[Beowulf] HDTV video file sizes

[Mark Kozikowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512




I have to say that as Matt wrote, HD is a marketing conn. But I believe
that this is more an excuse to introduce new copy protection.
The existing DVD has been broken - as seen by the industry.

The new format gives virtually nothing as far as quality, but presents
a completely new platform for protective development.

A conn or a scam, either way, people are flocking to the technology.
They are seeing the new clothes on the emperor.

Mark




matt jones wrote:
>  >Does anyone know who much data 1 hr. of HDTV produces? Let's try 720 
> for now and perhaps 1080. I'm looking for the file size if you store the 
> whole thing  in a single file.
> 
>  >Well, I didn't have any idea ten seconds ago, but now I know that one 
> hour should be roughly 3 GB.  (So a movie should be 5-6 GB.)
> 
>  >hmm, that's normal DVD, isn't it?  the newfangled flavors (BD, etc) 
> seem to be 5-10 higher capacity.
> 
>  >compressed data rates appear to be 20-50 Mbps (lower than 20 probably 
> doesn't count as HD.)
> 
>  >funny how all the HD stuff seems very fuzzy ;)
> 
> 3GB for 1 hour seems reasonable, a movie in avi is only 700MB, and 
> that's at PAL quality or higher. a DVD is roughly 5GB for augments sake, 
> and that includes the .vob video files, audio files and any extras 
> (which tend to be at a lower quality anyway.) so the size of the movie 
> is say closer to 3.5/4GB than 5GB. the 'dvd' movie is not at PAL res, 
> but something like 4 times the quality of PAL (3/4 way there to the 
> lower end HD).
> 
> the mid and high HD, i wld expect to take between 5-7GB for an hour. 
> thus just fitting a 'HD film' on a dual layer DVD. blu-ray being the 
> choice medium for 'HD films' in the near future.
> 
> there is also quite a bit of confusion over what "HD" means. often frame 
> rates, and colour depth are different on different 'HD' objects. so it's 
> quite easy to fit many hours of HD film on a DVD at 5 fps.
> 
> bit off topic...
> 
> it's funny how VGA is directly* compatible with SCART, also how DVI is 
> directly compatable with HDMI... interesting how in both cases the 
> computer connector came first and yields better quality. just a case of 
> changing connector's (shape and pin layout).
> 
> *directly meaning no or little analogue electronics used.
> 
> personally...
> 
> HD is a marketing CON to get nieve people to buy 'HD' products when they 
> would be better buying a computer monitor with a higher resolution, 
> colour depth, and refresh rate. although a 42" 'HD' widescreen would 
> look good on my comp.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGXH7/iCbOcYAMPlYRCgMaAJwO3+e8XfjrpeYzfj1ZUepzUwoovACeNBq2
u5tPs+1sZW3o1ASIthBgwQc=
=B+Gf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----