Heavy compression on SoHo

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Heavy compression on SoHo

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#101150 25-Apr-2012 08:28

Compression on SoHo is too heavy.

Anyone else annoyed at this?

Game of Thrones is looking terrible. It is too heavily compressed. It looks a lot worse than last season. If Sky are using the same compression settings they need to adjust them as they are being bolder in their lighting this season and the compression is looking terrible in the blacks, with artifacts and extreme banding.

I am a Director of Photography by trade. This image degradation is being caused by Sky's compression. It's not like that when the image is captured or released.

I sent a contact form into Sky, I hope they listen as the image is bad. I will be canceling SoHo and buying the Blu-ray if I don't see an improvement.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#614921 25-Apr-2012 14:19

Ah, so that's what is wrong. I've noticed this too with Season 2. I thought it was my TV playing up! Sky, if you are reading, please fix this.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#614935 25-Apr-2012 14:59

ruff: Compression on SoHo is too heavy.

Anyone else annoyed at this?

Game of Thrones is looking terrible. It is too heavily compressed. It looks a lot worse than last season. If Sky are using the same compression settings they need to adjust them as they are being bolder in their lighting this season and the compression is looking terrible in the blacks, with artifacts and extreme banding.

I am a Director of Photography by trade. This image degradation is being caused by Sky's compression. It's not like that when the image is captured or released.

I sent a contact form into Sky, I hope they listen as the image is bad. I will be canceling SoHo and buying the Blu-ray if I don't see an improvement.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

I didn't subscribe to soho, because it is better to watch the best shows in bluray.

No point sending a contact form to sky -- they are a monopoly so don't care.

openmedia

3324 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#615115 25-Apr-2012 19:28

Are you watching SOHO in HD or SD?

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#615139 25-Apr-2012 20:38

HD

I kinda have a bit of experience and expertise in this area....

The current compression is bad.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek

#615204 25-Apr-2012 22:34

Does it look worse than TV3 HD on Sky? I think they only give that around 7Mb/s. Much lower than the bitrates on Freeview HD for TV1,2,3.

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#615211 25-Apr-2012 22:54

Yes. A lot worse than tv3 hd via sky.

The Transmission bitrate is a joke.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek

#615221 25-Apr-2012 23:42

Pretty ugly considering that you're paying 3 times for Soho. Once for just having MySky subscription, again for the Soho channel on top, and then once more for the HD ticket. Should be their best looking channel really. It is the flagship, right?

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#615378 26-Apr-2012 12:24

I decided not to get SoHo. I'm paying Sky enough already. The bluray boxed sets are usually available only a day or so after the last episode goes to air anyway, so I'm happy enough to wait. We watched Game of Thrones Season One over Easter, two episodes a night, Thursday to Sunday. It was something to look forward to each evening after the painting and decorating during the day!

CutCutCut

1039 posts

Uber Geek

#615651 26-Apr-2012 20:33

ruff: Yes. A lot worse than tv3 hd via sky.

The Transmission bitrate is a joke.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

That does seem really poor form for a premium content channel. But yeah as mentioned before... no competition.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#615654 26-Apr-2012 20:44

CutCutCut:
ruff: Yes. A lot worse than tv3 hd via sky.

The Transmission bitrate is a joke.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

That does seem really poor form for a premium content channel. But yeah as mentioned before... no competition.

Another channel you have to pay for is BBC Knowledge (ex Documentary Channel). They show repeats of Top Gear which have screened previously.

I have noticed that the bit rate on BBC Knowledge is not great, but was really surprised recently when I downloaded an episode of Top Gear from the BBC's website, and it was far better quality than off Sky's satellite. I could even download an HD version for some of the later episodes if I wish, but am too tight-fisted to spend 1.2GB of my monthly 10GB allowance just for 1 hour of TV. The SD files are about 600MB, and are brilliant quality compared to what Sky is putting out via their satellite service.

Basically, all of the bitrates on Sky's satellite channels suck -- just some more than others!

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#615677 26-Apr-2012 21:22

Yes. It is a joke. The hoops we jump through at the acquisition stage to capture the best possible image, which is then colored and finished to a full hd master. Delivered in a slightly compressed, but still excellent format. Only to have it crushed to pieces by the broadcaster.

Makes me wonder why we bother.

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#615868 27-Apr-2012 09:36

Ben,

I take it this is also the cause of HD sports content from overseas being of a lower standard than what one would expect? To me it seems especially noticeable on wide action shots such as football from the EPL or off any field that is really green.

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#615879 27-Apr-2012 09:53

Absolutely.

There are two ways of getting content to Sky NZ for Broadcast.

1. Post a Tape

2. Via Satellite

Sending a tape is a great option as it is cheap. But it is slow. So not suitable for sports.

So, sending via satellite they can compress the image on the way over... and then Sky will compress it again for transmission.

If you want to see proof of this, have a look at an HD sports transmission in the Northern Hemisphere... it looks great!

A local example is the Rugby World Cup. Shot and transmitted locally in HD with a very kind compression setting, to me, that looked fantastic. It showed what Sky is capable of.

The flip side of that is that the bandwidth had to come from somewhere else. If you changed channels during the main rugby matches... they looked terrible!

Essentially Sky has a set amount of bandwidth on the Satellite and they allocate that depending on what they think they can get away with. So the more channels they add without buying any more space... well, something has to give.

If Sky spent some money on buying additional Satellite Bandwidth, and did not compress the videos so much, the images would look great.

An interesting aside is that to meet HD Broadcasters minimum specifications for acceptance we have to shoot our cameras at 50mbs HD422. This quality is maintained all the way through the pipeline until it reaches transmission... then it is destroyed. The sad thing is, it does not need to be. How much profit did sky post last year? Is it that much of an ask to transmit a decent looking picture?

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#615880 27-Apr-2012 09:56

ruff: Absolutely.

There are two ways of getting content to Sky NZ for Broadcast.

1. Post a Tape

2. Via Satellite

Sending a tape is a great option as it is cheap. But it is slow. So not suitable for sports.

So, sending via satellite they can compress the image on the way over... and then Sky will compress it again for transmission.

If you want to see proof of this, have a look at an HD sports transmission in the Northern Hemisphere... it looks great!

A local example is the Rugby World Cup. Shot and transmitted locally in HD with a very kind compression setting, to me, that looked fantastic. It showed what Sky is capable of.

The flip side of that is that the bandwidth had to come from somewhere else. If you changed channels during the main rugby matches... they looked terrible!

Essentially Sky has a set amount of bandwidth on the Satellite and they allocate that depending on what they think they can get away with. So the more channels they add without buying any more space... well, something has to give.

If Sky spent some money on buying additional Satellite Bandwidth, and did not compress the videos so much, the images would look great.

An interesting aside is that to meet HD Broadcasters minimum specifications for acceptance we have to shoot our cameras at 50mbs HD422. This quality is maintained all the way through the pipeline until it reaches transmission... then it is destroyed. The sad thing is, it does not need to be. How much profit did sky post last year? Is it that much of an ask to transmit a decent looking picture?

Ben Ruffell
www.ruff.co.nz

What about via fibre?

I aim to misbehave.

ruff

63 posts

Master Geek

#615886 27-Apr-2012 10:05

No idea sorry...

I am just a cameraman.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4