Yeah thats true. Some of your figures are slightly out, and its no longer only top-of-the-range machines that meet the spec, but yeah. And then there is the monitor - most of the computer lcd displays that can do 1920x1080 are still rather pricey and usually at least 23" in size.
When I used to go on too much about compression and formats, I liked the look of half-1080p footage. So thats video thats 960x540. Even using h264 that should playback ok on things like G4 Macs, and is a god compromise in other areas. Also gets rid of interlacing issues for those whose cameras do 1080i but not 1080p. But just like a year ago Im not proposing people should all be aiming to do web video at 960x540, just that it may make sense for certain projects to dabble with it. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Windows Media HD Content Showcase: http://tinyurl.com/lrsj7 > >System Requirements > >> Minimum configuration for 720p > >>> 2.4 GHz processor or equivalent > >>> 384 MB of RAM > > Obviously, 1080p requires even more firepower. Placing HD content on the net is useless > to everyone except those with the top-of-the-line computers right now. It's not even a > download/bandwidth issue. Even if they download it, they can't play it. > > 720p = 1280w + 720h @ 60fps > iPod = 320w + 180h @ 30fps > other = 480w + 270h @ 15fps >
