大象传媒

Cheers Andy sounds good to me, great to hear your department will be addressing the resolution increase at some point in the near future, we just got S2 and so will have to wait a little longer for 1920 when all parameters are up to scratch and equal from source to the home and give us once again, one of the best quality HD channels in the U.K

CGI based and live programming should of course all be 1920.

It would be nice to think that in the not too distant future there may be a 大象传媒 related item like this:

Andy can you explain why most other HD channels that are available are using 1920? Do you believe they are all doing it wrong and the 大象传媒 is correct in not adopting it?

First of all thankyou to Andy for letting us discus this. You say

The whole topic is not straightforward or we would have been 1920 from the start of the HD Channel and although technology has matured the debate still moves between the science, the technology to produce it, the ability to deliver it and effect to the viewer.

Why does the 大象传媒 have problems with 1920 when every other HD broadcaster in the UK transmits 1920?

I cannot see why scalling is an issue as most domestic televisions are native 1920 and have to upscale from 1440 in any case. Surely the 大象传媒 can upscale to a higher quality than domestic equipment. There is pleny of high quality scaling equipment on the market.

During the trial 大象传媒 HD certainly looked alot better to me and I can see no reason for not keeping 1920. You increased the average bitrate by about 2Mb/s but even so this is still too low as mosquitoing was clearly evident.

One of the problems with profesional equipment is that it becomes obsolete before it wears out. I can understand the 大象传媒's reluctance to to ditch all those obsolete cameras but I think this is a price broadcasters have to accept. In any case there are alot of programs not produced by the 大象传媒 in 1920.

What Satellite's July issue has an article on "Hi-def failings exposed" should make an interesting read.

Just out of interest Andy which programs broadcast during the trial period were made in 1920? I imagine family guy would definitely be one

Thanks for the reply. First let me say that the 大象传媒 transmitted 1920 for several weeks with an increase in subjective quality . So all the arguments you put forward are rather achademic but they can be easily dealt with.

First let us deal with the Kell Factor to which you refer. For the sake of argument lets us use a kell factor of 0.8. This means that the effective horizontal resolution of a 1920 picture is 1536 pixels. If we now take this and down sample to 1440 the kell factor now reduces the horizontal resolution of 1152. My point here is that 1920 will result in a higher resolution picture assuming that the source is 1920. If the source is 1440 there would be less advantage.

There is however another good reason for going with 1920 and that is the use of the HD-SDI interface. HD-SDI is the universal standard for digital transmission of video along coaxial cables. HD-SDI does not support 1440 and so a 1440 signal must be upsampled to 1920 for this interface. For live television this is universily used and so whatever the sensor size it must be upscalled. Actually other formats are supported but not 1440. I have no doubt the 大象传媒 HD infrastructure is all 1920. Even if the feed is not live and taken from tape the video playback machine will use an HD-SDI output.

This 1920 video passes though the system and is evenually fed to the encoders which down sample to 1440. At the recieving end the 1440 is then upsampled to 1920 for display on our tv screens.

To sum up at a minimum the video is upsampled twice and downsampled once. Hence it is no wonder we get a grotty picture. If the 大象传媒 changed to 1920 only a maximum of one upsample would be need.

As Andy implies sampling degrades the picture and so should be minimised.

The only reason the 大象传媒 may wish to keep 1440 is that masks the fact that 大象传媒 uses obsolete tape systems as it would be obvious when this old equipment is being used.

Actualy higher definition cameras are available like the "Red" cameras which go up to 5K.

Can I just say, the tone of this post and the comments is encouraging. i'm sure a lot of the bad feeling often comes from a sense (justified or not) of being ignored or shut down. Feeling that there's ongoing engagement on these matters is much nicer, and I hope you feel it's worth your time to keep the outreach going. :-)

I'd forgotten about the change *up* to 1920 until I saw Springwatch that night and there was a segment (tellingly perhaps, shot by a third party) that fairly popped out of the screen. The improved picture quality was immediately apparent. A quick check on my pvr software confirmed the 1920 signal was being transmitted.

As time went on during the trial, I have to admit that for a lot of the material the difference between it and 大象传媒 One HD wasn't so apparent, and as you say this is probably a limitation of the capture stage - ie: the cameras and other equipment providing the source material. And so if the decision is largely controlled by the amount of material being broadcast that would benefit from the resolution upgrade, then it should presumably be self-correcting as the higher quality equipment filters down to more production departments and companies. And presumably at some point a threshold will be passed where it becomes worthwhile.

Anyway, I'm recording a cycle of Preview now to compare with the cycle I recorded during the trial, and will compare. :-)

9. At 14:32 6th Jul 2011, trevorjharris wrote:
Actualy higher definition cameras are available like the "Red" cameras which go up to 5K.

Red itself does have some strange problems of its own, including their definition of what 5k (or any other options they provide) really means.

I am sure you would not like to post produce directly from a 5k image stream with even the most up to date professional gear. The main problem being the ever present (since the dawn of TV) problem of data storage and manipulation. The goalposts keep moving.

Remember that even in "traditional" HD post production (except low budget) the images should be processed at 1920 uncompressed so any image manipulation will create new true 1920 output which when mastered to HDCam-SR (as required by the 大象传媒) will retain its full resolution.

HDCam-SR cannot yet be described as an obsolete tape system. You must be on about HD-D5!

11. At 14:58 6th Jul 2011, Me.

I should of course have written that HCCam-SR will record the best you can on tape, there is still a degree of compression.

The only way to get totally uncompressed 1920 4:2:2 is to run it from high performance disk arrays, but what is the point (except in post) as you cannot do anything with it in the broadcast or web environments.

Even digital cinemas use compression just to make the data handling possible.

This post is very reassuring to me. I do believe 1920 would be better, as long as you can secure the necessary bitrate increase. I noticed during the trial, many scenes looked better (even ones from 1440 sources, as I believe the fact that you were upscaling them rather than my TV helped quite a bit). However, water (the hardest thing for h264 to encode, I do believe) quite often looked slightly worse than it did in 1440, implying not quite enough bitrate.

And yes, I did actually notice the DOG looked better in 1920!


So, in conclusion, I'd like to see a change to 1920 if, and only if, you can get enough bitrate to make it worthwhile.





Oh, and out of interest, if you happen to know - what's with the encrypted ITV1 HD region on your satellite transponder? Have they got a deal with Sky which means they have to have certain regions encrypted or something? It seems rather odd, is all - I mean, they're on Astra 2D, on your transponder - why don't they make it FTA?

I would like to make it plane that what I described in post 9 has nothing to do with camera resolution. I am only considering the degradation of picture quality at the SDI interface. I deliberatly did not want to get into discusion about the 大象传媒's antique camera collection.

Muzer0, i believe sky's contract probably has something to do with encryption, i believe there is an unencrypted version and an encrypted version which merely points to the unencrypted version in order to not waste twice the bandwidth.

In regards to picture quality, andy was talking about 1920 not being much better than 1440 especially when the source is 1440, thats true if the bitrate remains the same but if the bitrate is increased then that isn't true. Your cameras likely have 40mbps+ bitrate that they record in so the quality would be increased alot.

The picture quality increase during the 3d trial was very large, i just wish it was like that all the time.

I assume by your post a decision has been made to use the additional capacity of DVB-S2 to increase the resolution and bitrates on 大象传媒HD/大象传媒1HD at some point over the next few months?

How much extra capacity is there on the Mux now? enough for increased resolution and bitrate for both channels and an extra channel? 大象传媒2HD would be incredible if that could be added. Shows like Mock the week and other in-studio shows would cost peanuts to air in HD. I'd presume you can't launch 大象传媒2HD until there is capacity on Freeview HD for another channel (after the switchover finishes in 2012)?

Why are the 大象传媒 still using 1440 cameras in 2011? Surely the 大象传媒 would make more money by making shows in 1920 which can be licensed to foreign countries?

I can understand if camera for each of the 100's of journalists aren't 1920 as that would cost alot but why aren't all the in-studio cameras 1920?

16. At 08:43 7th Jul 2011, hajj_3

It is more than likely not the cameras that are the limiting factor regarding 1440. It is the recording technology and possibly some older parts of the signal chain.

Don't forget that there is no uncompressed transmission so there is every justification to effectively limit bandwidth during production as this saves money on kit and time in image rendering.

@Andy Quested; sorry, by "third party" in respect of Springwatch, I mean it was one of the segments made by independent wildlife filmmakers which Springwatch was featuring in a guest slot on the show.

Andy Quested wrote "up-scaling from 1440 to 1920 in domestic equipment, can also soften the images or a add edge ringing (or both!). The degree of softening or ringing depends upon the interpolating filters which perform the up-scaling."

Yes, this does seem to be true - the difference between STBs is greater with 1440 content than 1920 content, because what you're watching is a result of the STBs scaling algorithm.

To me, this sounds like an argument for broadcasting 1920 where you have the bandwidth - to remove one unknown in the chain - even if you know the content has already been through one 1440 bottleneck.

Obviously
1920 sensor > 1920 capture > 1920 delivery > 1920 broadcast > 1920 display
is ideal, but currently you usually have this...
1920 sensor > 1440 capture > 1920 delivery > 1440 broadcast > 1920 display
...where that second trip through 1440 is _not_ benign.

Of course where you have this...
1920 sensor > 1920 capture > 1920 delivery > 1440 broadcast > 1920 display
...the trip through 1440 is damaging, no matter how perfect the scaling is.


btw, tou keep saying this...
"you cannot get 1920s worth of resolution through a 1920 system to a 1920 display"
...and I understand the technical argument you're making - but by the same argument, you cannot get 1440s worth of resolution through a 1440 system to a 1920 display either - the number of pixels you have never resolves that many lines in motion - but following that argument to its natural conclusion would mean broadcasing SD, or no pixels at all!

Plus the broadcast chroma resolution is already well below what a broadcast quality camera captures - you are throwing away real genuine chroma detail by downscaling - albeit detail that human eyes are less sensitive (but not entirely insensitive) to.

I guess 1920 won't have the capacity to be pixel-sharp until cameras are oversampling and filtering electronically. But it would be a real shame to stick at 1440, with all the downsides in consumer scaling, encoding, and lost resolution until that day!

Cheers,
David.

Andy, As is my understanding, you use 1920 internally at your payout centre why would you want to down sample this to 1440 for it to just be up sampled by our receiving equipment, as per the trial as may other people have said the picture was better at 1920 even with 1440 originated programs, although saying this the picture looks better on my cheap freview hd box compared to my Sky+HD box which seems softer, so maby the freeview equipment can up sample the 1920 image better than on DSat.
A bit off topic, i found what seems to be 大象传媒 HD on a Eurobird transponder [11508 MHz, Hor, QPSK] under service 1 and according to linosat it is still at 1920, i was just wondering what it is?

I see Andy is determined to make this a camera issue when I showed in post 9 that it is not only a camera issue.

First of all I think we all know that you cannot get 1920s worth of resolution through a 1920 system to a 1920 display. In fact that is not true for CGI just look at Sky News HD they get crystal clear graphics at full 1920 resolution. The point is YOU GET A HIGHER RESOLUTION THROUGH A 1920 SYSTEM THAN A 1440 SYSTEM. Sorry to shout but this is point. Even material sourced at 1440 would look better as it would not have to go through the down conversion at the encoder and the up conversion at the receiving end.

There are advantages of using 1440 and that is a lower bit rate and it might help to reduce noise on a noisy source. But all this is at a cost of lower resolution.

Some cameras with 1440 recording systems have 1920 sensors. This means that the 1920 SDI output can be fed into a portable recorder to preserve the resolution.

It was quite clear that the 大象传媒 HD output benifited from 1920 during the trial so the argument over cameras is not realy an issue.

At the end of the day though, on Freesat at least, 1920 looked better than 1440. The amount of difference depended on the content, the STB, and the display - but it never looked worse!

Andy, just noticed now 13:47 the white dot has re appeared have you done an update on the vison mixer again?

Thanks for fixing the white dot Andy! have you changed anything else on 大象传媒 HD as the PQ looks better since this morning?

I am a great fan of percussive maintenance.
It is the local knowledge of precisely where to kick, hit or stroke a specific item of kit that makes it imperative to have employed full time staff rather than freelancers.

Andy, Just been comparing the testcard, as i recorded during the 1920 period, your SUT-大象传媒HD Preview which included the testcard, and found that their was a significant difference in the bottom two squares on the right hand side those squares in particular the second from the bottom was much sharper in the 1920 one and on the 1440 one it is very soft so appears grey and you lose the lines. This is a good example in showing the difference between the two resolutions, i am not sure if it is the way the sky box up scales the 1440 image or not.
Using this I was able to diagnose that the "1" service on the eurobird transponder must be 1440 as well, even though linosat is reporting it as 1920!

Andy, sorry off topic but not sure if you are aware of this, but on 大象传媒 One HD when the sound changes from DD 2.0 to DD5.1 there is a loud but short burst of static, this happens when the news changes to its regions and it changes to the caption (which is in DD5.1). I dont have this problem with 大象传媒 HD.

Thanks Andy, I have noticed this for a few weeks now and I am listing through a Sony STR-DH810 via Coax digital audio cable connected to a SKY +HD box. It is quite scary and makes us jump as your not expecting it! 大象传媒 One HD is the only channel it happens on.

Isn't it odd that we are being allowed to discuss HD quality when it's been off topic for so long.

Oh Andy you keep on about Alan Roberts. His main argument was that camera resolution was so low that there was no benifit in going to 1920. Actually even his own measurements showed that there was benifit in going to 1920 on some cameras. He produced some niffty circular resolution charts.

His assertions are no longer true. The Panasonic AJ-HPX3000 has a resolution of 1000 lines which means it can resolve 1777 horizontal pixels. Camcorderinfo measured the HDC-TM700 consumer camcorder also to have 1000 line resolution at 1080p60. That was measured with a moving test card! As for film that is often scanned at 4k or 8k so will definitly benifit from 1920.

Again it was clear from the trial that 1920 gave a significant improvement in resolution. The 大象传媒 is the only UK HD broadcaster not using 1920.

Andy, just been experimenting with two Severn second clips of Luther, one from 大象传媒 One HD(1440) and the other from 大象传媒 HD(1920), I used my vision mixing software at both the start frames fading between the two to compare and there is a noticeable loss of detail on the 1440 one and the 1920 defiantly looks better.
I am not sure if Luther was made in 1920 or not but either way there is a difference.
So I defiantly think there are advantages in transmitting in 1920.
Also, could you shed any light on the "1" channel I found on the eurobird transponder which is currently showing 大象传媒 HD, albeit out of sync and if this is to test a new encoder?

Ok take a look at this test of the Panasonic HPX317 done by Alan Roberts:



In section 2.4 he says:

With factory settings, the result for progressive 1080 is
good, there is no aliasing, and resolution nicely
reaches the Nyquist limits at a low level, indicating
either that there is proper optical filtering in the
camera, or that the lens is providing the limit. The
lens aperture was F/2.8, usually optimum for an
HDTV lens.

Reaching the Nyquist limits means that this camera will certainly benifit from a 1920 transmision system.

39. At 10:47 8th Jul 2011, trevorjharris wrote:
..the result for progressive 1080 is
good, there is no aliasing...

I am sure in the past Andy has shown his old school TV credentials by preferring interlaced material wherever possible, or did I misunderstand?

@NSM_HD
There is an international version of 大象传媒 HD with older programmed for eastern Europe and probably RoW. See bbchd.com

Note that in the Benelux we do receive legally the British version of 大象传媒 hd

Andy, on freeview HD you now have dynamic i/p switching, is there any plans to implement this on DSat, as I was doing some comparisons and the PQ on Freeview HD does seem better than SKY HD.
I am not sure if this is down to the scaling chips in the STB's or the i/P switching on Freeview HD.

Andy, I have a Technika STBHDIS2010, and although it only cost me 拢30 it does seem to produce a better picture on my lg 42LH3000 TV than my SKY +HD box, on the 大象传媒 HD channel although does not seem to want to produce DD at all(though you cant have everything for 拢30!).
This is making me think that the picture quality on 大象传媒 HD (& One HD) is very dependent on what STB/Tuner you are using and how good (Or not) it can scale 1440 to 1920. This is why I believe particulry for DSat, it might be better transmitting 1920 as to produce a more consistent picture quality as the STB/Tuner does not have to do any scaling, as i am sure your scaling equipment is much better than any of our domestic equipment.

Dear Andy,

I do love your r&d talk here, but is to technical for me. Therefore, I regret that the Open blog has now closed for the weekend. On that blog, end users like can give you the real feedback that counts.

Please open it.

Andy,yes that's the first thing I did and after the update the box runs perfectly (except for the lack of Surround sound, only LPCM via HDMI/ Coax)
I have had Sky+HD since march last year and as I live in the central region Freeview HD has only recently (April) become available.
I was nieve in thinking that the picture quality of 大象传媒 HD/大象传媒 One HD was better on Dsat via a Sky+HD because of the reputation of the SD channels on Freeview (Which is why I got Sky). So when I bought my first freeview HD box (because of the good price) just as test box to see what freeview HD was like, I was shocked that the picture looked better via Freeview HD even on an indoor Arial with not the best signal.
As I understand this may be a common seniro:
Camera X has a 1920 sensor, and a codec recording @ 1440
The 1440x1080 recording may get delivered to the playout area in 1920x1080 or remain 1440x1080.
Internally you have to use 1920x1080 as HD-SDI does not support 1440.
So assuming it is delivered to you in 1920x1080 then this is the chain the image goes through:
1920--->1440--->1920--->1440--->1920
Censor in camera-->Codec in camera-->Processed for delivery/HD-SDI signal internally-->Downscalled to 1440 in encoder for delivery for transmission-->Upscalled to 1920 by STB/In built tuner to display.
I am sure you had good reasons to use 1440 when you launched because the encoders/codecs were not as efficient as they are now. Although as they are now very efficient their should be more interest in switching to 1920 as I have said before this ensures that the picture is more consistent between STB's as only you will do any scaling your end.
To bring home the point i am trying to make, yesterday I watched Food Fighters on 大象传媒 One HD which at the time I thought wow that is a good picture! then later on in the evening I watched Next Door Nightmares off Sky anytime HD and this knocked spots off Food Fighters, perhaps if it was Tx in 1920 it would look as good as Sky.
Nathan

Sorry Andy, but this blog just sounds like the usual 大象传媒 HD spin and excuse. The fact is, when 大象传媒 HD upped the resolution to 1920, the picture was considerably better. FACT. You cannott get away from that fact.

You can make up all the excuses in the world, but at the end of the day the 大象传媒 HD Channel proved that the increase to 1920 gives an overall better picture.

@ Kit Green # 11:

Quote: "Red itself does have some strange problems of its own, including their definition of what 5k (or any other options they provide) really means.

I am sure you would not like to post produce directly from a 5k image stream with even the most up to date professional gear. The main problem being the ever present (since the dawn of TV) problem of data storage and manipulation. The goalposts keep moving."

Why?

I don't know of any problems with 5K conversion provided you have up-to-date pc's. In fact modern pc's can handle some very large video conversions when you get into server configurations with banks of high speed processors, hundred of GB of RAM and terrabyte drives. I'm quite sure non of this is beyond the 大象传媒's capabilities.

For the record, Red cameras go from the Scarlet up to the Epic with a 28K sensor!!

I've long be advocating Red as a possible camera manufacturer for HD use at the 大象传媒 subject to necessary investigations as to them meeting their purposes. Some people have said their studio cameras but the Scarlet certainly doesn't look that way to me. In fact it was actually designed for outdoor use. Red once upon a time mentioned it as a possibility for soccer mums although given the price, I guess that might only be in Chelsea!!

Definitely something the 大象传媒 should be exploring as it seems from programme to programme there can be some big differences in sharpness and colour from cameras which range from sharp and punchy (often 大象传媒 Natural History Unit Cameras) to soft and relatively flat. It should be mentioned here that post production plays a part also.

Andy re: your comment about post #45, I believe you are giving this too much importance. Unless you know both TV's were properly calibrated to TXH II or above then the fact that one appears sharper on upscaling means nothing as it could simply be down to tv adjustment.

Also, its long been know that LCD is natively sharper than plasma. Does that mean that a sharp picture on LCD is correct or a blurry one on plasma? No. Because if properly calibrated both tvs should be equal...and herein lies the rub. The 大象传媒 need to broadcast to a calibrated standard as with everyone's tv being different, its the only way of achieving a constant. If that means some LCD's appear over sharp, then so be it. The time has come to place the onus on owners of tv to calibrate their systems if they don't like the picture rather than blaming the broadcaster. Once calibrated its blame away as all being equal only the broadcaster is at fault but I repeat the ONLY way to achieve any consistency is to broadcast a signal designed to display correctly on a properly calibrated tv of any type and then if someone isn't satisfied with their picture, let them calibrate away.

Equally, in the absence of calibration, you can't blame the upscaler as you simply don't know which was to blame for the poor picture on the more expensive tv when upscaled. It could have been anyone of a number of user adjustable settings.

There are also some good points made above about bit rate. You can't introduce 1.5 times as many pixels by increasing resolution from 1440 to 1920 without increasing the bit rate substantially also, otherwise the compression level has to rise and so does the softness and artefacing correspondingly.

In fact there's a very good example of insufficient bit rate on 大象传媒 SD at the moment - the England Womens World Cup match vs France on 大象传媒 2. Shots of the crowd in the stadium in the background are riddled with artefacts caused by bit rate starvation.

Andy,

Maybe some Red Post production Myth busting is needed here for both yourself and Kit Green.

Very nice real time video here of Red execs demonstrating the editing of Red Epic files before your very eyes on camera!



I can't claim to have used a Red myself, but no signs of anyone struggling!

It's actually a very interesting video when it gets going. From 4K studio shot to 2K cinema projection in 4 minutes including colour grading, demonstrating editing in 3 different programmes - Avid, Premiere and Final Cut AND viewing on an iPad whilst on the move, all before that 4 minute 2K projection!!!

I see they also mention the new film The Hobbit is being shot entirely on Red Epic.

Finally, when you talk about long term storage, I would presume that the 大象传媒 would save the converted final cut version of a programme and not the original so for now, until SuperHiVis arrives, long term storage should be no worse than for current HD programmes.

I now have 2 copies of Top gear episode 2 on my Samsung Sky HD box. One from last Sunday and one from last night. Would someone from 大象传媒 HD like to come round and view them??

Andy, In relation to the pic quality, What do you think of Eastenders? Do you think this is actually HD?? Also What kind of HD cameras are used?

55. At 10:01 10th Jul 2011, Alsone

I have worked on post special effects shots from Red, going back to the days before the codecs were released onto anything other than Apple kit. This made it a pain as I was using bespoke equipment and had to wait for slow conversions via red cine.

Luckily that workflow is a thing of the past.

The demo you link to is a staged PR exercise. That does not detract from it being genuine.

The Hobbit is indeed using Red in a stereoscopic environment and New Zealand鈥檚 Park Road Post Production have some seriously powerful kit to handle the data rates and toolsets required. This is far more complex stuff than Avid, Premiere or Final Cut (Version 7 or X, that is another current story off topic for here!)

@ Wednesday 58, Eastenders looks far from HD to me. In fact I find it very difficult to discern between the SD and HD versions, so much so that I actually find the SD more palatable on the very rare occasions I watch it (this afternoon by strange co-incidence).

I'm sure Andy will tell you its artistic look. To me its just plain poor hd. Grainy, flat, muted colours, soft picture and with very little to distinguish it from SD. I can kind of accept the muted colours as I guess its part of the gritty depressing look. I find the softness, flat lighting and grain far harder to stomach though.

@ Kit # 55, thanks for the interesting comment. I knew it was a staged demo as it is a promo video and the content made it pretty obvious as well. Interesting to note that you don't question the genuineness of the content though which seems to add validity to the preface that Red shouldn't be feared from an editing POV these days.

Lets hope the 大象传媒 explore all options for their camera choice as quite clearly some of the current crop don't produce the vivid sharp detailed HD pictures that many of us like and this will become even more apparent with a shift to 1920 where the resolution is more revealing.

Thanks for the Eastenders reply Andy. Can you confirm which parts of Eastenders are actually HD. Very little seems to be HD. Certainly the outdoor scenes are SD.

Infact, why are you actually broadcasting Eastenders in HD when its not ready for HD? Emmerdale on ITV is not yet HD but looks better upscaled than Eastenders. That should not be happening surely.

Have you seen how stunning Corrie street looks?? Thats how Eastenders should look.

Andy, who actually decides on what production is used for HD programmes. For the 大象传媒 to get HD production wrong so many times, there has to be something wrong. I mean which person actually gave the go ahead to let Eastenders broadcast as HD when its not actually ready??

its only eastenders guys! :P bbc1hd is a simulstream of bbc1, better to have some bits in hd than none.

I'd rather they get new cameras for other shows like mock the week than a soap.

Quote "Eastenders looks good in HD".

Andy, that made my day. The best bit of comedy to come out of the 大象传媒 since Only Fools and Horses!

Did Andy just say "Eastenders looks good in HD?". Looks good in HD? Has its own style?? What style is Eastenders actually aiming for? All I see is a blurry SD mess. Should an SD Emmerdale really be just as good if not better than so called HD Eastenders??

Can I please recomend you google "eastenders picture quality". This may give you an indication of what the quality of picture is really like.

@hajj_3 Eastenders maybe a soap, but at the moment its the 大象传媒s flagship show and gets the best ratings overall for 大象传媒1. You would have thought somebody had the brains to realise this and take advantage. But this is the beeb.

Why do ITV get HD so right in regards to PQ??

All other FTA HD channels have got it spot on, and I haven't seen hardly any complaints, but the 大象传媒 always refuse to comment on their quality. Also if 1920 x 1080 is not so significant, then why is the european 大象传媒 HD version broadcast this way.

@71, Totally Agree. Take ITV is a fine example. The picture quality on pretty much most of its shows is top notch. Its flagship show Corrie a fine example.

Andy don't take my comment above personally or as an insult, it was just a bit of fun.

I disagree that Eastenders looks good in HD. If you think otherwise then rather than leaving the blog, justify why you think that it does.

It would seem that most of the audience here disagree with that assertion so it would be interesting to see why you see Eastenders as good quality HD whilst we don't.

Andy, So what you are saying then is that Even if shows look awful and like SD such as Eastenders, then as long as it as the resolution then thats ok?