As long as studios use advanced video and audio encodes(H264 or VC-1) at 18 to 24 mbps, stripped down one language and one audio track, then 99% of 1080p24 movie files should fit fine in 15 to 25GB space. However, in 720p, it would only require 7.5 to 12.5GB to stream instead. Much more stream friendly for current internet services at 3 to 10 Mbps.
I think it was either engadget or gizmodo that had a post about a major vendor working to tie DRM with the latest Divx-HD codec for movie downloads......but I forget which.
Anyways, how would Divx-HD perform for 1080p downloads?
I think it was either engadget or gizmodo that had a post about a major vendor working to tie DRM with the latest Divx-HD codec for movie downloads......but I forget which.
Anyways, how would Divx-HD perform for 1080p downloads?
Since Picture Quality(PQ) depends more than just the number of pixels, it's hard say how all 1080p Divx-HD would look. A simple analogy people use in the AV circle is " garbage in garbage out". So, good/clean master source is probably most essential part of the final PQ along with sufficient amount of resolutions and bit rates.
Perhaps, a better question is how is 1080p Divx-HD performs in reconstructing the PQ of the master?
I've seen 720p & 1080p coming in various PQ quality depends on the bit rate and the source material, but in general, clean 720p divx-hd looks great, and the 1080p looks great, too. When being viewed on 1080p screen, both 720p & 1080p will not be mistaken as upscaled 480p at a proper viewing distance.
Since Picture Quality(PQ) depends more than just the number of pixels, it's hard say how all 1080p Divx-HD would look. A simple analogy people use in the AV circle is " garbage in garbage out". So, good/clean master source is probably most essential part of the final PQ along with sufficient amount of resolutions and bit rates.
Perhaps, a better question is how is 1080p Divx-HD performs in reconstructing the PQ of the master?
I've seen 720p & 1080p coming in various PQ quality depends on the bit rate and the source material, but in general, clean 720p divx-hd looks great, and the 1080p looks great, too. When being viewed on 1080p screen, both 720p & 1080p will not be mistaken as upscaled 480p at a proper viewing distance.
Fine then how WOULD 1080p divx-HD perform in reconstructing the PQ of the master then?.........anyone?
And assuming we have a clean 1080p divx-hd movie how would that look like on a 52" 1080p screen? And how would it compare to a clean 720p divx-hd or any 720p source for that matter?
Oh, and what would the file size of a good clean 1080p divx-hd movie file be compared to an uncompressed 1080p HD movie file?
Fine then how WOULD 1080p divx-HD perform in reconstructing the PQ of the master then?.........anyone?
And assuming we have a clean 1080p divx-hd movie how would that look like on a 52" 1080p screen? And how would it compare to a clean 720p divx-hd or any 720p source for that matter?
Oh, and what would the file size of a good clean 1080p divx-hd movie file be compared to an uncompressed 1080p HD movie file?
I've seen 1080p files from 7 to 26GB depends of the length of the content and the bit rate. The largest file wasn't the one with best PQ, though.
Yes and no. All HD video is compressed. High bit rates loosely correlate to high quality, but there is nothing to guarantee that this is the case. It depends.
Yes and no. All HD video is compressed. High bit rates loosely correlate to high quality, but there is nothing to guarantee that this is the case. It depends.
You should realize that to many geeks, the bigness of the numbers is much more important than the quality of the experience.
You should realize that to many geeks, the bigness of the numbers is much more important than the quality of the experience.
C.
ah.... you mean the spec whores?
Actually, on the present table of bit rates, those were the theoretical maximum dedicated video bandwidth of each technology, and appleTV with 4mbps seems to be concerning for HD streaming. It's so small that it does not make sense and I'm hoping it is incorrect spec for the appleTV-HD. My understanding is that we need about 8 mbps average bit rate for 720p look great. Unless it's streamed at 720i?
While it is true that bitrate is far more important than resolution (and 720p is just fine, thanks) in one sense the iTunes currently bitrate isn't a big deal... because Apple can change it at will. With enough pressure from customers they would eventually provide higher quality content (at least optionally) and the existing AppleTVs could play it.
Blu-ray's native output is also 1080p (more than twice the number of pixels) and supports up to 7.1-channel surround sound if you've got the necessary hardware. It also has the guarantee that you'll only load it from a 25GB or 50GB optical disc loaded directly into the movie player.
Yes, a 720p video stream with 5.1 surround isn't going to seem as nice. But it'll still look better than DVD. And more importantly, it's small enough that you can pull it over a network, even across Wi-Fi (though 802.11n is probably recommended).
Sometimes videophiles aren't any better than the audiophiles who insist on $5,000 CD players and insist they can tell the difference between even very high-end speakers. You can't always tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between 5.1 and 7.1 sound; and sometimes, it's more important just to have convenient access to the movie than a slight improvement in image quality.
In the menatime, I'm not even satisfied with my zero gravity perfect chair. I KNEW I should have gotten the motorized version. Bah!!
uhhhh.... you DO know that lying weightless leeches calcium from your bones (just ask an astronaut) and reclining for long periods of time leads to kidney/bladder/prostate problems, don'cha?
Blu-ray's native output is also 1080p (more than twice the number of pixels) and supports up to 7.1-channel surround sound if you've got the necessary hardware. It also has the guarantee that you'll only load it from a 25GB or 50GB optical disc loaded directly into the movie player.
Yes, a 720p video stream with 5.1 surround isn't going to seem as nice. But it'll still look better than DVD. And more importantly, it's small enough that you can pull it over a network, even across Wi-Fi (though 802.11n is probably recommended).
Sometimes videophiles aren't any better than the audiophiles who insist on $5,000 CD players and insist they can tell the difference between even very high-end speakers. You can't always tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between 5.1 and 7.1 sound; and sometimes, it's more important just to have convenient access to the movie than a slight improvement in image quality.
Perhaps. But in my case and in a good few others we're talking about that signal displayed on a large screen tv. A 52" 1080p lcd to be precise. The bigger the display the more sucky that 720p picture is going to seem. And I don't think file size is going to be an issue now and especially down the road as tech gets better and better (HD compression, storage capacity, better broadband).
uhhhh.... you DO know that lying weightless leeches calcium from your bones (just ask an astronaut) and reclining for long periods of time leads to kidney/bladder/prostate problems, don'cha?
Google the zero gravity perfect chair. In my case it serves me well because I have a bad lower back and fully reclined all pressure from my lower back is relieved. Besides, I don't fully recline for very long because I sit at various angles depending on if I'm watching tv or looking at the monitor or eating or whatever. I love the chair.
... The bigger the display the more sucky that 720p picture is going to seem. ...
Oh, please. This Sunday, millions of NFL football fans will watch the Super Bowl. The game, like all Fox HDTV programming, will be broadcast in 720p. A goodly percentage of fans will watch it on 52" LCD TVs. I have heard no one complain about Fox games' looking "sucky." I don't expect to hear anyone complain about the Super Bowl looking "sucky."
I am interested in buying Apple TV to watch photos with high quality (I am perfectly fine with 720p for the movies). I am afraid 1080p matters for still images.
This is basically what I got from reading about the terminology used with televisions. 1080i is better for slow to normal activity and 720p is better for fast moving activity.
Oh, please. This Sunday, millions of NFL football fans will watch the Super Bowl. The game, like all Fox HDTV programming, will be broadcast in 720p. A goodly percentage of fans will watch it on 52" LCD TVs. I have heard no one complain about Fox games' looking "sucky." I don't expect to hear anyone complain about the Super Bowl looking "sucky."
hm... if 720p TV broadcast looks good on 52" HDTV, then 720p movies would also look good on 52" 1080p HDTV. Since 1080p having more pixels than 720p, it would also look good on 52" 1080p HDTV?
Have you done any of the QT trailer viewing on the 52" HDTV?
Comments
As long as studios use advanced video and audio encodes(H264 or VC-1) at 18 to 24 mbps, stripped down one language and one audio track, then 99% of 1080p24 movie files should fit fine in 15 to 25GB space. However, in 720p, it would only require 7.5 to 12.5GB to stream instead. Much more stream friendly for current internet services at 3 to 10 Mbps.
I think it was either engadget or gizmodo that had a post about a major vendor working to tie DRM with the latest Divx-HD codec for movie downloads......but I forget which.
Anyways, how would Divx-HD perform for 1080p downloads?
I think it was either engadget or gizmodo that had a post about a major vendor working to tie DRM with the latest Divx-HD codec for movie downloads......but I forget which.
Anyways, how would Divx-HD perform for 1080p downloads?
Since Picture Quality(PQ) depends more than just the number of pixels, it's hard say how all 1080p Divx-HD would look. A simple analogy people use in the AV circle is " garbage in garbage out". So, good/clean master source is probably most essential part of the final PQ along with sufficient amount of resolutions and bit rates.
Perhaps, a better question is how is 1080p Divx-HD performs in reconstructing the PQ of the master?
I've seen 720p & 1080p coming in various PQ quality depends on the bit rate and the source material, but in general, clean 720p divx-hd looks great, and the 1080p looks great, too. When being viewed on 1080p screen, both 720p & 1080p will not be mistaken as upscaled 480p at a proper viewing distance.
Since Picture Quality(PQ) depends more than just the number of pixels, it's hard say how all 1080p Divx-HD would look. A simple analogy people use in the AV circle is " garbage in garbage out". So, good/clean master source is probably most essential part of the final PQ along with sufficient amount of resolutions and bit rates.
Perhaps, a better question is how is 1080p Divx-HD performs in reconstructing the PQ of the master?
I've seen 720p & 1080p coming in various PQ quality depends on the bit rate and the source material, but in general, clean 720p divx-hd looks great, and the 1080p looks great, too. When being viewed on 1080p screen, both 720p & 1080p will not be mistaken as upscaled 480p at a proper viewing distance.
Fine then how WOULD 1080p divx-HD perform in reconstructing the PQ of the master then?.........anyone?
And assuming we have a clean 1080p divx-hd movie how would that look like on a 52" 1080p screen? And how would it compare to a clean 720p divx-hd or any 720p source for that matter?
Oh, and what would the file size of a good clean 1080p divx-hd movie file be compared to an uncompressed 1080p HD movie file?
Fine then how WOULD 1080p divx-HD perform in reconstructing the PQ of the master then?.........anyone?
And assuming we have a clean 1080p divx-hd movie how would that look like on a 52" 1080p screen? And how would it compare to a clean 720p divx-hd or any 720p source for that matter?
Oh, and what would the file size of a good clean 1080p divx-hd movie file be compared to an uncompressed 1080p HD movie file?
I've seen 1080p files from 7 to 26GB depends of the length of the content and the bit rate. The largest file wasn't the one with best PQ, though.
YOu guys shouldn't be arguing so much over the resolution, the real worry is bit rate. AppleTV video is about TEN TIMES less than Blu-Ray.
Yes and no. All HD video is compressed. High bit rates loosely correlate to high quality, but there is nothing to guarantee that this is the case. It depends.
Yes and no. All HD video is compressed. High bit rates loosely correlate to high quality, but there is nothing to guarantee that this is the case. It depends.
You should realize that to many geeks, the bigness of the numbers is much more important than the quality of the experience.
C.
You should realize that to many geeks, the bigness of the numbers is much more important than the quality of the experience.
C.
ah.... you mean the spec whores?
Actually, on the present table of bit rates, those were the theoretical maximum dedicated video bandwidth of each technology, and appleTV with 4mbps seems to be concerning for HD streaming. It's so small that it does not make sense and I'm hoping it is incorrect spec for the appleTV-HD. My understanding is that we need about 8 mbps average bit rate for 720p look great. Unless it's streamed at 720i?
YOu guys shouldn't be arguing so much over the resolution, the real worry is bit rate. AppleTV video is about TEN TIMES less than Blu-Ray.
While it is true that bitrate is far more important than resolution (and 720p is just fine, thanks) in one sense the iTunes currently bitrate isn't a big deal... because Apple can change it at will. With enough pressure from customers they would eventually provide higher quality content (at least optionally) and the existing AppleTVs could play it.
Yes, a 720p video stream with 5.1 surround isn't going to seem as nice. But it'll still look better than DVD. And more importantly, it's small enough that you can pull it over a network, even across Wi-Fi (though 802.11n is probably recommended).
Sometimes videophiles aren't any better than the audiophiles who insist on $5,000 CD players and insist they can tell the difference between even very high-end speakers. You can't always tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between 5.1 and 7.1 sound; and sometimes, it's more important just to have convenient access to the movie than a slight improvement in image quality.
In the menatime, I'm not even satisfied with my zero gravity perfect chair. I KNEW I should have gotten the motorized version. Bah!!
uhhhh.... you DO know that lying weightless leeches calcium from your bones (just ask an astronaut) and reclining for long periods of time leads to kidney/bladder/prostate problems, don'cha?
You should realize that to many geeks, the bigness of the numbers is much more important than the quality of the experience.
C.
thats why my computer has 2,000,000,000,000 bytes of hard drive space!!!
Blu-ray's native output is also 1080p (more than twice the number of pixels) and supports up to 7.1-channel surround sound if you've got the necessary hardware. It also has the guarantee that you'll only load it from a 25GB or 50GB optical disc loaded directly into the movie player.
Yes, a 720p video stream with 5.1 surround isn't going to seem as nice. But it'll still look better than DVD. And more importantly, it's small enough that you can pull it over a network, even across Wi-Fi (though 802.11n is probably recommended).
Sometimes videophiles aren't any better than the audiophiles who insist on $5,000 CD players and insist they can tell the difference between even very high-end speakers. You can't always tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between 5.1 and 7.1 sound; and sometimes, it's more important just to have convenient access to the movie than a slight improvement in image quality.
Perhaps. But in my case and in a good few others we're talking about that signal displayed on a large screen tv. A 52" 1080p lcd to be precise. The bigger the display the more sucky that 720p picture is going to seem. And I don't think file size is going to be an issue now and especially down the road as tech gets better and better (HD compression, storage capacity, better broadband).
uhhhh.... you DO know that lying weightless leeches calcium from your bones (just ask an astronaut) and reclining for long periods of time leads to kidney/bladder/prostate problems, don'cha?
Google the zero gravity perfect chair. In my case it serves me well because I have a bad lower back and fully reclined all pressure from my lower back is relieved. Besides, I don't fully recline for very long because I sit at various angles depending on if I'm watching tv or looking at the monitor or eating or whatever. I love the chair.
... The bigger the display the more sucky that 720p picture is going to seem. ...
Oh, please. This Sunday, millions of NFL football fans will watch the Super Bowl. The game, like all Fox HDTV programming, will be broadcast in 720p. A goodly percentage of fans will watch it on 52" LCD TVs. I have heard no one complain about Fox games' looking "sucky." I don't expect to hear anyone complain about the Super Bowl looking "sucky."
I am interested in buying Apple TV to watch photos with high quality (I am perfectly fine with 720p for the movies). I am afraid 1080p matters for still images.
This is basically what I got from reading about the terminology used with televisions. 1080i is better for slow to normal activity and 720p is better for fast moving activity.
1080i - "Dances with Wolves", "Lord of the Rings"
720p - "2 Fast 2 Furious"
Oh, please. This Sunday, millions of NFL football fans will watch the Super Bowl. The game, like all Fox HDTV programming, will be broadcast in 720p. A goodly percentage of fans will watch it on 52" LCD TVs. I have heard no one complain about Fox games' looking "sucky." I don't expect to hear anyone complain about the Super Bowl looking "sucky."
Thats the superbowl. I'm talking 1080p movies.
Thats the superbowl. I'm talking 1080p movies.
/facepalm
Thats the superbowl. I'm talking 1080p movies.
hm... if 720p TV broadcast looks good on 52" HDTV, then 720p movies would also look good on 52" 1080p HDTV. Since 1080p having more pixels than 720p, it would also look good on 52" 1080p HDTV?
Have you done any of the QT trailer viewing on the 52" HDTV?
/facepalm
haha... be nice.... even if he sounds more like a potential troll.