scott wrote:
>> 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...

The disk will have a maximum transfer rate. As long as the codec doesn't 
exceed that it should be fine. (I have no idea what codec they actually 
use and whether it places additional restrictions on the parameters.)

My point is just that you'll need some fairly serious compression to 
make the data fit, that's all. I didn't say it's impossible. ;-)

> 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.

It's a cheap laptop.

>> 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).

And then there's the other thing. How can you fit 148 GB/sec down a 3 
meter cable? Heck, they haven't worked out how to fit 148 GB/sec between 
the CPU and the RAM yet, never mind between a player and a TV...!

> 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.

On the other hand, all analogue equipment known to man only provides 
RF-modulated and possibly SCART. ;-)

Post a reply to this message