What is Digg?125 Comments
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Am I the only one who is going to point out that all these so-called 1080p tests are running with clips that are only 816p? That's only like 75% of the pixels of 1080p!!!! I understand that it is 2.35:1 aspect ratio video but then the resolution should be 2544x1080, not 1920x816!.
Also, 24fps is fine for movies but at least 30fps or more will be needed for broadcast 1080p content - Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10On my home pc I have this reaction:
I can't believe it doesn't play like butter!
: - jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8[QUOTE]What the ***** is 'like butter' supposed to mean?[/QUOTE]
When Jobs was showing off the new version of iPhoto at MacWorld in January, he said it "scrolls like butter." That's where the reference comes from. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apple's current trailers are within the spec and are the only way to present 2.39:1 video while conforming to 1080p."
Wrong. 1080p means 1080 lines of resolution, progressively scanned. It does NOT imply an aspect ratio (although most content is 16:9). A 1440x1080 (4:3) video is 1080p. A 1920x1080 (16:9) video is 1080p. A 2544x1080 (2.35:1) video is 1080p. If the above video WAS 1080p, it would have been the 2.35:1 variety. If it doesn't fit into the screen, it may get scaled down to 1920x816. But that doesnt make 816p the same as 1080p. For that matter, I could make a 1920x192 video and you would have to squint to see anything even on a 1080p 16:9 display. The width isn't the number that determines the resolution. It's the height (as far as the HD spec is concerned).
"If the source is 2.39:1 they can't make it any taller than 800-some pixels without going outside the 1080p spec. "
Not every display device has the same aspect ratio. 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 16:10, and even 32:9 are commonly available. The video will be scaled differently for each. Your assumption that every device is 16:9 is an invalid one. The point is that the video resolution and the video display size are frequently mismatched so you can't deliver 816p and ASSUME it's being viewed on a 16:9 display.
"To all the people complaining that Apple's trailers are not true 1080p, have you considered that rendering horizontal stripes of static black pixels wouldn't exactly put a massive tax on the machine?"
Nobody in their right mind would consider black lines as part of the lines of resolution of a video. Black lines REDUCE video resolution that might have otherwise contained video data. You can't remove lines of resolution and then turn around and say "It's ok, because the picture is too wide for 16:9". The world made that mistake with DVD's where wider than widescreen videos actually had LESS resolution then their widescreen alternates.
The world is evolving past TV consoles where everyone assumed 4:3 and later 16:9. Displays come in all sizes and aspect ratios. You can no longer assume that video will only be on a 4:3 TV or a 16:10 UWSXGA (or whatever they are calling it now) widescreen LCD. The computer world has already moved on to 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 resolutions. These could easily show a true 2.35:1 1080p signal.
The bottom line is that you can't test 816p video and then advertise 1080p performance. - snarkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7
"It's supposed to be "like a hot knife through butter", but Jobs ***** it up and since then it's been the biggest running Apple joke."
Jobs didn't ***** it up. "Like butter" and "buttery" are adjectives used to describe smoothness in everything from wine to leather goods. "Like a hot knife through butter" on the other hand, is a simile used to denote swiftness or lack of resistence.
...and anyone who is completely unfamiliar with either these expressions would do well to learn something besides IM shorthand, omgwtfbbq lol!!! - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I understand that it is 2.35:1 aspect ratio video but then the resolution should be 2544x1080, not 1920x816!. Also, 24fps is fine for movies but at least 30fps or more will be needed for broadcast 1080p content"
via Wikipedia: "The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal (display) resolution of 1920 lines and a frame resolution of 1920 × 1080 or over two million pixels." So the trailers they're playing are "close enough" (1920x816) (also note that they're playing the content with CPU speed to spare); they're pretty much the only readily available 1080p material out there to demo it with. Also, most networks right now (in my area at least) are only broadcasting at 25fps simply because the bandwidth isn't available to deliver HD content at 60fps like people on digg are suggesting. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you can afford a 1080p HDTV, you can afford a better DVR than a Mac
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"via Wikipedia: "The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal (display) resolution of 1920 lines and a frame resolution of 1920 × 1080 or over two million pixels." So the trailers they're playing are "close enough" (1920x816) (also note that they're playing the content with CPU speed to spare); they're pretty much the only readily available 1080p material out there to demo it with."
Close enough to 1080p is NOT 1080p! It's only like 75%! There are true 1080p trailers on the Apple website that have a 1920x1080 resolution but they didn't pick those to demo with. They picked the 2.35:1 video because it actually has less pixels.
"Also, most networks right now (in my area at least) are only broadcasting at 25fps simply because the bandwidth isn't available to deliver HD content at 60fps like people on digg are suggesting."
No, the content was at 24fps because the source was shot at 24fps. Many movies are. It has nothing to do with bandwidth constraints. It's always been shot at 24fps. DVD's are 30fps but they convert to 30fps from 24fps so that your analog TV can deal with it.
Now broadcast content (at least in North America) is at least 30fps. That's 25% more frames. Add 33% more pixels per frame and you have 166% more pixels per second. Suddenly the Mac Mini Duo can no longer keep up with 1920x1080/30p content. The situation only gets worse with wider than 1920 content or with a higher fps rate. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"This is great and everything, but where is the 1080p content?"
Lightyears away. Bluray/HD-DVD are still up in the air, internet delivery's just not a possibility, and DVDs are just too small. I'm personally completely happy with DVD quality content, and 400x300's fine by me too as long as you use a good encoder that doesn't generate pixel madness. - seanalltogether, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3pretending apple will sell 1080p content through their store is like pretending apple will eventually sell higher then 128kbps audio, aint gonna happen.
- stevievep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Come on...show the love for Steve Jobs' "scrolls like butter" quote. He even hesitated when he said it as in, ummm...I'm not sure that came out right....
- Vankalker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Its funny how everyone was so up in arms when they announced the new mac mini about the crappy video card without any proof that it wouldn't playback HD material, and here it is playing back 1080p which is something that almost all 1080p TVs can't even accept over HDMI even if they can display a 1080p image.
- mouthster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is great and everything, but where is the 1080p content?
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"What are you trying to prove?"
Only that 816 lines of video resolution is NOT 1080p. It should be self evident to most. We don't call it 1920p, we call it 1080p. The lines of resolution is what counts and black lines are NOT resolution. I can't believe I have to actually defend this.
"1080i is broadcast at 1920x~1080 (with black bars if neccessary). "
But the HD world goes far beyond broadcast HD. TV's will always have limitations that computers don't. They always have and always will until TV's BECOME computers. Besides, we are talking about 1080p here, not 1080i. According to you, since 1080p is not a broadcast standard, it therefore doesn't exist.
"HD-DVD and Blu-ray use 1920x1080 anamorphically. Pro HD cameras shoot 1920x1080."
Do you know what anamorphic means? It is the opposite of letterboxed which is what you are describing. Prescaling down and adding black bars to maintain aspect ratio is called letterboxing. Anamorphic literally means "different lengths". Anamorphic uses non-square pixels. Each line (of, say 2544 pixels) is compressed into 1920, stored or transmitted, and then uncompressed at display time. I am no fan of anamorphic encoding. Anamorphic encoding does get around the limitations of fixed video sizes (still a big problem for TVs, not really a problem anymore for computers). The benefit is that TV's can choose to NOT expand the lines and, instead, choose to crunch down the lines of resolution so they display 1920x816. Computers can stretch the lines out (since they have no fixed video size limitations) and can display 2544x1080. Anamorphic encoding is a compromise that has carried over from the DVD world. It looks like the next gen formats want to keep it alive because it is a compromise that maximizes the audience that can view the video.
"The new Star Wars films were edited at 2K, you don't honestly want higher resolution than the original shoot, do you?"
I never said I did. If the original movie is shot in 16:9, why would I want to change that? The problems only crop up in movies shot on film in wider-than-widescreen format. Those films CAN be digitized at 2544x1080 quite easily. In fact, they have to be digitized at that resolution in order to do post production work. Only in the final poduction step are they anamorphically encoded to work around the limitations of the various media formats.
"Are you trying to say that camera manufacturers, broadcasters, standards designers and filmmakers are all wrong?"
Not at all. They are all shooting in 16:9 creating 1920x1080 true HD content. There's no conflict there. The problem is with the people that are shooting 2.35:1 on filmstock and juryrigging it into the HD form factor. They are making a compromise and deliberately dropping lines of resolution and letterboxing their content to fit into the resolution of 1080p for compatibility with the widest possible audience. That doesn't make it 1080p. That makes it video compromised to fit into 1080p. There is a big difference and I can't believe that you can't see it.
"You can't just say you're right because of your aspect ratio. "
No. Absolutely NO. I say I'm right because, at least in my world, 816 does not equal 1080. It is a simple inequality. The fact that I know WHY they did it doesn't change the fact that they made compromises and chose a wide audience base over video quality. It was a business decision.
"Mine is 16:10 (a LOT more common) and I'm not going around demanding 1728x1080 video."
Nor should you. But if they advertise a 1080p video signal with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, you SHOULD expect 2544x1080. I'm NOT basing this on what I have but WHAT THEY SAY THEY DELIVER. BTW, Letterboxing was common in the early days of DVD, too. It was supplanted for the most part by anamorphic encoding. It is another compromise but it is at least one that attempts to maintain SOME of the original video content.
"Not to mention that even the best film has quality limitations and starts to look worse somewhere in the 2K range. You're not going to get any higher quality (from film) at 3000x1688 than you would at 2K."
Again, you are just speculating. Film can be (and frequently is) scanned at 3K pixels per line. Algorithms in the scanner reduce or for the most part completely eliminate film grain artifacts. Most scanners, however, allow this feature to be turned off because that film grain look is desired by the director!
Bottom line: 816 ! = 1080. No matter how you justify it or try and explain it away. There are no technical limitations to providing 1080p at 2.35:1. The only limitations are imposed as a business decision.
I don't know why you are fighting so hard to get less resolution than what you paid for. It just makes no sense. If you didn't care about resolution, why get a 1080p source in the first place? Those of us that DO care about resolution will not be content with quasi-1080 resolution. No amount of hand waving and technical boogey man stories change that. - stevievep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2oepapel sounds like he knows something of what he's talking about...bravo.
- kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"This is what most people don't realize. You can download and play high definition video with the iTunes Music Store... Apple is setting itself up to sell movies... in high definition! Read more here"
Do you realize how small the Hard drive is on the Mac Mini? Go ahead and start downloading hd content to it, even with the 120 gig model you may be able to fit 4 movies into it. Also good look downloading a 30 gig HD movie. Even with a high speed connection its going to take a long time. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"om, you must be kidding me, who in the hell invented this pos h264 codec, it needs THAT much power to run? and it still looks crappy"
You're joking, right? H.264 or AVC is also known as MPEG-4, Part 10. It builds upon previous MPEG-4 codecs (DIVX, XVID are Part 2 ASP codecs). Bit-for-bit, it's as efficient as any other codec out there. That efficiency comes at a price. That is the case for all codecs, the more efficient, the more processing power needed. Hardware playback support is provided by both NVIDIA and ATI. Intel has not, as of yet. The next GMA version more than likely will. - noclip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oepapel:
What are you trying to prove?
1080i is broadcast at 1920x~1080 (with black bars if neccessary). HD-DVD and Blu-ray use 1920x1080 anamorphically. Pro HD cameras shoot 1920x1080.
The new Star Wars films were edited at 2K, you don't honestly want higher resolution than the original shoot, do you?
See a pattern? Are you trying to say that camera manufacturers, broadcasters, standards designers and filmmakers are all wrong? You can't just say you're right because of your aspect ratio. Mine is 16:10 (a LOT more common) and I'm not going around demanding 1728x1080 video.
Not to mention that even the best film has quality limitations and starts to look worse somewhere in the 2K range. You're not going to get any higher quality (from film) at 3000x1688 than you would at 2K. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Incorrect. In North America, NTSC video is 30fps. In Europe and elsewhere that uses PAL, it's 25fps. HD at 720p is broadcast commonly at 30 or 60fps progressive. 1080i is typically 30 fps interlaced.
24 fps is commonly shot on cinematic film. When broadcast on TV or stored onto VHS/DVD it gets converted to 30fps. - jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really think that companies are getting to far ahead of themselves, HD is a massive hurdle to overcome espcially when it comes to space. HD movies are friggin huge, and i feel that until things such as holographic storage HDD's / Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs, widespread fiber optic internet access, cheaper & faster processors, and smaller, cheaper, and faster video cards are all widely available, we arent gonna see HD take off at the rate we want.
- gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I have a Dell Inspirion 9400 (1.83ghz Core Duo) and it runs every 1080p h.264 I throw at it. At this point my video card isn't even helping because Nvidia hasn't offloaded any of that in their drivers yet. So the Core Duo is PERFECTLY fine for decoding h.264
Now...once Nvidia updates those drivers...I will eat that little box for lunch ;) - jamen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6This is what most people don't realize. You can download and play high definition video with the iTunes Music Store... Apple is setting itself up to sell movies... in high definition! Read more here:
http://www.humanbeingcurious.com/page15/page20/page20.html - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1''Why shouldn't I recommend it? CoreAVC version 0.0.0.4 alpha was made available for public testing a while ago and can still be found if you search the web. This version seemed to me quite stable. More importantly, I'd say it's at least 10x faster than anything else I've tried and it works with any DirectShow compatible player."
Reasons for not recommending it...
#1 : it is version 0.0.0.4
#2: it is an alpha version meaning that important portions of code are still missing.
#3: it could kill the project. Every person that downloads a free copy costs the developer a license to the MPEGLA. If enough people download the free version without paying for it, the developer may go out of business or at the very least, cause financial hardship. This is information posted by the developer that I came across while I was searching for it on the web.
#4: they are doing an official launch this month so the current circulating version will be obsolete very soon. - dominowrecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uncompressed? ahh no. they are very compressed. Just using older technology.
Though I would agree for the most part that it would be easier to decode, compared to modern compression. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Show me one display outside of Japan with a native 2.39:1 aspect ratio (because I'd like to buy it). Sure, a computer can display your botched format, but try shoving your 2581x1080 video into almost any 1080p TV available today (even one of the rare true 1920x1080 TVs) and it's not even going to display. "
You are showing your bias here. The "HD is only for TV" is a great way to kill HD. You can get a 2560x1440 LCD display (the line between TVs and displays is blurring more and more) and you could see a 2.35:1 1080p in full resolution. Sure, there would be black bars but at least it wasn't added at the expense of resolution.
"Apple isn't trying to cut any corners. The HD standards are meant to display on all devices that support them, and your idea won't display on anything but a $30k projector. Hence, non-compliant."
That argument doesn't work because 1080p is technically not even an HD broadcast standard! For broadcast, there is only 720p and 1080i. So NO 1080p video is compliant, at least with HD broadcast. Just because TV manufacturers choose to make 4:3 and 16:9 TV's today doesn't mean that there won't be 2.35:1 TV's tomorrow. And since, like so many people have pointed out, there is no 1080p broadcast service in North America (yet), It doesn't matter what can display it today as much as what can display it WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE. Until then, 1080p is computer driven.
"Apple gets one 1920x1080 file with black bars for each 2:39:1 trailer. Even if anyone was using the format you're suggesting, they couldn't scale it up without losing quality."
That is because a compromise (or shortcut) was taken. They (like you) assumed that the highest (and only) resolution was 1920x1080. That is a bad assumption considering that the trailers are watched by 99% of people on their computer screen, not a TV screen. Most people are just happy having better than 720p that they either don't notice or overlook the missing lines of resolution. It also makes the files smaller and increases the number of computers that can play it back (since no downscaling is needed). But for those with a 2560x1440 display, it actually robs them of true 1080p resolution. Again, as with most shortcuts taken in HD, it was a business decision, not a technical one. If they asked for a 1080p 2.35:1 video from the studios, they'd get it. They might ALREADY get it since they do their own scaling down to 720p and 480p. - noclip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oepapel:
Show me one display outside of Japan with a native 2.39:1 aspect ratio (because I'd like to buy it). Sure, a computer can display your botched format, but try shoving your 2581x1080 video into almost any 1080p TV available today (even one of the rare true 1920x1080 TVs) and it's not even going to display. Apple isn't trying to cut any corners. The HD standards are meant to display on all devices that support them, and your idea won't display on anything but a $30k projector. Hence, non-compliant.
Apple gets one 1920x1080 file with black bars for each 2:39:1 trailer. Even if anyone was using the format you're suggesting, they couldn't scale it up without losing quality. - mouthster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Who cares about h.264 HD when you can only play movie trailers? Create an article when you test .ts HD files. No digg."
I would think that .ts files are easier to play and that the Mac Mini would have no problem, as they are uncompressed and don't require nearly as much decoding as .h264. I've got a 15gig HD .ts version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas I got from Usenet , plays fine on my P4 2.8ghz. But the same P4 chokes on 1080p .h264. Don't even ask about my Powerbook. - muikano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude use the reply button on the person you want to reply too. Dont be an attention freak.
It's right there. It's blue and bracketed [reply] on the lower right hand corner of very comment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Silly me, i thought "like butter" got popular from Mike Myers's "Coffee Talk with Linda Richman" routine on Saturday Night Live.
- noclip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a compliant method for making use of all the resolution. If the video was encoded anamorphically and then scaled down to 800-some pixels high at playback it would still be true 1920x1080 AND compliant. Apple can't do that because they get what the studios give them.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I should emphasise a point about my previous post. CoreAVC is a real winner for smooth HD playback in Windows. Your performance will beat the snot out of any Mac."
What will Mac users use? There is no Mac version AFAIK. Also, since CoreAVC isn't YET available to the general public, it's a hard recommendation to follow. In time, it may prove to be a good alternative to Quicktime or (my current favourite) VLC. I look forward to seeing it develop but recommending it across the board is still premature. Even it's website is currently in transition. - oxyfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31080p just destroys my a64 4000+ everything runs smooth and then once i hit an action scene the fps drops from 24 to 12... lol
- vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Also, the content's 24fps because there really is no bandwidth to deliver it in 30fps"
You seem to know so many things, yet you are so clueless about that...
Never heard about 24 fps movies before? Oh right... %99 of Hollywood movies recorded in the past 60 years are in 24 fps... Let me bet that the last movie you saw at a theater was running at 24 fps, not 30, and certainly not 60 fps.
So these HD movie trailers were recorded and produced in 24 fps, and were directly encoded in .h264 at the same fps. This has nothing to do with bandwidth concerns. - windsok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Who cares about h.264 HD when you can only play movie trailers? Create an article when you test .ts HD files. No digg."
QT does not play .ts files, but I tested some in an intel compiled version of VLC on my stock core duo mac mini, they play flawlessly. Even more amazing, is that the system seems to support core video, because I can go into the extended controls panel and change stuff like hue, contrast, opaqueness in real time with the video playing.
http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/5853/1080its8ye.jpg F1 1080i test video, playing with the opaqueness :) - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5that's a fair amount of power in such a little box
++digg for the like butter reference - StatusQuoRules, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So what about the Solo version? I wonder if it plays smooth because if it did, I'm sure there would be reports of this. My MacBook Pro plays h.264 smooth :)
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Even more amazing, is that the system seems to support core video, because I can go into the extended controls panel and change stuff like hue, contrast, opaqueness in real time with the video playing."
You don't need Core Video to do that. Hue and Contrast can be adjusted by making adjustments to the decoding tables. Opaqueness is adjusted by the Compositor in the Quartz Extreme desktop. - easygoing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why shouldn't I recommend it? CoreAVC version 0.0.0.4 alpha was made available for public testing a while ago and can still be found if you search the web. This version seemed to me quite stable. More importantly, I'd say it's at least 10x faster than anything else I've tried and it works with any DirectShow compatible player.
Besides, the gold (release) version sounds like it's available within the next few months.
Yes it's only for Windows. But this proves that it can be done. It proves that Apple could have done far better. It proves that you don't need any special high-end hardware to play back 1080p. Because of these things I don't see why it's such a big deal the Mac Mini hits the front page of Digg for something that I've been able to do for quite some time. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When did Digg become Coffee Talk??
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Christ dude, split hairs much ?"
I just want to be clear what you mean. I don't have any HD .TS files here or else I'd guess at what you meant. - robbietherobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01080p is old news.
1920x1080p is basically a 2 megapixel image.
Currently running a 3840 x 1024 H264 "like melted butter" on a MacPro. Thats a 4 Megapixel image at 25fps and I would say it could run a 5 megapixel video without a bother too.
Just need monitors big enough now! But the 4M is working without a blink!
1080p is for wimnps! - j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well, what do you expect? We ARE talking about Apple here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is this the core solo or core duo?
- webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I tried the 1080p and 720p Xmen3 trailers on my PC and both versions only ran at 12fps. I have P4 2.0GHz machine with an ATi Radeon 9600XT. The ATi card doesn't have h.264 acceleration and to run 12fps, so my CPU was maxed out. How sad. If this 3 year old single core, old tech CPU can run h.264 at 12fps, couldn't a Core Solo do it even at 1.5GHz?
I am really considering the Core Solo with 1GB RAM - rfernandez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now I'm getting a little verklempt...hagm!!!
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Silly me, i thought "like butter" got popular from Mike Myers's
> "Coffee Talk with Linda Richman" routine on Saturday Night Live.
It did. That's where the catch-phrase comes from and that's what Jobs was alluding to when he used it. The character uses it to refer to anything that's really smooth or impressive. I'm surprised at how many people think Jobs screwed up by saying that. I thought it was obvious he was using that catch-phrase and I thought it was funny. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I would think that .ts files are easier to play and that the Mac Mini would have no problem, as they are uncompressed and don't require nearly as much decoding as .h264."
uncompressed HD? Really? Or maybe you meant to say less compressed or maybe you meant compressed with a less CPU intensive codec. Because you continue to say that it doesn't require "as much decoding". - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Think again people.
Apple's version of H264 is closer to Baseline profile than anything. Good luck decoding High profile ;) - DaMacGamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i believe 24fps is tv broadcast speed correct? well if thats true, and if it can keep a solid frame rate then for a mac mini, not so bad.
- chrishu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gosh.. is BUTTER taste that bad?
1. Sorry guys, for HDTV content, displaying on 75% or 100% won't make difference on resource, it's still taking 100% CPU, ram for it. Only thing that makes faster is the GPU has less loading, so it display a little faster when project only 75%, but physical CPU loading is still at full 100% for the content. (try to think if you zoom out a photo image, is Your ram still taking account 100% in full size? of course!!! there is no evidence saying that since i am projecting for only 75% of screen, please cut my memory - CPU usage to 75% only. That's a silly talk!
2. MPEG 2 standard such as .TS were pretty much hardware acc. by GPU now days. H.264 isn't. so, H.264 is much CPU intensive. on Intel based CPU without GPU's help, H. 264 always chokes. However, on a Mac, you can see much smoother in H. 264 because on a MAC, both H.264 or MPEG2 (.TS) are both CPU powered, and nothing else. It shows a fact that OSX does manage motion picture and image better than Windows (not Intel vs. G5 chip). It's the OS that has good and bads.
3. 24 fps isn't equipment or network's fault. It's the traditional Film standard. film were shot by 24 fps because traditional films when watch in the dark will cause "ghost shadows" to make up the motions. So it is enough to show full motion without gaps with 24fps. However, new digital devices DO NOT create ghost shadows to makeup all the gaps.. so DVD contents has to remaster to 30 fps so when u watch on a HDTV, u wont' see skips. that's nothing to do with camera that's filming at or bandwidth. Newer films were filmed by new digital cam. which can allow 30fps, so.. YES!! some of them have 30fps now. (If they don't remaster).
4. as oepapel were mentioned.. It's true.. as for DVD or HDTV when remaster, they taking account on NTSC/PAL standards.. and that does make more or less fps effects.
5. H. 264 is the Divx or Xvid mod.. so it is much more cpu intensive than regular MPEG 2.. Only because, MPEG 2 compression isn't in high ratio. Secondly, like I mentioned before, most of video cards do hardware acc on MPEG 2 standards.. so, that's why it's faster. In the near future if there is any video card that supports H. 264, You can still play like BUTTER on low end machine if you want.
6. As for PC, caused by insecure platform, you need to have a lot more additional software to support the basic functions. Namely backdoor scanner, ad blocker, virus scanner.... etc.. they all take resources, and make your P4 not as powerful.. From a brand new installed XP, on the same HDTV content, it should run as BUTTER-LY as mac. Only difference is that most of our XP were heavily loaded with junks. so the performance on video will drop. Of course that also has to take account of the resource that Codec and Player were using. KMPlayer just way faster than Media player.. That just how it goes. There is no real speed factor we can actually compare side by side. But generally due to Mac has less junk, it runs faster it's actually pretty accurate.
7. RAM on video card does make your video smoother, but not GPU. Even you have a P4 that runs on new 7900GT, the motion video is as fast as you are running on a 6200A. It won't make it any faster. It is true that on-board VGA card will be slower, but for 2D and motion video? Not by much! Only difference is that most of Nvidia or ATI were heavily supported 3D. Anything with good enough ram on VGA card, it will run almost the same speed on the same bare bone system. However, new dual core mac mini can run BUTTER-LY on 1080p, it's a total effect of good memory management on OS, lower loading on software, speed up by H. 264 standard, and good enough ram and cpu speed for playback that's all. I am sure a newly installed XP without any anti virus or deferment software, 1.6G+, 1G ram, with at least 128mb Video card will run MPEG 2 HDTV 1080p smooth (with hardware acc. option on). Heck! I can even run 1080p smooth with sempron 2800+ with 1 G ram ! (of course, the xp was heavily reconstructed to speed up all the processes). -
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 