Gearing up to deliver Wimbledon 3D

Good to know that the BBC are embracing future possibilities of 3D. You have taken your time since I saw your live test of the Calcutta Cup in 3D at Riverside Studios four (?) years ago!

Why revert to 1440 after Wimbledon? Are you the last broadcaster to use this pseudo HD format? I understand that it mimics the internal workings of the older HDcam cameras but surely that is not the point.

Just move to 1920 permanently and have done with it please...

Thanks Andy for the insights to the 3D experiment and I do hope there are other blogs from your R&D colleagues.

The BBC HD & BBC 3D services need to catch up with other broadcasts and so such experiments are to be welcomed.

But do I have to ask why does this important upgrade to 1920x1080 from 1440x1080 have to be temporary? This is something many of us have been requesting for over a year.

I take it that for people with only 2D capable TVs they will at least benefit by having that picture broadcast at 1920x1080 too?

Cheers, daveac

Certainly I think the whole tired bitrate debate is a bit of a red herring, but the case for going non-anamorphic and having the full 1920 horizontal resolution is unanswerable. No-one can argue that doesn't give you better quality. This trial demonstrates you *have* the bandwidth, clearly.

Well as I said in my previous posts I suspected that you would have to go to 1920. 720x1080 3D would not look very good and I am not sure all 3D sets would handle it properly.

So what is the relevance of S2. Are you going to increase the bitrate BBC HD to handle 1920.

So please do the right thing and keep 1920 and increase the bitrate on BBC One HD, and BBC HD.

Why change back to 1440 after Wimbledon is over?

Just leave it at 1920 like everybody else.

Andy,
I totally don't understand your blog. Are you saying that BBC one HD is going to be used to transmit tennis to non 3D viewers? But that BBC HD channel is going to be transmitting 3D so will be useless to non 3D viewers because they'll get 2 pics side by side? What will people without 3d tvs see on BBC HD channel?

@ #7,

BBC1 and BBC2 SD are the same as now.

BBC1 HD will have 2D HD coverage. BBC HD will have 3D coverage.

Good to hear from you Andy.
Nice to have 1920, but why don't you just leave it at that standard and also improve the quality.
What BBC giveth...

3DTV/Movies/Games are a massive gimmick.

The public have already shown they are not interested in viewing content this way, so why is the BBC chasing it?

Also, in a time when the BBC is making massive cuts to all of its budgets, how can this be justified when so few who pay the licence fee will be able to see the results?

Dear All,

Just give up on the question of 1920 vs 1440, or bit rates.

It is obvious the BBC are using these blogs to tell us what they have already decided to do and are not after any input. At the top of these items it says that they "talk about" subjects - not that they want to discuss them.

All decisions are being made internally and any changes are being driven by commercial or political demands (such as putting BBC Alba on Freeview) or on the basis of alleged efficiency improvements (such as dropping bit rates, or DVB-S to DVB-S2).

The BBC will only answer questions when they want to and if they do not want to they do not. The whole question on 1920 vs 1440 has been going on for about 18 months now and finally came up with a more detailed background about why only recently.

The change to 1920 for the 3D trial shows they could easily change HD if they wanted to - someone has decided they don't want to.

Getting honest reasons for any decisions made is even harder. After all - who do they have to justify there actions to? Not us for sure.

Regards

Hi Andy

You are still alive then after trying to defend the undefendable in the picture quality debate. I guess you needed some time off.

My question is simple what relevance (if any) does S2 have to 3D. In particular are you going to increase the bitrate on satellite during the trial?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I know that 1920vs1440 has been discussed to death a couple of years ago. I'll admit - for most viewers, the difference nowadays is minimal. But sets are still getting bigger, so in the not-too-distant future, isn't it likely that, especially on big HD projectors, the difference will become very noticeable? So certainly, I think it's something worth considering again in few years' time, and I hope that when that time comes, you won't just write it off because it's already been discussed in 2009.

I don't think that 3D televisions support 1440x1080 split screens. I looked up the 3D spec for HDMI 1.4a and that does not support 1440x1080 even as a secondary mode. SDI also does not support 1440 which is why the BBC use 1920 internally.

Some of you may already know ITV 3D has started test transmissions so ITV will have 4 HD channels and a proper 3D channel.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

what will happen to the additional capacity that there will be with using dvb-s2 after wimbledon is over, will the bitrates and resolutions increase on bbc's channels? Will the bbc launch BBC2HD or something.

Please don't launch a 3d channel fulltime, 3d is a gimmick, 12% of brits can't see 3d due to the brains not coping and they get a headache as a result. Its not even good to look at, i prefer 2d movies as do most people. Use the additional capacity to launch BBC2 HD and increase the res to 1080i and bitrate to 12mbps or so and remove the DOGS then we'll be happy licence payers!

@Andy

Of course the encoders should find the 1920 3D picture more complex and therefor allocate a greater proportion of the bitrate to 3D. The problem here is that you are transmitting similar pictures on BBC 1 HD at the same time. Statistical multiplexers work best with dissimilar channels and so you will have both channels demanding higher bitrates at the same time. It seems to me you will be taking a very big risk not to increase the available bandwidth especially with a high profile programme. The satallite transponder has 11.4 Mb/s of null bits which could be used. It was noted that during the royal wedding you transmitted a static picture on BBC HD in order to make a higher bitrate available to BBC 1 HD. For Wimbledon you do not have that option.

Andy - this may be late in the day, but the inclusion of the 3D 'portion' of Strictly Come Dancing produced for Children in Need, within the modified BBC HD promo would be a great chance for more people to experience what Danielle said caused 'Whoops from the team....'

Andy, will these encoder changes next week fix the white dot issue on BBC HD, i would be interested in what has caused this and where about in the broadcast chain it is. I have not seen a 3D channel before (only seen 3D in the cinema) what will the DOG look like in 3D will it jump out of the screen or remain inset, or will it be removed during 3D broadcasts?

@post 24 On Eurosport3D the DOG was in front of the picture. Like you are watching through a window with the DOG stuck on the window and all the 3D behind the window. With tennis in 3D do not expect any images "in front of" your screen. The depth is to the back of the tv.

Andy,

Good to see your back posting again. Always very interesting.

Whilst the 3D venture is obviously an exciting one for the BBC, I'm reserving judgement on it. I note that there is already talk that the novelty is beginning to wear off in the US (at the box office, admittedly) and that this will follow internationally. Dont get me wrong, technology wise it is impressive and it will be interesting to read what viewers who have a 3D set think of the transmissions by the BBC.

In my opinion, Super HD (or Super Hi-vision) will be bigger than 3D, when the time comes, someway off though I admit !

Slightly off topic I know, but I recall last year that there was talk of the BBC planning to hoist Super Hi-Vision screens around the land for the Olympics. Is this still planned Andy?

Andy great to see the BBC trialling these technologies.

Whilst the move to 1920 is welcomed (albeit for a trial period only) it has to be said that with any increase in resolution, there needs to be a corresponding increase in bit rate in order to maintain the existing picture quality as a move from 1440 to 1920 increases the pixel count by approximately 1.5 times and so the encoder has 1.5 times more information to encode within the bandwidth available compared to 1440.

Hopefully, the bit rate increase will be sufficient to give a good 3D picture.

On the same subject, maybe following the recent bit rate increase for the Royal Wedding and the improved picture that resulted, the BBC will now consider implementing 15mbs average for 1440 2D pictures, 18mbs for 2D 1920 pictures and hopefully around 24mbs for 3D.

Any technology is only as good as the constraints placed on it and BBC's HD offerings have been strangled for far too long.

Please don't allow 3D to go the same way and please don't allow the opportunity to use increased bit rates for both 3D and 2D to go to waste in your testing department as its clear to many of us that the picture did improve during the recent increased bandwidth transmission.

@ Paul Bilbo #29, I think both technologies are the future of tv. SuperHiVision because of its increased reality provided by the sharper edges within the picture and 3D because its the only real way realism in tv can progress beyond increased pixel count which with the advent of SHV is reaching its limits in terms of delivering discernible difference.

As I've commented on other forums, before anyone rights 3D technology off, they really should audition all of the systems - lenticular, polarising and shutter as some are better than others. My own recent experience with Panasonic's shutter system blew me away despite the fact that I entered into the audition expecting to hate it and this really goes to show that some systems are massively different in result to others (at least in my opinion).

Thanks Andy for the response very interesting, that would explain why it is only on BBC HD, and on all of the platforms!, great to see you trial 3D, just checking on LinowSat seems Sky 3D is running at similar bitrate to how BBC HD is at present, max about 16Mb/s, average around 14MB/s and min 8mb/s! although i expect you use different encoders.

lol @ UHDTV. We don't even get 1080p nor a decent bitrate nor resolution, don't be expecting UHDTV this decade :P

@Andy, than you for your comments on the encoders staying constant. What this suggests to me therefore is that the lower limit is set too low as its quite clear that when a programme pulls more bit rate through, the overall picture quality is improving as opposed to the encoder just coping with the increased detail at the same quality.

I've long said that I've never been opposed to a bit rate cut where codec improvements have allowed it, its just always been the case that many of us have felt the the cuts went too far and despite the improvements noticed by the change to VBR (thanks for listening on that one BBC :) ), the previous wow factor of BBC HD seen at 18mbs CBR at launch has never been recaptured. This is why many of wish to see the average bit rate pushed upwards especially given that bandwidth costs is only a minor part of production. One has to wonder what the effect of say 10mbs min / 24 mbs max would be with a consequential average no doubt around 15mbs, instead of the current which I believe is around 6 / 18 mbs.

The bit rate situation can only get worse with 3D without change as the demands are higher bandwidth. I seem to remember reading somewhere a recommendation for 30% extra minimum for 3D, although I could be wrong on that. But if correct at a revised 10/24 for HD that would be 14 / 32 for 3D.

Finally, the BBC should take note of NHK's Worlds HD production. A minor channel but one with the best HD and sharpest HD by far on Freesat in many viewers opinions although C4 HD is quite good also the majority of the time.

Just a pity they don't do 3D so we can make a direct comparison there (or should I instead interpret that as one that causes a corporate sigh of relief!)

I see little value in this experiment except as a publicity stunt. Firstly the does not seem to be anything here that is new. Sky have been using DVB-S2 from the start, and they have a 3D channel broadcasting a very wide range of material. It seems to me that it is Sony that have done all the hard work here and the BBC is just adding a commentary. It is difficult to see what benifit this is to the licence payer. People are not going to invest in 3D for the occational 3D program once in a blue moon. To create the market the BBC needs to do what Sky has done and actually start a channel. Danielle has already said that there will be no new channels until 2013 and so the whole exersize is a little pointless.

Reading the blogs it seems most people want the BBC to sort out their HD channels before embarking on 3D. BBC 1 HD is still the only proper 3D channel and we would not have had that till 2012 if 5 hadn't pulled out of Freeview HD. I would have expected by now that all the major BBC channels would be in HD. The news is not going HD till 2013!.

Why on earth did the BBC lease of part of their HD transponder to ITV when they are so desperate for bandwidth themselves.

Andy,
I have gone back and read your posts from Dec 09 regarding encoding and various related matters. I found them interesting from the point of view of someone who has worked in post production but is not an engineer. I also believe they were quite clear to the HD enthusiast.

The H.264 set of codecs are still evolving (?) and there are a plethora of different profiles as it is. Is there any information in the public domain regarding the profiles used by the BBC and the degree of importance to you of things like variable block-size motion compensation (what block sizes are normally used) and an indication of what is lost by using 4.2.0 (and conversely what is gained by doing so).

Presumably the bit rate controversy can be countered or reinforced by the profiles you use.

I do think the 1440 argument is also a swings and roundabouts problem. I expect that most mid and low budget HD is still shot on standard HD-Cam and DVC-ProHD and of course these are 1440 cameras (thank heavens that HDV is prohibited!) but even so you require delivery to you on HD-CamSR so this would seem to indicate you want the quality in the bag for later, or is it just for international and Blu-ray sales?

As a related aside I always thought that the SD digital switchover was sold on the wrong benefit. Analogue reception was generally far better quality than digital, unless we are looking at BBC1 with a high bitrate. More channels in less spectrum was the real reason which is fair enough.

thank you for fixing the white dot issue! much better

Lets stop faffing about with the gimmick that is 3DTV and put that money to use upgrading the entire BBC lineup to FULL HD.

BBC Two should have an HD simulcast at the least. Let alone Three, Four, News, CBBC etc.

It will be interesting to see the viewing figures of BBC One HD and BBC HD (3D) during the match. Comparing them not only to each other but the first Wimbledon Finals broadcast in HD. Then we can see whether the uptake of 3D is the same as the uptake in HD was.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@Andy

Yes I do have rants from time to time as my wife keeps me in touch with how the BBC is spending my money.

The BBC have always oversold the benifits of codec improvements as we can see on our screens. We are very fortunate that 3D will not work at 1440. My main interest in this experiment is not 3D but in how good 1920 will look in 2D. Will it come up to the standards of other broadcasters.

Up to now there has been no mention of MVC for true full resolution 3D. It does seem to me that we do need to move fairly quickly if we are not going to be stuck with the inferior SbyS method. The BBC is not going to like the extra bitrate required but does have to advantage of being 2D compatable and so could actually save bandwidth.

I had to laugh when BBC was upstaged by Sky at the Royal Wedding. They recodered all the outdoor scenes in 3D but only announced it at the last minute. Sky can now generate 3D from the events inside the abbey and have a very valuable archive in 3D.

While we're talking tennis... Watching Queen's Club tennis this week (via sat), and unfortunately the match sound it slightly out of sync (maybe 80ms behind, but hard to measure). After all the great work you did on A/V sync, I'm surprised this happened - can you please check into it? Would hate to see (hear) the same for 2 weeks of Wimbledon!

Andy, from the diagram above it appears that all the cameras are at low level. If this is correct why not at high level?

@Andy #44, off topic when it was both a direct reply your post above and also addressed 3D quality.

Seems more like censorship to me.

Hey the white dot has gone!

Aw, I'm missing it already... ;-)

@ Andy #50, you say 3D works best at low angles but how are we assessing 3D here, in terms of action coming out of the screen or going back into the wall.

I only ask because I saw some very good 3D on Panasonics 50" plasma system where the majority of the action went back into the wall rather than out into the room. Some people seem to tire of in your face action although I have no personal preference as I like all good 3D inwards or outwards. It tends to be the system or poor production that it let it down rather than the use of 3D itself in my opinion.

In fact one of the very best examples was a train station where the platform went backwards into the wall and the nearest thing I can describe it to is being in the front row of the theatre with the stage stretching away in front of you. It was stunningly good.

what bitrate and resolution does the EBU recommend now then? I looked on their site but there's loads of documents and i think you need to subscribe to open the .pdf files.

Will a new hd channel be launching in 2011 to make use of the dvb-s2 unused bandwidth?

Will you be sending out the correct Frame Packing SEI messages and the appropriate flags in the MPEG-TS? I haven't seen anybody follow the recent DVB specification for a broadcast service yet, although I have seen the specs followed for VoD (mainly because I created the encoder!)

@hajj_3

From memory the EBU only test for constant bitrate streams. The BBC uses variable bit rate and so it is difficult to compare. I am not aware of them changing the recomendation in any case it would only be a minor change. If you look at the way the ebu evaluates bitrates you will see that the standard of picture quality it uses is failrly low. However the ebu does have a very good methodology for doing the test as opposed to the farsical way the BBC did their tests.

Although the EBU does release some of thier material to the public in general it is a very secretive organization.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

56. At 11:39 10th Jun 2011, trevorjharris

SD 720x576, 414,720 pixels

"HD" 1280×720, 921,600 pixels

HD 1920x1080, 2,073,600 pixels (225% as many as 720)

Super Hi-Vision 7680×4320, 33,177,600 pixels

Remember that bitrates also involve frame rate. Part of the reason there are so many frame rate standards in HD is so that SD simulcasts can be made at the same time and using the same source as the HD. More of a problem in the States. Also remember that i and p will require differing compressions to preserve each ones unique characteristics.

Classic TV engineers are wedded to their love of interlace. For good definition one can always use progressive but up the frame rate. The trouble is (partly) the increase in storage and also the far higher specification of all the equipment in the post production and delivery chains.

Perhaps the ideal is 1080 50p as a standard but that is some way off in practical terms. It would at least allow for an alternate frame version of 3D at a good resolution.

In the home Super Hi-Vision is surely only needed (if needed is the right angle) when we have screens the size of walls. I have seen a Panasonic 152in screen at a couple of trade shows and even "proper" HD looked quite acceptable at that size. Not for the normal home!

Sorry the thought police did not like me posting a URL. I didn't know that was not allowed the BBC is really getting paranoid.

@hajj_3 You can find an ebu document called

Signal Quality in HDTV Production and Broadcast Services

They claim that 3rd generation encoders get away with 9Mb/s which I assume is for 720p. So I guess they would now say 10.8 (20% more) for 1080i50.

As I said in my previous post the quality standard is not acceptable to British viewers. It is important to note the BBC did increase the bitrate for the royal wedding, a damming indictment of thier current policy of delivering a low quality service.

Just on Andy's number 5 (hello again Andy!), I fell foul of the 'no pdfs' rule last year, even though pdfs had been posted multiply, and to the benefit of readers, for months. So now we have to just put titles in posts and get people to google them. What a circus.

I complained that this was an asinine rule that only made using the blog a less informative place. I received a long and considered reply from the person in charge of moderation complaints, who said the BBC appreciated the drift of the argument and they were looking for ways to allow pdf links in future.

Looks like that came to nothing, so the circus rolls on.

Anyway, back on topic, I see Andy is Chairman of the EBU Project Group on
3DTV, so I guess congrats are in order!

Dear Andy - Further to post 45, Queen's club tennis audio is still out of sync (delayed around 80-100 ms I think) today. I checked the A/V sync preview loop today and it looks like that is out too. Verified here on multiple TVs so maybe you have a channel issue on BBC HD?

62. At 14:32 10th Jun 2011, Andy Quested wrote
The Panasonic is a "beast" where did you see it?

IBC, I think it was that size screen, but I have not seen the 3D version they are now showing. It will probably be there this year, as may I.

Watching the Queen's Club coverage of the Ward-Querry match with low-level cameras was quite scary even in 2D - the ball seems to move so much faster. Can't wait to see the Wimbledon finals in 3D (no Sky in this household)!

But spectacular as the tennis might be in 3D, how about some less ambitious (and possibly easier to watch) footage, such as Question Time?

66. At 17:00 10th Jun 2011, Andy Quested wrote:
That was the last time I saw it too but I can't remember if it had HD or 4k feeding it

I was told that at the time I saw it the feed was 1080 of some flavour.

@Andy quested: post #104 on the other topic only says that 3d testing it being used temporarily for the extra bandwidth. I and countless others are wanting to know if we will be getting another channel and/or increased bitrate/resolution/progressive with the extra bandwidth now available.

Has the BBC made a decision with what to do with the spare bandwidth after wimbledon?

Please whatever you do don't make a 3d channel permenant. No-one has a 3d tv, they cost a fortune, 12% of brits can't see 3d and its just a gimmick. I'd rather we have another HD channel and improved bitrates/resolution for the 2 current bbc channels and so would everyone else.

3d is just for bragging rights, no-one with half a brain wants to wear glasses to watch tv and be distracted by depth instead of concentrating on the tv show.

Could we have an eta of when you will decide what the extra bandwidth will be used for?

My vote is for Film4 HD or preferably BBC2 HD, i'm not sure about the legality of BBC2 HD as freeview HD doesn't have the capacity to add that channel until next year after the switchover ... i think?

@hajj_3 I have a 3D television, and it is just an additional feature of my Full HD television. Off course, nobody watches 3D all day. But, yes, I want to be able to watch 3D on special occasions. And like with FashionTV HD (who broadcast 2 ten minute programs a day in 3D) this can be done on the existing HD channels and no new channels are needed.

Yes, our encoder was used in the development of the DVB-3DTV Frame Compatible standard, which is why I'm hoping the BBC's broadcasts will be one of the first "proper" broadcasts to follow the spec.

(not sure why it won't let me post as kierank...)

I must admit that's a very strange and obfuscated answer but I guess we'll find out soon enough if the actual 3D broadcasts comply with the DVB-3DTV spec.

@kieranki1

The DVB-3DTV spec is online but is a PDF so I cannot post the URL.

Search for DVB BlueBook A154

Please can you tell us what is not followed in the spec in other broadcasts.

On another matter looking at the spec 1440 is only mentioned in the context of "disparity values". The HDMI 1.4a does not mention 1440 either. Does that mean DVD-3DTV does not support 1440?.

As Andy has said the BBC has no plans for a 3D channel but of course the BBC had no plans for BBC1 HD but were forced to change their minds by circumstances. It always seemed to me that after Sky's announcement of an HD service that the BBC spurred into action. It is interesting to note that ITV 3D is testing now just the sort of thing that might make them change their mind.

Whats all this secrecy about. It was revealed under the Freedom of Information act that Grass Valley encoders were used by the BBC.

@kierank1

Are you the kierank that has worked on x264?

Actually I am not in favour of Frame Compatable 3D systems. I much prefer things like MVC used by blue ray and Sony camcorders to give full definition 3D. Of course Frame Compatability is dirt cheap for the broadcasters but yet again it is the quality that really suffers.

So Andy, if everything goes to plan the changes to the encoder for 3D will occur on Monday 13th June, if so what time will the changes occur roughly. Again congratulations for trailing 3D and i hope all goes well with it.

@trevorjharris and @andy: why do you not call each other or mail each other... this is not a chat box!

OK maybe best to talk about SC on your other blog.

Re Wimbledon I wondered if we could have a blog about how the 3D will be distributed, how you record 3D, changes to encoder parameters etc.

Dear Andy - In case it helps, the A/V sync is significantly better for the tennis on BBC1HD (instead of BBC HD) today.

@Kit # 57. I disagree that SuperHiVision needs to be for huge screens only.

Here (best watched at 720P or above):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

The benefits can clearly be seen even on a screen of maybe 60 inches. Sure its a big screen but not the cinema sized screen many suggest is necessary.

The sharpness and colour detail is terrific.

Now to address the point of 3D / HD frame rate, on motion some of the best results are seen at 50P or even 100P which can then be interlaced to 25i to viewing on normal tv sets.

During the Freerunning Championships that were broadcast from London by BBC HD in 2008, high speed cameras were used (I believe 100P) and although the picture wasn't perfect in every single aspect due to bit rate issues, the motion was absolutely perfect despite some very fast moves performed by the competitors.

I think this shows the value in using high speed cameras for HD and 3D.

Actually watching the video I stand corrected, it was an 85 inch the screen but still much smaller than wall sized and the picture is so much more lifelike than HD. This has to be the future of tv - SuperHiVision in 3D!

Congratulations on the success of the 3D tests and encoder changes yesterday.
But i have to tell you as its the truth, I saw a huge difference in picture quality straight after the change, i was watching the HD preview before the change and after and i could see a difference, there is now more fine detail on the channel.
I noticed the difference on a 42" and 32" identical modal TV's on both Freeview HD and skyHD, its a shame you cant keep it like this all of the time for both channels.

Andy something really strange just happened on BBC HD just now (14:16) the picture and sound has been breaking up, so i thought it was a signal problem, but the picture froze at 14:16 but i checked and my signal is fine changed channels and back again and some daytime show came on in SD, please say it is a fault your end, as i type it keeps breaking up!

I think i have figued out where the rouge picture had come from, 60 minuite makeover from the itvhd channel on your transponder is there a fault with the transponder, perhaps the vid's and pid's are getting mixed up somehow, is this possible? i hope it is fixed for spring watch tonight!

I just watched the 3D content in the BBC HD Preview loop on a Samsung 3DTV.

Technically it worked fine, but the "band in studio" content made my eyes hurt a little. I'm usually fine with 3D, but the frequent cutting, and the changes to 3D depth on almost every cut, seemed to be what was triggering eye stress.

It wasn't too bad - I watched it all, and found the 3D effect mostly enjoyable - but I hope/assume that Wimbledon will adopt a less aggressive and more consistent 3D style.

The quality was fine. 3D was visibly softer than 2D, but not annoyingly so. There was a brief moment of visible artefacting, mostly visible on the little BBC logo top right, but otherwise the picture was good.

I may be imagining it, but some of the 2D HD content has looked sharper since the change to 1920x1080. Not all content, but some.

Also, on a Sony LCD I sometimes use, the pictures used to look a bit "crunchy" (in a bad, slightly blocky way) when there was fine detail, but this effect has been reduced since the change.

As I say, I may well be imagining it - I haven't saved any 1440 recordings to do back-to-back comparisons - but as I say, I think there's increased resolution on some content, and decreased "crunchiness" on most.

I noticed yesterday on Springwatch the picture seemed better. Is that more or less when it happened? Sometime on Monday? Just confirmed now with a computer receiver that the signal really is 1920.

It is visibly, visibly better. Please don't revert after wimbledon!

@2Bdecided, You are not imagining it at all. As everyone knows by increasing resolution this increases picture quality. The Tennis from Queens yesterday was on par with Eurosport HD for the first time. The logo on BBC HD looks far sharper, and all the programmes look more detailed. This is ruled off subject by Andy and the Mods because they do not want to admit this increases quality - even though its there for everyone to see now. Also as Andy has admitted an increase in resolution requires more bandwith which the BBC do not want to increase.

Anyway back on topic.

Looking forward to seeing how the beeb handle 3D. Should be an interesting experience. Good to see the Beeb looking at new tech. Good luck. Hope it goes well.

Just got round to watching SpringWatch from Monday, like #92 it did seem much sharper with great detail & colour, more life-like which I guess is essential for this genre. I like to sit at the correct HD distance from my full-HD screen when viewing HD content (~1.5x the screen diagonal) so the difference between 1440 & 1920 is obvious. So impressed was I that I binned last night's recording of Luther on BBC One HD & opted for the later scheduling of same on BBC HD. I wonder if you might show a film or 2 on the enhanced-resolution BBC HD - some of those on 4HD (I only have Freesat) are stunningly good & it would be great to have a comparison?

Not often I come on these blogs to praise the BBC, but today is that day. Great work, & I hope sense prevails after the Wimbledon finals & you choose to retain the 1920 resolution! A great opportunity to restore the good name of the BBC with the viewing public.

@93 Wednesday only if the BBC also increase bit rate. This is one of the dangers with 3D.

This was recently posted over on digital spy:

The bit rate appears to low to support 1920 at high quality..

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5159779/Don.htm

Pass mouse onto the picture to change to the 2nd picture.

1st picture is said to be BBC HD at 1440. 2nd is same scene at 1920.

There's a visible drop off in sharpness and a loss of detail between the picture labelled 1440 and 1920 shot suggesting to me higher compression and thus insufficient bit rate.

Classic example of how higher resolution doesn't equal a better picture unless bit rate is also increased enough to support it.

This is also the danger with 3D. Introduce a 2nd picture and thus more detail but don't up the bit rate enough and the higher compression causes loss of detail and loss of sharpness.

Whilst I can understand the BBC providing split screen approach for 3D now, do you expect the same method to be used in the future?

The current 3D services are not compatible with 2D, so you have to provided duplicate services for both 2D and 3D viewers.

If you have potentially loads of bandwidth available (such as on satellite or cable)this "doubling" of capacity is not so much of an issue (however, I recall the BBC's need to make efficiency savings), but on terrestrial there isn't such capacity available.

According to Barry Fox in this month's What Satellite & Digital TV, in the US they are providing "depth based 3D" where is 2D HD signal is accompanied by an additional "helper" signal to provide depth information.

This sounds similar to FM Stereo encoding where a L+R signal is provide for mono radios and an additional L-R signal is available that can be used by stereo receivers to rebuild the separate L & R signals.

Do the BBC forsee the current 3D "split screen" system being used being replaced by a system similar to that in the US in the future for BBC 3D transmissions?

#60 Andy Quested

"The encoders are VBR and therefore take what they need/is available based on content"

That's not quite the full story as we can now see that parameters such as max, average or min bitrate can and are being restrained on a channel by channel basis on the BBC DSAT transponder. If this weren't the case, then both BBC One HD and BBC HD would have started to use the additional headroom created by the move to DVB-S2, but as we can see from Oliver Linow's excellent LinowSat website, only BBC HD is doing so.

The additional capacity needed for the Wimbledon 3D trial could have been met from the Null Bytes pool by reducing it from its pre DVB-S2 average of just under 12 Mbps to say 1 Mbps (as used by transponder 12266 for example). Was this considered or is this spare capacity still "reserved for future use"?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.