JamesCizuz said:
nordlead said:
JamesCizuz said:
greenmedic88 said:
You're going to make me burn a DVD to test this, but I'm pretty sure if I burn a 1920x1080 QT movie trailer to DVD, I'll still be able to get a normal frame rate if I play it off the DVD drive of any current computer.
On the second thought; no need. Unless I could burn a 1920x1080 movie file with lower compression in the range of 30-50Mbps+ bandwidth, I know it would play off DVD for example (1080p trailers online generally run around 10Mbps which for a 3:30m clip is about 256MB or about 14 minutes of video per GB of storage).
So it's not the resolution at all that anyone should be debating, only the bit rate. Lower bit rate, higher compression 1920x1080 signal will play back just fine on DVD. Is the quality the same as a 40Mbps AVC compressed A/V signal on BD? Of course not; nobody said that. But the point was a 1920x1080p signal can be stored (and played back) on just about any storage media, assuming the data bit rate doesn't exceed the format/drive.
Technically, Nord's right on the money.
|
Burn a DVD, and buy an old 2x DVD drive, and run it on your computer. No matter what, you are having huge frame drops. Any computer you say? Current computer, theres the key word there. Not every DVD player is current, though I guess you can argue those old DVD players don't even have HD outputs, however older drives for computers thats a null point. Also, lower bit-rate = higher compress = more powerful hardware to decompress and stream.
|
but again, none of that matters when it comes to my statement that medium doesn't matter for storing 1080p video (or showing it), as it is possible. Sure, none of it is reasonablely feasible, but nothing is stopping anyone from doing it. I can say that watching 1080p on a Blu-ray drive is impossible on a SDTV, but all I'm doing is artificially restricting hardware just like you are. Obviously if people were going to make HD capable DVD drives, they would make sure the bitrate and processor power was high enough to handle the video.
|
I wasn't arguing with that. I was arguing the fact that medium in it's original state was never meant, nor can not store, nor play those files. We have to change and tweak to make it play those files, and the whole idea of creating a new format is a new standard, so every blu-ray player could play those files, not just 1% of DVD players etc.
|
Bringing up old 2x DVD drives as reasoning why you can't playback HD res video on DVD media is really just for the sake of a pretty pointless argument.
Most, if not all old computers that shipped with a 2x DVD drive, wouldn't be able to play back any 1920x1080 video files, even when stored on HDD.
The argument pretty much ignores the fact that anything less than 8x is a rarity these days and anything pre-dating that very modest standard basically predates HD video formats.
You also are a bit off as far as stating that lower bit rate via higher compression requires additional computing power over lower compression, higher file size video. Contrary example: non-compressed HD video won't play without huge frame drops, reading off a regular HDD on a current system with decent specs. Even a modest 1280x720 uncompressed file.
You also glossed over two key phrases which should have stopped you from bringing up old hardware in the first place.
"...if I burn a 1920x1080 QT movie trailer to DVD, I'll still be able to get a normal frame rate if I play it off the DVD drive of any current computer."
"But the point was a 1920x1080p signal can be stored (and played back) on just about any storage media, assuming the data bit rate doesn't exceed the format/drive."
Lastly: a 10Mbs 1920x1080 video clip plays just fine off of DVD. I'm watching it right now on a laptop.
Essay Pro