Post by: Xbox-Scene on January 19, 2008, 11:18:00 PM
Don't Believe the Low Bit-Rate 'HD' Lie Posted by XanTium | January 20 00:42 EST | News Category: Xbox360 |
| From blogs.zdnet.com: Quote
Full Story: blogs.zdnet.com |
Post by: prplehz on January 20, 2008, 12:02:00 AM
Post by: SuperStition on January 20, 2008, 12:43:00 AM
Post by: Skitals on January 20, 2008, 12:13:00 AM
QUOTE(prplehz @ Jan 20 2008, 07:02 AM) 
First post, woot! What ever happend to the days when a movie was just a movie, lmao!
QUOTE(SuperStition @ Jan 20 2008, 07:43 AM)
I'm just gonna go with DivX.
It is because of people with these kind of mentalities that cable companies and services like iTunes and XBL can get away with this! Why should you care? Because you are paying MORE money for an "HD" version. If you don't care about quality, stick to SD... and your DivX.
Damnit I'm feeling old. Member here since 2002, member # 1184
Post by: ThaCrip on January 20, 2008, 12:28:00 AM
basically to sum it up... XviD (.avi) is to DVD as x264 (.mkv) is to hddvd/blu-ray
... only side effect with x264 is most people cant play 1080p on there pc as it generally requires a dual core CPU to play good (basically x264 is a CPU hog but it's quality is quite good )... although 720p alot of semi recent pc's should be able to play fine. i can play 720p video in x264 format fine on my pc (AMD Athlon 3500+ CPU (2.2ghz but i overclocked it to 2409mhz)) which takes roughly 50percent CPU usage when playing on The KMPlayer.
Post by: Odb718 on January 20, 2008, 01:24:00 AM
I don't think people would wait around to download that... or would they...
Post by: sgr215 on January 20, 2008, 01:27:00 AM
QUOTE(prplehz @ Jan 20 2008, 02:02 AM) 
First post, woot! What ever happend to the days when a movie was just a movie, lmao!
It becomes a major issue when you've got a big TV. Standard definition is pretty bad when you start blowing it up massively. Check out SD on even a 42inch TV and you'll understand why its a big issue.
While I may agree with the article your average consumer won't notice much of a difference, if at all, as long as their TV isn't 60+ inches. However, once you start blowing things up massively you can easily tell the difference between a blu-ray disk and a 720P Xbox Live video. Projectors are becoming cheaper and soon anyone who wants a massive 1080P home theater can have it for about the cost of your average PC. When this happens people will start appreciating blu-ray and HD-DVD a lot more and these online services will either be forced to adjust to the times or loose massive amounts of customers in the process.
Unfortunately we're seeing ISP's placing ridiculous caps on connections so it'll be hard for online services to even find demand for high bandwidth videos unless things change drastically. For example, Comcast's cap is around 250GB a month in some areas. A complete blu-ray download could be as much as 50GB. Not only would ISP's have to adjust the download caps massively, they would also have to increase speeds too. With that comes astronomical upgrade costs and like the article states, Docsis 3.0 most likely won't be able to handle this even. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the future.
On a side note, It's times like this I'm happy I've got FiOS. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
This post has been edited by sgr215: Jan 20 2008, 09:30 AM
Post by: 21cwSpanky on January 20, 2008, 01:44:00 AM
Post by: prplehz on January 20, 2008, 01:13:00 AM
QUOTE(Skitals @ Jan 19 2008, 11:49 PM)
It is because of people with these kind of mentalities that cable companies and services like iTunes and XBL can get away with this! Why should you care? Because you are paying MORE money for an "HD" version. If you don't care about quality, stick to SD... and your DivX.
Damnit I'm feeling old. Member here since 2002, member # 1184
Whoa! Don't get me wrong I love high quality! I have Pioneer 50" plasma with all the goodies and I am a stickler for a good picture. I just miss the good ole days, Thats all.. However I don't miss the picture quality of the good ole days that is for sure. I must say this looks like a win for Blu ray though since it has higher bandwidth than HD-DVD. Maybe it really is better? Or is it?
Post by: ThaCrip on January 20, 2008, 01:21:00 AM
QUOTE(Odb718 @ Jan 20 2008, 03:24 AM)
28 mbps * 60 * 90 mins = 151,200 mbps
I don't think people would wait around to download that... or would they...
thats what x264 (.mkv) is for like i said above
.. probably close to blu-ray/hd-dvd quality at a fraction the size (although i never seen these on a TV so i cant say for sure but from what i hear it's gotta be pretty close to original blu-ray/hddvd source.get your HD quality at a much smaller file size... only side effect is you need a pretty powerful CPU to play them especially 1080p... but generally speaking 720p is good enough for most people (including me)
Post by: hybrid213 on January 20, 2008, 01:59:00 AM
Post by: Norco on January 20, 2008, 01:24:00 AM
QUOTE(Skitals @ Jan 20 2008, 08:49 AM)
It is because of people with these kind of mentalities that cable companies and services like iTunes and XBL can get away with this! Why should you care? Because you are paying MORE money for an "HD" version. If you don't care about quality, stick to SD... and your DivX.
Damnit I'm feeling old. Member here since 2002, member # 1184
You think you feel old? Ha, i've got you beat!
Post by: 21cwSpanky on January 20, 2008, 01:44:00 AM
QUOTE(Odb718 @ Jan 20 2008, 09:24 AM)
28 mbps * 60 * 90 mins = 151,200 mbps
I don't think people would wait around to download that... or would they...
You forgot to divide by 8
So 151,200/8 = 18.9 gigs. Average download rate on a fios connection or really anything 8 mbit or more is about 1 mb/s.
So you're looking at 18,900 mbytes / 60 (average 60 megs per minute). You end up with about 5 1/2 hours to download. So you leave it on overnight, and you get a full HD movie? What's the big deal with that?
Now if you're using all 30 mbits of your fios connection. You can obtain a theoretical max download rate of 3.75 mb/s. Which would only take an hour and a half to download a 90 minute movie.
Post by: slowass on January 20, 2008, 01:46:00 AM
QUOTE(prplehz @ Jan 20 2008, 08:02 AM)
First post, woot! What ever happend to the days when a movie was just a movie, lmao!
Thats exactly my point. A good drama doesnt need 720p so that you can see the textures on the carpets, nor every hair on a granny chin
Hi-Def is mostly prefered for hollywood action/sci-fi aka Marvel which can be fun to watch when you want braindead action with a crappy script and bad plot.
Post by: eduardor2k on January 20, 2008, 02:33:00 AM
Raise your hand all of you that have downloaded an x264 movie, that fits 1 dvd, it's 720p and looks and sounds amazing on your TV.
- Mpeg video codec is a lot less efficient than H264, that's why at same bitrate you get higher quality picture.
- 3000 kbps is more than enough for a 720p picture on a standar 720p TV, if you have a 50" TV you can afford to buy or pay the extra price for the movie.
PS: If you like High Bitrate movies, stick with hd-dvd and blu-ray.
Post by: colt45joe on January 20, 2008, 02:53:00 AM
QUOTE(21cwSpanky @ Jan 20 2008, 09:44 AM)
I think the real point of this article is to debunk the whole "Digital downloads are the future" bandwagon.
it probably is the future, seeing as how a lot of people out there dont care about video quality and are just fine with watching cam quality movies on youtube type websites.
This post has been edited by colt45joe: Jan 20 2008, 10:54 AM
Post by: erexx on January 20, 2008, 03:03:00 AM
If it proves anything its that the two ditribution channels are not in competition with each other.
More than likely they will exists side by side and compliment the other.
Like DVD "maybe" Blu-Ray will be the next static storage media standard for the next 15 years or so.
Don't need the internet to watch a HD movie when its on disk.
But it, own it, sell it, take it anywhere.
Down loadable HD content will take time... literally.
Use it when you don't want to own the disc.
Requires the internet wherever you are.
Needs blazingly fast network access: Internet2 or something similarly fast maybe like FiOS.
or Hope that Comcast really does have speed to spare.
Post by: 21cwSpanky on January 20, 2008, 03:14:00 AM
QUOTE(colt45joe @ Jan 20 2008, 10:53 AM)
it probably is the future, seeing as how a lot of people out there dont care about video quality and are just fine with watching cam quality movies on youtube type websites.
People "deal" with youtube quality videos because they're free. Digital downloads are overpriced rentals for movies that look worse than physical HD formats.
Post by: Skitals on January 20, 2008, 02:40:00 AM
QUOTE(Norco @ Jan 20 2008, 09:00 AM)
You think you feel old? Ha, i've got you beat!
And a lower post count too! I'm honored that you post on average only once every 1.5 months, and you chose my post to reply to
Post by: steveju on January 20, 2008, 03:26:00 AM
QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 20 2008, 10:03 AM)
Down loadable HD content will take time... literally.
People seem to forget that it takes time to get the actual physical media too, it's not instantly on your lap when you want it. You probably won't even buy it from your local video store either, since it seems to be a fact of life that you can get it cheaper from somewhere else (internet). So it's going to be about three days and $50 later, that you get the movie in your player and see it.
Post by: Jayman951 on January 20, 2008, 02:51:00 AM
QUOTE(Skitals @ Jan 20 2008, 12:49 AM)
It is because of people with these kind of mentalities that cable companies and services like iTunes and XBL can get away with this! Why should you care? Because you are paying MORE money for an "HD" version. If you don't care about quality, stick to SD... and your DivX.
Damnit I'm feeling old. Member here since 2002, member # 1184
I'm feeling old too, heh
I agree though, paying more for a shoddy HD version isnt my cup of tea. Ill go rent a copy for about the same price on a Bluray/HD-DVD.
Post by: ewok666 on January 20, 2008, 03:27:00 AM
QUOTE(ThaCrip @ Jan 20 2008, 09:57 AM)
thats what x264 (.mkv) is for like i said above (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .. probably close to blu-ray/hd-dvd quality at a fraction the size (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (although i never seen these on a TV so i cant say for sure but from what i hear it's gotta be pretty close to original blu-ray/hddvd source.
get your HD quality at a much smaller file size... only side effect is you need a pretty powerful CPU to play them especially 1080p... but generally speaking 720p is good enough for most people (including me) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
That's quite right. x264 mkv's look excellent on a 720p display. 1080p is complete nonsense unless you use a projector with a large screen and extremely good source material. Essentially you MUST sit less than two times the screen diagonal away to be able to physically see the difference
I had a look at a number of different material and to spot the difference between 720p and 1080p you need to stop the movie and spend time to actually find the difference on a still frame!
Also agree to the Divx/DVD and x264/HDDVD analogy BUT want to add that you need to look at the displays as well. It's easy to tell Divx from DVD on a large screen but not on a SD TV. It's a lot harder to tell a good MKV rip from HDDVD or Bluray even on a HD display.
I also compared 4.5GB HD rips to DVD copies and the difference is HUGE. The guy who wrote the original article has no idea what he is talking about.
Cheers
Post by: erexx on January 20, 2008, 04:33:00 AM
QUOTE(steveju @ Jan 20 2008, 10:26 AM)
People seem to forget that it takes time to get the actual physical media too, it's not instantly on your lap when you want it. You probably won't even buy it from your local video store either, since it seems to be a fact of life that you can get it cheaper from somewhere else (internet). So it's going to be about three days and $50 later, that you get the movie in your player and see it.
Time is relative.
I would rather buy or pre-order online at a good price and get it delivered to my door the next day.
Sometimes I pick up movies at the check out line with my chips and beer. (which I am quite fond of)
I couldn’t sell you my "on-line content" even if you wanted to buy it.
Couldn’t pick it up and play it anywhere I want.
QUOTE(ewok666 @ Jan 20 2008, 10:27 AM)
1080p is complete nonsense unless you use a projector with a large screen and extremely good source material.
I also compared 4.5GB HD rips to DVD copies and the difference is HUGE. The guy who wrote the original article has no idea what he is talking about.
You must be old, naive and certainly quite blind.
Post by: Andrew_Roy on January 20, 2008, 05:12:00 AM
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.
So the pricing needs restructured?
Post by: ProfDrMorph on January 20, 2008, 04:42:00 AM
I already watched a couple movies in HD (720p) which could've easily fitted on a DVD9 (each file was less than 8GB in size, most were around 3GB per hour which is less than 7 mbit/sec) and each one of them looked great. Ok, The Fugitive (downloaded from Xbox Live) had it's flaws but you really need to know what to look for which most people simply don't do. But the movie still looked good and it seemed like most flaws were a result of bad source material. I've yet to try a more recent movie like 300 to see if my theory about The Fugitive (bad source) is correct.
A few years ago (from when DivX 3.11 became popular until the first people started playing around with the first H.264 codecs) I spent a lot of time trying different codecs with different settings and filters and I tried to understand how digital video compression really works. And one thing I learned real quick at that time was that SIZE alone means NOTHING. (<insert random juvenile joke here
>) As a result of that toying around with compression I know what to look for if I want to spot compression errors today. And by discussing my findings about image quality with other people I learned that without the proper background knowledge people won't notice minor quality losses (even though those loses are easily visible to the trained eye!).On that HD-DVD (seems like we soon have to say R.I.P. *sniff*) / Blu-Ray vs. download discussion: I think they'll co-exist in the near future. Todays internet infrastructure just isn't good enough to offer 1080p downloads for huge masses. So people who want don't want "just" great image quality but the best technology offers will still buy/rent their movies on an optical disc. Others might prefer being able to rent movies without even having to get up from their couch (-> downloads).
Post by: ewok666 on January 20, 2008, 05:23:00 AM
QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 20 2008, 01:09 PM)
You must be old, naive and certainly quite blind.
Thanks for insulting me. The only naive person here seems to be you. I can direct you to a number of detailed articles on viewing distance relating to 1080p. Just google for it or look here: http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p...to-screen-size/
On a 60" display you should be no further than 7.5ft away and on a 42" about 5ft. Who sits 1.5m away from their lounge TV? A projector screen is a different story 3m diagonaly is not unusual.
What's your screen and how far do you sit away from it....honestly?
This post has been edited by ewok666: Jan 20 2008, 01:27 PM
Post by: Chancer on January 20, 2008, 05:35:00 AM
There is a calculator here for finding Optimal viewing distances.
There is a visible difference even on 37" between 720p and 1080p. Quite marked in fact.
For al those who say Bit rate doesn't matter. Yes it does. Yes there are other factors but if you transmit at a lower bit rate the quality suffers.
About a year ago it all kicked of with Sky lowering the Bit rate at off peak viewing times, to save money. the quality drop was shocking.
Post by: Muzzakus on January 20, 2008, 06:43:00 AM
No matter what you always have 24 discreet images in a second of viewing. All bitrate calculations on 60fps are grosely innacurate.
This post has been edited by Muzzakus: Jan 20 2008, 02:44 PM
Post by: RolfLobker on January 20, 2008, 06:22:00 AM
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 20 2008, 02:11 PM)
http://myhometheater...ml#anchor_13194
There is a calculator here for finding Optimal viewing distances.
There is a visible difference even on 37" between 720p and 1080p. Quite marked in fact.
For al those who say Bit rate doesn't matter. Yes it does. Yes there are other factors but if you transmit at a lower bit rate the quality suffers.
About a year ago it all kicked of with Sky lowering the Bit rate at off peak viewing times, to save money. the quality drop was shocking.
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.
A quote from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Codecs):
"The choice of codecs affects the producer's licensing/royalty costs, as well as the title's maximum runtime, due to differences in compression efficiency. Discs encoded in MPEG-2 video typically limit content producers to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer (25 GB) BD-ROM. The more advanced video codecs (VC-1 and H.264) typically achieve a video runtime twice that of MPEG-2, with comparable quality."
Bitrate alone means shit!
Post by: Artanis on January 20, 2008, 06:58:00 AM
QUOTE(ewok666 @ Jan 20 2008, 01:23 PM)
On a 60" display you should be no further than 7.5ft away and on a 42" about 5ft. Who sits 1.5m away from their lounge TV? A projector screen is a different story 3m diagonaly is not unusual.
You must have a 30" sd tv. The difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42" at 8ft is EASY to see. Do you not have 20:20 vision? 720 stretched to 1080 provides blurred edges and text, the same image in 1080 source is diamond sharp. Your engadget chart is for idiots trying to justify their terrible decision to buy a 60" 720p tv.
edit: looking at that chart seems to indicate that yes, 1080p at 8ft on a 42" screen is still noticable.
This post has been edited by Artanis: Jan 20 2008, 03:05 PM
Post by: Birkborkasson on January 20, 2008, 06:43:00 AM
1) The quality. In my eyes this is very questionable. The idea presented here is that a HDDVD or BR Disc is so much better in quality than the online alternatives that it is actually a much better buy. But remember this is compared to legal alternatives and the real question is how much better does the quality have to be for us to want to pay say 30$ for the movie instead of zero? Imo the alternatives available at bittorrent trackers arounf the Internet is VERY high quality, and Im talking about the .x264 rips that are out there. On my 40" LCD tv they display fantastically and even though they are not full HD (1080p) they still provide an experience that is just amazing to me. And yes, if I want to there are full rips too. I can go to my favourite tracker and DL movies that are 30gb in size and watch them, and I have done that to compare, and lets just say that I will be sticking to the smaller rips for the moment.
2) Availability. The Internet is simply not fit for that kind of massive files that we need to download yet. Or is it? The reason I assumed that most of you were americans was that you all talked about FIOS compared to like normal DSL. Well... guess what. I live in Sweden and the standard here is 100 mbit/s, and im not talking about some DSL solution. Im talking about fiber technology that is as common as anything else in the household (at least this is the way in the city the countryside is a little different but they generally have access to 24 mbit/s DSL). With fiber the bandwith simply is not an issue. The reason that we are limited to 100 mbit/s right now is that there has'nt been a need for much more upuntill now. There is no reason that the ISPs can't switch to a 1gbit/s if the market starts to adjust towards that, in fact the transfer rates of the cables is more or less infinite, its the material in the end (the computers, switches, routers) that will have to develope. Now all this is available for very low costs here and in many new apartements its just included in the rent like basic cable tv. I pay about 30$/month for my 100/10 (dl/ul) connection. Many people have allready started to get 100/100 connections for roughly the same price. Now this was a Swedish example and I know that we are not the number one IT country. South Korea already back in 2003 aimed to have established 100 mbit/s connections for all citicens in 2-3 years. I figure they are close to that goal now.
In conclusion. There is no reason what so ever that the internet would not be able to handle big files allready today in many parts of the world. And in the future the distributers of film and music will face a market that simply takes for granted to have the movie/record they want at their computer when they want it.
Post by: joeyddr on January 20, 2008, 07:37:00 AM
how bout this believe what you believe and people will still buy what they believe looks good and be happy about it. just stfu
Post by: ThaCrip on January 20, 2008, 07:47:00 AM
QUOTE(ewok666 @ Jan 20 2008, 05:27 AM)
That's quite right. x264 mkv's look excellent on a 720p display. 1080p is complete nonsense unless you use a projector with a large screen and extremely good source material. Essentially you MUST sit less than two times the screen diagonal away to be able to physically see the difference
I had a look at a number of different material and to spot the difference between 720p and 1080p you need to stop the movie and spend time to actually find the difference on a still frame!
Also agree to the Divx/DVD and x264/HDDVD analogy BUT want to add that you need to look at the displays as well. It's easy to tell Divx from DVD on a large screen but not on a SD TV. It's a lot harder to tell a good MKV rip from HDDVD or Bluray even on a HD display.
I also compared 4.5GB HD rips to DVD copies and the difference is HUGE. The guy who wrote the original article has no idea what he is talking about.
Cheers
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 20 2008, 08:11 AM)
http://myhometheater...ml#anchor_13194
There is a calculator here for finding Optimal viewing distances.
There is a visible difference even on 37" between 720p and 1080p. Quite marked in fact.
For al those who say Bit rate doesn't matter. Yes it does. Yes there are other factors but if you transmit at a lower bit rate the quality suffers.
About a year ago it all kicked of with Sky lowering the Bit rate at off peak viewing times, to save money. the quality drop was shocking.
QUOTE(Artanis @ Jan 20 2008, 08:58 AM)
You must have a 30" sd tv. The difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42" at 8ft is EASY to see. Do you not have 20:20 vision? 720 stretched to 1080 provides blurred edges and text, the same image in 1080 source is diamond sharp. Your engadget chart is for idiots trying to justify their terrible decision to buy a 60" 720p tv.
edit: looking at that chart seems to indicate that yes, 1080p at 8ft on a 42" screen is still noticable.
so it appears the first guy's quote saying overall there aint much difference between 720p and 1080p in general... but the last two quotes are saying theres a clear difference.
so lets just assume the other 2 guys are right which would mean my original thing about the 50+ inch to see any noticeable difference would be wrong then.
my question to you guys is... in real world, how much quality difference is there on the 37" & 42" TV? between 720p and 1080p (assuming source is hd-dvd/blu-ray) ... is there a small but noticeable difference or is it to the point where your like "WOW, thats a big difference" sorta thing?
and also, if your TV is running @ 720p and you watch a 720p video how does that compare to a tv running @ 1080p with a 1080p video? ... if in this case it's close i probably wont worry about it... cause if a tv was running @ 1080p and your watching a 720p video on it i would expect it to look worse cause of the stretching... if that makes sense
i guess all in all i would have to see it for myself to know for sure cause im sorta picky about that stuff but i aint extremely picky like some people are... cause to me if theres a noticeable difference but it's nothing major i probably will just stick with 720p.
Post by: steveju on January 20, 2008, 09:51:00 AM
QUOTE(Artanis @ Jan 20 2008, 01:58 PM)
The difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42" at 8ft is EASY to see. 720 stretched to 1080 provides blurred edges and text, the same image in 1080 source is diamond sharp.
Ever heard of scalers? Try looking the image at it's native resolution from the optimal viewing distance, there should be close to no differences between 720p and 1080p images. If you still see "blurred edges and text", then your TV sucks. Text shouldn't blur anyways, because it's not hardcoded these days.
Post by: mlmadmax on January 20, 2008, 10:21:00 AM
I only bring this up because the entire article is talking about downloadable or broadcast service right?
Post by: brandogg on January 20, 2008, 10:42:00 AM
Post by: slipstream on January 20, 2008, 12:00:00 PM
Post by: HotKnife420 on January 20, 2008, 12:42:00 PM
- HD films on optical disc will deliver 1080p
- Optical discs offer extra content (Behind the scenes/outtakes/games/potpouri)
- Optical discs are convienent to the average consumer (drive to store/credit card/etc)
- Many online retailers ship optical discs expeditiously (save money/low wait)
- HD Downloads generally cost $5-$6, then expire. I haven't spent more than $15 on a shrinkwrapped BD yet
HD downloads are good quality, but I know they don't look as good as an optical disc source on any sets I've seen them on.
Post by: toytown on January 20, 2008, 01:41:00 PM
QUOTE
The x264 codec is really good,
There is no such codec, X264 is an encoder, one that creates H264/AVC compliant video streams, the same type of video streams that are used on HDDVD/BluRay.
QUOTE
If these downloads were 1.5MB bitrate videos, using the Blu Ray format,
What format are you on about? BluRay like HDDVD supports MPEG2/VC1/H264AVC as its video "formats".
If some of you people actually did your own encoding then you would probably know the difference, as it stands it would appear that most people who have mentioned x264, simply download their movies from torrents.
Post by: brandogg on January 20, 2008, 02:02:00 PM
Post by: ewok666 on January 20, 2008, 02:40:00 PM
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 20 2008, 02:11 PM)
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewing...ml#anchor_13194
There is a calculator here for finding Optimal viewing distances.
There is a visible difference even on 37" between 720p and 1080p. Quite marked in fact.
For al those who say Bit rate doesn't matter. Yes it does. Yes there are other factors but if you transmit at a lower bit rate the quality suffers.
About a year ago it all kicked of with Sky lowering the Bit rate at off peak viewing times, to save money. the quality drop was shocking.
How far away are you sitting from that 27" screen?
Post by: Chancer on January 20, 2008, 02:52:00 PM
QUOTE(ewok666 @ Jan 20 2008, 09:40 PM)
How far away are you sitting from that 27" screen?
6 To 8 feet. depending on which chair I choose. Screen is 37 not 27
This post has been edited by Chancer: Jan 20 2008, 10:53 PM
Post by: flashfreak on January 20, 2008, 03:59:00 PM
QUOTE(sgr215 @ Jan 20 2008, 07:27 PM)
For example, Comcast's cap is around 250GB a month in some areas.
FFS, that is massive! Here in australia, a plan considered with a high download limit would be about 20gig. Im on 12, u can get 40 and slowly bigger plans are coming in, some say 'unlimited' but shape u at about 50. We're still so far behind, but 250gig would be impossible to use for me.
Even if u did have a 360 and were downloading 50gig movies as u said (they'd surely get compressed to a LOT less than that), you'd only fit 2 of those size movies on ur 360 HDD.
Though apparently the next xbox will have a 4TB hard drive (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) For those of you who saw that article.
Post by: Mowgli on January 20, 2008, 03:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Muzzakus @ Jan 21 2008, 12:43 AM)
Movies are not 60fps. They have 24 unique frames in a second. To acheive 25fps for pal movies, they play slighly faster. To acheive 30fps for NTSC - frames are repeated. Repeated frames compess 100%
No matter what you always have 24 discreet images in a second of viewing. All bitrate calculations on 60fps are grosely innacurate.
Also, as others have pointed out, bitrate is NOT a direct indication of quality. A "high" bitrate movie using the 10 year old MPEG2 codec does not automatically make it "high" quality.
What an idiot this guy is, pretending to be the consumers friend and expose downloadable video, when he makes ignorant, misleading comments like that.
Post by: ewok666 on January 20, 2008, 04:01:00 PM
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 20 2008, 10:52 PM)
6 To 8 feet. depending on which chair I choose. Screen is 37 not 27
To spot a difference on 37" at that distance you would have to have exceptionally good eyes....assuming the 720p and 1080p are otherwise of equal quality.
In movies I struggle to find differences from 1-2ft away from my laptop 17" wuxga screen.
Post by: dokworm on January 20, 2008, 07:11:00 PM
1) Bitrate does make a difference. T2 looks MUCH better on HD-DVD than on the WMV version. On the WMV one, and in fact all of the WMV HD titles banding is clearly visible. colour banding drives me nuts, it is one of those things that once you notice it is hard not to see.
2) 720P vs 1080P vs 1080i, it really depends on your display. If you have a native 1080P panel type display (e.g. LCD) then 720P tends to look awful as it has to be re-scaled. comparing 1080P on such a display, there is a huge difference, even at quite long viewing distances. If you have a CRT though, and run the 720P videos at 720P resolution, and the 1080P ones at 1080P resolution, then the difference really isn't that noticeable on reasonable sized displays. On a CRT projector though, you *really* see a difference between 720P and 1080. I run a 10ft wide screen and it really does make a huge difference. and the difference between the downloaded content and HD-DVD is also really really different, to the point where the compression artifacts (banding, mosquito noise etc.) really do annoy.
3) It depends what you are used to . Most americans don't notice the 60Hz judder, most europeans and australians can barely stand to watch it. Americans tend to notice the PAL 50Hz flicker, those of us who grew up with it tend not to. (although that is changing as people get used to high refresh and/or panel displays). A lot of things you don't notice at first, like the colour banding, or lack of black levels on LCD displays - but once you do , it becomes an annoyance. I wish I could un-notice things. The higher compression used for downloadable HD and even FTA TV really does suck once you notice it. sometimes much worse than others though. Some are just poorly encoded.
4) Physical Media vs Downloads. Physical media will be here for a long while yet. you get far better quality, don't have to worry about running out of storage or yr download quota. In australia, if you don't live in a capital city, then a $50 per month internet plan is limited to 5GB per month and a 1.5Mb connection or 8Mb at best ($70pm then) Doesn't get you a lot of movies.
In the capital cities it is better, but even then not available to everyone.
so a lot of the criticism is valid. the HD downloads are generally better than standard-def DVD, and it is cool being able to get 720P content that way, and easily, but until broadband gets a *lot* faster and a *lot* cheaper, the discs will continue to be a mainstream choice.
If you are happy with the way your movies look, then that is good enough. If you aren't there are better alternatives available. It is all good. we have never had such access to such high quality transfers for so little money.
You can buy a HD-DVD player for $149 and get movies for less than $30 each in the US, that is amazing quality for the money (and scale up yr DVDs). It wasn't long ago that laserdisc was the way with players costing a grand and the movies being up to $100 each, and the quality, by comparison was appalling.
These are amaazing times for movie lovers (if you overlook the DRM crapola).
Now if they would just enable 75Hz and 71.91Hz on the 360 or HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players so we could playback movies without judder, I'd be a happy boy
Post by: ekruob on January 20, 2008, 08:15:00 PM
The author doesn't know what he's talking about I'm afraid:
The stated HD DVD bit rate of 28mbps VC-1 is close to the maximum - not the minimum as claimed!
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.
Secondly, 720p video uses half the bandwidth of 1080p video - this means that 9mbps for 720p is PERFECT (very high quality). Which also means that the Xbox downloads at around 6-7mbps are perfectly fine.
Thirdly, 480p video uses almost half the banwidth of 720p video - so 4mbps is absolutely fine using VC-1 as well.
Recommendation: author loses his job due to blatent incompetance.
Cheers,
Richard.
Computer Systems Engineer
This post has been edited by ekruob: Jan 21 2008, 04:18 AM
Post by: erexx on January 20, 2008, 09:49:00 PM
If you have a problem being insulted by a freak then thats a personal issue.
No matter how you see it.
No matter what codec is being used.
(Apparently its all a matter of subjective experience. Especially for the blind.)
The argument is if internet download of HD online-content can compete with HD video on disc?
(Not how far away from the TV you sit.)
The answer is no.
Get over it.
No matter how you want to justify it "that" just wont happen for a long time.
They will compliment each other for various uses.
They will share the market in their own way.
Its the source and transmission methods used that matter the most.
HD Player to TV vs. Internet or Cable to TV....
24p HD-video vs. 25fps / 29.976fps TV vs. Upscaled DVD's blah blah blah...
MPEG vs. VC1 vs. whatever are loosing arguments for all sides.
Its the source that matters most and all things derive differently from that point.
... Dont you know that compression is the devil?
This post has been edited by erexx: Jan 21 2008, 06:09 AM
Post by: btally on January 20, 2008, 10:49:00 PM
Post by: ekruob on January 20, 2008, 11:11:00 PM
QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 21 2008, 02:49 PM)
The argument is if internet download of HD online-content can compete with HD video on disc?
(Not how far away from the TV you sit.)
The answer is no.
Get over it.
No matter how you want to justify it "that" just won’t happen for a long time.
(Not how far away from the TV you sit.)
The answer is no.
Get over it.
No matter how you want to justify it "that" just won’t happen for a long time.
250+mbps* ADSL is only about three (3) years away (currently called VDSL2).
This will mean 40+mbps real life speeds are possible - even over the most dodgy of the current copper lines...
That will provide 'Full HD' 1920 x 1080p streaming no problem at all :-)
*250+mbps is the maximum speed of the technology under ideal conditions.
This post has been edited by ekruob: Jan 21 2008, 07:22 AM
Post by: erexx on January 20, 2008, 10:58:00 PM
QUOTE(ekruob @ Jan 21 2008, 06:11 AM)
250+mbps* ADSL is only about three (3) years away (currently called VDSL2).
This will mean 40+mbps real life speeds are possible - even over the most dodgy of the current copper lines...
That will provide 'Full HD' 1920 x 1080p streaming no problem at all :-)
*250+mbps is the maximum speed of the technology under ideal conditions.
That's fair to say.
Maybe ADSL will be available
Maybe it wont.
Maybe FiOS will be available
Maybe it wont.
Maybe High Speed Cable will be available
Who knows?
Granted Truly High Speed internet is inevitable.
Its only a matter of when, how and how much.
Its still a matter of time.
The next 5 to 15 years.
Its still also a matter of apples and oranges.
On-Demand vs. the DVD is an example.
HD On-Demand vs. HD-DVD is a fair parallel.
Post by: ekruob on January 21, 2008, 12:10:00 AM
QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 21 2008, 04:34 PM)
Granted Truly High Speed internet is inevitable.
Its only a matter of when, how and how much.
Its still a matter of time.
The next 5 to 15 years.
True - 3 years for the early adopters - but as you correctly state; 5+ years for everybody else.
So that only gives about 5 years left for optical media :-)
No wonder Sony is so pissed off about Blu-ray - LUV IT :-)
Post by: 21cwSpanky on January 20, 2008, 11:35:00 PM
QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 21 2008, 07:34 AM)
Its only a matter of when, how and how much.
.
That's the big question, how much. There are many cities across the US, nevermind the rest of the world with only one service provider, if even. When you hold a monopoly on the ISP's in your area they have no reason to switch to a better, faster, system. It's already been proven that standard cable can go up to 30 mbits (cablevision). Yet you're lucky if you have a provider which even supplies 10 mbit lines in the rest of the country.
Post by: jaynigs on January 21, 2008, 12:31:00 AM
QUOTE(ekruob @ Jan 21 2008, 03:15 AM)
As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...
The author doesn't know what he's talking about I'm afraid:
The stated HD DVD bit rate of 28mbps VC-1 is close to the maximum - not the minimum as claimed!
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.
Secondly, 720p video uses half the bandwidth of 1080p video - this means that 9mbps for 720p is PERFECT (very high quality). Which also means that the Xbox downloads at around 6-7mbps are perfectly fine.
Thirdly, 480p video uses almost half the banwidth of 720p video - so 4mbps is absolutely fine using VC-1 as well.
Recommendation: author loses his job due to blatent incompetance.
Cheers,
Richard.
Computer Systems Engineer
Are you confusing bit rate with compression rate?
The peak A/V mux rate for Blu-ray is approx 48Mb/s(40Mb/s for video)
The codec used is irrelevant for this particular argument
Whether it be Mpeg2, VC1 or AVC, the max bitrate is still 40mbps for blu ray ( and 28mbps for HD DVD ).
Thus, blu ray VC1 max video bitrate is also 40mbps, and 28mbps for HD DVD
This post has been edited by jaynigs: Jan 21 2008, 08:46 AM
Post by: jaynigs on January 21, 2008, 01:07:00 AM
Anyway, the point of this posted blog was that HD DVD VC-1 @ 28mbps should be the accepted reasonable minimum loss for HD content.
HD 720p therefore ideally should be at least VC-1 @ 14mbps ( judging by it being half the bandwidth of 1080p )
Xbox live HD is 720p VC-1 @ is 6-7 mbps as you stated, which is what he is claiming is simply not good enough.
Would you buy a HD DVD 1080p disc that is encoded with VC-1 @ 14mbps?
If DLC is to rival optical media, then it should be equal quality! people are being fooled into thinking it is!
This acceptable standard of quality is of course subjective, some people are fussier than others.
When people download HD they expect quality on a par with HD or Blu Ray, and as he is pointing out, it simply isn't the same!
This post has been edited by jaynigs: Jan 21 2008, 09:22 AM
Post by: Coolpplse on January 21, 2008, 02:51:00 AM
QUOTE(mlmadmax @ Jan 20 2008, 06:57 PM)
What about the fact that NO ONE broadcasts in 1080p? Comcast and satelite and over the air are both 1080i or 720p who the hell cares about 1080p when the only thing that can play it is blu-ray and hd-dvd? Also aren't all the downloadable stuff not 1080p as well?
I only bring this up because the entire article is talking about downloadable or broadcast service right?
1080i 60 frames Interlaced Movies from Comcast/Satelite/OTA -> 3:2 Pulldown from ur TV = volia 1080p 24 Frames progressive!
Post by: Chancer on January 21, 2008, 04:10:00 AM
QUOTE(ewok666 @ Jan 20 2008, 11:37 PM)
To spot a difference on 37" at that distance you would have to have exceptionally good eyes....assuming the 720p and 1080p are otherwise of equal quality.
In movies I struggle to find differences from 1-2ft away from my laptop 17" wuxga screen.
Trust me. Real world there is a marked difference. I know exactly what I am looking at and for. I am also picky about very minor things. It's my job (for the last 29 years).
Post by: bonevichio on January 21, 2008, 09:49:00 AM
QUOTE(sgr215 @ Jan 20 2008, 09:27 AM)
On a side note, It's times like this I'm happy I've got FiOS.
I have FiOS and think it's the best picture too.
Compressed video is just not the same as full uncompressed 1080p.
FiOS has a great picture for the new york station broadcast - mostly 1080i or 720p for abc, fox, nbc.....
Divx HD can look really great if encoded properly.
QUOTE(swampy @ Jan 21 2008, 03:26 PM)
1080p is just a scam to get suckers money. If you really want better looking video on large displays, you will have to wait for 1440i or 2160i or whatever video to start being produced. Movies are shown on huge screens using projectors at 24 fps, and the look of film seems to be the standard everyone is shooing for, it's resolution that makes movies look good on huge screens, not fps.
While 4K is several years away from broad adoption......calls 4K a quantum leap over HDTV.
http://www.wral.com/.../story/1247955/
Post by: FoxRacR17 on January 21, 2008, 10:27:00 AM
QUOTE(Skitals @ Jan 20 2008, 08:49 AM)
Damnit I'm feeling old. Member here since 2002, member # 1184
I hear ya, member since '03 right here
Post by: feflicker on January 21, 2008, 01:12:00 PM
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...
Post by: jaynigs on January 21, 2008, 02:02:00 PM
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.
Post by: jdsony on January 21, 2008, 02:05:00 PM
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.
Post by: feflicker on January 21, 2008, 03:47:00 PM
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...
Post by: 0794 on January 21, 2008, 05:10:00 PM
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...
Post by: ssj4android on January 21, 2008, 10:48:00 PM
My eyesight is pretty bad anyway, I don't need the best quality.
Post by: jaynigs on January 22, 2008, 01:14:00 AM
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
Post by: namrrac on January 22, 2008, 02:07:00 AM
Post by: ekruob on January 22, 2008, 05:45:00 PM
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.
Post by: puckSR on January 22, 2008, 06:25:00 PM
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.
Post by: pec_mex on January 22, 2008, 09:36:00 PM
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
Post by: jaynigs on January 23, 2008, 12:50:00 AM
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.
Post by: popper on January 23, 2008, 08:09:00 AM
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 worlds 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.
"
Post by: feflicker on January 23, 2008, 10:51:00 AM
Post by: ekruob on January 23, 2008, 08:30:00 PM
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?!
Post by: popper on January 25, 2008, 01:18:00 AM
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...
Post by: popper on January 25, 2008, 02:24:00 AM
QUOTE(mlmadmax @ Jan 20 2008, 05:57 PM)
What about the fact that NO ONE broadcasts in 1080p? Comcast and satelite and over the air are both 1080i or 720p who the hell cares about 1080p when the only thing that can play it is blu-ray and hd-dvd? Also aren't all the downloadable stuff not 1080p as well?
I only bring this up because the entire article is talking about downloadable or broadcast service right?
arr well there you are my friend, you seem to be thinking everything revolves around your stated very limited US position, do you live out in the sticks or something, and so cant match the townys toys or something?.
the world is a VERY BIG and busy place my friend, look around, you might be amazed at the fun stuff out there.
the UK do infact broadcast in higher modes infact thats what lots of people were getting worked up about , the AVC codecs didnt decode the broadcast content very well if at all, until CORE AVC steped in, in the early days.
remember the BBC that gave the world 25fps PAL TV and you came along and didnt like standards so went and used an oddball point something or other format that messed with everyones simple and easy digital encoding settings,and people (outside your microscopic part of the world, relatively speaking) had to use something called pull down and lots more messing around with the US content?, did you ever sort that mess out BTW?.
100fps pal HD tv looks very nice BTW
but even the current UK broadcasting cant hold a candle today to this
ithttp://www.theinquir...s-megapixel-tvs
"Japan plans 33 megapixel TVs
With 24 channel surround sound
By Egan Orion: Tuesday, 15 January 2008, 1:10 PM
THE JAPANESE Communications Ministry has stumped up 300 million yen (that is $2.735 million US dollars) to subsidise Japanese broadcaster NHK's launch of a 33.2 megapixel television broadcast standard by 2015.
The "Super Hi-Vision" TV standard will use screens with 4,000 scan lines, 7680 pixels wide by 4320 pixels high, and provide a 100-degree wide field of view at the standard viewing distance. The current HDTV standard is 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high and yields a 30-degree wide field of view at standard distance.
Also planned for the Super Hi-Vision TV standard is 24 channel surround sound.
Data rates for NHK's new TV standard are estimated at 24 Gbps for video and 28 Mbps for audio in raw format, less in compressed format. µ
"
even Birkborkasson might have a problem downloading this content
, i wonder if its held in generic DVB transport streams, what do we think the average filesize might be assuming what settings they might use for the AVC codec, i dont really know.what sized DVD would hold this massive content, do we think it would fit on BR, guess its one way to stop everyone and his dog copying it in its native format.
