What are you talking about? Standard definition HD video? 720p/1080i is high definition. Standard definition is 480i/p. A standard definition video (say a DVD for example), compressed using H.264, would be closer to 100KB/sec, which is streamable over DSL.
Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.
The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.
What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...
24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.
24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.
Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?
Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.
I thought EDTV was that wacky 852x480 resolution on plasma sets. 480i is standard def (NTSC standard or whatever). 480p is I guess the EDTV stuff (720x480)
Quote:
The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Wait a minute. I knew that most HD sets were unable to display the full 1920 horizontal lines (most can do anywhere from 1200 to 1600). But I have never read that they can't do all the vertical lines (720 and 1080 depending on the native res of the display). Just out of curiosity, where did you read that?
Everything I have ever seen (which I could be wrong) has said basically the following:
The ATSC standard includes 18 DTV broadcast formats, all of which fall under one of two categories: High-Definition Television (HDTV) or Standard-Definition Television (SDTV). In the Fall of 2000, the U.S. Consumer Electronics Association issued more detailed terminology for the various classes of reception and display for digital televisions, and introduced a third category, ?Enhanced Definition Television?, (EDTV), which fits in between SDTV and HDTV.
HDTV encompasses six video formats, including the 1080-line interlaced (1080i) format at either 24, 30 or 60 pictures per second, and the 720-line progressive (720p) format at the same picture rates. All these formats will have a wide-screen, 16:9, aspect ratio.
The SDTV formats encompass 12 different versions of a 480-line signal-some progressive, some interlaced. The aspect ratio for the 480-line signal can be either the wide-screen 16:9 format or the standard width 4:3 format that is like our current analog NTSC television system.
Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?
You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.
Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.
You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.
Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.
Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.
That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!
Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?
They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.
Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.
That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!
Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?
They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.
Getting closer though.
Well, they could have DSL... though point taken.
I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html
I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.
So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.
It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.
I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html
I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.
So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.
It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.
Agreed. And all very good points. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
that's where Apple will come in and p*own
(though not this year, maybe years after... steve needs to fall in love with his tivo first... then set out to destroy tivo)
Comments
Originally posted by kupan787
What are you talking about? Standard definition HD video? 720p/1080i is high definition. Standard definition is 480i/p. A standard definition video (say a DVD for example), compressed using H.264, would be closer to 100KB/sec, which is streamable over DSL.
Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.
The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...
24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.
Originally posted by Rolo
24p refers to 24 frames per second, as opposed to 30 fps or 60 fields/s interlaced. 24p is perfect for film conversion since film is already 24 fps. The lower frame rate also lowers the file size a little.
Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?
Originally posted by Rolo
Sorry, I screwed up the terminology but the numbers were correct. As if there isn't enough confusion about what HDTV is. EDTV (enhanced definition) is actually what you described referring to 480i/p. SD can be less than that.
I thought EDTV was that wacky 852x480 resolution on plasma sets. 480i is standard def (NTSC standard or whatever). 480p is I guess the EDTV stuff (720x480)
The truth is even more confusing. Actual viewable area resolutions for HDTV are 540p, 810i or better.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Wait a minute. I knew that most HD sets were unable to display the full 1920 horizontal lines (most can do anywhere from 1200 to 1600). But I have never read that they can't do all the vertical lines (720 and 1080 depending on the native res of the display). Just out of curiosity, where did you read that?
Everything I have ever seen (which I could be wrong) has said basically the following:
The ATSC standard includes 18 DTV broadcast formats, all of which fall under one of two categories: High-Definition Television (HDTV) or Standard-Definition Television (SDTV). In the Fall of 2000, the U.S. Consumer Electronics Association issued more detailed terminology for the various classes of reception and display for digital televisions, and introduced a third category, ?Enhanced Definition Television?, (EDTV), which fits in between SDTV and HDTV.
HDTV encompasses six video formats, including the 1080-line interlaced (1080i) format at either 24, 30 or 60 pictures per second, and the 720-line progressive (720p) format at the same picture rates. All these formats will have a wide-screen, 16:9, aspect ratio.
The SDTV formats encompass 12 different versions of a 480-line signal-some progressive, some interlaced. The aspect ratio for the 480-line signal can be either the wide-screen 16:9 format or the standard width 4:3 format that is like our current analog NTSC television system.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Ok. I don't want HD. I want plain-jane, boring NTSC video. The shit that my dad sees on his old Magnavox. <curmudgeon>goddamn number and letter hoobajoo</curmudgeon>. If I wanted a copy of West Wing that I'd get off of a standard DVD or TiVo, but in h.264 instead. What kind of file size are we looking at?
You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.
Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.
Originally posted by kupan787
You should be able to do 720x480, at about 100KB/sec (streamable over DSL) using H.264. It would look just like what you get now from your cable provide or over the air (non-HD of course). In reality, you could probably do a smaller bitrate, because I think you could do 100KB/sec with 3ivx today, and H.264 is supposed to be better.
Right now, I have a copy of The West Wing, recorded with Xvid (from an HD stream) at a bitrate of 121.4 KB/sec. The resolution is 624x352, and the total file size is 314.9. So using H.264, you could do a lot better.
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
Well, it looks like roughly the same percentage of the market that can utilize the iTMS as it was meant to be could stream broadcast TV over their connection using h.264, or could do a somewhat delayed stream of lower quality HD instead. That's roughly 40% of the US population. That's a huge market should Apple decide to bypass the cable companies.
Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.
That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!
Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?
They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.
Getting closer though.
Originally posted by iRobot
Just because I feel like, I'd like to point out some irony.
That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!
Remember? That's what provides that high bandwidth connection?
They're not bypassing the cable monoliths just yet.
Getting closer though.
Well, they could have DSL... though point taken.
I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html
I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.
So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.
It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Well, they could have DSL... though point taken.
I think the issue is that the cable companies limit access to content - even if the customer is willing to pay for it. I have Cox for cable and suffered through ads related to this: http://espn.go.com/gen/alettertoourfans.html
I didn't have an opinion on the whole ESPN thing, but many people did and the conflict between the cable providers and networks really became apparent. Steve, clearly, is firmly in the camp of the networks.
So, I pay Cox $30/month for basic service and Bravo sees maybe a nickel of that? (I have about 100 channels) The advertisers pay for viewer audience, but get nothing if it's recorded. Since the cable companies want to auto-delete after a certain period, it further erodes the ability of the networks to make money off of their content. But if Bravo got $1 from me so I could hold onto my favorite 'Inside the Actors Studio' with good quality, I'd think that'd be appealing - especially if I don't have to remember 7 months later to buy the season DVD for it.
It bypasses the cable companies in the sense that they offer flat-rate broadband and they have to compete with DLS. They don't get to limit your access or how long your set-top PVR keeps the thing, or what have you. They lose control. Steve digs that.
Agreed. And all very good points. Sounds totally reasonable to me.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Thank you. That's exactly what I needed. BTW, could the whole HD resolution/interlace/progressive thing be any more confusing? I swear, if they don't sort it out, they will never get a huge chunk of the market to buy in. Most people just want to buy a damn TV.
that's where Apple will come in and p*own
(though not this year, maybe years after... steve needs to fall in love with his tivo first... then set out to destroy tivo)
GO BUILD YOUR BLOODY MEDIA CENTERS ALREADY !!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=50122
Originally posted by iRobot
[B]That 40% of the population you speak of will only be able to utilize streamed video because they have cable!
What about fiber to home. Coming soon to a home near you. In fact, there is a fiber just a block away from my house that has never been turned on.
Originally posted by Ebby
What about fiber to home. Coming soon to a home near you. In fact, there is a fiber just a block away from my house that has never been turned on.
Heh, there's fiber less than 60 ft from my parents home. (My home until college, just recently)
Nothing happened there either...