Comments on: The Complexities of Video Encoding

By: Michal

Michal — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:33:27 +0000

Hi, here are some information about video formats. Michal

By: Barry Clegg

Barry Clegg — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:32:18 +0000

I think the the only place where you can truly see uncompressed HD is in the production truck at a sporting event or control room of a TV station. Right from the camera to a monitor. Even with our HDCAM, which is arguably the best HD format out there, when you hit record to start going to tape you start to see a difference, although you REALLY have to look for it.

When it comes to streaming HD content it is getting better and better, and with YouTube and Vimeo’s ease of uploading HD content it is only going to get more prevalent.

When I watch HD at home (and that is all I watch) ESPN has, what I consider, to be the best looking HD picture. Their format is actually 1280×720p at 60 frames, even at the graphics level.

I think when it comes down to it what looks good, looks good. HDV, while a sub standard format compared to HDCAM, still looks good when played on an HD monitor. What I can’t wait for is the move to 21:9 aspect ratios as opposed to 16:9.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/02/20/philips_cinema_tv_dated/

By: Bobby P

Bobby P — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:21:07 +0000

Looking forward to a time where file formats and codecs become standardized. But just like any burgeoning technology, it will be all over the map as various developers and manufacturers attempt to create their own standard. Would you agree that (in general) file formats decided by what the user can handle and HD tape formats are developed at the whim of the manufacturers? Take the battle between Panasonic and Sony (and JVC), for example. How many HD tape formats can we develop? Quick review: HDCAM is Sony’s format with unique qualities specific to frame rates and bitmaps. Then you have D5-HD from Panasonic. That has even more unique qualities, including it’s own tape shell. Then there’s DVCPro-HD. Another Panasonic creation with still more unique and exclusive properties and a fairly good size compression ratio (not to mention the variations on this including P2 card formats). Then (my favorite) HDV which I think was first done by JVC for low-end consumer cameras looking to pretend to be HD with some really bizarre format issues that will irritate you to no end if you ever try to edit this footage.

So… Just when you think you got HD sorted out, the deeper you dig, the more you discover that the industry hasn’t sorted itself out yet. Good times ahead.

By: Steve Gogolak

Steve Gogolak — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:26:21 +0000

It’s funny how our perception of HD is that is isn’t compressed. It is, however. Even the cable HD you watch at home from Comcast or Verizon Fios is compressed. Pretty much nothing that you have ever seen is actually uncompressed HD video. It is just FAR too high a data rate to support actual viewing.

The HD on the web that YouTube is delivering now is of excellent quality, but it is still a fairly high bandwidth – over a megabit. Comfortable video data rates right now are below 500kbps to avoid excessive buffering.

So where is it all going? Codecs will become more efficient to the point where they can deliver video that is so stunning that there is no room for improvement, as far as the human eye can see anyway. When you combine more efficient codecs with more readily available bandwidth, you’ll eventually hit an equilibrium point where you have optimum video quality delivered at a data rate that 90-95% of users can view. That’s where we’re headed. How far away are we? Who knows.

By: Greg Jones

Greg Jones — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Steve, where do you see video encoding headed in the future? Can you give any examples of videos/streams over the web that don’t sacrifice video quality? Where do you see HD on the web fitting into this picture?