:I take up the Mr Plumb offer but it isn't about encoders. Why afterall if 91Èȱ¬ HD can run as claimed at 9.7Mb/s is 91Èȱ¬ HD on Freeview enjoying 12Mb/s?
For one month lets see 91Èȱ¬ HD on satellite given the same bandwidth it enjoys on Freeview HD.
He kindly let slip that Freeview HD is statically multiplexed as the EBU has said this is the most effective solution for DVB-T2/MPEG-4.
This means 91Èȱ¬ HD can run at an average of around 12Mb/s but depending on demand can go up to 17Mb/s.
This is while 91Èȱ¬ HD on satellite is fixed at 9.7Mb/s despite the channel only sharing its room with 2 MPEG2 transponders meaning roughly half the satellite transponder paid for by the 91Èȱ¬ is being wasted doing nothing.
So the challenge is to let 91Èȱ¬ HD on satellite run at an average of 12Mb/s for a month and then poll on the blog and amongst staff and the technical industry.
It would be great if it could run at 12Mb/s and be unfixed but 12Mb/s fixed or unfixed will be fine.
It won't waste any bandwidth on satellite, infact it will use it better and it won't cost any money as the 91Èȱ¬ pays per satellite transponder.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 3rd Dec 2009, Keep F1 on the 91Èȱ¬ wrote:Further to the challenge if 91Èȱ¬ HD is using the same MPEG-4 encoders on freeview why is it being given more bandwidth?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 3rd Dec 2009, Keep F1 on the 91Èȱ¬ wrote:As Freeview HD actually has 40.2Mb/s the actual average amount 91Èȱ¬ HD will be closer to 13Mb/s, not the 12Mb/s mentioned.
As roughly half the satellite transponder space that 91Èȱ¬ HD runs on isn't used giving 91Èȱ¬ HD an extra 3Mb/s won't cost any more money as the 91Èȱ¬ pays per transponder and it won't have a negative impact on any other channels.
This would mean both 91Èȱ¬ HD on freeview and satellite would be equal.
If the 91Èȱ¬ is using the latest encoders on Freeview why wouldn't it have set the bandwidth as low?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 4th Dec 2009, James R Grinter wrote:It's actually very easy to set up demonstrations of the 91Èȱ¬ HD output. Just publish some MPEG-2 transport streams of post-encoder output, both old and new. If internet bandwidth is a problem for online publishing then they could even be put onto a Blue-ray DVD and distributed freely.
(I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to get clearances for some short sequences of output from 91Èȱ¬ drama, science & nature, sport, etc.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 4th Dec 2009, scoobie wrote:Why should they demonstrate the new versus old encoders? The old encoder got loads of complaints, its outdated technology, so to say the best the 91Èȱ¬ can do is achieve the PQ of the old encoder is a failed outcome, and represents a failure of adding value for the licence payers money. Why should we pay for a new encoder using the latest picture quality to get the same outcome?
The accepted industry standard ways of testing HD picture quality in a lab are
(1) to compare it to source material and measure the deterioration compared to source material
and
(2) to test the current encoder at different bitrates to see if it makes a noticeable difference in PQ.
So my challenge to Mr Plumb is will you use accepted industry standard ways of measuring picture quality in the demonstration?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 4th Dec 2009, burnlea wrote:I challenge Mr Plumb to return the 91Èȱ¬ HD transmission bitrate to pre August 2009 levels. The outcome of this challenge can then be evaluated both in the lab and from the feedback on the various 91Èȱ¬ HD blogs
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 4th Dec 2009, jTemplar wrote:So, the 91Èȱ¬ are broadcasting 91Èȱ¬ HD on Freeview, using the same encoders as for Freesat, to a non-existent audience, where the is no commercially available receiving equipment, at a higher bitrate than it broadcasts to the million plus license payers who have bought existing satellite equipment.
Has the Beeb lost its marbles or is now just a toy for the 'geeks' in the 91Èȱ¬ labs to play with at license payers expense?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 5th Dec 2009, whit3knight wrote:I would imagine there may have been some very lucrative business deals made on the new encoders and also the Freeview HD receiving equipment. Maybe we should be asking how the 91Èȱ¬ went about purchasing the new encoder hardware/software...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 6th Dec 2009, Midzone1 wrote:I'll go along with the challenge request - why not do it over the Christmas holiday so we can all enjoy the good line up of shows as they were mean't to be seen - in good quality HD.
I am sure if there is no difference these blogs will come to a halt - or are the 91Èȱ¬ not willing to budge on this?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 6th Dec 2009, paul_geaton wrote:#9 Midzone1, "or are the 91Èȱ¬ not willing to budge on this?".
I think reading between the lines
e.g. "Paul, ...I can't promise you progress on bit rates - I think you know where I am on that...Danielle"
the answer is no, they're not willing to budge.
Who knows why? I just hope the 91Èȱ¬ Trust will find out, and then give them an incentive.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 7th Dec 2009, 128fish wrote:freeview hd, will have the same bad picture quality as bbc hd. if
bbc hd gets its way, i wacth bbc hd on my 52 inch sony 3500, which
cost me £3000. its very easy to see now how bad the picture quality
as become, 9.7 mbs is no good. 16 mbs looked very good..
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 8th Dec 2009, paul_geaton wrote:#11, I think you're right - in the absence of any word otherwise from the 91Èȱ¬ it's going to be as just bad on Freeview as Freesat. And here's a newsflash re: my Appeal about Freesat HD PQ to the 91Èȱ¬ Trust.
I quote the Trust's latest correspondence: "I consider that some points which you raise have not been fully addressed in the response you received from Danielle Nagler, and I am therefore going to pass your letter to her to provide you with a further response at this stage."
An unnecessary delay, I think, but in the event that I am unhappy with her further reply the Appeal will be resubmitted. If anyone wants to contribute, then just email me (address is here: in the final disclosure document).
Let's try and nip this in the bud before the current sorry state of affairs percolates down to any subsequent platform to be launched on the unsuspecting British public, e.g. the DTT system that is the subject of this Blog.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 10th Dec 2009, miffed wrote:Pity the poor average consumer (me) who isn't a tech expert.
We've bought Freeview "HD ready" TVs, and they're _not_ ready for Freeview broadcasting in HD.
Misleading marketing terms. Grr!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 27th Mar 2010, U14390976 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)