Why would there be a difference in creation speed between BR and HD drives?
As far as I know, they will both record at 2x speed. The codecs will be the same.
That's not what I meant. I just used HD DVD as an abbreviation for any sort of DVD with High Definition video on it. What I don't know (in addition to my lack of knowledge about abbreviations) is what a realistic encoding time for making a full-length High Definition movie into a DVD is, and, specifically, whether a speedy, new G5 would be particularly useful for it (in addition to launching Word in 19 ms vs 22 ms with a current G5).
June, at the earliest. Everyone talks about this like it's happening tomorrow. There is no software ready for it, so ... It's not happend quite yet.
Except that Steve has mentioned twice now (once immediately after WWDC and again at the cc for q4 earnings) that he expected to have Intel hardware in consumers hands before next WWDC.
More important than WWDC is the dev rollouts. Watch the seeds for clues.
That's not what I meant. I just used HD DVD as an abbreviation for any sort of DVD with High Definition video on it. What I don't know (in addition to my lack of knowledge about abbreviations) is what a realistic encoding time for making a full-length High Definition movie into a DVD is, and, specifically, whether a speedy, new G5 would be particularly useful for it (in addition to launching Word in 19 ms vs 22 ms with a current G5).
If it's H.264, then the speediest machine you can afford would be best. It's very cpu intensive. Some of the other encoding schemes like MS's are somewhat less so.
But I think it;'s too early to know what we'll be needing to do. If Apple comes out with a 4 cpu machine with Express, that's what I intend to get.
High Definition Video is hurling content creators back to the days of spending a lot of time waiting on your computer. Computers have gotten really fast in the last five years, and video has remained at the same 720x540 NTSC size, so we've gotten really used to fast render times, encoding times, burn times, realtime effects etc. and we are billing clients based on those set times.
We're going to need some serious hardware to tackle High Definition, particularly high definition encoding for DVD, and High Definition graphics and animation. I think that gives some truth to rumors about a seemingly ridiculous number of processors in a desktop computer. There are people who need Quad processors.
High Definition Video is hurling content creators back to the days of spending a lot of time waiting on your computer. Computers have gotten really fast in the last five years, and video has remained at the same 720x540 NTSC size, so we've gotten really used to fast render times, encoding times, burn times, realtime effects etc. and we are billing clients based on those set times.
We're going to need some serious hardware to tackle High Definition, particularly high definition encoding for DVD, and High Definition graphics and animation. I think that gives some truth to rumors about a seemingly ridiculous number of processors in a desktop computer. There are people who need Quad processors.
Correct, except it's either 720 x 486, or 640 x 480.
It's 525 lines but the rest is not used for content.
I don't know about you guys but a g4 (powerbook) with integrated iSight is only nicer because you have less wires but still stinks cause it can't host an iChat video conf. yuck.
I don't know about you guys but a g4 (powerbook) with integrated iSight is only nicer because you have less wires but still stinks cause it can't host an iChat video conf. yuck.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Why would there be a difference in creation speed between BR and HD drives?
As far as I know, they will both record at 2x speed. The codecs will be the same.
That's not what I meant. I just used HD DVD as an abbreviation for any sort of DVD with High Definition video on it. What I don't know (in addition to my lack of knowledge about abbreviations) is what a realistic encoding time for making a full-length High Definition movie into a DVD is, and, specifically, whether a speedy, new G5 would be particularly useful for it (in addition to launching Word in 19 ms vs 22 ms with a current G5).
Originally posted by webmail
June, at the earliest. Everyone talks about this like it's happening tomorrow. There is no software ready for it, so ... It's not happend quite yet.
Except that Steve has mentioned twice now (once immediately after WWDC and again at the cc for q4 earnings) that he expected to have Intel hardware in consumers hands before next WWDC.
More important than WWDC is the dev rollouts. Watch the seeds for clues.
Originally posted by dh87
That's not what I meant. I just used HD DVD as an abbreviation for any sort of DVD with High Definition video on it. What I don't know (in addition to my lack of knowledge about abbreviations) is what a realistic encoding time for making a full-length High Definition movie into a DVD is, and, specifically, whether a speedy, new G5 would be particularly useful for it (in addition to launching Word in 19 ms vs 22 ms with a current G5).
If it's H.264, then the speediest machine you can afford would be best. It's very cpu intensive. Some of the other encoding schemes like MS's are somewhat less so.
But I think it;'s too early to know what we'll be needing to do. If Apple comes out with a 4 cpu machine with Express, that's what I intend to get.
We're going to need some serious hardware to tackle High Definition, particularly high definition encoding for DVD, and High Definition graphics and animation. I think that gives some truth to rumors about a seemingly ridiculous number of processors in a desktop computer. There are people who need Quad processors.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
High Definition Video is hurling content creators back to the days of spending a lot of time waiting on your computer. Computers have gotten really fast in the last five years, and video has remained at the same 720x540 NTSC size, so we've gotten really used to fast render times, encoding times, burn times, realtime effects etc. and we are billing clients based on those set times.
We're going to need some serious hardware to tackle High Definition, particularly high definition encoding for DVD, and High Definition graphics and animation. I think that gives some truth to rumors about a seemingly ridiculous number of processors in a desktop computer. There are people who need Quad processors.
Correct, except it's either 720 x 486, or 640 x 480.
It's 525 lines but the rest is not used for content.
Originally posted by melgross
Correct, except it's either 720 x 486, or 640 x 480.
It's 525 lines but the rest is not used for content.
I use ALL the lines for content
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
I use ALL the lines for content
Ok, if you say so.
Originally posted by sandau
I don't know about you guys but a g4 (powerbook) with integrated iSight is only nicer because you have less wires but still stinks cause it can't host an iChat video conf. yuck.
Could it with a decent graphics chip?
Corey
Originally posted by Corey
Could it with a decent graphics chip?
Corey
It works fine with a one to one video chat.
It's when you want to host two or three people including yourself that you need the beefier GPU and CPU.