If we use JVC's DTheatre spec (uses DVHS as a transport for pre-recorded HD Movies) as a starting point, we're looking at a bitrate of about 28 Mbps.
That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.
Quote:
28 Mbps = 3.5 MB/s
2 hour movie = 7200 seconds
3.5 MB/s x 7200s = 25.2 GB
Wow, big.
So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:
14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB
So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.
Quote:
According to DSL Reports, my cable modem's downlink clocks in at 1393kbps.
1393 kbps = 174 KB/s
25.2 GB = 25,200,000 KB
So we're looking at just over 40 hours to download.
Bicycling to Blockbuster for a copy on Blu-Ray might be faster, but certainly not as convenient.
According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).
2792 kbps = 340 KB/s
Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).
But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.
That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.
So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:
14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB
So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.
According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).
2792 kbps = 340 KB/s
Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).
But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.
Not bad for an 'overnight' download or a 'while you're at work' download.
HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality.
So revising my numbers now:
8 Mbps = 976 KB/s
976 x 7200 = 6.8 GB
That is a huge difference, and puts HD movies in the download range of a DVD movie today.
One one hand I would think that the studios would use a higher bitrate, for better quality. However, today with DVDs, the max bitrate is 9MB/sec (or maybe 10?), but most DVDs are encoded at 6-7 MB/sec (not counting SUPERBIT dvds). So I wouldn't be surprised if the studios use this 8MB/sec figure rather than a 12-14MB/sec.
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
Do you guys think downloading h264 HD movies online is something the average consumer actually would do?
Or do you think the most realistic way the average person to get personal copies of a particular HD movies would be by coping them onto a DVR/tivo like device or software-based app to a harddrive through their existing cable or satellite service?
After the movie is was stored on the hardrive then a next-gen version of an ipod would be used as a portable storage device that would replace any need to use hd-dvd or blu-ray discs to transport movies from one location to another.
Do you guys think downloading h264 HD movies online is something the average consumer actually would do?
Yes. But it does not seem to be practical right now. Or of great strategic significance to Apple at the moment. Im not sure when the pieces will fall together either... no timeframe that anyone would dare label as "soon".
1) The current state of Broadband speed and proliferation
2) The potentially dramatic infrastructure changes that Apple would need to make in order to deliver the content.
3) Getting all the various movie studios involved and interested. They aren't feeling the burn of illegal movie downloads quite like the music industry thinks that they themselves are.
4) Current hard-drive sizes.
That said... i definitely would like to see an Apple Movie Store and be able to stream videos that i purchased for 14.99 over the Airport to my TV.
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
No matter what:
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
ah, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray and Apple/Sony/Movies etc. is all about marketing and packaging....
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
Full quality? Hardly. Using 7 to 8 Mbits with H.264 would be okay for broadcast HDTV but you are going to want the studios to use a lot more than that for pre-recorded Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. Think 12 to 15 Mbits for H.264. Otherwise you might as well not waste your money on it. The extra capacity of Blu-Ray will come in handy for those who want to record HDTV content. A more advanced disc (Blu-Ray) and a more advanced codec (H.264) combine to give you the best possible picture and sound quality not to mention bang for your buck.
Currently broadcasters are using very low bitrates with MPEG-2 so I guess 7 to 8 Mbits with MPEG-4 (H.264) would actually be an improvement but you still wouldn't want them to use this for pre-recorded discs. It varries a lot but if you're buying a movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD it should be better than what you see broadcast on TV. A lot better. Most people haven't seen demos that show the true potential of HDTV however.
It varries a lot but if you're buying a movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD it should be better than what you see broadcast on TV. A lot better.
Dear god I hope so.
My HD goes from really good (most football games, and most of Discovery HD) to mediocre (primetime TV shows). Sometimes you can see artifacting. Bleh!
My whole point was that right now the DVD spec allows for bitrates upto 9 Mbps (maybe 10). What do the studios use? Anywhere from 4-7. So my guess is that with HD, things wont change. Studios aren't going to be using the highest bitrate possible, they will use a lower bitrate (not only because there encoders are more efficient then yours or mine, but for other reasons I am sure). I think I have read that past 14 Mbps, VC-1 and H.264 don't improve at all (diminishing returns). So if 14 is the "max", then I would bet studios use anywhere from 7-10. And then it plays close to what my calculations are above.
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
But at non-HD quality, it looks like h.264 could be streamed or nearly streamed over the majority of broadband connections.
I still think the iTMS of video will be download of TV programs available at the time of broadcast using h.264. Direct sales back to the studios, bypassing the cable companies. Not 2 hours of HD, which will stay in the domain of NetFlix, but 30 or 60 minutes of (high quality, mind you) standard definition programs, no commercials, even if you don't get the channel from your cable provider. All programs stay in the library, so you can go and download your favorite Gilligan's Island episode any time you want. $1 per half hour - flat rate.
That will be what Apple first offers in the HTPC space.
The best way to ell you what is the average size of HDTV movies is to show you...this is from one of my 8 250GB hard drives on my media server...to figure out the actual mbps rate go to IMDB and find out the lenght of each movie...
These are all Mpeg2 transport streams captured from a SA3250HD box via Firewire with VirtualDVHS.
Did you have to manually organize and make all those icons and folder names or is there a program out there I should know about?
I manually take each transport stream file and put it in a folder and create the icon by copy/paste the large image from Amazon. It looks really good when you set the folders to large icons of 128x128.
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
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.
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...
Comments
If we use JVC's DTheatre spec (uses DVHS as a transport for pre-recorded HD Movies) as a starting point, we're looking at a bitrate of about 28 Mbps.
28 Mbps = 3.5 MB/s
2 hour movie = 7200 seconds
3.5 MB/s x 7200s = 25.2 GB
Wow, big.
According to DSL Reports, my cable modem's downlink clocks in at 1393kbps.
1393 kbps = 174 KB/s
25.2 GB = 25,200,000 KB
So we're looking at just over 40 hours to download.
Bicycling to Blockbuster for a copy on Blu-Ray might be faster, but certainly not as convenient.
Originally posted by dglow
Oooh, a story problem...
If we use JVC's DTheatre spec (uses DVHS as a transport for pre-recorded HD Movies) as a starting point, we're looking at a bitrate of about 28 Mbps.
That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.
28 Mbps = 3.5 MB/s
2 hour movie = 7200 seconds
3.5 MB/s x 7200s = 25.2 GB
Wow, big.
So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:
14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB
So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.
According to DSL Reports, my cable modem's downlink clocks in at 1393kbps.
1393 kbps = 174 KB/s
25.2 GB = 25,200,000 KB
So we're looking at just over 40 hours to download.
Bicycling to Blockbuster for a copy on Blu-Ray might be faster, but certainly not as convenient.
According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).
2792 kbps = 340 KB/s
Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).
But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.
Says 7-8 Mbps if i am reading it right.
Originally posted by kupan787
That is in MPEG 2, using something like H.264 or VC-1 (which is much more efficient and is the codec of choice for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), you could get the same quality at around half the bitrate.
So for H.264/VC-1 it would be more like:
14 Mbps = 1.66 MB/s
1.66 x 7200 = 11.67 GB
So still quite big, but more manageable than 25GBs.
According to the same test, my cable is clocking in at 2792 kbps (I have a 3Mbps connection).
2792 kbps = 340 KB/s
Translates into about 9.5 hours (around 18.6 hours on your connection). Better, but still easier to just go to blockbuster and rip it your self (assuming that the encryption gets cracked at some point).
But, if you are talking about how much space does HD takes up compared to DV (for consumer/prosumer editing), if your HD is recorded in MPEG 2 then you are looking at the same storage space as DV (HDV uses the same bitrate as DV). So you get better quality in the same file size. Pretty cool.
Not bad for an 'overnight' download or a 'while you're at work' download.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by nathan22t
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/h264faq.html
Says 7-8 Mbps if i am reading it right.
Interesting...
HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality.
So revising my numbers now:
8 Mbps = 976 KB/s
976 x 7200 = 6.8 GB
That is a huge difference, and puts HD movies in the download range of a DVD movie today.
One one hand I would think that the studios would use a higher bitrate, for better quality. However, today with DVDs, the max bitrate is 9MB/sec (or maybe 10?), but most DVDs are encoded at 6-7 MB/sec (not counting SUPERBIT dvds). So I wouldn't be surprised if the studios use this 8MB/sec figure rather than a 12-14MB/sec.
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
Or do you think the most realistic way the average person to get personal copies of a particular HD movies would be by coping them onto a DVR/tivo like device or software-based app to a harddrive through their existing cable or satellite service?
After the movie is was stored on the hardrive then a next-gen version of an ipod would be used as a portable storage device that would replace any need to use hd-dvd or blu-ray discs to transport movies from one location to another.
Originally posted by johnsocal
Do you guys think downloading h264 HD movies online is something the average consumer actually would do?
Yes. But it does not seem to be practical right now. Or of great strategic significance to Apple at the moment. Im not sure when the pieces will fall together either... no timeframe that anyone would dare label as "soon".
1) The current state of Broadband speed and proliferation
2) The potentially dramatic infrastructure changes that Apple would need to make in order to deliver the content.
3) Getting all the various movie studios involved and interested. They aren't feeling the burn of illegal movie downloads quite like the music industry thinks that they themselves are.
4) Current hard-drive sizes.
That said... i definitely would like to see an Apple Movie Store and be able to stream videos that i purchased for 14.99 over the Airport to my TV.
Originally posted by kupan787
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
No matter what:
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
Originally posted by nathan22t
No matter what:
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
ah, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray and Apple/Sony/Movies etc. is all about marketing and packaging....
Originally posted by kupan787
Interestingly enough, this really changes a lot of what I thought in the format war. With the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD war, a lot of people throw around the size of Blu-Ray as a big thing. If full quality HD movies are fitting in less than 7 GB of space, that leaves 18 GB of space for whatever the want to cram on an HD-DVD disk. My first estimates were for much less free space on an HD-DVD disk, but still enough to pack on all the extras one could want. But this new figure really changes that by a lot.
Full quality? Hardly. Using 7 to 8 Mbits with H.264 would be okay for broadcast HDTV but you are going to want the studios to use a lot more than that for pre-recorded Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. Think 12 to 15 Mbits for H.264. Otherwise you might as well not waste your money on it. The extra capacity of Blu-Ray will come in handy for those who want to record HDTV content. A more advanced disc (Blu-Ray) and a more advanced codec (H.264) combine to give you the best possible picture and sound quality not to mention bang for your buck.
Originally posted by 1984
It varries a lot but if you're buying a movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD it should be better than what you see broadcast on TV. A lot better.
Dear god I hope so.
My HD goes from really good (most football games, and most of Discovery HD) to mediocre (primetime TV shows). Sometimes you can see artifacting. Bleh!
My whole point was that right now the DVD spec allows for bitrates upto 9 Mbps (maybe 10). What do the studios use? Anywhere from 4-7. So my guess is that with HD, things wont change. Studios aren't going to be using the highest bitrate possible, they will use a lower bitrate (not only because there encoders are more efficient then yours or mine, but for other reasons I am sure). I think I have read that past 14 Mbps, VC-1 and H.264 don't improve at all (diminishing returns). So if 14 is the "max", then I would bet studios use anywhere from 7-10. And then it plays close to what my calculations are above.
Originally posted by nathan22t
No matter what:
its going to end up so that the studios/companies still "have" to create "box sets" with multiple discs. One for each film in the series... or one for several TV episodes. Making it appear far more reasonable to scale the price with amount of content time.
But at non-HD quality, it looks like h.264 could be streamed or nearly streamed over the majority of broadband connections.
I still think the iTMS of video will be download of TV programs available at the time of broadcast using h.264. Direct sales back to the studios, bypassing the cable companies. Not 2 hours of HD, which will stay in the domain of NetFlix, but 30 or 60 minutes of (high quality, mind you) standard definition programs, no commercials, even if you don't get the channel from your cable provider. All programs stay in the library, so you can go and download your favorite Gilligan's Island episode any time you want. $1 per half hour - flat rate.
That will be what Apple first offers in the HTPC space.
These are all Mpeg2 transport streams captured from a SA3250HD box via Firewire with VirtualDVHS.
The #1 thing I find frustrating with EyeTV is the folder structure:
Originally posted by Ebby
Did you have to manually organize and make all those icons and folder names or is there a program out there I should know about?
I manually take each transport stream file and put it in a folder and create the icon by copy/paste the large image from Amazon. It looks really good when you set the folders to large icons of 128x128.
Originally posted by Rolo
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
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.
Originally posted by Rolo
A standard definition (SD) HD video (720p) encoded with H.264 would stream at about 300KB/s so an hour of video would take up 1.08GB/hr. You could view it in real time with a 3Mbit/s connection. It could be downloaded to a Mac mini which is hooked up to a HDTV screen. A 90 min. video would take about 90 minutes to download but you could either watch in real time or download and view later. About 90% of HDTV content is in the SD format.
What about 24p? I know this is the year of HD, but I'll get to that...