Will horrible video standards ever change?

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

Will horrible video standards ever change?

Postby y2kwizard » Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:11 pm

Hello all. I'm just wondering if anyone has any idea as to when the video madness will end.

My main question is this: will there ever be a set standard for ALL MOVING MEDIA? I mean, will the standard for NTSC video, video stored in computers, etc. etc. ever converge? Will we eventually do away with those awful things we call fields, and will TVs ever use progressive scan? I feel that eventually hard drives will emerge that are so huge that storing uncompressed video will be no problem, and processors, RAM, etc. will be so fast and large that the computer has no problem handling all the raw data. WILL THE MADNESS EVER END??
"When I got fat, I decided to grow a beard" -- The Great Andy
"Is it a DARTH visor?" and "It's funny cuz it's pants" -- The Master of on-the-spot Funniness
"You're too young for your age" and "I'm sorry for apologizing so much" -- The Master of on-the-spot Randomness
User avatar
y2kwizard
 
Joined: 18 Aug 2002
Location: Memphis, TN

Postby The Wired Knight » Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:19 pm

Varying technology and varying technology about I doubt this will ever happen. Everyone has a preference just as some still like VHS while otehrs prefer Laserdisc. Everyone has what they would like and to limit them to one choice would monopolize an entire medium and be ridiculous. It would be along the lines of telling all car dealers to make all their cars the same.
BANG

Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Probate Attorney.
User avatar
The Wired Knight
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2001
Location: Right next door to you
Status: Attorney At Law

Postby MistyCaldwell » Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:32 pm

It would also just be a matter of time before the bar would be raised from what you may consider incredible today. Then 20 years from now, what looks good today will again look crappy.

I'll bet you are really looking forward to 2007 huh :wink:
Image
User avatar
MistyCaldwell
 
Joined: 18 Jan 2002
Location: Virginia

Postby y2kwizard » Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:41 pm

The Wired Knight wrote:It would be along the lines of telling all car dealers to make all their cars the same.


What I'm suggesting is that car manufacturers all make their cars have the same type of steering: the interface must be the same...you don't want to have alot of cars with complicated joystick systems, square wheels that turn the car left by rotating the wheel right, etc. etc. I'm suggesting that video in general be simplified. No, I don't want all standards the same...I just want them simplified.......
"When I got fat, I decided to grow a beard" -- The Great Andy
"Is it a DARTH visor?" and "It's funny cuz it's pants" -- The Master of on-the-spot Funniness
"You're too young for your age" and "I'm sorry for apologizing so much" -- The Master of on-the-spot Randomness
User avatar
y2kwizard
 
Joined: 18 Aug 2002
Location: Memphis, TN

Postby The Wired Knight » Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:20 am

Same problem. With each person comes a different preference.To go back to the car analogy, I like hard steering whiel others may like soft and/or twitchy. Garnted some things could be simpiler but due to the vast array of opinions and preferences I doubt they ever will get simpiler. The way things are currently allows for the greatest magnitude of appeal to the consumer.
BANG

Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Probate Attorney.
User avatar
The Wired Knight
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2001
Location: Right next door to you
Status: Attorney At Law

Postby Zarxrax » Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:28 am

The thing is, no one LIKES fields. Fields were created due to limitations of original tv sets. They should be definately done away with.
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

Postby ErMaC » Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:49 am

If no one likes fields, why were the Japanese pushing for 1080i to become the standard HDTV resolution?

Interlacing is sometimes a necessity - the 19.8MBit/sec allocated for an HDTV station is too little for 1920x1080 progressive scan in video framerates, so they needed to have it be interlaced so they could save on half of the resolution.

As for media converging: DV and DVD are doing a pretty good job of that, they're standards readable and compatable between computers, home theater equipment, video recording equipment, camcorders, editing systems, etc. The only problem is it comes at a time when HDTV is looming on the horizon. Who knows when the "HD-DV" standard will come around, and then what resolution will it run at? 720p? 1080i? Who knows.

And even now DV isn't completely standard once it gets on your PC. You can have Type 1 DV AVI files, Type 2 DV AVI files, Quicktime AVI files, raw DV streams, it goes on. But at least when it's DV you know that it's always 720x480, lower field first, 29.97 fps (in NTSC land) which is nice.
User avatar
ErMaC
The Man who puts the "E" in READFAG
 
Joined: 24 Feb 2001
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby klinky » Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:25 am

Technically I can't see how interlacing would improve on bitrate usage. If you had 24fields per second, yes. However, I am thinking 48fields per second. There really wouldn't be any difference between 24frames and 48fields. In fact wouldn't fields based video be less compressable due to interlacing "artifacts"?

:?


Maybe I am all wrong ;)


~klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby ErMaC » Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:33 am

You're right, which is why I said Video Framerates (i.e. 60 refreshes per second). If you need to update the screen 60 times a second, it's a lot cheaper to update half the screen at a time than the whole thing (in fact, half as cheap).

1080i generally means 1920x1080@60fields
720p means 1280x720@24 or 30fps
720i means 1280x720@60fields
User avatar
ErMaC
The Man who puts the "E" in READFAG
 
Joined: 24 Feb 2001
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby Zarxrax » Thu Nov 14, 2002 2:38 pm

Again, thats due to technological limitations, not that people actually prefer interlaced video, which I think the original argument was (?). If there was no limitations on the hardware, I think we'd just have 60fps progressive video streams.

Anyways I'm not understanding this the same as klinky. 1080i is 60 fields per second. 1080p is 30 frames per second = 60 fields per second. Progressive video gets better compression than interlaced video. So I'm not really seeing how 1080i is half as cheap?
User avatar
Zarxrax
 
Joined: 01 Apr 2001
Location: Concord, NC

Postby RadicalEd0 » Thu Nov 14, 2002 3:34 pm

When codecs encode stuff interlaced don't they do something along the lines of storing each field as a separate 60hz half-frame to be re-weaved on playback? Thats what I've been told.
The genious of interlacing then is the ability to display something that *looks* to the eye like 1920x1080 @ 60hz but is really only half that as opposed to actually displaying the full 1920x1080 @ 60hz.
A good example of the benefits of interlacing would be the VCD, which is never interlaced. VCD is doomed to be 240 lines high and 29.97 fps. This way, you get neither the double-resolution effect of interlacing nor the double framerate effect, as opposed to interlaced dvd which looks like 480 lines and 59.94 fps. In real life DVD then would require about 4 times the bitrate of VCD to have the same quality (not taking spatial and temporal compressibility increases into effect) whereas thanks to interlacing it only requires 2x the bitrate to have ~ quality.
Like I said, more for less at the expense of the clumsy device we call eyes.
NMEAMV: PENIS
NMEAMV: IN
NMEAMV: YO
NMEAMV: MIXED
NMEAMV: DRINK
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby klinky » Thu Nov 14, 2002 4:03 pm

Wuz I wanna know is why are you still even messing with 60hz err orr 60refresh a second. We've come farther then that. Isn't HDTV spec kind of old, since they had the idea like maybe a decade ago(not sure, havent' read up on it). I would just like a nice steady 30progressive fps. :cry: is that too much to ask. Why must we still be stuck with having to loophole around wif interlacing on a 60hz set. Shouldn't HDTVs just operate @ 30fps and not even deal with interlacing. It just seems "restrictive".


Okay on top of all that rambling, I am trying to ask... Is the reason interlacing is included in the HDTV spec because we're trying to stay backwards compatible with some sort of old analog technology, such as how TVs currently operate @ 60hz? Why even keep with that. Why must we be restricted to that. :\

Okay I should go read up on it ;p


~Klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby RadicalEd0 » Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:46 pm

no, its included because its an effective method of visually doubling the res and framerate
what did I just spend 10 minutes writing? >:/
NMEAMV: PENIS
NMEAMV: IN
NMEAMV: YO
NMEAMV: MIXED
NMEAMV: DRINK
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby klinky » Thu Nov 14, 2002 6:24 pm

*HOW* is displaying 60fields a second more effective then just displaying 30frames a second!? I still not get it. The only reason we would need interlacing is if you wanted to have 60fields per second or there was a hardare limitation. Now current TVs use interlacing and I understand how you can display two half frames in the same time you can display a full frame and it looks pretty smooth. However! We have the fact that you have to use twice as many half frames to get the same motion as single progressive frames.

So how is it saving bandwidth if we use 60 half frames, compared with 30 FULL frames. Why do we even need to bother with half frames. We obviously can view video file on moi's computer at a nice progressive 24fps. 24PROGRESSIVE frames. Why couldn't they just implement it in that sort of way ^_^

Anyways... I do see that there could be a advantage to capturing and playing video back @ 60fields, it would be smoother then progressive if displayed properly, however it would look like ass on my computer :cry:

Screw HDTV, I don't even watch TV, why do I even care. :evil:


~klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby RadicalEd0 » Thu Nov 14, 2002 6:35 pm

I just hope they'll come up with a form of telecining for 1080i instead of using 720p for all anime/film
2 mil pixels of anime goodness.. mmm P:
NMEAMV: PENIS
NMEAMV: IN
NMEAMV: YO
NMEAMV: MIXED
NMEAMV: DRINK
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Next

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest