Uncompressed High Definition

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
So how did you get identical resolutions and formats with different bandwidths?
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
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
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,986
11
81
Why uncompressed? I'll be even happier if they figure out a high-compression lossless format.
 

eelw

Lifer
Dec 4, 1999
10,423
5,555
136
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

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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:confused:
 

NightCrawler

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,179
0
0
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

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
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

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
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

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
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

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,071
2
81
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

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
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

Senior member
Dec 4, 2004
581
1
81
we don't even use uncompressed audio

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