On 04/04/16 18:56, JanW wrote:
At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:
http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/
Just going through the whole channel line-up:
13 TenHD
On 4/04/2016 2:04 PM, JanW wrote:
... My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2.
Decoding MPEG4 is substantially more resource-intensive than MPEG2.
Unless your TV is very old, the hardware is probably up to the job. You
might find that a solution is only a firmware upgrade away. Worth
At 02:20 PM 4/04/2016, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>And Nine estimates most people have MPEG-4 decoding ability already:
>
>http://www.mediaweek.com.au/nine-is-broadcasting-its-channel-in-hd-but-not-for-everyone/
Just going through the whole channel line-up:
13 TenHD - dead
74 TV4ME USED to work but
On 4/04/2016 2:04 PM, JanW wrote:
> At 01:53 PM 4/04/2016, Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
>> know what they are paying for.
> Here's a different angle on chosen compression. The new 7Flix channel is
> using MPEG4. My HD tv doesn't do
At 01:53 PM 4/04/2016, Karl Auer wrote:
>So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
>know what they are paying for.
Here's a different angle on chosen compression. The new 7Flix channel is using
MPEG4. My HD tv doesn't do MPEG4, evidently just MPEG2. The racing
On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:31 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> On 2 April 2016 at 13:54, Karl Auer wrote:
> "compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded".
>
> All digital video is compressed, except maybe the truly lossless
> "raw" digital masters at a studio. These chew up massive
>
On 2 April 2016 at 13:54, Karl Auer wrote:
"compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded".
All digital video is compressed, except maybe the truly lossless "raw"
digital masters at a studio. These chew up massive bandwidth/storage, and,
contain a lot more information than
On 2/04/2016 1:54 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
...
What many in the IT world do not realise is that "compress" in the
video world BY DEFAULT means "throw data away until the remainder is
small enough". This is antithetical to the concept of high definition.
...
Yes, and the HDR UHD stream that exceeds
On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 11:17 +1100, David Boxall wrote:
> On 1/04/2016 8:36 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> UHD has to be compressed for transmission.
Just a teeny fact injection here: We in the IT world tend to regard
compression as being lossless by default (zip, gzip, etc).[1]
What many in the IT
On 29/03/16 11:38, David Boxall wrote:
It could be argued that advances in video technology will soon exceed
the capacity of radio-frequency broadcast. ...
Video has to be tailored to fit within the transmission capacity
available. The resolution of analogue black and white TV was designed
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 09:27 +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
> On 30/03/16 09:51, Karl Auer wrote:
> The Australian government is funding the construction of the NBN and
> put in place a policy that city customers subsidize remote users. So
> it is up to the government to decide what the network
On 30/03/16 09:51, Karl Auer wrote:
... You might think his needs and wants are less relevant than yours ...
“my rank is the highest known ... I am a free citizen” (G.B. Shaw)
I vote and pay taxes, so have a say in how national resources are allocated.
> you being an educator and all ...
I
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Tom Worthington <
tom.worthing...@tomw.net.au> wrote:
>
> However, there is no harm in the satellites being used to download movies,
> when there is capacity available. But I suggest priority should be given to
> services such as health and education.
So does
On 29/03/16 09:39, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
And outback Netflix?
It seems reasonable for taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids
education, but not to subsidize Netflix's business model.
However, there is no harm in the satellites being used to download
movies, when there is capacity
On 29/03/2016 9:39 AM, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On 28/03/16 09:15, Tom Worthington wrote:
The most interesting aspect of Mark Gregory's article in the Business
Spectator is the idea of the NBN satellites being used to provide
broadband for passengers on Qantas aircraft. It seems reasonable for
On 28/03/16 09:15, Tom Worthington wrote:
The most interesting aspect of Mark Gregory's article in the Business
Spectator is the idea of the NBN satellites being used to provide
broadband for passengers on Qantas aircraft. It seems reasonable for
taxpayers to buy a satellite for outback kids
On 25/03/16 08:40, David Boxall wrote:
A third? The first isn't fully operational and the second hasn't even
launched! ...
Satellites take years to build and launch and three would seem to be a
reasonable minimum number for the NBN to have.
Also the satellites provide a quick and easy way
Mmmm,
But the NBN since the government took it over has had a history of wildly
optimistic projections concerning bandwidth usage and requirements … apparently
in 2020 Australian households will only need 15Mbs of bandwidth, which is why
the MTM NBN is shooting for at least 25Mbs per
On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 13:16 +1100, Paul Brooks wrote:
> The initial NBN satellite was planned ... with latent capacity
> to cater for a decade of future growth.
Capacity for a decade of future growth?
Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahaha
:-)
19 matches
Mail list logo
