If you watch standard UK Freeview on a first rate CRT display (Sony IDTV's comes to mind) then the quality can be stunning. I think the persistence of the CRT phosphor goes a long way to smoothing things out, yet strangely not at the expense of definition.
Many panel displays fail miserably when it comes to resolving things such as a cloudy sky, it just appears solid rather than all the subtleties showing through.
Many panel displays fail miserably when it comes to resolving things such as a cloudy sky, it just appears solid rather than all the subtleties showing through.
interesting, I've never noticed what you're describing. my HD channels are crystal clear.
what I'm noticing though even when playing HD content on my PC is that there are certain very visible artifacts that seem to be related to compression: well separated bands instead of gradients and dynamic scenes appering jerky. but the latter one seems to be related to SW too. good thing is I don't watch much TV or movies these days
Last edited:
The cloud effect is one where the fan shaped steps in colour are annoying, I know from seeing the "real thing" that clouds and seacapes etc do not look like that.
But I find the face distortions much more frequent and much more annoying. I know that the eyebrows move with the nose and that all the other facial features are "synchronised". But the bits don't seem to know that and create the distortions.
I have used 4 different freeview digital decoders and 2 different freeview HD decoders.
All 6 show the same digital artifacts.
I now have 3 different digital TVs, ranging in price from £250 to £1400 and seen 2 other cheap ones, Thats 5 more suffering the same digital artifacts.
Now could all 11 "tuners" be made badly and can't properly display a good signal?
Or is the problem back at source where the digital conversion of an analogue picture into bits is going wrong?
But I find the face distortions much more frequent and much more annoying. I know that the eyebrows move with the nose and that all the other facial features are "synchronised". But the bits don't seem to know that and create the distortions.
I have used 4 different freeview digital decoders and 2 different freeview HD decoders.
All 6 show the same digital artifacts.
I now have 3 different digital TVs, ranging in price from £250 to £1400 and seen 2 other cheap ones, Thats 5 more suffering the same digital artifacts.
Now could all 11 "tuners" be made badly and can't properly display a good signal?
Or is the problem back at source where the digital conversion of an analogue picture into bits is going wrong?
The face distortion is something I used to notice, as a face turns, parts of the face turn at different rates. Very disconcerting. Haven't been aware of that for quite some time though.
The biggest problem I notice with modern displays (as opposed to CRT) is an effect we used to call "crushed whites" which is almost like clipping where the whites just bottom out and all subtle detail and shading within is lost.
The other problem with freeview is different bit rates, much like DAB radio. Main channels are always the best some of the lesser ones can be poor.
The biggest problem I notice with modern displays (as opposed to CRT) is an effect we used to call "crushed whites" which is almost like clipping where the whites just bottom out and all subtle detail and shading within is lost.
The other problem with freeview is different bit rates, much like DAB radio. Main channels are always the best some of the lesser ones can be poor.
Surely impossible when the manufacturers claim dynamic contrast exceeding 1,000,000:1
How can the contrast exceed the bit depth?
Is 12bit the HD standard?
What does that mean from darkest to lightest?
Is that ~1000:1?
We get so used to them telling us lies that we just accept what they give us.
Maybe those displays haven't been calibrated properly, or were left on a default setting that is designed to make the picture stand out in a showroom. You can (usually) vastly improve the picture just by setting colour temperature to daylight (6500K), and adjusting the brightness and contrast using a test pattern, like those on many THX DVDs.
Here's a guide to basic calibration using an AVIA or Digital Video Essentials test disc:
Avia and Digital Video Essentials for HDTV Calibration | Ram Electronics
You can download a Blu-ray compatible calibration disc (or an MP4 to use on media players) here:
AVS HD 709 - Blu-ray & MP4 Calibration
Here's a guide to basic calibration using an AVIA or Digital Video Essentials test disc:
Avia and Digital Video Essentials for HDTV Calibration | Ram Electronics
You can download a Blu-ray compatible calibration disc (or an MP4 to use on media players) here:
AVS HD 709 - Blu-ray & MP4 Calibration
A large part of my job is calibrating video displays. Although things are getting better and better right out of the box, most still need some tweaking.
It doesn't, that's an effect of the coding/decoding/compression of the data and presumably bit rates used. I used to notice that a lot some years back with a Panasonic Freeview DVD recorder. It was like faces were made of rubber if someone turned around.
It looks to me like some video content is being compressed/encoded more than once. From my experience in the industry, it seems to be common.
This may also apply to MP3. What so many complain about as horrible in the sound of MP3 may be music that has been MP3 encoded several times over. From original to MP3 with no other steps is rarely that bad.
This may also apply to MP3. What so many complain about as horrible in the sound of MP3 may be music that has been MP3 encoded several times over. From original to MP3 with no other steps is rarely that bad.
Most video is recorded in a lossy format, it just isn't practical to record raw for most things. Those lossy formats aren't very lossy, tho - for example Apple ProRes that I use. You can do multiple generations with very little increase in noise. Remarkable really. I don't know of a lossy audio codec as good.
What does happen is that once a video is finalized and rendered to a compact form like H.264, MP2, WMV9, MP4, etc, it may get recompressed at one or more stages. It shouldn't be, but often it is. Same thing seems to happen to audio. The files might be in decent sounding 192Kbs MP3, but then get re-encoded into 96Kbs, or 128 or whatever. The double (or sometimes triple) encoding does no favors for the sound quality. Much worse than just a one pass encoding to the target bitrate.
Broadcast signals go thru a LOT of steps to get to you. And you can be sure that anything that can be done wrong, will be.
What does happen is that once a video is finalized and rendered to a compact form like H.264, MP2, WMV9, MP4, etc, it may get recompressed at one or more stages. It shouldn't be, but often it is. Same thing seems to happen to audio. The files might be in decent sounding 192Kbs MP3, but then get re-encoded into 96Kbs, or 128 or whatever. The double (or sometimes triple) encoding does no favors for the sound quality. Much worse than just a one pass encoding to the target bitrate.
Broadcast signals go thru a LOT of steps to get to you. And you can be sure that anything that can be done wrong, will be.
Correct. Formats like ProRes are called "intermediate" because they are not meant for final distribution, but for editing and other post production uses. PreRes (and others like it) are lossy, but the compression is mild. The files are huge compared to distribution codecs, but they retain much information needed for editing and effects work.
Once the video is finalized, it will be put into a much more compact, higher loss format for distribution. MP-4, H.264, Mpeg-2, WMV, etc.
Once the video is finalized, it will be put into a much more compact, higher loss format for distribution. MP-4, H.264, Mpeg-2, WMV, etc.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It comes down to money I think, in the end. If you ask the consumer to pay, the vast majority will always settle for a tradeoff between 'good enough' and the cost. And let's face it, 'good enough' is crap for most audiophiles. Whenever your 'wants' deviate from the majority of the population you are going to be facing an upstream battle. Market forces means that music production and distribution will go where the money is and providers will compete with each other by offering not the best quality but the most popular, where 'good enough' is what carries the day. The way in which mp3 might become less popular therefore is when it's cheap enough for providers to offer something better in order to compete with each other without a hit to their profits. For audiophiles that want top-notch, prices will be much higher.
fyi - I'm not so confident that 4k video will be a big success, we'll have to see. The reason why it may fail - because HD of today is already 'good enough' - there is already so much compression and other crap in many HD transmissions that more resolution will offer no benefit at all - and since it requires more bandwidth, storage and new hardware it risks being too pricey. There is a lot of scope to improve the quality of what people see at the current resolution of HD. The hardware manufacturers tried 3D as a means to sell more stuff, but it too was more than 'good enough' and hasn't been the success they envisaged.
fyi - I'm not so confident that 4k video will be a big success, we'll have to see. The reason why it may fail - because HD of today is already 'good enough' - there is already so much compression and other crap in many HD transmissions that more resolution will offer no benefit at all - and since it requires more bandwidth, storage and new hardware it risks being too pricey. There is a lot of scope to improve the quality of what people see at the current resolution of HD. The hardware manufacturers tried 3D as a means to sell more stuff, but it too was more than 'good enough' and hasn't been the success they envisaged.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.