> 512.40 GB / hour. So only 10x bigger than the disk. ;-)

So even if each frame was compressed using normal JPEG compression (with no 
knowledge of previous frames) the result would probably look pretty good... 
Given that the video codecs make use of huge amounts of info from the 
previous frames, it seems that the video quality will be pretty good. 
Actually I didn't notice any form of compression artifact while watching, 
and I was looking pretty closely.  Mind you, as these were "shorts", they 
might have compressed them less than they would a feature-film, I don't know 
if that is technically possible or not...

> Both. They don't bother putting a video card in a laptop that can do 
> 1600x1200 if the LCD itself is only 1024x768. (In fact, it seems my laptop 
> has only 3 resolutions, 3 colours depths and 1 scan rate.)

Oh ok, most laptops I've seen allow you to choose a higher resolution than 
the screen itself, and then you can scroll about the laptop screen, or plug 
in an external monitor.  I know a lot of people here have those tiny Dells 
with 1024x768 screens, but use a 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 monitor on their 
desk.

> That's the other thing - HD seems to involve a whole zoo of different 
> connectors. For normal analogue video signals it's much simpler.

Hmmm, digital HD you have the HDMI plug (looks a bit like a USB plug) or if 
you want to include computers you have DVI too (both are electrically 
compatible, so converters are cheap).

For analogue you have: component, composite, s-video and SCART, and if you 
want to include computers, VGA too.  VGA is not compatible with any of the 
previous ones, so if you want to connect a computer to a TV you need 
something more expensive.

Post a reply to this message