Infinite lossless compression is a mathematical impossibility. There are only so many ways that any given value can be represented. While we can abbreviate some values, not all values can be. Now It can be compressed to a level of reasonable quality loss, and then it can be mathematically compressed. You know the drawbacks to both, that both can only go so far.
Yes, until we find another way to do it. Meth is a complex matter and not all ways yields results. However, another way may yield a result where the previous one couldn't.
It's almost endless possibilities I say.
I'll repeat myself. My monitor is a mere 15 inches in size, and I can notice a significant difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu Ray.
DVDs look perfect to me. Unfortunately, I have no HD movies to compare to. When comparing images, one in SD and one in HD, yes the HD is superior.
All of Hollywood's movies are stored on original analog film reels.
Prepostrous. I don't see how they can do that. The storage will eventually fade away and degrade quality.
Neither is the console one, but you've taken it upon yourself to decide on a winner there.
I haven't declared a winner yet. Obviously right now, Nintendo is winning, and Sony is doing poor, but my logic tells me Sony isn't dead yet. They'll be back later.
Decoding a 1080p video itself is already a stressful process. Add an extremely compressed codec into the mix, and that will ensure that stand alone players never come down in price by much.
A GPU @ 600 MHz can decode H264 1080p, so tell me how it's so hard? Our problem these days are that CPUs are not very good at number crunching. we need GPU-type of processors for that. But GPUs aren't very good at performing general-task work, so we need a CPU for that.
Anyway, the Cell is just an example of what future processors will look like. And with cores rampaging plus GPUs becoming more general purpose we'll have more crunching power than we've ever dreamed of in the future.
I can't stand to watch TV on the 27 inch we have because of how horrible it is.
So you see my point there
Yeah, the cassette was also known very well. And what do people remember it as now? Even when they made DCC, the thought of a cassette scared the masses away from it. Just watch, the same will happen with this desparate attempt to keep an old format alive.
Well then, let's just watch and see on that, shall we?
7HD-DVD and BLUE RAY use nothing but MPEG2 streams and thus fit under the catagory of LOW quality compression and high stream bandwidth. In other words they just use more bandwidth and data to increase the resolution instead of better compression.
That's just not true... HD-DVD and Blu-ray now uses H264 compression. That's the most advanced lossy compression today AFAIK. Container and compression is not the same thing.
Blu-ray DID use MPEG2 for a while, but now they're using H264 as well. And as far as calculation methods go, I did prove that there's no way to put a HD movie on a disc about 20-25 GB without the use of H264 (MPEG2 quality wouldn't be near the quality of today's DVD if they had to use it).
Indeed. I'm sure the compression scheme behind what HD-DVD and Blu Ray use is definitely as "processor friendly" as possible (to keep the cost of standalone players down)...
I doubt it. They use the most advanced compression available today AFAIK and they really need it because of the small storage of the discs today.
...which is why in their case, the more storage, the better, since they will show a loss in quality as the file size goes down. This is also why I think this new hybrid 4 layer DVD, whatever it is with super compression, etc.. won't work. If it relies on a power demanding decoder to be played back, it won't find much support in standalone players.
Again, I must argue that 4-layer DVD has about the same storage as HD-DVD, which means they use the same compression method: H264. In other words, it's a demanding system - for all 3 discs.
But hold on - potentially more layers will be added in the future to match the size of BD and HD-DVD, so there's little compelling reason to go with those discs. DVD is still the cheapest.
Now Doom, I'm not trying to call you poor, or even try to attempt to make fun of your finances, cause I have no idea, but... if you really had the money, would you honestly get an HD setup? Honestly for me I could've done without it, but my bro likes staying up with technology, and he's 24 and still lives with me and my dad, lol. So really, would you?
Yeah, I would... that means a bigger TV to boot! So yes, it would be awesome. When I cover such costs.
But so again, when we're talking about specific hardware, you find specialized processors in them. Slap in a few processors in there and the hardware will be incredibly expensive. I wonder why we aren't seeing typical DVD players at at a minumum of $200. Cyberman has a point there.
And as far as I know, the HD players are just incredibly expensive because they're new. Lots of effort has gone into researching and designing these players. Not the actual cost of the material. HD-DVDs are not much more expensive than DVDs to produce.