Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Steven Sullivan writes: willbill wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Who's winning the war? I haven't been following this too closely, but sometime in the next few months I think I'm going to spring for a new player and I'd like to know which one to get. i just got, 10 days ago, a Toshiba A35 player Pity. Blu-Ray just won the format war. Are you referring to Warner Brothers' decision? Yup. It's not quite a slam-dunk, but it's pretty dire news for HD-DVD. FWIW, I have no stake in either. I'm one of the people waiting on the sidelines for the 'format war' to settle itself, before buying. I'm waiting for the encryption to be broken before buying. If I can't play my media where, when, and how I want, I'm not buying. I like having my media copied to a central server, instead having my household littered with little plastic disks. If the encryption is never broken, that is OK with me too. Ditto. However, one trend that is going to **** the heads of Hollywood suits is the penchant for playing movies on handhelds ie everything from phones to dedicated MP3/MP4 players and PDAs. For everyone who splashes out on a BluRay disc ten more will probably download the postage stamp version ripped down from a normal DVD. And the stronger the encryption the fewer discs will be sold. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:56:43 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Steven Sullivan writes: willbill wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Who's winning the war? I haven't been following this too closely, but sometime in the next few months I think I'm going to spring for a new player and I'd like to know which one to get. i just got, 10 days ago, a Toshiba A35 player Pity. Blu-Ray just won the format war. Are you referring to Warner Brothers' decision? Yup. It's not quite a slam-dunk, but it's pretty dire news for HD-DVD. FWIW, I have no stake in either. I'm one of the people waiting on the sidelines for the 'format war' to settle itself, before buying. I'm waiting for the encryption to be broken before buying. If I can't play my media where, when, and how I want, I'm not buying. I like having my media copied to a central server, instead having my household littered with little plastic disks. If the encryption is never broken, that is OK with me too. Ditto. However, one trend that is going to **** the heads of Hollywood suits is the penchant for playing movies on handhelds ie everything from phones to dedicated MP3/MP4 players and PDAs. For everyone who splashes out on a BluRay disc ten more will probably download the postage stamp version ripped down from a normal DVD. And the stronger the encryption the fewer discs will be sold. It's not going to stop with BR/HD's encryption. Next will be divx style calls to the mother corporation for permission to play. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:56:43 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Steven Sullivan writes: willbill wrote: Randy Yates wrote: Who's winning the war? I haven't been following this too closely, but sometime in the next few months I think I'm going to spring for a new player and I'd like to know which one to get. i just got, 10 days ago, a Toshiba A35 player Pity. Blu-Ray just won the format war. Are you referring to Warner Brothers' decision? Yup. It's not quite a slam-dunk, but it's pretty dire news for HD-DVD. FWIW, I have no stake in either. I'm one of the people waiting on the sidelines for the 'format war' to settle itself, before buying. I'm waiting for the encryption to be broken before buying. If I can't play my media where, when, and how I want, I'm not buying. I like having my media copied to a central server, instead having my household littered with little plastic disks. If the encryption is never broken, that is OK with me too. Ditto. However, one trend that is going to **** the heads of Hollywood suits is the penchant for playing movies on handhelds ie everything from phones to dedicated MP3/MP4 players and PDAs. For everyone who splashes out on a BluRay disc ten more will probably download the postage stamp version ripped down from a normal DVD. And the stronger the encryption the fewer discs will be sold. It's not going to stop with BR/HD's encryption. Next will be divx style calls to the mother corporation for permission to play. ie Hollywood is going to commit high definition suicide -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... If I want to sell a HD/BR movie for a buck, so be it. Why on earth would you want to make such a huge loss on the cost of the blank disks? Not to mention the current cost of HD/BR writers you would also need to pay. AZ didn't say "sell a disc" he said "sell a movie". With online delivery, no disc is involved. Perhaps you didn't read the entire context of the paragraph. I see, and just how many HD/BR movies are delivered on-line I wonder at 20-40 GB per movie? Probably cheaper to buy the original disk! MrT. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:18:44 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... If I want to sell a HD/BR movie for a buck, so be it. Why on earth would you want to make such a huge loss on the cost of the blank disks? Not to mention the current cost of HD/BR writers you would also need to pay. AZ didn't say "sell a disc" he said "sell a movie". With online delivery, no disc is involved. Perhaps you didn't read the entire context of the paragraph. I see, and just how many HD/BR movies are delivered on-line I wonder at 20-40 GB per movie? Probably cheaper to buy the original disk! The same was said twenty years about megabyte images or ten years ago about CD images. Who could possibly copy a CD? They're huge! |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:18:44 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote: "Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... If I want to sell a HD/BR movie for a buck, so be it. Why on earth would you want to make such a huge loss on the cost of the blank disks? Not to mention the current cost of HD/BR writers you would also need to pay. AZ didn't say "sell a disc" he said "sell a movie". With online delivery, no disc is involved. Perhaps you didn't read the entire context of the paragraph. I see, and just how many HD/BR movies are delivered on-line I wonder at 20-40 GB per movie? Probably cheaper to buy the original disk! The same was said twenty years about megabyte images or ten years ago about CD images. Who could possibly copy a CD? They're huge! 500MB for an uncompressed CD still is, hence MP3. Data download speeds are (optimistically) 3GB per hour Downloading HD movies is probably around 10 years away. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message ... If I want to sell a HD/BR movie for a buck, so be it. Why on earth would you want to make such a huge loss on the cost of the blank disks? Not to mention the current cost of HD/BR writers you would also need to pay. AZ didn't say "sell a disc" he said "sell a movie". With online delivery, no disc is involved. Perhaps you didn't read the entire context of the paragraph. I see, and just how many HD/BR movies are delivered on-line I wonder at 20-40 GB per movie? Probably cheaper to buy the original disk! The same was said twenty years about megabyte images or ten years ago about CD images. Who could possibly copy a CD? They're huge! OK, it wasn't stated anyone was talking about ten or twenty years from now. Probably a lot less IMO, but double layer DVD blanks are still a lot more expensive than single layer, and even less reliable. So most pirate DVD's are not even up to standard def DVD levels. I won't be holding my breath for blue-ray writers and disks to fall to current DVDR prices though. Reliability/longevity of the disks is also another unknown compared to the original pressed disks. And as for on-line delivery, It may well be ten years or more before most people can regularly download a single 20GB+ movie! DivX isn't the current popular choice for nothing. But yeah, 20 years from now anything is possible. MrT. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home writes:
[...] And as for on-line delivery, It may well be ten years or more before most people can regularly download a single 20GB+ movie! I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours -- % Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?" %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon' %%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
Randy Yates wrote: "Mr.T" MrT@home writes: [...] And as for on-line delivery, It may well be ten years or more before most people can regularly download a single 20GB+ movie! I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. I agree. There are 2 companies in the UK that I know are delivering the equivalent of 'cable TV' down an ADSL line. Graham |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
"Mr.T" MrT@home writes: [...] And as for on-line delivery, It may well be ten years or more before most people can regularly download a single 20GB+ movie! I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. The questionable presumption here is that it would always take 20 GB in order to download a HD movie. The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I think the benchmark would be to download a movie in an amount of time equal to its duration. I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. That would be a very relaxed standard, but one that might sell. [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Back in the days when cable modems were unfettered by vendor performance management, they could run at close to 10BT speeds - at least 1000 kB/sec. Ah, those were the days! |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" writes:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message "Mr.T" MrT@home writes: [...] And as for on-line delivery, It may well be ten years or more before most people can regularly download a single 20GB+ movie! I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. The questionable presumption here is that it would always take 20 GB in order to download a HD movie. The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I think the benchmark would be to download a movie in an amount of time equal to its duration. Then it becomes "real-time". Yes, I neglected to mention that 20 GB is only for HD. DVD-quality is 5 GB and thus available in only 2.8 hours. Almost real-time. -- % Randy Yates % "With time with what you've learned, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % they'll kiss the ground you walk %%% 919-577-9882 % upon." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! If your high speed connections are free, then lucky you. Anyway I certainly hope those "bigger pipes" are not just clogged up with people downloading HD movies, but you are right, once they can, they will. MrT. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The questionable presumption here is that it would always take 20 GB in order to download a HD movie. The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Just how much extra compression can you apply and still call it HD Arny? It's already a compressed format after all. Only the definition is negotiable IMO. MrT. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
Mr.T wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! If your high speed connections are free, then lucky you. Anyway I certainly hope those "bigger pipes" are not just clogged up with people downloading HD movies, but you are right, once they can, they will. Maybe. I don't see HD being as successful as ordinary DVD. To really get the benefits you need a pretty big screen doing 1080p Watching LOTR normal DVD on a top of the range projector on a 12' screen is better than most cinemas. I don't expect HD to be visually a great deal better unless you sit so close your nose is almost touching. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:34:28 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! And you never expect any improvement at any time in the future? Someday, perhaps, you'll get enough bandwidth to download mp3s and experience the joy of DRM. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message ... Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! And you never expect any improvement at any time in the future? With our carriers, not any time soon! MrT. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The questionable presumption here is that it would always take 20 GB in order to download a HD movie. The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Just how much extra compression can you apply and still call it HD Arny? AFAIK, there is no standard. I have worked out some methogologies for estimating the actual amount of data that my HDTV capture card is processing for various TV shows. There is at least a 3:1 variation in data rate among network and local programs that display as a 16:9 picture and are labelled as being HDTV. It's already a compressed format after all. It appears that the amount of compression can be controlled locally. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! Ouch! If your high speed connections are free, then lucky you. High speed internet is not free, but it is sold for a flat monthly rate. "Comcast's Performance package you to cruise through the internet at speeds up to 6 Mbps. Not fast enough? Comcast's Performance Plus high-speed package can get you downloading at speeds up to 8 Mbps. Add Comcast PowerBoost to either of these high speed internet Performance packages and kick your connection speed up to 12 Mbps." BTW, its not clear what PowerBoost actually is. They see, to be claiming that when you are downloading big files, they temporarily up your data rate. Download speed Upload speed Monthly rate 6Mbps 384kbps $42.95 8Mbps 768kbps $52.95 Anyway I certainly hope those "bigger pipes" are not just clogged up with people downloading HD movies, but you are right, once they can, they will. That's what's happening here. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: Just how much extra compression can you apply and still call it HD Arny? AFAIK, there is no standard. I have worked out some methogologies for estimating the actual amount of data that my HDTV capture card is processing for various TV shows. There is at least a 3:1 variation in data rate among network and local programs that display as a 16:9 picture and are labelled as being HDTV. It's already a compressed format after all. It appears that the amount of compression can be controlled locally. Oh, definitely. Even for over-the-air signals direct from the studio and transmitter, you can see quite a bit of variation. Some stations prefer to use all of their air bandwidth for the primary program. Others send one, two, three, or even more sub-programs using a portion of the bandwidth. Satellite and cable companies may also choose to down-sample the "HDTV" stream to a lower bit-rate, before multiplexing and re-modulating through their own transmission plants. One of the big points of contention for cable has been the question of just what the "Must Carry" rules mean, with respect to HDTV. Is a cable company required to carry *all* of the program streams sent by a local broadcaster, or only the primary one? Are they allowed to downconvert any of the streams to a lower resolution or bit-rate, or must they carry them as-originally-transmitted? The locals tend to prefer a "must carry everything, as we transmitted it" approach. The cablecos prefer a "must carry only the primary program" approach. I don't think the FCC has issued a final ruling on the matter. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Jan 9, 12:25 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote: Mr.T wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message ... I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! If your high speed connections are free, then lucky you. Anyway I certainly hope those "bigger pipes" are not just clogged up with people downloading HD movies, but you are right, once they can, they will. Maybe. I don't see HD being as successful as ordinary DVD. To really get the benefits you need a pretty big screen doing 1080p Watching LOTR normal DVD on a top of the range projector on a 12' screen is better than most cinemas. I don't expect HD to be visually a great deal better unless you sit so close your nose is almost touching. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London I am here just to share my recent experience with HD DVD. Last Friday I visited my friend who is watching operas on DVD from his front projector. His picture is 15 feet diagonally on the wall screen. Of course the signal to projector is delivered through HDMI. He just bought Toshiba's HD DVD player. The purpose of this visit was to look at the picture from HD DVD. He got movie "300" with his player. So we sat and watched about 15 minutes of it. My impression was that a picture was better then from DVD but very close to well mastered DVD. After that we had dinner and sat down to see Puccini's "Turandot". It was from DVD that we both watched few times before and vere very happy with video. But this time suddenly video looked grainy, fuzzy, etc. The DVD did not change, his system was in perfect order. So my hypothesis is that after viewing well made HD/Blue-Ray you are losing capability to enjoy DVD. BTW, the same thing happened when DVD was introduced. Before that we watched operas from LazerDisk and enjoyed video very much. Now all those Lazer's are unwatchable. On modern Hi-Def screen they are eye's pain to see, pretty mach like VHS. My 2 pennies :-) vlad |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
vlad wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:25 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: Mr.T wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message ... I don't have any facts to refute you, but my "gut" tells me this is way off-base. I would guess that "most" folks (in the U.S.) have the ability to download 20 GB more or less overnight right now [1], and that the internet pipes are only going to grow bigger over time. Is overnight, or even a couple of days, too long to wait? I don't think so - many folks wait two to four days to exchange a movie from Netflix these days. --Randy [1] The average cable modem download speed is around 4 Mb/s == 500 kB/s. Then (20 GB) * (1 s / 500 kB) * (1E6 kB / GB) * (1 hour / 3600 s) = 11.1 hours Well here in Australia at least it would cost around $50 just for the privilege of down-loading that 20GB. And definitely more than the cost of buying the disk! If your high speed connections are free, then lucky you. Anyway I certainly hope those "bigger pipes" are not just clogged up with people downloading HD movies, but you are right, once they can, they will. Maybe. I don't see HD being as successful as ordinary DVD. To really get the benefits you need a pretty big screen doing 1080p Watching LOTR normal DVD on a top of the range projector on a 12' screen is better than most cinemas. I don't expect HD to be visually a great deal better unless you sit so close your nose is almost touching. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London I am here just to share my recent experience with HD DVD. Last Friday I visited my friend who is watching operas on DVD from his front projector. His picture is 15 feet diagonally on the wall screen. Of course the signal to projector is delivered through HDMI. He just bought Toshiba's HD DVD player. The purpose of this visit was to look at the picture from HD DVD. He got movie "300" with his player. So we sat and watched about 15 minutes of it. My impression was that a picture was better then from DVD but very close to well mastered DVD. After that we had dinner and sat down to see Puccini's "Turandot". It was from DVD that we both watched few times before and vere very happy with video. But this time suddenly video looked grainy, fuzzy, etc. The DVD did not change, his system was in perfect order. So my hypothesis is that after viewing well made HD/Blue-Ray you are losing capability to enjoy DVD. BTW, the same thing happened when DVD was introduced. Before that we watched operas from LazerDisk and enjoyed video very much. Now all those Lazer's are unwatchable. On modern Hi-Def screen they are eye's pain to see, pretty mach like VHS. My 2 pennies :-) vlad Could be, but a 15' screen is exactly where you'd expect the difference to show. BTW, LOTR seems to be exceptionally well mastered. Another factor you have to add in is that my night vision is a bit blurry anyway, as is most adults I imagine. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Just how much extra compression can you apply and still call it HD Arny? AFAIK, there is no standard. Of course not, I was asking for your definition. I have worked out some methogologies for estimating the actual amount of data that my HDTV capture card is processing for various TV shows. There is at least a 3:1 variation in data rate among network and local programs that display as a 16:9 picture and are labelled as being HDTV. It's already a compressed format after all. It appears that the amount of compression can be controlled locally. Of course it can, and you can end up with a so called "HD" stream that consists of a few visible blocks on the screen if you really want. Certainly NOT my definition of HD/Blu Ray anyway!!!! But you may be happy with ACTUAL picture quality lower than DivX for all I know :-) It's a bit like my pet peeve of 480 line plasma's coming with HD tuners and calling themselves HD. Some people are sucked in of course, and that's the whole point. MrT. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news The size of lossy-compressed video files is shall we say, negotiable. ;-) Just how much extra compression can you apply and still call it HD Arny? AFAIK, there is no standard. Of course not, I was asking for your definition. My answer would be subjective. ;-) I have worked out some methogologies for estimating the actual amount of data that my HDTV capture card is processing for various TV shows. There is at least a 3:1 variation in data rate among network and local programs that display as a 16:9 picture and are labelled as being HDTV. It's already a compressed format after all. It appears that the amount of compression can be controlled locally. Of course it can, and you can end up with a so called "HD" stream that consists of a few visible blocks on the screen if you really want. Certainly NOT my definition of HD/Blu Ray anyway!!!! But you may be happy with ACTUAL picture quality lower than DivX for all I know :-) It appears that the acceptability of lower data rates can be modified by artistic means. It's a bit like my pet peeve of 480 line plasma's coming with HD tuners and calling themselves HD. Some people are sucked in of course, and that's the whole point. I haven't seen a lot of that going on around here. In fact there seems to be a lot of 1080 mania. FWIW the 24" LCD I use for HDTV is 1920 x 1280. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home writes:
[...] The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. So 20 GB/2 hours is the equivalent of OTA HD. -- % Randy Yates % "Midnight, on the water... %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % I saw... the ocean's daughter." %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head' %%%% % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
"Mr.T" MrT@home writes: [...] The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. My MPEG captures of very detailed OTA HD TV programs (a sports event, a live awards show) run about 4 GB every 40 minutes. That is 12 GB every 2 hours. So 20 GB/2 hours is the equivalent of OTA HD. The channel I captured runs a second SD subchannel of weather information. It sort of adds up. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... [...] The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. So 20 GB/2 hours is the equivalent of OTA HD. Isn't that what was already mentioned, and of course the problem for on-line delivery for many people? I certainly doubt there would be many Australians willing to do so at the moment! And then of course you still need a computer/TV set up capable of displaying it. But no doubt it will all happen in the U.S. soon enough. MrT. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. My MPEG captures of very detailed OTA HD TV programs (a sports event, a live awards show) run about 4 GB every 40 minutes. That is 12 GB every 2 hours. Which only proves how variable the definition of HD can be. Compress even more, and when the block sizes become bigger than the scan lines, who is fooling who I wonder? MrT. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" writes:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message "Mr.T" MrT@home writes: [...] The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. My MPEG captures of very detailed OTA HD TV programs (a sports event, a live awards show) run about 4 GB every 40 minutes. That is 12 GB every 2 hours. There are numerous resolution/frame rate/interlacing modes for the main channel. It could be that these main source channels are not yet pushing the maximum. It could also be that your card is not storing the raw, unencoded MPEG-2 video data but is either a) transcoding the signal or b) completely decoding and re-encoding the signal in MPEG4 or H.264, both of which are better encoders (smaller bit rate for the same signal quality) than MPEG-2. In any case, 20 GB/two hours should handle ANY main channel mode for OTA HD since that is the maximum transport channel rate (before channel coding). -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The physical layer of an OTA HD signal supports up to 21 Mb/s. That translates to about 20 GB in two hours. My MPEG captures of very detailed OTA HD TV programs (a sports event, a live awards show) run about 4 GB every 40 minutes. That is 12 GB every 2 hours. Which only proves how variable the definition of HD can be. Agreed. Compress even more, and when the block sizes become bigger than the scan lines, who is fooling who I wonder? Obviously, things aren't going to get that extreme - if people are going to have a product to sell. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Compress even more, and when the block sizes become bigger than the scan lines, who is fooling who I wonder? Obviously, things aren't going to get that extreme - if people are going to have a product to sell. You obviously don't know what marketing departments are capable of. There are already examples of HD/Blu Ray disks no better than the standard DVD, but at higher cost. MrT. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:05:01 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Compress even more, and when the block sizes become bigger than the scan lines, who is fooling who I wonder? Obviously, things aren't going to get that extreme - if people are going to have a product to sell. You obviously don't know what marketing departments are capable of. There are already examples of HD/Blu Ray disks no better than the standard DVD, but at higher cost. When you make such a claim, you should back it up with some examples. Just one example would be an improvement. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Compress even more, and when the block sizes become bigger than the scan lines, who is fooling who I wonder? Obviously, things aren't going to get that extreme - if people are going to have a product to sell. You obviously don't know what marketing departments are capable of. There are already examples of HD/Blu Ray disks no better than the standard DVD, but at higher cost. I have no doubt that is either true, or close to being true. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message ... You obviously don't know what marketing departments are capable of. There are already examples of HD/Blu Ray disks no better than the standard DVD, but at higher cost. When you make such a claim, you should back it up with some examples. Just one example would be an improvement. Don't take my word for it, I don't even own a HD/Blu ray player. There are plenty of examples on the web if you want to do a search though. Whether you believe them or not is entirely up to you. MrT. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:33:29 +1100, Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message ... You obviously don't know what marketing departments are capable of. There are already examples of HD/Blu Ray disks no better than the standard DVD, but at higher cost. When you make such a claim, you should back it up with some examples. Just one example would be an improvement. Don't take my word for it, I don't even own a HD/Blu ray player. There are plenty of examples on the web if you want to do a search though. Whether you believe them or not is entirely up to you. You would have done better to keep to quiet than to admit that you were talking out your ass. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
HD or BluRay?
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message ... You would have done better to keep to quiet than to admit that you were talking out your ass. Must be very hard for you personally testing and verifying every single thing you think you know. But why exactly should I give a rats what you think, if indeed you can? MrT. |