Jump to content


Photo

HD newbie question


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 783 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 22 September 2011 - 11:56 PM

Okay, so I'm not a complete noob when it comes to HD, but I do have a question about playback, specifically streaming HD video.

I streamed an HD video today on my older machine. And when I turned off the HD it ran smoother, but had no less picture detail in the frame (at least not perceptible to me). This being so, I'm wondering what good HD is in a windowed format. If you're not seeing a higher resolution image, then why bother with HD at all?
  • 0

#2 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1443 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 September 2011 - 12:26 AM

I streamed an HD video today on my older machine. And when I turned off the HD it ran smoother, but had no less picture detail in the frame (at least not perceptible to me). This being so, I'm wondering what good HD is in a windowed format. If you're not seeing a higher resolution image, then why bother with HD at all?


Well, um, yeh, it doesn't ...

Why bother with it ?

>> So you can blow it up to 1:1 image pixel to screen pixel and watch 'HD'

Of course, who knows what the real resolution is at all... (compression, capture medium, scanning, post workflow, effects etc...)
  • 0

#3 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 783 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 26 September 2011 - 01:22 PM

Well, um, yeh, it doesn't ...

Why bother with it ?

>> So you can blow it up to 1:1 image pixel to screen pixel and watch 'HD'

Of course, who knows what the real resolution is at all... (compression, capture medium, scanning, post workflow, effects etc...)

I guess I can see that. I sure do wish someone would code a dynamic feed so that you only got what you needed in terms of data, instead of trying to cram a ton of image data into a tiny window.
  • 0

#4 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1443 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 September 2011 - 06:16 PM

I guess I can see that. I sure do wish someone would code a dynamic feed so that you only got what you needed in terms of data, instead of trying to cram a ton of image data into a tiny window.


Well, sctrictly speaking that data isn't making it to the window, an interpretation of it is...

Of which the largest size is sitting instead in your puder doing nothing until you resize the window when it can be 'dynamically enlarged'.

It's only going to get larger and faster at about the same rate, I think we'll be looking at progress bars for the rest of our lives
  • 0

#5 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 9221 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 September 2011 - 06:19 PM

To some extent it is actually possible to do that - some types of internet streaming media can contain several different encodings of the same material in one file, with the system switching between versions based on the prevailing network conditions and capabilities available at the decoding end.

Actually encoding on the fly is tricky, at least without compromising quality. Youtube videos take a while to get encoded for a reason, especially at 1080p.

P
  • 0






Ritter Battery

Cinelicious

Pro 8mm

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

CineLab

Lemo Connectors

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

Cool Lights

Visual Products

Glidecam

System Associates

K5600 Lighting

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Paralinx LLC

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Zylight

System Associates

Cinelicious

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Pro 8mm

The Slider

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Cool Lights

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

Aerial Filmworks

Lemo Connectors

K5600 Lighting