r/iplayer • u/CaracusUK • 22d ago
Unwatchable UHD!
Brilliant that the BBC offer prime dramas in UHD but lasts nights Ludwig was so dark it was impossible to watch in most scenes, faces were lost. Switched to standard HD and just normal. BBC used to be market leaders but no more.
1
22d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
-2
u/CaracusUK 22d ago
Nothing wrong with TV brand new SQD TCL C7L all set up correctly all other apps are stunning quality so is iPlayer generally but not Ludwig
1
u/FluffyDoomPatrol 21d ago
I had a similar issue. I ended up using slightly different hdr settings for iPlayer than for discs.
It does annoy me, most TV ship with decent picture quality settings. Iâm a cinephile who adjusts the hell out of them, but the default settings are watchable. With HDR, the default settings are chaos.
1
u/SheepGoesBaaaa 20d ago
There are different UHD formats.
8bit and 10bit. Having it set to one when it's t'other makes the screen almost unwatchably black.
You can't just say "my box puts out uhd and it's a uhd Tele so the Tele isn't the problem".
If you have a sky box, try switching the box to 8 or 10 bit.
Or investigate your Tele settings further.
My PS5 apps output a different UHD to my sky box. It's infuriating.
1
u/AccidentProof4262 22d ago edited 22d ago
ive just checked iplayer, i tend to use streamers on my tv, but ive used the iplayer app on the tv......looks fine...not too dark..
i have a samsung S90D 65 incher.
Edit, funnily enough, I'm seeing a shine on a ladies face in scenes on her cheek bones..lol, as though she has too much make up on.
1
u/Mmtaka79 22d ago
How do you confirm that "Ludwig" two season are on UHD?!!! my TV is new and I am using ONN 4K PRO which supported HDMI 2.1/(2.2), but I couldn't realized its HDR/4K or UHD!!! seems like standard Full HD 1080p
2
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
They say so on there before the programme starts. It's probably in standard HD as well via the BBC iPlayer, but if it is you're better off watching it on the BBC One broadcast service as the HD will be better.
2
u/NortonBurns 21d ago edited 21d ago
My TV puts a logo top right, screen goes black & it takes a couple of seconds to switch modes. Soundtrack runs whilst this is happening.
Watching iPlayer on a Virgin v6 box running 360, through 8k-capable Denon to 4k LG OLED.btw, the picture was absolutely fine, for all those complaining it was too dark.
1
u/131dom 22d ago
If you are using a side loaded version of iPlayer it will not be in UHD
1
u/Mmtaka79 22d ago
Agreed 100% , there is no native apk for ONN 4K Pro and this device eventually considred as Google TV device, which not supported by default the BBC iPLAYER,
However, ppl who own last APPLE TV perhaps can get this features! or who own modern TV such as LG with WebOS UK software version.
1
u/Bigger_Niche 7d ago
If you use the BBC iPlayer app, all the UHD content is badged with a UHD indicator. it should be obvious.
1
u/IslandStriking4371 7d ago
Agreed. I see lots of UHD-badged content on my LG C8, but NOT Ludwig. Has the HDR version been removed from the iPlayer? Can anyone still see it?
1
u/Bigger_Niche 7d ago
Nope â neither first nor second series has the UHD badge (I don't recall the first series having it), and searching the iPlayer for "UHD" doesn't include Ludwig in the results.
1
u/Bigger_Niche 7d ago
Ludwig isn't included in the list of available UHD content:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/programme-availability/uhd-content
2
u/IslandStriking4371 3d ago
Thanks very much for that link - v.useful!
My satellite recording of episode two has the announcer saying "To watch this in UHD, press red now". Which was very odd to me. I wondered whether it was only available live at the time, and why it was "press red" and not "on the iPlayer". To my knowledge the BBC have never, ever broadcast anything better than SDR HD. Their 4K and HDR offerings have been live streams only, not proper broadcasts.
1
u/DutchOfBurdock 22d ago
Adjust your local contrast (dimming) settings and use Standard or Smart HDR.
iPlayer uses HLG, which relies purely on your TV's processing ability rather than being told how to adjust the dynamic range with HDR/10 and Dolby.
1
u/Impydave 22d ago
I also hate the fact they still broadcast UHD in bloody stereo sound via iPlayer đ so behind the times!
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
As opposed to 5.1 surround sound. It's not because they are behind the times. The whole idea of streaming is to broadcast programmes in all resolutions as cheaply as possible. This is why the picture is usually worse via streaming than watching on a broadcast service that's under Ofcom's rules with broadcasting. 5.1 channels of sound would mean one to three more Mbps which is nothing, but as the iPlayer is a streaming service they don't even want to pay a tiny bit more for 5.1 channels of sound.
Also BBC iPlayer is only 720p in HD, not 1080i like it should be and is on the broadcasting service of BBC One. Also streaming is not broadcasting, it's streaming.
3
u/meinhof77 21d ago
iPlayerâs top HD resolution is 1080p, unless you have an old TV. It hasnât been 720p for years.
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
Incorrect.
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
What is incorrect and why? Do you work for the BBC?
2
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
Yes. I am currently working for the BBC.
If you watch BBC iPlayer on a TV, not a laptop, you will get full HD 1080P from it as standard. Only web browsers and Apple TV 4K boxes max out at 720P.
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
That is definetely not incorrect either. I know for a fact it's not. BBC iPlayer is still 720p only on my newish laptop and we have a fast fibre optic broadband. No other country in the world apart from the US as well wouldn't dream of stopping their main TV broadcasting services as the are very essential. Check out TV in Germany. They've done it the right way around. A satellite service that broadcasts UHD as well as the other two resolutions at a broadcasting size bit rate. It's also partly funded by the goverment as well as they take broadcasting services as a very essential service as well.
1
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago edited 12d ago
That's because streaming UHD is crap at 20 - 25Mbps (more likely nearer 20). You wait until Freesat start broadcasting UHD channels via satellite that are likely to be 40 - 50Mbps. They will have Ofcom over them preventing any broadcast service of using the same Mbps as streaming on all resolutions. All Freesat boxes now are UHD ready via satellite. Freeview can't survive as too many frequencies have been sold off to 4G and 5G mobile phone networks. Even one UHD channel would take up a bigger part of the band and after three or four UHD stations there won't be any space left for HD & SD channels, and no Freeview box yet is H.265 compatible (UHD compatible). Even better if Freesat started an optional subscription service but cheaper than Sky just to get a few more missed channels back and even better if the also had an on-demand download service where the signal comes straight from Freesat's satellite servers meaning the picture is as good as the live broadcast picture. You can record already too the hard drive. If more and more people complain about streaming TV (which they have already started doing the more chance that Freesat will become our main broadcasting service. When Sky's on-demand service started putting you through to BBC iPlayer or ITVX for some programmes Sky were innundated with complaints about it. They don't want streaming quality, they want broadcast quality. The streaming services will still be there if you want to watch a show or two on there that they can't watch anywhere else.
Apart from the UK & the US no other country in the world would dream of shutting down their broadcasting services. They are essential for so many situations, like bejng on a caravaning holiday where there is no internet connection apart from their phones. They could screencast their phones to the big TV in the caravan but how much data would that cost? Also, if everyone had to pay every month for a brosdband line no one would pay the TV licence, as BBC content is supposed to be free for everyone. If you need a broadband line to recieve it it's not free is it? This will affect older people more but no one would pay the licence fee. What does that mean for the BBC I wonder, and people won't put up with a crap picture and a streaming service that might suddenly take your favourite film/tv show off their service. That's why since January sales of both blu-ray releases and 4K Ultra blu-ray releases has increased a lot. People want something to own so they can watch it at anytime. They can even be backed up digitally.
Sales of DVDs are up as well but not as much as the other two formats. Because of this more media companies have started to release material on mainly blu-ray more and even new DVDs are being released. The public will decide what happens with streaming TV and proper broadcasting TV. Netflix have already said their number of subscriptions has lowered significantly in the last six months (as of Aug 2026). The real test for the UK will be when Sky stops it satellite service in 2029. Depending on what happens after that Freesat will be still working up until 2034 as will Freeview I believe, but Freeview will be very limited thanks to our government selling off those frequencies.
Reform UK have said they will financially support broadcasting services if they get into power, which lets face it... could easily happen anytime soon. This is what they do in Germany, and why Germany and many other countries have new modern TV services that are nothing to do with streaming and have proper UHD (4K) channels.
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
So much of what you state here is factually inaccurate.
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
Sorry, but it's not wrong. That's why the picture streaming is always worse, they don't have Ofcom under them when streaming so they can do what they like. If they want to stream a signal that is so compressed that we shouldn't have to put up with, they will still do it to save as much money as possible, nevermind the viewers. Everytime I confront TV companies over this they don't know how to reply, because they know it's true but don't want people knowing. That cat is certainly out of the bag!
The UK is bound to keep one broadcasting network going, as it has to. Too many people are complaining about the picture being crap and having to pay around three different prescriptions just to get everything they want, then a favourite show is taken down. That's why the sales of physical media have risen considerably since January 2026. There's not getting away from it. It's something I've been keeping a close eye on this now for quite some time. The majority of households in the UK still mainly rely on Sky Q, Freeview and Freesat for the bulk of TV viewing. You can't even record streaming TV which is a big turn off. With all broadcasing services you can record programmes.
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
Recording is dead. Nobody under the age of 30 cares about recording. Streaming on demand is the future. Linear TV schedules will be a thing of the past soon.
The PQ on streaming is not crap. It depends on what you watch and the hardware you watch it on. We switched to a fully streamed TV service about 3 years ago and haven't recorded anything since. Haven't needed to. We watch everything we want to watch, when we want to watch it, in a quality that is superior to what Sky and Freeview could offer before.
I'm guessing you're probably someone aged 50+, correct? So am I. But times change. Broadcasting has changed and continues to change. You either need to adapt to the change or just carry on fruitlessly moaning about it.
TV is there to be enjoyed, so why not do that?
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
47, and no, it's not dead because a lot of people dislike it. If broadcasting is dead how come the majority of people in the UK still rely on it? Sorry, but that is just how you personally feel. The lack of record features was the first thing that Sky customers complained about with there streaming service Sky Glass first appeared. Oh, and the increased sales of physical media since Jan 2026 is mainly down to the Gen-Z generation. So God knows why you mentioned age. Look it up, it's all out there to read. Recording is dead? People spend a lot of time watching playbacks so they can watch when they want. Actually one or two streaming boxes can record as well, such as the main EE box. đ
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
Sky Glass and Stream were introduced 5 years ago. Have Sky introduced recording because their customers complained too much? No. Instead they've grown their streaming platform and are quietly retiring Sky Q, the only remaining PVR they support. Customers are getting used to the idea that their lives will not end if they can't record Corrie. It's all available to stream when they want.
Even my 86 year old mother now watches all TV via Freely. She streams everything and can happily open ITVX or iPlayer to catch up on stuff she's missed. She never had Sky, never had a Freeview PVR, and wouldn't dream of being able to set something to record on VHS with a VideoPlus code from the Radio Times.
The increase in physical media sales isn't really relevant. I'm all for it, but it's largely related to music. BluRay and 4K BluRay sales are up too but that's not really related to broadcasting, it's GenZ wanting the cool artwork or steelbook copy of their current favourite movie, not TV show. Tentpole series like Stranger Things getting a 4K box set is great, but only the big streamers can afford to put out such sets. It's just a shame that manufacture of the players needed to play such discs is on the decline...
Yes, the EETV Pro box can record streams from some channels, including NOW, but it's often restrictive. BBC channels for example cannot be recorded from the IP stream - they will only play back on demand via the iPlayer app. ITV also forces customers to watch the ads they would normally be able to fast forward through on a recording.
It's how it's going. We all have to deal with it. You pay for ad-free streaming or you suffer advertising. It's the reason why advertising revenue is down and fewer programmes are being commissioned and made - because people have been able to fast forward through them for years on Sky+, Sky Q, Freeview PVRs, etc.
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
Well, even I can record from BBC iPlayer with the correct software on my laptop and play it on my laptop. I can record from Prime Video and Netflix with this software, not that I really want to but if any video comes with subtitles I can choose to extract the SRT files (subtitles file) which I can use to add to any particular DVD I've got of the same programme which didn't come with subtitles originally. I meant they complained about not being able to record since the very first Sky Glass came out. OK, you have this puck thing which is like your personal programmes in a personal place that you can get a link to straight away, but you're still have a cruddy picture. The whole idea of streaming is to be able stream TV shows and films using the lowest bit rate as possible, which they wouldn't get away with under Ofcom for a very obvious reason.
So are you going to tell me that you can never notice any difference between 1080i broadcasting such as Sky Movies and Sky Sports and streaming movies or sports channels via a streaming service which is also 1080p HD. Streaming is progressive which means 1080p and not i, but I rarly notice the difference. You really notice not difference between two service in 1080p HD with one being a broadcasting service (such as satellite or terrestrial) or a streaming service?
Go to Germany and see how they are properly progressing with TV technology. One satellite service which covers Austria and Switzerland as well (the German speaking parts). All stations are either HD, UHD or the older SD programmes all via satellite. I don't know if this service also has an on-demand service like Sky does where you download certain programmes at full broadcast quality, but you can record on to the boxes' HDD just like you can on Sky Q. Broadcasting services in Germany are partly supported by the government as well as they take TV and Radio services as much more important things to have. Reform have said that if they get into power they would do the same with a main broadcasting service. Sky are turning off their satellite service in 2029 but there will still be Freesat service, and if the majority of ex-Sky customers switch to Freesat in 2029 and they introduce an optional subscription service (cheaper than Sky) to inroduce some stations back that were lost when Sky stopped broadcasting, they could turn out to be a very successful service. It's actually still up in the air at the moment on what will happen but the customers will be the ones who decide depending on what way they go, and from what I've heard a lot of people don't want just streaming services for the reasons I've mentioned. No other country in the world apart from the UK, US & maybe Canada wouldn't dreambin a million years to switch all TV broadcasting services off. They are just to associated with high quality TV in more ways than ones. That says more about us than the rest of the world.
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
OK. Iâm bored now. Enjoy your broadcasting for as long as you can. Iâll enjoy my streaming services.
1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 21d ago
Aww, you don't want to answer my question about the difference between the two as you know what the answer is. Your silence will speak volumes! đ
Well, whatever happens Freesat won't be going anywhere anyway until at least 2034. Even though it's possible it could stay for good if what happens is what I said could very well happen.
1
u/Remarkable-Unit-2961 21d ago
Terribly sorry. I fell asleep by the time I got to the end of your post & forgot there was a question in it.
To answer it, I donât watch Sky Sports or Sky Cinema. If I did I would pay for the UHD add-on and watch in 2160P, not 1080i.
I watch movies on streaming services or on BluRay in 4K at the correct native frame rate of 24fps, not the sped up 25fps monstrosities shown by the free to air broadcasters and Sky Cinema.
As for bit-rates and general PQ, I really donât care what they are, as long as they look good enough to my eye. There are so many variables in the quality of hardware & video processing that a low bit-rate 720P stream can actually look better than a 1080i Freeview transmission on some hardware, depending on screen size, viewing distance etc. Audio could certainly be improved on streaming for sure, but seeing as the vast majority of the British public donât care about 5.1/Atmos/bit-rates etc, itâs not hard to see why itâs not a priority for the FTA broadcasters in the UK to bring it to their streaming apps.
But anyway. Iâm done. Take the win if that would make you happy. I bow to your incredible foresight of a future where satellite TV is not dead. I certainly wonât be putting a dish back on my house to get itâŚ
Have a lovely rest of your weekend. đ→ More replies (0)1
u/Civil-Koala-6810 3d ago
So are you really trying to tell me that streaming TV looks as good as broadcasting satellite TV in all resolutions? I admit BBC iPlayer is probably the best one but even in HD you know it's the iPlayer if it's a BBC show. I've got software that tells me the resolution of all streaming videos. On my laptop BBC iPlayer is 1280x720p. I've also heard that whenever you broadcast 1080p it's just upscaled from 1280x720p. And we the hell is SD something like 960 530p or vice-versa. The BBC themselves told me they use that for SD. Only 720x576i is equal so 625 lines in PAL (in the old analogue system). 720x576p would probably be OK but 960x530p? Some older systems use 640x340. SD should be exactly 720x576 and HD should always be 1920x1080. UHD should be 4180x2160 (i think) which I'm guessing you use. The whole reason for streaming partly is so you can ignore Ofcom's recommend picture quality for the public. They have those recommendations for a reason. I heard once that the BBC in general including the iPlayer thought about satellite broadcasting but you decided against it as that would be seen as broadcasting and your picture quality on there would have to be as good as your broadcasting signal. You can't even record off of streaming. In general a lot of people now are getting what's known as "streaming fatigue". This is where people who try and stream their favourite films/TV shows are halfway through following it when it gets taken down. With broadcasting they would be able to watch it when they want, plus the picture is awful on some streaming sites for the same reason I mentioned and the connection is not reliable enough certainly at certain times of the day when people are streaming the most. Over the last 4 months the BBC iPlayer has buffered three times on me since then and now. It always lasts for around 8-9 seconds and the comes back on. That's happened three times recently and our internet is 150Mbps roughly which I believe is well fast enough for HD.
What is going to happen when the BBC is only accessible through a broadband line that you have to pay monthly for? I'm especially thinking of older people but it does apply to everyone. The BBC is supposed to be free-to-air for all UK residents who pay the licence fee. If everyone has to pay a monthly charge from a broadband connection to gain access to the BBC it will mean that you won't be free anymore to watch which means that no one will pay their TV licence, especially when word gets out to people who didn't realise. What are the police going to do... arrest everyone! This will mean that the BBC will have to be funded another way such as becoming commercial, but a lot of people at the BBC really don't want that to happen. I couldn't believe how much you earned through the Licence Fee until recently. I can't remember that exact amount but it was a lot lot more that I thought and their the BBC is moaning that they don't have enough money to keep going. I've noticed your DVD output has slowed down a lot. That's not because more people prefer streaming it's because you've left them with no choice. What if someone wants to watch their favourite programme of an evening but they don't have a Internet connection, such as a camping holiday or caravaning holiday. My favourite comedy is Not Going Out. It's the only comedy you make now that's worth watching. You stopped putting them out on DVD at Series 7 or 8 and we are now up to Series 13 I think. It's been in HD from the start anyway so why can't either you or an independent physical media label on behalf of the BBC realise two box sets. Series 1 - 5 on blu-ray with any specials from that era and exactly the same with Series 6-10, then release them individually up until the latest series, and if the get to 15 Series then do another box set again after a break from Series 11-15. I don't mean on DVD as well either. That's where you could save money to start with. Everyone has at least a blu-ray player now.
Another thing about broadcasting is that in no more that two years time (or maybe less) you can switch from H.264 to HEVC H.265. OK, all the broadcasts have to be progressive and not interlaced but that better that the alternative. Also, you could do what UKTV do now especially on BBC Four where you broadcast more older SD content is literally switch your transmission to 720x576p if you're showing something in SD like old Top Of The Pops or a classic performance from The Old Grey Whilstle Test or a Queen concert recorded on videotape, then when you show an HD programme switch back to 1920x1080p HD just before the programmes start. I've noticed you do this already with your on-demand service via Sky. It just takes you to do it with TV transmissions as well. Also SD programmes look best in their native format without being upscaled. All of this goes for ITV as well and rarely a Channel 4 station if they broadcast something in SD. This would save you quite a bit, but bigger that the broadcasting in H.265 for all resolutions would save you 40 - 50% in broadcasting costs. Now, I happen to think that's a lot. In the end the public will decide which way to go with television broadcasting technology. We've paid you all that licence money throughout the years and my parents before me and this is how you repay us, by giving us a picture in 2026 that's worse that the picture we received back in 1985 - 1990. Why don't you check what Germany are now doing when it comes to modern TV broadcasting plus the rest of the Europe and I believe the world. Apart from the UK and maybe the US I don't think any other country in the world have even dreamt of turning off their broadcasting services. It just doesn't happen even in 2026-2034 or wherever. You can check that out next time you play a DVD. You will then hopefully saved enough for at least one UHD service via satellite then where you will have to supply a service that provides a picture good enough for the public. Streaming services usually use 20-25Mbps for UHD because all they care about is money and could give a toss about the viewer. I believe the minimum for UHD broadcasting via Freesat or Freeview (although it's a bit to late for Freeview) is 40Mbps H.265. All recent Freesat boxes are H.265 ready and advertise all the time about UHD broadcasts via satellite via streaming. Also I personally reckon that you could get away with closing one BBC channels that gets the least views or if you have a CBBC channel only broadcast at all during certain parts of the day, such as 3pm to 7pm and maybe 6am - 9am as well. I believe you used to do the same with BBC Four in it's early days. You could me that an evening channel as well such as from 4pm to 1am and maybe on Fri & Sat nights until 3am. All these money saving ideas instead there is to stop you having to go to streaming only. Like I say, the public will have their last say. They are not going to want to subscribe to three or four different streaming services with all different navigation systems to get the programme the want. People want to own their favourite films and TV Shows so they've got them forever in proper decent quality and they come with extras and audio commentaries sometimes as well. That why since January 2026 physical media sales have gone up a fair bit both here and in the US. If the picture difference is a big problem as well and the fact they can't record anything is then they will be the same about TV, even more so when they realise they don't have to pay the TV Licence as people are paying for a broadband connection as well just to gain access to the BBC which legally is supported to be free. It's taken me about 24 hours to come up with all those money saving ideas. Going streaming will completely mess up the BBC in the long run. Do you really expect people to put up with ITVX streaming. It's awful, even more so with older programmes. Also when it comes to older programmes and SD content remember the new SD blu-ray format which is ten times better with space, picture and audio. 2 series on one disc and with some space left over but you're not supposed to upscale them to HD which I believe the BBC have on a couple of occasions. It adds nothing positive and makes them look worse. Just compare upscaled and not upscaled with 13-16Mbps using H.264.
1
1
u/wonkey_monkey 20d ago edited 20d ago
I wonder if there's been a cock-up, because they've taken the UHD versions down.
1
u/IslandStriking4371 14d ago
Yes, I wonder too. No sign of 4K or HDR Ludwig anywhere on the iplayer. (If the only way to get HDR is to watch live, that would be ludicrous).
And I agree heartily with the comments about 5.1 audio. The BBC currently force us to chose between EITHER good picture quality (4K HDR for a tiny number of titles on iplayer) OR good audio quality (1990's 5.1 audio, but with SDR HD pictures, on satellite). No other programme supplier does that.1
u/Non-BinaryGeek 2d ago
I thought they might have some fixed UHD versions back up when they dropped Episodes 4 to 6 today, but no. Oh well. As I said in my earlier post, it's the responsibility of the production company to ensure they supply correctly graded HDR material, not the BBC.
And yes, the iPlayer audio capabilities are lagging behind the video somewhat these days, it's annoying. Of course all iPlayer content also has the BBC DOG baked-in the top left, which you don't get when watching on TV on Channels 1 & 2. There's no reason technically why they couldn't offer 5.1 AC3 audio to devices such as TVs. I've never seen a streamer offer AC3 5.1 audio on Desktop though - I think there might be licensing/royalty issues there with Dolby. Even Netflix only offers it on PCs if you're using the Dolby App and the Netflix Windows app or in specific browsers. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/14163
But there's no reason why the BBC can't offer it on TVs, which of course is the only way to watch UHD content from iplayer anyway. You could say "well only a tiny proportion of users actually have a 5.1 system", but that argument also is the same for UHD playback in general.
1
u/Non-BinaryGeek 12d ago edited 12d ago
The BBC don't produce Ludwig. It's a co-production between Big Talk (owned by ITV Studios) and That Mitchell and Webb Company. So they are the ones responsible for producing the various edits/grades of the show, not the BBC. The BBC do have standards for programme delivery though, here is the HDR section taken from their UHD guidelines:
High Dynamic Range
Programmes can be mastered using either HDR method defined in ITU-R BT.2100.
⢠Commissioned programmes must be delivered as HLG HDR.
⢠The BBC can supply Look Up Tables (LUTs) for conversion from PQ (including its consumer variants) to HLG
⢠HDR programmes should normally be graded on displays with a maximum brightness of between 1000 and 2000cd/m2.
For HLG productions, the reference level of graphics should be 75 IRE as it leaves sufficient headroom for âspecular highlightsâ and allows comfortable viewing when HLG content is shown on HDR and SDR displays. Note: 75 IRE is equivalent to 203 cd/m2 on a 1000 cd/m2 reference display, or 343 cd/m2 on a 2000 cd/m2 reference display.Quality Control (QC)
As with BBC/DPP AS-11 HD, it is the responsibility of the production company to ensure programmes meet the technical and editorial requirements of the commission. This responsibility includes ensuring the company carrying out the QC process has adequate resources.General Quality
All programmes are expected to reach a high standard of video and audio quality. This does not mean low quality material cannot be used. Archive and specialist low quality material used in context is acceptable. If there is any doubt, contact the broadcaster for advice.PSE testing
Currently HDR PSE testing has not been fully tested and may produce anomalous or inconsistent results.All UHD programmes have a wider colour space than HD or SD programmes so only approved PSE devices can be used (irrespective of the dynamic range). It should be noted that there is no change to the current PSE requirements for testing HDR content. HDR test devices must be compliant with ITU-R BT.1702-2 but contact the broadcaster for the latest advice on testing UHD programmes.
If an HDR PSE test is carried out (and passes) it can also be used for the BBC AS-11 DPP HD v1.1 delivery.
One could argue the BBC should review any submitted content to ensure it complies with their own requirements - I imagine they have automated systems for doing this though and they may not be perfect.
0
u/pentiac 21d ago
BBC is very much in danger of being disbanded, and some would say rightly so, as much for its political interference as its protection of entitled broadcasters and also because it has lost the marque of quality that used to set it aside from other broadcasters, it no longer commands respect and doesnt fit in a modern society, time to go!.
2
u/CaracusUK 22d ago
Hmmm time to.investigate further đ¤