On 07/04/2008, ST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting Carlos Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > It's interesting how much it (and the press release it > > > illustrates) focus only on the headline benefits, isn't it? > > > :-) I look forward to seeing what 8MB/s h.264-encoded HD > > > looks like - presumably the assumption is that the efficiency > > > of h.264 encoders will have doubled by 2012. > > > > > > > 8MB/s should be fine for a single h.264 HD encode. If you want to see an > > example of an encode at that rate watch a HD-DVD or Blue Ray movie. They > > use a maximum bit rate around 40 Mbps (5MB/s) or something like that any > > way :) > > > > > > Utter rubbish. > > A multipass H264 encode can be made for HD at about 8Mbps. > > However no broadcast content is encoded prior to transmission. It is all > encoded in realtime so you need a real-time single-pass encoder. You can't > even pre-predict bitrate requirements due to the inclusion of live footage.
Not to mention the need to statmux three (and then four) datastreams together! That means each input having to be passed to several encoders producing data at different levels of compression, in the hope that you can get a good match. At least with the plan for just one national mux, you don't need to do it for lots of regions. -- > ST > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
