|
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 |
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:54 am |
  |
|
Gonna sound like a dick when I say this: I'm amused by people who gauge prospects of the future by the measurements of the present.
400KB/s downloads today are the 4KB/s downloads of ten years ago, you know? Most of us are not even seeing fiber broadband yet. I have two friends in other nations who have 100mbit fiber in their homes.
As far as being dissatisfied with MP3 quality, there are whole companies and communities who are dedicated to lossless codecs. There are USB DACs and amps which compete with audiophile gear an order of magnitude more expensive.
We still haven't seen real e-books yet; I don't care how much they try to say that Kindle is the real deal.
HD content can be adequately compressed to 2 to 4mbit with modern high-def codecs. A movie at 8mbit in h.264 is, as far as I've seen, cinephile quality.
If I recall correctly, first gen Blu-Ray releases used archaic MPEG2, because of clueless managerial decisions.
Over the Air broadcasts in America are MPEG2 as well, and very poorly handled. In the Hollywood area, WB was running 1080i at roughly 19mbit. You'd think that was alright, but they were giving 8mbit to one 1080i stream, 8mbit to a 480i stream, and 3mbit to a doppler weather stream.
The professionals barely know what they're doing.
_________________
 |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:10 pm |
|
|
How many movies, shows, and concerts are currently distributed in "bitperfect" anyway? All video content sold the the masses is encoded and compressed in some way, no matter the medium.
We can't order lossless scans of film reels, or even 40mbit industrial encodings of them.
It's all a matter of getting as close to the first generation source as possible, then using the best codec that's feasible for the medium.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:20 pm |
|
|
I have a nasty habit of listing abbreviations of megabit and kilobit in lowercase, and megabyte and kilobyte in uppercase. Spoken this way, 40mbps is 5MBps.
I hate them for having bit and byte both starting with 'b', but what the fuck ever.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am |
|
|
Tangentially related: I get a glimmer of that "tangible album" feeling when playing with Musana. http://www.musana.com/
It's not perfect -- just a glimmer -- but it feels like a couple steps in the right direction. It's raised a little watermark in my graphic design and user interfacing well.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:38 pm |
|
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| thatbox wrote: |
| Emphasis mine. Lossless audio is a lot more practical than lossless video. |
Eh... only until someone invents a better codec for lossless video. Lossless audio was equally impractical a few years ago. |
Man I've never seen lossless video for the consumer.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:01 am |
|
|
By "consumer" I mean something that we can buy now at a reasonable price.
Cursory googling says that Huffyuv at 1080p takes about 150mbit per second for video alone.
Extended version of Fellowship of the Ring is 208 minutes long, so a lossless high def version would take up 234GB of data just for the video.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:06 am |
|
|
| Broco wrote: |
| More fundamentally, even if you did have 250Gb to blow on a single movie, I think you might get better quality by using lossy compression and using that gain to increase the resolution to like 4000p, at least if you have a huge monitor. |
Yeah, precisely. BRD has, if I recall correctly, 44mbit transfer speeds, and H.264 at a bitrate like that is redundantly excellent. We don't need lossless video, since lossy is doing just fine.
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.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:16 am |
|
|
| Hot Stott Bot wrote: |
| thatbox wrote: |
| 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! |
I believe he means the latter. Why is that "sickening"?
Anyways, the real future is of course that we'll ditch film and use raw hd digital recordings! |
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?
_________________
Last edited by psiga on Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am |
|
|
I'm not sure what the pro industry guys do with their scans. I presume that everybody does it differently, since there are no standards yet.
Apparently Vista has some sort of support for 'scRGB', which gives 16bits per pixel, floating point values. That ought to be enough to run an HDR display, but I'm not aware of any graphics cards or monitors which actually work in scRGB color space...
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
