Jump to content


Photo

HD newbie question


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 930 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
  • 1539 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
  • 930 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
  • 1539 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
  • 9556 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


Abel Cine

K5600 Lighting

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Lemo Connectors

The Slider

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Robert Starling

NIBL

Visual Products

CineLab

Cinelicious

Ritter Battery

System Associates

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Visual Products

Robert Starling

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

K5600 Lighting

The Slider

Glidecam

Abel Cine

System Associates

Pro 8mm

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

NIBL

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Zylight

Lemo Connectors

CineTape

Cinelicious

Aerial Filmworks