What would keep you from buying into the HD formats? (1 Viewer)

[Eric F]

Try the CoreAVC H.264 codec. It's about 75% faster on a PC than QT7. Also install the Haali Media Splitter. I have an Opteron 170 and it runs just fine on that, even in 1080p.

You can even get realtime AC3 output from QT7 clips using FFDShow's audio filter.

 

[JediFonger]

you mean i don't need qt? cool. lemme check it out.

 

[JediFonger]

got it all to work, thx Eric, that was awesome =).

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Also, the T2 WM-HD movie on the Extreme Edition is actually 1440x816p and at fairly low bitrates, so it lessens the drag on the decoder and CPU, at the expense of resolution and a really quality image.

I hope to heck that these HD discs don't have filtered resolution besides lower bitrates (as DirecTV, DISH, WM-HD files, and some OTA broadcasts do) than needed in order to pack a bunch of stuff on the lowest capacity discs they can.

Dan

 

[JediFonger]

according to the t2's wmv-hd details, it is 1920x1080p. where didya find that info?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

There were some discussions about it when the WM-HD version came out, especially because of the lame brain way the phone-home DRM worked, or didn't work for that matter, and the fact that it's broken up into blocks rather that one continuous file.

I believe it might have been Stacey Spears who said how it was encoded. For one thing, the vertical resolution is less than 1080 because it's a 2.35:1 movie rather than 1.78:1, and the black bars were NOT hard encoded, but added via the player to make it easier to compress. Most of the low bitrate WM-HD files were 1440 horizontal because they wanted to keep the bitrate and file size within the confines of the regular DVD specs. and to make it easier to decode on a computer (at the time) without much stuttering.

Dan

 

[Eric F]

No problem. I think QT7 HD files are just H.264 clips with AAC sound. It is amazing at how effecient the CoreAVC decoder is.

The AAC sound is extremely high-bitrate on some of the QT trailers. Output them to your receiver with the 640k setting on the FFDShow decoder.

I really think H.264 will be replacing MPEG(2&4) in relatively short order.

 

[JediFonger]

Dan, i didn't know that. =). i thought the reason why they kept 4 files was because older windows and FAT limitations on the hard drive couldn't larger chunks of files.

Eric, yeah, just gotta adjust the sound so it synchronizes w/video. i knew there was some sorta' trick to getting it to play! =).

as for h.264, didn't i read somewhere that blu-ray&HD-DVD were gonna extend the mpeg2's stay by encoding in it? thus, rendering the newer mpeg4 specs useless? it's all about the power to fully utilize new tech instead of relying on old ones.

 

[Matt_A]

I will not upgrade for three reasons:

1. There's going to be a format war.
2. It's going to be really expensive.
3. You HAVE to have an HDMI interface. My HDTV is 5 years old, and would require component cables.

Maybe later on down the road, I'll upgrade, but it'll be awhile.

 

[TedD]

Much as it pains me, (because I have been on the bleeding edge with both LD and DVD) I will not be purchasing ANY BR or HD-DVD titles until I can play them on an HTPC using either Zoom Player or Theatertek with complete aspect ratio and blanking control, and can also set autostart bookmarks to go directly to the beginning of the feature, without any menus, warning screens, etc being forced on me.

If this means never, than so be it.

Frankly, a scaled and processed DVD (via ffdshow, and DScaler and using an Nvidia 7800 video card) delivers a very satifying image today, even on a 5' x 13' screen.

I do have all of the WMV-HD Imax titles today, so I do know how good HD can look. I also have a 1080 projector that can accept HDMI with HDCP.

Ted

 

[JediFonger]

ted,

http://arstechnica.com/guides/other/cablecard.ars/4
^check that article out. it really sounds like 1080p is going to be REALLY, REALLY hard to playback on the HTPC. FYI =).

 

[DeathStar1]

You know, I was just thinking this the other day..

I wouldn't mind a neccesary internet connection IF the connection allowed me to download all the Movies and Extras that where on a disc that is now out of print.

This would allow studios to save money on older titles they don't want in print, we won't have to worry about a disc becoming unreadable and not have to buy another copy, etc...

Although, If a STandard High Definition disc has, say, 50 GB's of info on it, we'd all have to hope that a service like FIOS gets speeds higher than 10GB's per second for that to be feesable...

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I don't think requiring downloads of 50GB in less than 5 seconds will determine feasibility... although that would be very nice!

Considering you can start a download and then multitask, or even just do something else other than be on the PC will mean most consumers aren't going to be put off by downloads that might take even as much as a few minutes.

If it takes hours, well then that is something all together different, and might turn off impulse buyers. Although comparing a few hours download where you can still do something else to getting a disc from NetFlix, ordering online and having it shipped, or from any B&M rental or retail outlet, it would still be a faster and/or more convenient delivery system.

 

[JediFonger]

d/l content for a lot of people has become quite the norm in the geek-world. regardless of the copyright issues involved, people are going to great lengths to d/l TV shows, movies, music, etc regardless of size/time to get it. they often have a computer that's h00ked to the internet 24-7 and have setup scripts to grab the files they want.

thus, if there are legitimate and legal downloads that are affordable (even HD) for a good price and you can keep watching it after you've paid for it, then what's not to like! =). unfortunately, such a system of delivery for video-content doesn't really exist yet.

 

[TimBoyd]

I grant all the technical issues listed in previous posts as barriers to my adoption, but the KEY for me is to not feed the belief in the two technology camps, and their studio media cohorts, that they can introduce competing standards and the bleeding edge videophiles will feed their coffers until, down the road, one, or a merged standard, wins out and they can hit the mainstream pot of gold.

I will NOT buy into either BR or HD, and I was also on the bleeding edge with video tape, LD and DVD. Technology is moving so fast that both will be obsolete before they reach mainstream mass; probably replaced by some micro crystal media or simply HD-VOD that Joe-SixPack will buy into.

Feed them if you like, I'll watch upconverted DVD's on my 1080p set and some HD via cable or sat with 5.1 in the mean time. I'm fighting the GOOD fight this time.

Tim

 

[DeathStar1]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I was looking for info on something and came across this article on a site called Sci-Fi Tech...

"And the sun will set on analog video for good after Dec. 31, 2013, when AACS-licensed players can't be made or sold with any analog video outputs, including the familiar yellow composite-video jack."

Sigh...I knew analog TV was dead, but I didn't know they'd be completly getting rid of analog video itself... So that means if your old TV goes down the crapper, you'll be out of luck playing old video game systems like SNES and N64 too....or does this only apply to HD DVD players?

I have no problem upgrading to new formats. I welcome new technology changes.... But all these precautions to prevent fair use are going to really piss off alot of people...

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Not necessarily. All that will be needed is a video processor that will convert the analog signal to digital, which is already available so everyone's current library of analog sources are safe from complete obsolescence.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

most non CRT displays are "true digital" displays anyway in that they pixel-map...so the analog video has to be converted to digital anyway at some point...either inside or outside the display...