Uncompressed High Definition

[Goosemaster]

Uncompressed High Definition
720p--------46MBps
720p--------50MBps
720p--------100MBps
1080--------98MBps
1080i--------120MBps
1080--------110MBps
1080i--------165MBps

Running through some numbers on Apple's website (looking up the new SAN software package they just came out with) I was shocked at how much bandwidth these bloody things require...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So how did you get identical resolutions and formats with different bandwidths?

 

[Colt45]

never, not if it uses that much BW

 

[Goosemaster]

FPS....

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Colt45
never, not if it uses that much BW

HDTV already uses that much..and it is free....

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So how did you get identical resolutions and formats with different bandwidths?

 

[silverpig]

cause of 29.97 vs 24 or whatever NTSC vs. PAL is?

edit: Although why would there be NTSC and PAL with HDTV?

tool-a-riffic

 

[hevnsnt]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So how did you get identical resolutions and formats with different bandwidths?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: hevnsnt

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So how did you get identical resolutions and formats with different bandwidths?

Originally posted by: silverpig
cause of 29.97 vs 24 or whatever NTSC vs. PAL is?

edit: Although why would there be NTSC and PAL with HDTV?

tool-a-riffic

FPS

24fps and 60fps with HD

 

[Goosemaster]

Linky

 

[Howard]

Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

And that's jsut a heavily compressed 6-16Mbps stream

 

[Viper GTS]

And this is why film still rules the movie distribution world.

Viper GTS

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

Currently processing power is more cost effective than storage space. That's not going to change enough in the immediate future for uncompressed HD to be at all realistic.

Viper GTS

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

More memory, and more memory-transfer speeds...

Unless you know of a cheap, easy, and effective method of delivering 160MBps...and no not IDE-RAID...

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

More memory, and more memory-transfer speeds...

Unless you know of a cheap, easy, and effective method of delivering 160MBps...and no not IDE-RAID...

well, how are they playing the content for the stations?

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

More memory, and more memory-transfer speeds...

Unless you know of a cheap, easy, and effective method of delivering 160MBps...and no not IDE-RAID...

well, how are they playing the content for the stations?

Broadcast HD is compressed.

Also the problem is delivering that kind of data rate to the recipient. That kind of data is OK in a production studio, but you can't broadcast that much data & you certainly can't distribute it in a nice compact package (DVD).

There really is no reason to anyway, the cost is simply enormous compared to the marginal benefit in quality.

Viper GTS

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

More memory, and more memory-transfer speeds...

Unless you know of a cheap, easy, and effective method of delivering 160MBps...and no not IDE-RAID...

well, how are they playing the content for the stations?

Supermegaultra-DVD

Seriously, HD equipment is out there. It just requires a lot of $$$.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: Howard
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.

To playback HD smoothly, you already need a 3GHz processor. Imagine how much CPU power would be needed with the video needed to be decoded first and then played back.

I would assume less compression would need less processor power but more memory.

So 3Ghz wouldn't be needed.

More memory, and more memory-transfer speeds...

Unless you know of a cheap, easy, and effective method of delivering 160MBps...and no not IDE-RAID...

well, how are they playing the content for the stations?

Broadcast HD is compressed.

Also the problem is delivering that kind of data rate to the recipient. That kind of data is OK in a production studio, but you can't broadcast that much data & you certainly can't distribute it in a nice compact package (DVD).

There really is no reason to anyway, the cost is simply enormous compared to the marginal benefit in quality.

Viper GTS

I was under the impression that OTA was uncompressed, or at least moreso than sat/cable?

 

[dawks]

I was disappointed when I saw Blu-Ray discs can only hold about 2 hours worth of HD-Video.. Just like DVD's only hold about 2 hours of MPEG-2 Video.. It would have been nice to see a length bump along with the quality bump.

On the topic of CPU power, remember there was a time when a 'high-end' computer (even into early 99) could not handle standard DVD. An add-in hardware accelerator was needed. Were seeing the same thing now. The Geforce 6xxx series has a build in HD decoder.

I dont think we'll see uncompressed used, since MPEG-4 Codecs are so advanced now.. and by the time we have hardware capable of handling data rates like that easily, we'll have newer compression algorithms available.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: dawks
I was disappointed when I saw Blu-Ray discs can only hold about 2 hours worth of HD-Video.. Just like DVD's only hold about 2 hours of MPEG-2 Video.. It would have been nice to see a length bump along with the quality bump.

On the topic of CPU power, remember there was a time when a 'high-end' computer (even into early 99) could not handle standard DVD. An add-in hardware accelerator was needed. Were seeing the same thing now. The Geforce 6xxx series has a build in HD decoder.

I dont think we'll see uncompressed used, since MPEG-4 Codecs are so advanced now.. and by the time we have hardware capable of handling data rates like that easily, we'll have newer compression algorithms available.

h.264

 

[her34]

we don't even use uncompressed audio

and i'd just be happy if 1080p was made standard in place of 1080i

 

[0roo0roo]

ultra hd resolutions would probably have more point