What is Digg?146 Comments
- fartingbob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+86Pretty stupid doing all that comparison and then showing the results in a jpg LOSSY file.
Still, the general comparison remains the same, xvid is great for smaller files. a 25gig xvid movie would be amazingly good quality.
h264 is another great codec, but wasnt included for some reason. - sleepyness, on 10/12/2007, -6/+66I'm surprised H264 wasn't included as well..
- Scynet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56For crying out loud people, stop linking to Wordpress, the site goes down after 10 pageloads.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50I would like to see a 4.7GB or 9.4GB XVID file @ 720p instead of a 700mb one. It should be far better than an upconverted DVD.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45QUIT FRICKIN' LINKING TO WORDPRESS!!!!!!!!!!
- CaptainEO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37http://www.duggmirror.com
And a link to the full size comparison:
http://plastik.hu/media/irobot-4fele.jpg - MrPig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Image Mirrored by www.valdegames.com
http://www.imagemule.com/uploads/irobot-4feleuHm4.jpg - jackpot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Pretty good comparison. Really shows how Xvid is a formiddable compression format with some DVD players supporting Xvid now.Where's the upconverted DVD shot?
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Can someone do (or find) a comparison that doesn't use JPG? A PNG file comparison would be much more impressive.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28"25gig xvid movie would be amazingly good quality."
Unfortunately, at that sort of quality xvid would be extremely expensive to decompress in terms or processing power, and you'd end up with all players requiring core 2 duo power processors, which would be extremely expensive. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Very good basic comparison of resolution, totally worthless in the real world however.
One can't see motion artifacts, I can create an image from some formats that would look FANTASTIC. But, in motion you'll see artifacts that will bug the hell out of you. - badriram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15hmmm... Considering there are no native sources to get Xvid file, I am guessing that xvid file was created from a DVD. Which means it is already it is going to look worse than its source .
Although I am curious to know what native format the HD videos were using, it could have been h264, VC1, or mpeg2. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Not wordpress. It's the hosting provider's oversubscribed database server that can't keep up. Sad thing is all other customers using that same DB are similarly hosed. Quel domage.
- tripx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Strikes against this "comparison"
-Xvid 1 CD version is just a recompression of the DVD version.
-Use of lossy jpeg compression makes comparison shots mostly worthless. - mntbikeracer1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15You cannot use jpegs to discern quality as it is a lossy format. This is a waste of time.
- dengzhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12digg, the legal DDoS.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I think the 1080p shot suffered from jpg compression.
And while the xvid one wasnt all that great, it was 1/10th the size of the next best one, the DVD. That BBC Planet Earth documentary that was on digg a few days ago was amazing to watch. A 45 minute video in 2.2GB.720p/AC3 sound. I think it was a divx file though and not xvid. BTW, its a 12 part series, pretty amazing. Im sure you all know where to download it. - garrettnb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5194/irobotxk2.jpg
- Tanpreet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@lynxpro
as long as he gets the point across that some video formats look better than others then the movie thats being used to compare is not important - 98acura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14***** wordpress... if i had a dollar for every time i see that same ***** error i wouldn't have to be at work right now..
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12kind of stupid really, xvid is a codec, not a prepackaged dvd or even a resolution. you can use xvid compression for a high def movie. the first two are very similar but if it was less compression and spanned over 2 cds it would be virtually identical id imagine.
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I didn't mean to say "I agree with this article" there... distracted at work ;) I don't see how codecs like XviD and DivX can beat H.264 in HD video quality. They might be able to get acceptable quality at lower bitrates in some cases... but that still doesn't mean they're better codecs for HD content.
- badriram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://www.dynamoo.com/diary/slashdot-effect.htm
Has a nice recap of the slashdot effect, I can imagine that since that was 2 years old, the digg effect is probably worse. At peak times, that site got about 5 page hits every second. But if you take into consideration every image, css, js files, the bandwidth can balloon up real quick. But most of all a lot of servers go down, due to bandwidth issues or real bad caching issues with web applications or sql queries (bad application design issues). - pureliquidhw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1133 diggs means 10 hits per second. if something is front page with 33 diggs, it means it got there very fast(lots of hits, short period of time). plus it is front page. and, OMG! people are reading the article before digging it! There were probably 1000 hits (or more) in the last minute.
- ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well that link died fast.
- tlogank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11It has nothing to do with the TV being CRT or LCD...it's just the HD support level that it goes to. I have a 51in. CRT Widescreen HDTV that w/ an upconverting DVD player that displays at 1080p...it will show the picture just as nicely as any LCD tv, if not better (if tweaked correctly). Point is, it's not the TV projection method, it's the technology that it's being powered by.
- KC311Man, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Seriously, I hate WordPress.
- sh1595, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Pretty compelling. Woe unto us poor bastards with 0ld-sk00l crt tv's. Dammit, I guess my kids aren't getting any toys for Christmas; I gotta buy a 1080p lcd now!
- donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Static pages are usually served way faster than one second. The issue is that all the requests come in at once. 60 hits in a minute is fine, but 60 hits in a second is not. Digg probably sends a few thousand users when a link hits the front page in a span of a few minutes.
- maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, that is how it would look on a 1080p display!
- libertao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Way too many people are complaining about this xvid thing. The point of including xvid wasn't to evaluate its performance as a codec, it was referring to the divx/xvid files you often see in P2P networks that are around ~700mb for a film. It's interesting to use as comparison for people who download files and are familiar with the format.
- MakinBacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Pretty good comparison. Though I agree that the jump from 720 to 1080 isn't that huge, the real comparison is between the HD formats and DVD. For example:
- you can almost make out what is on the captain's LCD monitor
- you can see that the glass door to the office is closed and his name is "Bergin"
- you can almost make out labels on the filing cabinet behind the people standing on the right.
The higher quality is mostly noticeable in the highlights and shadows. - CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well that's not really the question you should be asking. What you really want to know is the difference between the quality of the approved codecs for Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Different studios use different codecs for audio and video and different bitrates. Technically Blu-ray can offer higher-bitrate encoding because it can hold more data and has higher data transfer speeds. In real-world tests, however, HD-DVD has had the upper hand because the Blu-ray discs were apparently rushed into production and some companies were even still using MPEG-2 on their Blu-ray releases. This is not longer the case, however.
I think as far as A/V quality, Blu-ray has potential to be better. It can hold more data than HD-DVD, that that's the most important factor for audio and video quality. However, BD is expensive and HD-DVD has a major head start as far as cost reduction and units in consumer's hands, so I agree with this article. - GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Even though the movie had almost nothing at all to do with the book, I enjoyed it. It really wasn't that bad of a movie. Not bad enough to make a fuss over when someone uses a screenshot of it, anyway.
- the_penguin_boy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Am I the only one noticing Chief Tyrell from BSG in the background? (Fourth from right in the full-frame pics.)
- wikk!d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9why OH WHY must these CMSes generate static pages constantly via a database? c'mon developers... slashdot and digg have been around for a while now. Most users know how to install CMSes on their servers that can write files (such as a config file), why not write static html files that are so much easier to served up by a webserver than something that requires a hit to a scripting engine and a database?!
/rant - maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I dont know why so many people in here are bitching about this. To me, it sounds as if they're pissed off because all those bit torrent dvd rips to Xvid they downloaded are utter crap.
To me the differences are very clear (did people even bother to open the large image?!), although I agree the comparisons could be more clearly defined, such as what codec the HD-DVD material was encoded in (HD-DVD, and Bluray support multiple codecs such as, MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264, etc...).
The HD formats, while similar (though the 1080p version looks even more natural), are FAR superior to anything SD. So to all those people who say "upscaled dvd looks as good as HD," STFU. - matt221984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Agreed on the jpeg.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6broken already.
- ZeroG52, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just you. You can definitely tell a difference in real life between 720p and 1080p. Harder to tell from a jpeg if you don't know what you're looking for.
- heimtommy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8nice comparison angelday! ; )
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5unless you have referrers disabled...
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7All I see are lots of JPG compression artifacts...
- aitf311, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7My eye really cant tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in this picture. I think the jpeg compression took hold before 720p because they look exactly the same.
- maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The author of this article was making a point about how different kinds of video might look on a HDTV. Any source that does not exactly match the native resolution of the display, must be scaled to fit the display, otherwise you would get a very small video window on the center of the screen. Scaling introduces its own artifacts, yet another reason to buy into one of the HD formats if you have an HD set...
- darmokan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@friday06:
You, sir, are being quite ridonculous. There is no information "missing" from the picture. Like kalven said, a film which is shown in 2.39:1 aspect ratio at "1080p" is actually approximately 1920x803 pixels rather than 1920x1080, the rest of the picture being filled in with black bars.
Likewise, this "little difference" between 720p and 1080p for this movie is actually a difference between 1280x536 versus 1920x803, not 1280x720 versus 1920x818. This still presents a significant advantage in resolution -- near exactly 50%. The image is likely 818 pixels high due to slight post-processing adjustments by the studio.
From Wikipedia: "The 2.39:1 ratio is more commonly referred to as 2.40:1. The ratio was 2.35:1 prior to SMPTE revision in 1970, and is still often mistakenly referred to as 2.35:1 although only anamorphic films photographed prior to 1970 are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The American Society of Cinematographers' American Cinematographer Manual uses only 2.40:1 not 2.39:1." - vrillusions, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'll spare the details, but at one point I was operating a caching page that had 100's of people hitting a php page. The cpu usage soared and the system (not bandwidth) was just slow. By caching that php and serving static content, the cpu usage dropped to pretty much nothing. Even with the cache getting updated every 2 seconds, it's getting generated once in 2 seconds as opposed to several times a second as people are constantly refreshing the page.
Judging by it being a blog, you know that page isn't a static page. That creates processor overhead. This is also a post that relies heavily on images (you need to compare the quality, don't you?) that adds a lot of bandwidth (that full size image is about 2.4mb). Plus not everyone has a superfast 100mbit tube to the internet. Some are just running this of their home cable connection, which just can't handle 1,000's of people connecting at the same time.
In a properly tuned system, on adequete hardware, you're bottleneck is going to be bandwidth. If it's located at a decent NOC then it can be handled fine. Take digg or slashdot. The reason these other sites go down is because 1,000's of people are going to their sites... 1,000's of people that saw it on digg in the first place. And not everyone just blindly clicks on every page they see from 10,000 botnet just to see a page they have no interest in. There could be 100's of requests happening every second on digg at peak times, but the servers are still running /mostly/ fine. But with everyone having a webpage nowadays not everyone can afford to have uber servers on super fast connections for the one fleeting moment they get something listed on digg or slashdot. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DVD's are compressed MPEG-2, which is a codec.
- dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think at 720p you are starting to see the grain of the film, and 1080p is grain-limited.
- coldphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Xvid really doesn't fit in here, but since they included it anyways, where's the h.264?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
