Print

[jaynigs]

QUOTE(feflicker @ Jan 21 2008, 08:48 PM)

I think everyone is missing the point:

Does the HD download look better than the SD download? If it does, then it's HD. That is how it is being looked at by these companies. Furthermore, they are paying more attention to the SOURCE. So if the source is HD, the download is HD.

Good luck trying to get any standards implemented for what really constitutes an "HD" rip of a HD source.

The bottom line: Does the movie look good when you play it back? If it does, WHO CARES HOW THEY MADE IT LOOK GOOD OR WHAT THE BITRATE IS, ETC. If it doesn't look good, don't pay for the service any longer and file a complaint with the company. Consumers drive the market. If consumers don't buy it, they'll make adjustments...

Hehe, but i think it may be you who has missed the point.

Noone ever said it won't or can't look better than SD

The main point i feel was the fact that people are being deceived that what they are downloading is equal quality to HD DVD or BLU RAY, when in reality it isn't even close, more compression means less detail.

Many uninformed people are being exploited over their lack of knowledge on the subject and assume the HD label is a guarantee of a universal standard. There needs to be some standard in place much like tvs carrying the HD READY logo, and HD READY 1080p. To give consumers a clear indication on what they are purchasing. There is just far too much ambiguity.

It might not make any difference for some, but for people who have forked out thousands for the top of the range HD TV they are going to want to view films in the best quality available, which most DLC does not provide.

So in conclusion, yes people will still purchase this sub standard content as they are none the wiser, and it seems you are in this same confused state judging by your comment about "if the SOURCE is HD then the download is", thats just not true at all, the source can be HD and the download SD.

In a lot of cases im sure that poorly encoded low bitrate HD content could taint peoples overall perception of High definition, and never experience its full potential.

Ambiguity is an old tactic used by companies to sale inferior products, and the trade descriptions act is there to protect consumers, it needs to be applied more rigorously to digital media.

[jdsony]

QUOTE(restricted4545 @ Jan 21 2008, 09:50 PM)

quick question here

i've noticed people keep saying they watch these mkv HD rips on thier stand alone DVD players

how is that possible? my upscaling dvd player (oppo 1080p variety only does divx) can't do it
do you need to convert with a tool like VSO ConvertXToDVD

thanks in advance

I don't think anyone said that. I personally watch the rips using my PC hooked to my TV. Others might stream to their 360, PS3, etc.

[feflicker]

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 21 2008, 02:38 PM)

Hehe, but i think it may be you who has missed the point.

Noone ever said it won't or can't look better than SD

The main point i feel was the fact that people are being deceived that what they are downloading is equal quality to HD DVD or BLU RAY, when in reality it isn't even close, more compression means less detail.

Many uninformed people are being exploited over their lack of knowledge on the subject and assume the HD label is a guarantee of a universal standard. There needs to be some standard in place much like tvs carrying the HD READY logo, and HD READY 1080p. To give consumers a clear indication on what they are purchasing. There is just far too much ambiguity.

It might not make any difference for some, but for people who have forked out thousands for the top of the range HD TV they are going to want to view films in the best quality available, which most DLC does not provide.

So in conclusion, yes people will still purchase this sub standard content as they are none the wiser, and it seems you are in this same confused state judging by your comment about "if the SOURCE is HD then the download is", thats just not true at all, the source can be HD and the download SD.

In a lot of cases im sure that poorly encoded low bitrate HD content could taint peoples overall perception of High definition, and never experience its full potential.

Ambiguity is an old tactic used by companies to sale inferior products, and the trade descriptions act is there to protect consumers, it needs to be applied more rigorously to digital media.

You missed it again. My point was that there are no standards, so the corporations are taking advantage of that fact. They will base their definition of "HD" as to what the SOURCE of the media was. Why? Because it is in there best interest! It's simple marketing...

The statement "if the SOURCE is HD then the download is" is OBVIOUSLY not my position. That is the position of the corporations.

I don't believe the consumers can demand a "standard" for downloaded content at this time. The simple fact is it is up to the consumer to either pay for what is offered, or pass on it. If people are buying it, why would companies encode at higher bitrates, use more bandwidth, and make less money? If you want "standards" for downloadable HD content then people need to not purchase content which is below the community standards.

One thing is certain, over the next few years this will get more attention as videophiles continue to complain that their "HD" download is not really HD. However, this won't get truly addressed until the average person understands the differences and complains (good luck on that one).

At this point SD = LoFi, and HD = HiFi. If they used the proper verbiage nobody would be complaining. But why would they? Everybody knows "HD" is what is selling...

[0794]

QUOTE(joeyddr @ Jan 20 2008, 09:13 AM)

Man people just bitch to bitch and feel the need to tell everyone whats good and why what they like is bad christ  
how bout this believe what you believe and people will still buy what they believe looks good and be happy about it. just stfu

exactly, i have found this post quite hilarious as people are arguing around in circles and sometimes comparing apples to oranges...

this article is just simply stating that current HD downloads are not equivalent to current HD optical technology...period

everyone will pay for the technology with the convenience that they want.  if someone is satisfied with a certain resolution using a certain codec or bitrate, then good for them.  and companies will continue to provide consumers with options in how we enjoy our entertainment...

QUOTE(feflicker @ Jan 21 2008, 02:48 PM)

I think everyone is missing the point:

Does the HD download look better than the SD download? If it does, then it's HD. That is how it is being looked at by these companies. Furthermore, they are paying more attention to the SOURCE. So if the source is HD, the download is HD.

Good luck trying to get any standards implemented for what really constitutes an "HD" rip of a HD source.

The bottom line: Does the movie look good when you play it back? If it does, WHO CARES HOW THEY MADE IT LOOK GOOD OR WHAT THE BITRATE IS, ETC. If it doesn't look good, don't pay for the service any longer and file a complaint with the company. Consumers drive the market. If consumers don't buy it, they'll make adjustments...

excellent statement...much better than how i tried to put it...

[ssj4android]

I'm OK with the 2mbps HD streams ABC.com had of TV shows. Then again, that's because I'm not paying for them.
My eyesight is pretty bad anyway, I don't need the best quality.

[jaynigs]

QUOTE(ekruob @ Jan 22 2008, 03:32 AM)

No.
If you read what I wrote - I stated clearly that Blu-ray was 40mbps for the video (I mean we are only talking about video, not audio etc), please re-read it!

How is it irrelevant?  VC-1 is 2.2 times more efficient than MPEG-2.  This is HIGHLY relevant.  You are saying that whether something is uncompressed or not has no relevance to bit rate!  WTF?!
Yes, your point being?!
Yes, why are you stating the blatently obvious?!
Why?!  And your evidence for this is where?!  Or is this your own personal uninformed opinion?!

Microsoft programmers themselves state that 18mbps is perfect for 1080p video.  Source: Amir.
Ditto, 720p is perfect at 9mbps.
Do you disagree with experts?!
And that's where I'm saying he's wrong!
I have the Blu-ray copy of 'Into the Blue' right here with me now - and guess what - it's at 13mbps MPEG-2 LOL!
It looks OK, not fantastic, but OK (most people would not see the artifacts).

That IT ITSELF proves you wrong about the VC-1 bit rates LOL!

For crying out loud, someone hand me a piece of chalk!!!

Firstly, it would be appreciated if you could conduct yourself in a more polite manner, and not "MR EVERYONES WRONG EXCEPT ME"

EVERYTHING written on this subject is OPINION!!!! and furthermore, not all of it is my opinion, i am translating the posted blog for you as you clearly have your head hidden somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.

QUOTE

Microsoft programmers themselves state that 18mbps is perfect for 1080p video.  Source: Amir.

Oh look an opinion of a so called "expert" - Microsoft will say its perfect to justify their DLC, read between the lines, or be a sheep, your choice.
Microsoft also say many other things, they are rarely true.

QUOTE

Do you disagree with experts?!

Well, you clearly do, George who posted this blog is meant to be an expert, yet you are disagreeing with him, so hes wrong, and all the other "experts" are right?

Experts or not, they are all still opinions, most are biased, refer above.

QUOTE

How is it irrelevant?  VC-1 is 2.2 times more efficient than MPEG-2.  This is HIGHLY relevant.  You are saying that whether something is uncompressed or not has no relevance to bit rate!  WTF?!

I didn't say it had no relevance to bit rate, i am saying it had no relevance to the point of the blog.

VC-1 maybe be 2.2 times more efficient than MPEG 2, that only equates to more disc space used and a higher overall bitrate needed for MPEG 2 to match the same picture quality.

So in this respect, it HAS NO RELEVANCE!! bit rates vary between codecs.

QUOTE

I have the Blu-ray copy of 'Into the Blue' right here with me now - and guess what - it's at 13mbps MPEG-2 LOL!

You seem to be judging standards by poorly coded blu ray discs, why? 13mbps MPEG-2 is inexcusable in my opinion, and not suprisingly many others have the same opinion.

From your 1st post it is clear you have the wrong end of the stick.

QUOTE

The stated HD DVD bit rate of 28mbps VC-1 is close to the maximum - not the minimum as claimed!

Noone, is "claiming" anything, he is merely suggesting that this should be the minumum standard accepted for HD content!!! thus disagreeing with microsofts claim that 18mbps is sufficient for 1080p, and the whole fricking point of his blog!

QUOTE

This is evidenced by Blu-ray titles that use 40mbps for MPEG-2; VC-1 compresses 2.2 times more efficiently than MPEG-2. So 40mbps MPEG-2 = 18mbps VC-1. This in itself clearly demonstrates the lack of knowledge the author has.

What??? what point are you making here?

Whether Blu ray has used MPEG-2 at 40mbps in the past or not is irrelevant to his point, he doesn't claim that 40mbps MPEG-2 is satisfactory for HD content, i will REITERATE ONCE MORE!!!!!!! He is suggesting that the standard should be at LEAST VC-1 @ 28mbps!! - Thus MPEG-2 @ 40mbps is NOT SUFFICIENT in his opinion, since AS YOU POINTED OUT!!! this is effectively equal to the quality supplied with VC-1 @ 18mbps!! - which IN HIS OPINION ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!!!

QUOTE

If you read what I wrote

Before, jumping on your high horse, it it you who should be reading things properly!


If you want to discuss things here, drop the big I AM attitude, i don't care if you put Computer Systems Engineer or Albert Einstein at the end of your post makes no difference to your mis informed and poorly interpreted view of the blog posted.

It appears to me we are debating different things here, read my posts and his blog again

[namrrac]

No corp would ever transmit video in it's uncompressed form.  Unless it is the master tape witch would relinquish all rights.

[ekruob]

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

For crying out loud, someone hand me a piece of chalk!!!

Firstly, it would be appreciated if you could conduct yourself in a more polite manner, and not "MR EVERYONES WRONG EXCEPT ME"

You were the one that had a go at me, mate.  So I am sorry, but by you claiming to be the one taking umbrage makes you the verifiable hypocrite!

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

VC-1 maybe be 2.2 times more efficient than MPEG 2, that only equates to more disc space used and a higher overall bitrate needed for MPEG 2 to match the same picture quality.

So in this respect, it HAS NO RELEVANCE!! bit rates vary between codecs.

You two statements contradict eash other.  This is precisely what I was saying before as well.

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

You seem to be judging standards by poorly coded blu ray discs, why? 13mbps MPEG-2 is inexcusable in my opinion, and not suprisingly many others have the same opinion.

No - what I am saying is that CONSUMERS - THOUSANDS of them (a lot of HD enthusiasts) - own this disc.  So for HDM lovers to even accept a 13mbps MPEG-2 encoded Blu-ray disc without complaint - then this IS ACCEPTABLE to MOST consumers!  FACT!

So by simple extrapolation:
13mbps MPEG-2 = 6mbps VC-1.  So consumers are OK with 6mbps 1080p VC-1.  FACT.

As I pointed out I feel that for me this is not acceptable - 18+mbps VC-1 should be the standard for high-action movies (obviously low-action content does not require as high a bit rate)..

I have actually encoded 1080p VC-1 video - have you?!

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

From your 1st post it is clear you have the wrong end of the stick.
Noone, is "claiming" anything, he is merely suggesting that this should be the minumum standard accepted for HD content!!! thus disagreeing with microsofts claim that 18mbps is sufficient for 1080p, and the whole fricking point of his blog!
What??? what point are you making here?

My point has always been that 18mbps as the min average bit rate IS perfectly acceptable.  That is blatently obvious to everyone.
I have been encoding video in MPEG-4 since 1998, I am a software engineer by profession, and I have studied the maths behind video compression formally through my engineering degree.  What are your expertise exactly?

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

Whether Blu ray has used MPEG-2 at 40mbps in the past or not is irrelevant to his point, he doesn't claim that 40mbps MPEG-2 is satisfactory for HD content, i will REITERATE ONCE MORE!!!!!!! He is suggesting that the standard should be at LEAST VC-1 @ 28mbps!! - Thus MPEG-2 @ 40mbps is NOT SUFFICIENT in his opinion, since AS YOU POINTED OUT!!! this is effectively equal to the quality supplied with VC-1 @ 18mbps!! - which IN HIS OPINION ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!!!

Sony has also publicly gone on the record stating that they believe 40mbps MPEG-2 is perfect for 1080p.  So they are backing Microsoft as well - you are both now arguing with two industry heavyweights of HD video LOL!

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 22 2008, 06:50 PM)

Before, jumping on your high horse, it it you who should be reading things properly!
If you want to discuss things here, drop the big I AM attitude, i don't care if you put Computer Systems Engineer or Albert Einstein at the end of your post makes no difference to your mis informed and poorly interpreted view of the blog posted.

It appears to me we are debating different things here, read my posts and his blog again

I contend that it is you that needs to alight from your lofty steed... mate.

[puckSR]

Wow....a lot of arguing....

As someone slightly involved with this type of equipment....let me throw out my 2 cents...

Some history might be helpful for beginners.
CD, DVD, etc did not base their bitrate on "best quality".
In fact, the CD is a perfect example.  The bitrate of music on a CD is INSANE.  It is more than "extra", it is technically impossible for the accuracy of a digital recording to get any better at a certain point.

In the case of DVD, CD, HD DVD, Blu-Ray, and others....no consideration AT ALL was given to compression.
The engineers are given two requirements:
Max length of audio/video on disc
Capacity of storage medium.

THAT IS IT.

Claiming that the bitrate can determine the "quality" is ridiculous.
Just for the record....1080i is broadcast at 25 Mbit/s and 720p at 19.7 Mbit/s.
This standard was decided in an attempt to require a minimum of processing power.

Compression can be lossless, and in the case of comparison between most "hard bitrates"(those used on media) there is almost always room for compression.

[pec_mex]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jan 23 2008, 03:01 AM)

Some history might be helpful for beginners.
CD, DVD, etc did not base their bitrate on "best quality".
In fact, the CD is a perfect example.  The bitrate of music on a CD is INSANE.  It is more than "extra", it is technically impossible for the accuracy of a digital recording to get any better at a certain point.
Claiming that the bitrate can determine the "quality" is ridiculous.
Compression can be lossless, and in the case of comparison between most "hard bitrates"(those used on media) there is almost always room for compression.

I'm very agree with you, people can't discard an excelent video quality achieved in h.264 content just because the size of the file compared to original hddvd/blue ray source (e. 8gb vs 28gb ) you still have dts audio and for many people here just remember what happens right now with lossless's cds the size is much less and the quality is the same(320mb vs 700mb). Another good point:

QUOTE(RolfLobker @ Jan 20 2008, 02:58 PM)

That's a decrease in bitrate with the exact same compression technology.
x264 uses better compression than MPEG-2. Thus you can lower the bitrate.
A 5000 MBit bitrate movie compressed with x264 will look better than that exact same source compressed with MPEG-2 at a 6000 MBit bitrate. Bitrate alone means shit!

For people who are actually not watching h.264 movies give it a try and post the results.
just my 2cents  

[jaynigs]

CODE

You were the one that had a go at me, mate.  So I am sorry, but by you claiming to be the one taking umbrage makes you the verifiable hypocrite!

No no, i am defending myself, my 1st reply had a polite tone, yours was condescending. In fact your whole attitude is.

CODE

I have been encoding video in MPEG-4 since 1998, I am a software engineer by profession, and I have studied the maths behind video compression formally through my engineering degree.  What are your expertise exactly?

Software engineers are two a penny. Don't see how this makes everyone elses opinion wrong.

I'm a programmer and a hardware engineer

I code a plethora of different languages, power pc, ppc assembly, x86 assembly, c, c#, c++, php, perl, java.
amongst others, but i don't see how that justifies my opinion, even if i had one.

CODE

I have actually encoded 1080p VC-1 video - have you?!

Yup, and your point? By the way, you don't need an engineers degree to encode video. My 8 year old nephew can manage it.

CODE

Sony has also publicly gone on the record stating that they believe 40mbps MPEG-2 is perfect for 1080p.  So they are backing Microsoft as well - you are both now arguing with two industry heavyweights of HD video LOL!

HERE WE GO AGAIN! AND WHY WOULD SONY AND M$ SAY THAT! THEY ARE BOTH A BUSINESS FOR CHRIST SAKE! course they are going to claim this, half of their Blu Ray discs are encoded in MPEG-2!! LMFAO

CODE

I contend that it is you that needs to alight from your lofty steed... mate.

I am on no steed my friend, i was simply reciprocating the blog writers words, furthermore, i did not claim once that any of this was my opinion. Yet again it is your wild assumptions, and inability to read and digest information. Maybe eventually it will sink in.

Perhaps during the time you were invested in your engineering degree, you missed out on some social skills.


This will be my last post on the subject, thus i will end with this.

The suggestion was that the minimum should be 28mbps using the VC-1 codec, this obviously does not guarantee quality, there are lots of things to consider, such as filters used, how many passes are used to encode from the original print, etc etc

Give it about 2 years and Blu Ray Superbit discs will come out ( or something along those lines ), with a higher bit rate etc, just like they did with DVD, just so these companies can get more money from the consumers, its big business. When this happens, ( not if ), we can then ask the same question to sony, microsoft etc why should people bother buying these higher bit rate discs? if their previous claims were accurate.

I was disgusted when these DVD superbit discs even came out, i mean, if they were superior, why weren't they released this way to begin with? its all a con.

And as i said, i don't necessarily agree with everything in that blog, however, i won't be downloading HD content from Xbox Live, apple or anywhere else, at least not for a premium.

It seems to me that you are content with mediocrity, MPEG-2 40mpbs may be fine for HD content, but when there are better more efficient codecs available, consumers should be given the best available.

I also agree with people who said bitrate alone doesn't mean anything, this is true, but since the blu ray bitrate maximum is 40mb/s, i dont see why this cannot be VC-1 @ 40mbps for all discs, and not some archaic codec such as MPEG-2, perhaps also, they can also perhaps add extra features with the saved storage space.

[popper]

first post for me too....
i was reading some docsis3 leads and your thread came up, and after reading some of the first replys here it became clear that a lot of information is missing from these types of threads, so i thought id help fill readers in  a little.

it may turn into a long post as im just cutting and pasting from my many related posts elsewere mostly, so if it doesnt flow to well, not to worry as my intent is just to give the info for you to use and intigrate as you please....

take the info within and spead it around ,just give me (popper) credit please.

first up although this writer didnt make the error, most writers do,that being  ' Mpeg4 ' as a generic AVC/H.264/part10 name, ITS NOT, the reason is simple the Mpeg4 part of the vido spec includes both the old ASP/Divx/Xvid/part2 codec and the new AVC/H.264/part10 codecs
so always try and make it clear which codec your refering to by useing AVC or ASP at the very least, and insist the writers you read do the same so as to stop false advertising of the masses.

AVC,alongside snow, is the only codecs  that have a lossless mode in their spec, ASP/Divx/Xvid, VC-1 and Mpeg2 do NOT have this option.

please see this png pic of the most used codecs options/specs ....

hmm, it seems this open generic open png pic format display isnt allowed on this MB for some strange reason?, so i assume you can click it at least .  

nope, cant even do that here, ok so add the missing bits http:// back in and remove the .gif then....

right this is really starting make me wonder if i wont to come back here now, as the board wont let me even butcher the url ...,ok just go directly here to see the chart
http://www.cableforu...7856-post1.html


heres a long post regarding industry codec progress from back in 2006, so keep that in mind when you look at the codec bitrates as expected today being a lower rate for the current hardware in the data centers and ISPs...

my ISP being the UK virgin media BTWm, and they are currently using docsis1.1 at 20Mbit/s down and 768kbit/s up dismal i know, but they are trialing docsis3 with 50Mbit/s down and 1.5Mbit/s or perhaps as much as 5Mbit/s up if the executive are listening to advice given this year.

"yea that seems cool, but lets hope some Exec with a brain and an eye on the long term future picks the AVC (aka H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10) codec rather than some accountant messing with the short term books.......

the link is 3 pages long, so heres an overview
http://www.newvideob...ent/view/74/26/
"
'Bookmarks' in this feature (just follow the section headings):
VC-1 IS SIDELINED FOR REAL-TIME BROADCASTING
DUAL-CODEC APPROACH AT TIER-1 TELCOS
CONTINUING ROLE FOR MPEG-2 -- EVEN ON IPTV
IPTV MPEG-2/AVC MIGRATIONS
SATELLITE ADOPTS AVC FOR HDTV
CABLE HAS LESS NEED FOR ADVANCED CODING
ADVANCED COMPRESSION ON DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL
DTT REMAINS LARGELY MPEG-2
AVC HALVING BIT RATES
SWEET SPOT FOR HDTV IS 6-7.5Mbps
IPTV NEEDS TWO SIMULTANEOUS HD STREAMS
SATELLITE PUTS A PREMIUM ON PICTURE QUALITY
HDTV COULD BE POSSIBLE "IN 3-3.5Mbps"
HDTV BECOMING THE NEW STANDARD-DEFINITION?
TANDBERG TELEVISION'S NEW COMPRESSION ENGINE
TIER-1 QUALITY HDTV ONTO DENSE TELCO PLATFORMS
FOUR HD, FOUR SD AND FOUR PIP FROM 1RU
HARMONIC'S NEW SD AND HD ENCODING PLATFORMS
FOUR CHANNELS OF HDTV FROM 1RU
HARMONIC MOVES AWAY FROM MPEG-2/AVC PLATFORMS
"STILL A NEED FOR MPEG-2/AVC PLATFORMS"
DEBATE ABOUT IMPORTANCE OF DENSITY
BUT NEAR-CONSENSUS ABOUT VC-1
KEY DEPLOYMENTS: WHO USES WHO?
SCOPUS FINALISING HD PLATFORM"

NTL:tw accountant said *| LOL
"A spokesman says, “We are using MPEG-2 because we can."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"
AVC HALVING BIT RATES
The good news for operators on all platforms is that AVC is living up to its hype and halving bit rates compared to MPEG-2.

The fastest gains appear to be for high-definition, where the world’s leading encoder vendors have set their sights over the last 24 months.

So, from bit rates of up to 20Mbps for HDTV on MPEG-2 a couple of years ago, like-for-like HD services plummeted to around 8Mbps on leading-edge advanced encoders this time last year.

By IBC (Amsterdam exhibition) this September, the figures will be 6-8Mbps depending on content, with the most bullish predictions being for sub-6Mbps for hard-to-encode content like sports."

"
Depending on who you talk to, the so-called ‘sweet spot’ for HDTV is between 6Mbps and 7.5Mbps.

Carl Furgusson, VP product management at TANDBERG Television, comments: “We are getting to the point where we can get to around 6Mbps for HDTV with top quality pictures and with statistical multiplexing you can get between 6-8 satellite services onto a 36Mbps transponder.”

In fact, TANDBERG claims that with its latest encoder it can deliver more than eight channels of full-resolution HDTV on a 36MHz transponder using DVB-S2 (the latest satellite transmission standard) and 8PSK."

notice thats Mpeg-2 NOT HD Mpeg-2
"HDTV COULD BE POSSIBLE "IN 3-3.5Mbps"
Harmonic is also pushing the boundaries of bit rate reduction, claiming sub-6Mbps for best-quality HDTV sports pictures and as little as 3-3.5Mbps for less demanding content - which is matching some MPEG-2 services."

"TANDBERG TELEVISION'S NEW COMPRESSION ENGINE
TANDBERG Television is using IBC to unveil its new ICE3 (Intelligent Compression Engine), which is the underlying technology for the push towards 6Mbps HD.

The improvements in bit rates have been possible on the back of improved motion estimation, single-slice video processing, dedicated processing for low resolution encoding of PiP services, multi-pass analysis and enhanced video pre-processing.

ICE3 is being used on the new EN8030 AVC standard-definition encoder and the EN8090 AVC HD/SD encoder.

Effectively, these are the next-generation to the current EN5930 (SD) and EN5990 (HD) encoders for AVC but besides better bit rate reduction, they also deliver more outputs.

The EN8090, for example, will take a single HD input and generate a full-resolution HDTV channel, a secondary version of that main channel in full standard-definition, and a third ‘micro’ channel for use in PiP, mosaic and multi-view applications."

"FOUR HD, FOUR SD AND FOUR PIP FROM 1RU
As a result, the Plex systems can output up to 12 services from a single HD input within a 1RU form factor: four full-resolution HD, four secondaries up to full SD and four low-res channels for PiP type applications. For the telco market - which is more comfortable than the broadcast industry with high-density, multi-function platforms - this represents a notable advance."
"
the OP writer's use of raw data rates is bizar and clear FUD, given all CD/DVD video uses some form of codec and compression and would be used for a very long time yet on any TCP/IP network, not even LANs or non pro digital decks for editing etc.

as is the use of the DOCSIS3 No.s, he forgets to point out the the 160Mbit/s rates are infact the LOWEST spec for the Docsis3 spec over 4 bonded channels, the top spec is infact 5Gigabit+ and 125 bonded channels.

of course, the basic Bronze,silver and even full spec kit on its way to your local hed end today doesnt use more the the basic 4 bonded channel s and it may be a longer time before we so more bonding, heres also the fact that the 3rd party ethernet manufactures are letting the worlds end users down with anything above 1gigabit ethernet cards today so even anything above 24 dosis3 bonded channels will be a challenge if you cant get a good quality ethernet card above that level by the time ISPs supply more channels.

"Re: Virgin Media announces 50mb lines from next year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CableLabs awarded the first qualification status certifications for DOCSIS 3.0 products.
http://www.converged...?ID=23359&ctgy=
"
CableLabs Awards DOCSIS 3.0 Qualifications

CableLabs awarded the first qualification status certifications for DOCSIS 3.0 products.

Casa Systems received "silver" qualification while Arris and Cisco received "bronze" qualification for their cable modem termination systems (CMTS) headend gear.

The headends were tested under a tiered program that was created as a way to encourage CMTS makers to submit gear for testing earlier than they otherwise might.

CableLabs also offered suppliers numerous informal interoperability events where vendors work together in CableLabs’ facilities to test and evaluate their implementations of the specifications.

 DOCSIS 3.0 specifications enable downstream data rates of 160 Mbps or higher and upstream data rates of 120 Mbps or higher. To achieve these higher data rates DOCSIS 3.0 describes a methodology for channel bonding in both the upstream and downstream directions. A minimum of four channels, each with throughput of 40 Mbps, is specified.
...

"
it might take a while to see 125 DS channels though  5Gb/s download
(3.75Gb/s upload)

id settle for 24 DS channels though to tide you over 960Mbit/s
download and around 720Mbit/s upload before overheads


http://www.bloobble.....epsession=true
slide No 14
"
OC it depends on the CMTS and firmware installed in it at the other end, but im pritty sure the official spec for Docsis2.0 (the default freqs etc that Docsis (2.0B-)3.0 is using states that a single Eurodocsis channel uses a MAX of 50Mbit before overheads.

take a look at the ARRIS PDF for a chart
http://www.arrisi.co....Technology.pdf
that shows for QAM 64 on US docsis with 2 channels,so id assume the kit can do a max upto 60 Mbit per channel before overheads with a higher QAM (is that 256 max currently ?) and a future firmware if needed.

with the current minimum Docsis 3.0 spec of 4 DS bonded channels allowed, thats 160Mbit down and 120mbit up, 40Mbit download per channel and 30Mbit upload per channel.

its all in the No.s, so...
24 bonded channels give you 960Mbit/s download and 720Mbit/s upload.

and although (if ever)it might take a while to see 125 DS channels  the currently highest spec for 3.0, thats 5Gb/s download and 3.75Gb/s upload

its strange they didnt just TOP spec for max 10Gigabit of bonded channels Download though?...

lets just hope the 3rd party network card venders get off their backsides and start producing 2/4/6/8 and/or 10gig NCs for the home users markets.

or at the very least, (actually it might be the far better option in the SHORT TERM) microsoft provide a free generic bonding interface driver ASAP, so we can bond our NCs together to get higher throughput to the likes of freeBSD/linux home made NAS servers (and even MS machines if they supply the bond driver), and later, multi gigabit hardware devices such as any bonded cable modem above the 24 channels (1 gigbit)it would take to fill that pipe
"
http://www.cableforu...ext-page-8.html if your interested.
"

[feflicker]

@jaynigs, I have been following the whole thread, and from an un-biased perspective it sure has read to me like you are the condescending one, and the one lacking social skills. ekruob's posts read more like a technical white paper, i don't hear the same tone you do. If you don't agree with the "facts" he is presenting, point out where he is incorrect, no need to just banter back and forth on symantecs and make personal attacks... I'm not trying to join this little flame-fest you guys have going, but come on, let's stick to the technical discussion, I think ekruob is making a pretty reasonable case and I'd like to see some experts weigh in on it, see if we can come to an agreement on what is technically sufficient to label video "HD"...

[ekruob]

QUOTE(jaynigs @ Jan 21 2008, 06:07 PM)

Would you buy a HD DVD 1080p disc that is encoded with VC-1 @ 14mbps?

Hundreds of thousands of customers already have!

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - HD DVD: VC-1: 12.88 mbps video.
Batman Begin - HD DVD: VC-1: 13.70 mbps video.
V for Vendetta - HD DVD: VC-1: 12.69 mbps video.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - HD DVD: VC-1: 13.53 mbps video.
Happy Feet - HD DVD: VC-1: 13.85 mbps video.
... I could post several Blu-ray Disc title specs but I would bring people to tears of agony!

(Mind you it does explain why I don't own any of those titles.)


jaynigs, why oh why do you keep making up total BS like that?!

[popper]

QUOTE

QUOTE(21cwSpanky @ Jan 20 2008, 07:14 AM)

People "deal" with youtube quality videos because they're free. Digital downloads are overpriced rentals for movies that look worse than physical HD formats.

QUOTE(Andrew_Roy @ Jan 20 2008, 12:12 PM)

So the pricing needs restructured?

well yes and no, sure the pricing need to come down, but its also true that while youtube is free its the only option on offer right now, so even though  that quality isnt great people are using it.

if they took AVC/H.264 encoded content then the clever people would be using that right now.

after all its not for fun apple went and signed an agreement with youtube to re-encode all their (your!)content to the AVC/H.264 format,  or the Monday, August 20, 2007 Flash Player 9 Update 3 Beta 2 that contained both AVC and AAC codec support is it.

the dev below didnt really interchanged 'Mpeg4' and AVC/H.264/part10 as many do,so much,but many others do, and that needs to change IMO, after all typeing AVC or ASP at the very least takes so little time and effort.

http://www.kaouranti...-on-web_20.html

"
Monday, August 20, 2007
What just happened to video on the web?
That's a question you should ask with the announcement we made tonight. I think a lot will change. This is probably one of my longest and information packed posts ever, but I think it is important we put down all cards on the table. Lets summarize what new functionality Flash Player 9 Update 3 Beta 2 contains (for the impatient: It will be available on labs.adobe.com this afternoon):

An file format parser implementing parts of ISO 14496-12. In terms you might understand this means a very limited sub set of MPEG-4, 3GP and QuickTime movie support.

Support for the 3GPP timed text specification 3GPP TS 26.245. Essentially this is a standardized subtitle format within 3GP files.

Partial parsing support for the 'ilst' atom which is the ID3 equivalent iTunes uses to store meta data. This really more a de-facto standard which came through the ubiquity of iTunes, there is no official documentation on the format. Look here for an incomplete list of supported tags iTunes does use.

A software based H.264 codec with the ability to decode Base, Mainline and High profiles. This is also an ISO standard with the identifier being ISO 14496-10.

An AAC decoder supporting AAC Main, AAC LC and SBR (also known as HE-AAC). The corresponding ISO specification is ISO 14496-3.

That's pretty much what we say publicly. Truth is that these specifications are so complex that no one supports 100% of it. I realize that it will be important for Adobe to communicate exactly what is and what is not supported. We are working on this and will be trying to help novices and experts alike. For those who scream murder and accuse us of going with incomplete standards support let me tell you that ISO 14496-12 specifically allows for the definition of sub sets. 3GP is one of those. We did not extend or add proprietary extensions whatsoever to the mentioned standards above, it is a pure sub set.

Why now? Short answer: Because you wanted it. Long answer: We've been working on this for a while and this was planned to be part of the next major revision of the Flash Player. What was unexpected was how impatient a lot of our customers are :-) It seems many are trying to make choices when it comes to video technologies right now. We wanted to make sure that we would offer the best possible choices to them and set a signal that we are willing to embrace industry standards. No one believed that we would make this happen.

Unfortunately, and we realized while working on this: along with adopting industry standards also comes completely new terminology which seems designed to confuse non-insiders. This makes it difficult to pin down exactly what it is what we did and how you might benefit from it. It took me several months to just understand the basics in the ISO specifications. By now I might have lost the ability to boil it down into simple terms everyone can understand. But I'll try anyway. :-)

Lets talk about actual functionality you can leverage in the Flash Player. Now I am getting really technical:



You can load and play .mp4,.m4v,.m4a,.mov and .3gp files using the same NetStream API you use to load FLV files now. We did not add any sort of new API in the Flash Player. All your existing video playback front ends will work as they are. As long as they do not look at the file extension that is, though renaming the files to use the .flv file extension might help your component. The Flash Player itself does not care about file extensions, you can feed it .txt files for all it matters. The Flash Player always looks inside the file to determine what type of file it is.

A new version of FMS is upcoming and will support the new file format. This is powerful stuff. Simply drop video files you might have encoded using one of the countless tools out there onto the server and it'll stream. Even if the moov atom is at the end of the file. Ah, that is something I have to mention as you are 100% likely to fall into this trap:

If you use progressive download instead of FMS make sure that the moov atom (which is the index information in MPEG-4 files) is at the beginning of the file. Otherwise you have to wait until the file is completely downloaded before it is played back.

You can use tools like qt-faststart.c written by our own Mike Melanson to fix your files so that the index is at the beginning of the file. Unfortunately our tools (Premiere and AfterEffects etc.) currently place the index at the end of the file so this tool might become essential for you, at least for now. We are working hard to fix this in our video tools. There is nothing we can do in the Flash Player and iTunes/QuickTime does behave the same way.

The Flash Player will display the first supported video and audio track it finds in a file. Subsequent audio and video tracks are ignored and not selectable right now. This covers the majority of files out there on the web, only in rare instances do you have additional audio tracks f.ex. But I believe that for the web you would rather create several versions of a file anyway to save bandwidth. One of next major revisions of the Flash Player will add new APIs to enhance this most likely. Our goal was not to add any new APIs for this release.

Video needs to be in H.264 format only. MPEG-4 Part 2 (Xvid, DivX etc.) video is not supported, H.263 video is not supported, Sorenson Video is not supported. Keep in mind that a lot of pod casts are still using MPEG-4 Part 2.

So do not be surprised if you do not see any video. We should be close to 100% compliant to the H.264 standard, all Base, Main, High and High 10 bit streams should play.

Extended, High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4 profiles are not officially supported at this time. They might or might not work depending on what features are used.

We have no artificial lower limit on B-frames or any problems with B-pyramids like other players do. We also decode field coded streams, although this beta displays the images progressively using the weave method.

The final release will be blending the two fields. There are still a couple of bugs with frame ordering/timing I need to fix in the Flash Player itself for the final release.

And there is also a problem with files using the loop filter on dual core machines which causes horizontal artifacts along slice boundaries, which is my bad. The fix for this did not make it into this beta.

Overall though and leaving out the bugs I listed here which are my fault, the H.264 decoder is a remarkable piece of engineering, it is provided to us by MainConcept.

It weights in at less than 100KB of compressed code which is quite an achievement for such a complicated standard.

...
loads more "


OC MainConcept were an Amiga software vendor so their codec size and optimised for speed are expected by many people ,shame MS cant code to a codec standard LOL, you did know VC-1 was based on the old divx codebase with bells added to make it competative with the new industry adopted standard AVC/H.264 did you, shame they didnt include a lossless mode in VC-1 though...