-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
I have to say that as Matt wrote, HD is a marketing conn. But I believe that this is more an excuse to introduce new copy protection. The existing DVD has been broken - as seen by the industry. The new format gives virtually nothing as far as quality, but presents a completely new platform for protective development. A conn or a scam, either way, people are flocking to the technology. They are seeing the new clothes on the emperor. Mark matt jones wrote: > >Does anyone know who much data 1 hr. of HDTV produces? Let's try 720 > for now and perhaps 1080. I'm looking for the file size if you store the > whole thing in a single file. > > >Well, I didn't have any idea ten seconds ago, but now I know that one > hour should be roughly 3 GB. (So a movie should be 5-6 GB.) > > >hmm, that's normal DVD, isn't it? the newfangled flavors (BD, etc) > seem to be 5-10 higher capacity. > > >compressed data rates appear to be 20-50 Mbps (lower than 20 probably > doesn't count as HD.) > > >funny how all the HD stuff seems very fuzzy ;) > > 3GB for 1 hour seems reasonable, a movie in avi is only 700MB, and > that's at PAL quality or higher. a DVD is roughly 5GB for augments sake, > and that includes the .vob video files, audio files and any extras > (which tend to be at a lower quality anyway.) so the size of the movie > is say closer to 3.5/4GB than 5GB. the 'dvd' movie is not at PAL res, > but something like 4 times the quality of PAL (3/4 way there to the > lower end HD). > > the mid and high HD, i wld expect to take between 5-7GB for an hour. > thus just fitting a 'HD film' on a dual layer DVD. blu-ray being the > choice medium for 'HD films' in the near future. > > there is also quite a bit of confusion over what "HD" means. often frame > rates, and colour depth are different on different 'HD' objects. so it's > quite easy to fit many hours of HD film on a DVD at 5 fps. > > bit off topic... > > it's funny how VGA is directly* compatible with SCART, also how DVI is > directly compatable with HDMI... interesting how in both cases the > computer connector came first and yields better quality. just a case of > changing connector's (shape and pin layout). > > *directly meaning no or little analogue electronics used. > > personally... > > HD is a marketing CON to get nieve people to buy 'HD' products when they > would be better buying a computer monitor with a higher resolution, > colour depth, and refresh rate. although a 42" 'HD' widescreen would > look good on my comp. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGXH7/iCbOcYAMPlYRCgMaAJwO3+e8XfjrpeYzfj1ZUepzUwoovACeNBq2 u5tPs+1sZW3o1ASIthBgwQc= =B+Gf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
