|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| physical vs. digital delivery, downloads, on demand. |
| physical copy |
|
69% |
[ 9 ] |
| not physical |
|
30% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:03 pm |
  |
|
Eh. You're not getting your Lost from the right places. Broadcast stuff is already compressed with MPEG-2 before it gets to the capper, and different sources use different bitrates. Then, a gigabyte for a 45-minute long show is nowhere near a high enough bitrate to be semi-transparent at 1080p.
Here's a screenshot from Lost S03E01 from an internal encode on a private HD tracker:
Source (AVC from BD) | Encode (x.264, 13811kbps)
H.264 is just like any other codec in that it can only do its best with the bitrate you give it. If you give it a low bitrate, it will look bad - but it's still a more space-efficient codec than XviD. The typical size for a well-encoded 720p movie from a clean source (HD-DVD or BD) in excellent quality ranges from four to seven gigabytes, although some circumstances require more space. If I were to download something like that from a good BitTorrent tracker, it would take me probably around an hour and a half, max. If I were to get it from Usenet, it would probably take around forty-five minutes.
I haven't looked at Xbox Live Marketplace rentals or the new iTunes HD stuff, but I expect that due to hardware/software limitations (and common sense), they are unlikely to reach the efficiency of compression that individuals and specialized groups can.
In one shady, illegal sort of way, HD digital distribution is already a viable option for people with some technical know-how and no scruples about peer-to-peer stuff. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:32 am |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
| I just saw a number the other day, I believe it said that 40% of all Blu-rays currently available have either a bit perfect or lossless option for audio. and I believe all of them offer atleast Dolby HD and DTS HD (maybe not the DTS). |
| earlier, psiga wrote: |
| All video content sold the the masses is encoded and compressed in some way, no matter the medium. |
Emphasis mine. Lossless audio is a lot more practical than lossless video.
The problems with digital distribution you've been putting up so far have already been solved, and then it comes down to preference. People who want digital distribution have a connection faster than your awful, awful 400kbps (which isn't even half a megabit). The stores they buy from compress more than the private internal encode I showed you to demonstrate the importance of bitrates and clean sources, so that the filesizes are smaller than my example. The stores they buy or rent from also aren't like BitTorrent, in that they typically serve a file from beginning to end, so that they can begin viewing before the movie has finished downloading. The stores also offer smaller SD content that is quickly available. They have larger hard drives in their Xbox 360s or computers. They don't mind not getting the packaging or extras.
There's already a market here, and I can't imagine it doing anything but getting larger in the future. Personally, I doubt that digital distribution will replace physical media for video in the near future, but I think that the two can exist together. Digital distribution lends itself very, very well to the rental industry, for example, where there is no expectation or desire for something to put on a shelf in the first place. The AppleTV is finally on the right track to help this growth continue, and the iTunes, Netflix and 360 libraries get bigger and bigger. On the other hand, there will always be desires to collect, to easily transport to another viewing location, or to have in the highest quality possible for editing or playing with or recompressing.
Besides. I want some beer tonight, but it's freezing cold. If it were available via digital distribution, somebody would already have my money for it. But they don't, because there's no way I'm leaving the warmth of my dorm building! Don't underestimate the couch potato factor! |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:24 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
| The future will hold: 4k resolution, high dynamic range film scans. And possibly something along the lines of IMAX DMR, though I don't want to hold my breath on that. |
I'm curious about your mention of HDR film scans - do you mean that the current process doesn't get all (within reason) of the available exposure information out of the film, or that there is some film with a wider range that will come into use? The first possibility sickens me and the second is pretty exciting! |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:23 am |
|
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| I believe he means the latter. Why is that "sickening"? |
Well, I mean. They have the film, and they have the time. I don't see why they can't bracket the scans to take advantage of all the information present if the machine's range isn't wide enough to do it with one pass. I guess I just expected that The People with The Money were doing the best job possible, and the idea that they aren't is just kind of surprising.
| psiga wrote: |
| A little of both. You really think that 256 shades of R, G, and B are enough to capture everything that film has to offer? |
I sure hope they're not using hardware that bad! (They're not!)
Last edited by Corinth on Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:39 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:28 am |
|
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
hd digital recordings in raw format psiga!
think about it!
does anyone do this yet?
i'm imagining big cameras wheeling around huge hard drive arrays behind them. |
http://www.red.com/cameras
| Quote: |
| We deliver 12M pixels at up to 60fps and record wide dynamic range and color space 12 bit native RAW. |
This thing hit several months ago. It's incredible. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:49 am |
|
|
| Yeah, I don't know of any displays or graphics cards like that either. But I'm sure that they're getting all of the exposure information out of the film in scanning; if they don't they're stupid. The technology for that exists now - even if your sensor doesn't have the range to do it in one take, you can do it in the same way that you'd bracket with your own digital camera. But since this is film, the scene doesn't change at all, so you could do it pretty much perfectly in four stop increments or however much you have to work with. You can certainly store such information, and even if you can't display it all on conventional displays (pro photographers and publishers keep this in mind because printers have a wider gamut than monitors) it increases the precision of any calculations or transformations you do. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Corinth
thatbox
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:57 pm |
|
|
| Stealth BD adverthread, amirite? |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
