2010/1/27 Mo McRoberts <[email protected]> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:20, Brian Butterworth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > You do get an awful lot better results when you are not compressing in > real > > time, of course, because you can use all the MPEG4 forward references, > the > > ones you don't get when you real time encode. > > that's a good point: I wonder how much of the broadcast output *is* > encoded in real-time? all of it? >
On DVB-T it is everything. BBC One used to have reserved bandwidth, but is now statmuxed with everything else. My assumption is the BBC delivers motion-JPEG to the regional encoders and the services are statmuxed from there. > > after all, live programming is in the minority on BBC1-4, and assuming > things sit on sensible boundaries and are pre-packetised, you > shouldn't *need* to... in theory. I can envisage some nasty workflow > issues, mind, especially if chunks of the chain pre-date DVB's > deployment. > I argued ages ago that Film4 should be HD on Freeview/Freesat for that very reason. NONE of the content is actually live, it will all compress wonderfully. As far as I am aware from the documents I have read Freeview HD is basically two multiplexers (one for Wales, one for the rest of the UK) as it has to statmux three (eventually perhaps eight) HD channels together from different broadcasters. > > ...or is this one of the (secondary) goals of the tapeless production > project? > > M. > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
