The Weather Forecast Thread

Yep - though I can't imagine what it would look like in HD - as the current kit doesn't really produce decent quality SD output. The motion is juddery, and fine detail aliases really badly.

(The previous system generated better quality video - and that itself wasn't as good as the system before that...)

I really do think you're being far to 'geeky' about quality here. No-one cares if it's badly aliased - most people don't even know what it means and if you pointed it out wouldn't care.

To me the quality is fine. Yes the top of the globe was badly aliased but who cares about that, the rest is OK. As for the juddering, never noticed any.

I bet you're one of these people who can't listen to MP3 players because of the horrible things the compression supposedly does to the sound quality!

Is it me or have they changed the view of the UK yet again? I don't know what it is but something seems different. Seems more 'in the air'.

I didn't think Geek was an insult around here...

Seriously though - quality matters - and there are objective and subjective quality standards. Colour schemes and design are one thing - but basic video engineering standards are another.


If you look at any fine detail on the map - particularly the terrain - you see pretty bad aliasing and interline flicker. Both of these are pretty unforgivable for a system built in 2005 - they had already worked out how to avoid this in 1985...

What is most annoying about this is that BBC R&D worked for years to develop ways to get rid of, or reduce this, and these techniques are now in widespread use in broadcast kit.

The sad thing is that it looks like the BBC have gone for a PC video card solution instead - which doesn't seem to deliver anywhere near the same level of quality.

If this were the weather on a cheap cable channel I could accept the quality loss - but the BBC are supposed to stand for excellence and aim for high standards - not just deliver something that is "just good enough".



Look at the place names on the fly-round - the motion of the type is really quite poor - certainly not at all fluid.

There are also issues with the movement of the little square place markers - they seem to be rendered very coarsely and even seem to wobble on the zooms in and out.

In implementation terms the way any transitions cause the animation to freeze is also very poor.



I do listen to MP3 - my iPod gets a lot of use. However I can certainly hear the difference between 128, 160 and 192 kbs compression. I can also hear the difference between these and the original uncompressed CD.

However I have control over the compression I use at home - and I chose 192kbps as a good trade-off between quality and file-size. I use my MP3 player on the move - and the quality of 192kbps is good enough for that.

I don't have a choice about the quality of stuff the BBC broadcasts - so I would expect things to improve, not get worse...

No. People who know what 'bad aliasing and interline flicker' means see it, normal people don't and only care that it's brown (a term most can understand).

A flawed argument. Many people...not an exageration have commented that the new maps not only look awful in execution but in quality. I've heard comments ranging from "the jerky fly bit makes me sick" and "the way the rain suddenly stops after five seconds is annoying".

One bit that has really annoyed about the new graphics - the regional forecasts. Technically they should be better but the place names are massive and all the graphics are just zoomed in. The rain looks like comets landing and you can't tell what the weather is supposed to be on a back projected screen. (Same goes for the six forecast, I add).

I have given the new graphics considerable time but they're counter productive. The presenters would be better coming on saying "Rain in the North and heavy thundery showers in the South." - You'd get more information that way than what the often wrong maps provide.

No, people who don't understand the technical terms will simply think "that picture is juddery and makes my eyes hurt". If you havent noticed it then maybe your eyesight isn't as good as mine.

The point about the animations stopping when the next sequence runs is a good one - this is a technical limitation that I'd regard as a bug, and one which would have been high on a list of problems (along with the frame rate).

The addition of the wind direction and speed arrows almost makes the forecast now as useful as it was before. If they start using the Atlantic pressure charts again then there will be the same level of information. Having seen one Atlantic pressure chart sequence (on TV - they are available on the website under "Coast and Sea") since the graphics launched - it appears the new system cannot animate curved lines at all - the isobars have corners and it makes the flyaround forecasts look smooth.

Even Jack Scott's magnetic strips managed curves 30 years ago.

I am still to see these new wind graphics but I'm appauled by the sheer innaccuracy of the forecasting now. I'm presuming the website uses the same back end system as the TV graphics.

It claimed yesterday would be lovely and sunny here in Kelso, it was overcast all day.

A great example of the system in action on the forecast during the One o'clock News - headline says "Thundery Showers" but the maps feature no representation at all of any storms. Just "heavy pulses of rain". Helpful.

I'd give the GMTV forecast (c. 7.54-7.59am) a go. I have it set as a daily recording on my set top box.

It's as close to the old BBC system as you're ever going to get, and has a better colour scheme and clearer symbols than the 'ITV proper' forecasts (which are still superior).

In fact, in this morning's forecast, they started with a rain radar sequence (using the blue/yellow/green colours) but the presenter made a point of stating that "but this doesn't show you where the thunder is going to be".

Almost as a satirical swipe at the BBC, they even tilted their map and did a 3D fly by (including large blue drops of rain coming from the sky) o the South West, but after then reverted to a 2D map with the familiar sun / cloud / thunder symbols.

It offered something for everyone - 3D where appropriate, 2D where appropriate, colours where appropriate, and symbols where appropriate.

This is what the BBC lost - they had a 'rich palette' of visual aids to use, so that they could choose the representation(s) that best befitted the weather 'story' that day (or days to come). The BBC do NOT now have a 'rich' palette, but a single, restricted one, that doesn't work for viewers. Every other broadcaster however, still does.

Yes - Alina's forecasts on South Today really do make use of the new system very well and she does an excellent job.

The way the map zooms in and rotates so you are looking east from Weymouth all along the coast to Dover showing the pressure, sea state and tide times is abolsutely fantastic; it looks tremendous and is a vast improvement.

She also *always* shows the atlantic pressure charts and explains what they mean. I can see why they don't use them nationally; the computer has a terrible time fading between 'headline screen'-->pressure chart-->rain map. It's slow, juddery and the colours look wrong briefly.

Tonight's South Today forecast (a centrally produced one with Penny Tranter and no Alina Jenkins) shows that it's the national presenters that have been poorly trained. No regionality, no sea states, no pressure charts, no scientific explanations and no wind arrows!

Alina rocks, period.

But the lack of lightning is irritating, as is how the rain is rendered in diamond shaped blocks!

James

Another problem - when represented by a 3d wind arrow, a northerly wind appears to blow upwards towards the sky. Which will be a problem for those wearing skirts.