RTE 1HD not as sharp as the UK channels?

Comhrá

Just got Saorview a few days ago and first thing I notice is that RTE 1 HD picture quality doesn't seem as good as the UK HD channels. eg. Sky News HD or BBC1 HD & BBC 2 HD. RTE 1 HD picture seems just a little softer...somewhere between Sky/BBC HD and RTE SD.

Is there a difference in the detail of UK channel signals and RTE's?

same ol sh1te

tippman1 wrote: »

Just got Saorview a few days ago and first thing I notice is that RTE 1 HD picture quality doesn't seem as good as the UK HD channels. eg. Sky News HD or BBC1 HD & BBC 2 HD. RTE 1 HD picture seems just a little softer...somewhere between Sky/BBC HD and RTE SD.

Is there a difference in the detail of UK channel signals and RTE's?

It's mostly upscaled SD but RTE One and Two HD on Saorview are a slightly lower resolution than those on satellite, BBC1 HD etc, 1440x1080 as opposed to 1920x1080

Comhrá

It's mostly upscaled SD but RTE One and Two HD on Saorview are a slightly lower resolution than those on satellite, BBC1 HD etc, 1440x1080 as opposed to 1920x1080

Thanks for the info.
Is there a technical limitation that makes RTE use a lower res. than the BBC & other UK satellite channels? Can we ever expect to have RTE in 1440x1080?

same ol sh1te

tippman1 wrote: »

Thanks for the info.
Is there a technical limitation that makes RTE use a lower res. than the BBC & other UK satellite channels? Can we ever expect to have RTE in 1440x1080?

1920 is the higher resolution, is what BBC, Sky HD broadcast in. RTE NL went with the lower resolution when space was tight on the first multiplex, but never changed up to 1920 when RTE One moved to a new multiplex, there is no real need for it now, there is space. Incidentally, RTE Two HD on satellite is the higher resolution.

To answer your question, only RTE NL know.

same ol sh1te

You are more likely viewing upscaled SD on RTE One HD, the difference between 1440 and 1920 is not that great. Try RTE Two HD, it has lots of HD content

watty

The UK also uses 1440 rather than 1920 on Terrestrial also. Because of the transmission cost and the so called Digital Dividend (Governments getting money from Mobile Networks for TV spectrum) there will never be the range of services or quality on Terrestrial as on Satellite. The Digital Dividend was a Money grabbing con that leaves Terrestrial crippled. They want to sell off more TV spectrum too.

Bu the main issue is upscalled SD, you are not actually watching HD Content.

ei9go

I think that RTE's 1440 is perfectly acceptable providing you are actually watching HD content and not upscaled SD.

However, TV3 is a different matter, how are they allowed broadcast in the awful quality that they put out. It's so bad I'm not sure it's even the fault of the 544 X 576 that they broadcast.

I briefly looked at some kind of a quiz show that was filmed from above a couple of nights ago and the quality was so bad, I thought I was looking at a third generation VHS tape.

Gerry Wicklow

It still begs the question why are they still using 1440 and wasting money broadcasting numerous test cards?

watty

Multiplexor setting tests and they don't know when Oireachtas TV, (SD or HD), TV3 HD or TG4 HD will happen much more than we do.

drunkmonkey

ei9go wrote: »

I think that RTE's 1440 is perfectly acceptable providing you are actually watching HD content and not upscaled SD.

It looks pretty poor on good large tv, doesn't even come near 720p quality for me.

same ol sh1te

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It looks pretty poor on good large tv, doesn't even come near 720p quality for me.

All TV is interlaced, 1440i or 1920i to save bandwidth

drunkmonkey

Yea I know like sky, just making the point it's poor looking. It's not crisp and clear like HD should be.

fat-tony

same ol sh1te wrote: »

All TV is interlaced, 1440i or 1920i to save bandwidth

Most German HD TV is 720 progressive - not interlaced.

Zardoz

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea I know like sky, just making the point it's poor looking. It's not crisp and clear like HD should be.

I find alot of variation in the HD picture quality on Sky.
Some channels are very good but others are poor and not crisp at all .

desbrook

same ol sh1te wrote: »

You are more likely viewing upscaled SD on RTE One HD, the difference between 1440 and 1920 is not that great. Try RTE Two HD, it has lots of HD content

Not Eurovision tonight! BBC3HD is like a different show!

fryup

anyone having trouble with rte1 hd of late??

last few nights picture keeps breaking up? (woodcock hill limerick)

Linearband

fat-tony wrote: »

same ol sh1te wrote: »

All TV is interlaced, 1440i or 1920i to save bandwidth

Most German HD TV is 720 progressive - not interlaced.

Also Freeview HD can do 1080p, although I think it switches between progressive & interlaced depending on content.

fat-tony

I had read somewhere a while back that the BBC had done some progressive (at 25 frames/sec) transmissions rather than 50i, but I couldn't remember if it was on satellite or terrestial. It's the same bandwidth usage. I wouldn't have thought that Freeview would have the bandwidth available to do 1080x50p?
The German HD channels use 720 at 50p, though.

Antenna

An important point is quality is limited by the quality of the source material. Notice that RTE have been using standard definition Sky Sports pictures for Premiership etc footage during the sports news whilst the BBC use Sky Sports HD pictures.

TAFKAlawhec

The BBC-B Freeview HD multiplex in the UK uses a form of "prediction ahead" alongside stat multiplexing for its five channels as to wherever the transmitted material is either 1080p or 1080i - this can change quite quickly between the two depending on its content.

watty

1440 x 720p is approximately the same bandwidth / bit rate as 1920 x 1080i AFAIK it's not 1920 x 720p

for static or slow moving material the 1920 x 1080i is about twice the resolution as 1440 x720p, the non interlaced version (p) is better for rapid movement.

In USA interlace (i) is bad for film source due to 3:2 pull down artefact. This doesn't exist on 25i 50Hz in Europe. Here the only advantage is in action movies and sport.

UK Freeview is 1440 horizontally I think (i.e. anamorphic WS).

reboot

Zardoz wrote: »

I find alot of variation in the HD picture quality on Sky.
Some channels are very good but others are poor and not crisp at all .

I even see a marked difference on BBC 1 NI HD and the same prog on 976 BBC1 HD network? NI is softer.

fat-tony

watty wrote: »

1440 x 720p is approximately the same bandwidth / bit rate as 1920 x 1080i AFAIK it's not 1920 x 720p

for static or slow moving material the 1920 x 1080i is about twice the resolution as 1440 x720p, the non interlaced version (p) is better for rapid movement.

In USA interlace (i) is bad for film source due to 3:2 pull down artefact. This doesn't exist on 25i 50Hz in Europe. Here the only advantage is in action movies and sport.

UK Freeview is 1440 horizontally I think (i.e. anamorphic WS).

The German HD channels are 1280x720p - not 1440x720p. This is about 46Mpixels (no compression) vs 52Mpixels on 1920x1080i, so lower resolution and less bandwidth but better rapid movement as you say.

It's funny, I was about to post a Thread on the crap quality of Irish saorview .

People get too hung up on resolution, I'd take a high bitrate SD channel over low bitrate HD any day.

BBC HD streams at about 8,000-10,000 Kbs compared to 4,000-5,000 Kbps for RTE. So you essentially got half the quality for RTE, even if RTE HD was at 1080P it would look crap compared to BBC HD.

Usual crap half arsed Irish way of doing things !

If people complain enough they will increase the bitrate, this is what happened in the U.K when BBC HD on satellite wasn't as good as it is today !

same ol sh1te

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's funny, I was about to post a Thread on the crap quality of Irish saorview .

People get too hung up on resolution, I'd take a high bitrate SD channel over low bitrate HD any day.

BBC HD streams at about 8,000-10,000 Kbs compared to 4,000-5,000 Kbps for RTE. So you essentially got half the quality for RTE, even if RTE HD was at 1080P it would look crap compared to BBC HD.

Usual crap half arsed Irish way of doing things !

If people complain enough they will increase the bitrate, this is what happened in the U.K when BBC HD on satellite wasn't as good as it is today !

Apples and oranges. It's ridiculous to pitch RTE against BBC on different systems, terrestrial will always be tight on bandwidth. If you want to compare at least put RTE Two HD on satellite against BBC One HD on satellite or Saorview against Freeview

Sam Russell

What is riduculous is that Saorview is broadcasting 5 test cards with two in HD while restricting the SD channels bitrates. 2RN should insist that all SD channels are 704 by 576.

This all comes about because of TV3's histerical screaming about their transmission charges. As a result, 2rn's charges are tied to bitrates and are charged retrospectively, and 2rn are effectively a co-op with shared costs.

What should happen is that RTE get MUX1 to do what they want, while the rest share MUX2. Now UTV are entering the market, that mux would be full if TG4 and UTV go HD, with perhaps just enough room for TV3 to go from fuzzy SD to fuzzy HD.

RTE are currently paying transmission charges for RTE NN and RTE jr/RTE 1+1 which gives them nothing in return. They are also broadcasting a heap of digital radio channels that no-one even knows are there, let alone listen to them.

same ol sh1te

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Apples and oranges. It's ridiculous to pitch RTE against BBC on different systems, terrestrial will always be tight on bandwidth. If you want to compare at least put RTE Two HD on satellite against BBC One HD on satellite or Saorview against Freeview

I'm paying my licence, so I expect proper quality in this day and age,4-5mb for a 1080 stream is pure and utter SH&TE. No excuses !

Having said that, Netflix on 5-6mb looks vastly superior.

I'm paying my licence so I expect a quality fit for modern TV's above 19 " !!!

I don't have Sky, so I can't compare the sat stream, and I shouldn't have to subscribe to sky to receive RTE in decent quality when I pay a licence every year.

same ol sh1te

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm paying my licence, so I expect proper quality in this day and age,4-5mb for a 1080 stream is pure and utter SH&TE. No excuses !

Having said that, Netflix on 5-6mb looks vastly superior.

I'm paying my licence so I expect a quality fit for modern TV's above 19 " !!!

I don't have Sky, so I can't compare the sat stream, and I shouldn't have to subscribe to sky to receive RTE in decent quality when I pay a licence every year.

It's 1440i, which is perfectly acceptable IMO, I have a 50" here and although it's not as vivid as satellite, it's completely acceptable. This 1440i is the same as Freeview HD in the UK, terrestrial muxes are bandwidth limited compared to the many transponders of satellite (this got even worse when they reduce the TV allocation of spectrum in favour of 4G mobile broadband).
There is no conceivable difference between 720p and 1080p on a screen smaller than 32" so your statement of modern TV's above 19" makes no sense

same ol sh1te

same ol sh1te wrote: »

It's 1440i, which is perfectly acceptable IMO, I have a 50" here and although it's not as vivid as satellite, it's completely acceptable. This 1440i is the same as Freeview HD in the UK, terrestrial muxes are bandwidth limited compared to the many transponders of satellite (this got even worse when they reduce the TV allocation of spectrum in favour of 4G mobile broadband).
There is no conceivable difference between 720p and 1080p on a screen smaller than 32" so your statement of modern TV's above 19" makes no sense

While it may be 1440 I BBC HD is 1080 and with more than twice the bandwidth looks vastly superior.

On my 40", RTE looks crap, you can see the compression artefacts big time.

I would have to say there is, to me, a noticeable difference from 720-1080, but I sit close enough to the tv, far back I would agree.

I would much prefer a much less compressed 720 P stream over utter crap 1440 highly compressed stream.

Yep just checked, you're right, 1440 x 1080, it would be acceptable if it wasn't so compressed, as I said I'd rather a much less compressed 720P stream. Maybe a 720 would look better at a low 5 mb/s bitrate.

same ol sh1te

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While it may be 1440 I BBC HD is 1080 and with more than twice the bandwidth looks vastly superior.

On my 40", RTE looks crap, you can see the compression artefacts big time.

I would have to say there is, to me, a noticeable difference from 720-1080, but I sit close enough to the tv, far back I would agree.

I would much prefer a much less compressed 720 P stream over utter crap 1440 highly compressed stream.

Once again you're comparing apples to oranges and the 720-1080 statement is well known and based in the optimal viewing distance
http://m.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/#!0QpYv

MC39

same ol sh1te wrote: »

terrestrial muxes are bandwidth limited compared to the many transponders of satellite (this got even worse when they reduce the TV allocation of spectrum in favour of 4G mobile broadband).

No, there's no spectrum shortage as of yet, here or in the UK. The UK are still even using DVB-T MPEG2, although they're trying to wean people onto DVB-T2 in preparation for the next sell-off.

same ol sh1te

MC39 wrote: »

No, there's no spectrum shortage as of yet, here or in the UK. The UK are still even using DVB-T MPEG2.

No but the allocated spectrum is now smaller than it was 2 years ago. Comreg and Ofcom will auction off more when it's possible too, watch this space.

MC39

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Comreg and Ofcom will auction off more when it's possible too, watch this space.

I know, with 'DD2', aka '700 mHz band sell-off'. Currently, poor bitrates on terrestrial are down to financial considerations. See how long the Freeview BBCB mux ran under-capacity.

same ol sh1te

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Once again you're comparing apples to oranges and the 720-1080 statement is well known and based in the optimal viewing distance
http://m.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/#!0QpYv

No I'm not disputing you on the 720-1080, as I said I sit close enough to a 40" screen to notice it, far back I couldn't.

I think a 720 stream would look better at the low 5mb bitrate than a 1440.

same ol sh1te

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think a 720 stream would look better at the low 5mb bitrate than a 1440.

Someone said earlier 720p uses more bandwidth than 1440i

fat-tony

MC39 wrote: »

No, there's no spectrum shortage as of yet, here or in the UK. The UK are still even using DVB-T MPEG2, although they're trying to wean people onto DVB-T2 in preparation for the next sell-off.

DVB-T MPEG2 is only used for SD in the UK.
HD requires the use of DVB-T2 MPEG4.

Interestingly x265 has the same quality, or supposed to have, as x264 at half the bitrate, amazing ! it will be some time before set top boxes etc or networks start supporting x265.

It's hard on the cpu though so most equipment out there probably won't be able to handle it.

fat-tony

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Someone said earlier 720p uses more bandwidth than 1440i

You're mixing up your width and height numbers.

HD on UK/Ireland satellite and terrestrial is 1920x1080i or 1440x1080i - the height is 1080 lines in each case and interlaced at 50 fields per second. (I believe the BBC were experimenting with 25p on terrestrial at some stage - maybe still are?).
The artefacts you are seeing are down to the level of compression used - basically the bitrate. Higher bitrate, lower level of compression and the better the image. That, coupled, with higher resolution, gives a better quality image. Satellite transponders have more bitrate available than terrestrial multiplexes.

HD TV on satellite in Germany often uses 1280x720p - height is 720 lines and is progressive transmission at 25 frames per second. Better for football or action sports, but lower in resolution than 1080i.

MC39

fat-tony wrote: »

DVB-T MPEG2 is only used for SD in the UK.

I know that. I was making the point that they're hardly stuck for spectrum at the minute, if they can stick with this old, inefficient standard for any kind of programming.

fat-tony

MC39 wrote: »

I know that. I was making the point that they're hardly stuck for spectrum at the minute, if they can stick with this old, inefficient standard for any kind of programming.

It's not a spectrum issue per se - UK have sold off above CH60 for 4G same as us. The bandwidth of DVB-T muxes is limited to 7MHz or 8MHz, so the solution there is better coding (DVBT vs DVB-T2) or improved codecs (MPEG2 vs MPEG4 and beyond). The problem is the bean-counters use the improved coding and compression to cram in more channels, not better quality

The Cush

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly x265 has the same quality, or supposed to have, as x264 at half the bitrate, amazing ! it will be some time before set top boxes etc or networks start supporting x265.

HEVC.

The German DTT network will begin the trasition to DVB-T2/HEVC from mid 2016 and be complete by 2020. With that decision in place the major manufacturers can begin incorporating the HEVC decoders in their ranges from 2016. France and Italy are also discussing the change to HEVC towards the end of the decade and maybe the UK may now consider it following the German decision.

In Italy the consumer association are calling for the cancellation of the Jan 2015 deadline for all receivers to have a DVB-T2 tuner incorporated until a firm decision has been made regarding which compression standard will be used in future, MPEG-4 or HEVC.

Here in Ireland HEVC barely got a mention when Comreg published their preliminary consultation on the UHF band earlier this year.