Eva-Fan wrote:Adding more frames to HD content would just make it harder to get good playback on PC's. I did some encoding research with 1080p of my own with x264 and found it not at all worth it. There is too many x-factors currently. There are people with computers that can't handle the video stress, there are people who use crappy video players and there are too many codec variations or different ways to watch it. Some players use external programs like FFdshow for the codecs they lack and some use their own internal ones. They decode differently when it comes to x264 cause its still in development. There is no way to determine exactly what your viewer is going to see with HD x264 content as is unless they use everything you do technically. Time just needs to pass for more x264 development and people buying more better computers before HD becomes mainstream.
That's why hardware testing would be important. As long as the video is certain to play on something like those KiSS models or one has (circumstances granted) the ability to author standard-compliant Blu-ray discs, then the source streams would be fine - as I wouldn't expect anyone to distribute an actual Blu-ray image for their video, just a file that can be popped into said authoring program. It'd really be no different than those that offered VCD-compliant MPEG1 files for download in the past.
Something at that res might not jive with computer hardware just yet, but the benefit of watching 1080p on a computer monitor is fairly moot if you go with the common consensus that 1080p is only really valuable at screen sizes above 40" or whatever it is (this is of course excluding the possibility of someone using their HDTV as a monitor).

