that resolution I believe.
This site had some interesting early test results on how well
different Macs could playback different H264 HD clips:
http://www.hdforindies.com/2005/05/mikes-hands-on-h264-playback-testing
Anyway Im very happy that your HD blog exists, it does far more to
demonstrate the merits of HD resolutions and H264 compression than any
of the waffle Ive spouted here about the subject could have achieved.
Last time you appeared on the list and mentioned HD, there was some
confusion about what HD was. I suppose this is because the standard
resolutions that videobloggers use are so far below standard DV, that
even 720x576 seems HD for a videoblog, but it isnt really.
I also congratulate you for deinterlacing, makes all the difference
when watching stuff on a computer, what software did you use to
deinterlace so nicely?
>From a viewers point of view I would love to see more stuff like this.
Most people dont have HD cameras, and obviously it causes playback
issues for some viewers at the moment, but the results are so nice.
I am very intregued to see if people with normal DV start to publish
videos on the web at the fiull DV resolution. When I tried to do this
on the Mac, I was slightly unhappy with the deinterlacing results,
using JES deinterlacer on the Mac. If you are halving the vertical
resolution of your footage as part of the resizing, this pretty much
does the job of deinterlacing for you, which is why 320x240
videobloggers havent needed to bother with deinterlacing of DV footage.
Cheers
Steve of Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "kylefasanella"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Jen I shoot in 1080i but I have to render down to 960:540
resolution becuase I can't
> even run it in full! I have 1080i footage if needed but otherwise I
am perfectly happy with
> (960:540) for internet sharing. it may not be technically HD when i
do that but I know its
> not DV!
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kyle,
> > When you say you are a "High Def videoblogger", do you mean that you
> > are broadcasting movies that are 1080i or 720p (ie: either 1920x1080
> > pixels or 720x480 pixels)?? I'm fascinated with the way this term,
> > "high-definition" is getting used (well, or mis-used)... I keep
hearing
> > a radio station in Philadelphia brag about how they are
broadcasting in
> > "High-Definition radio" and I see these Kodak disposable "HD"
> > still-cameras in the drug stores, and I have no idea what either
one of
> > those things is supposed to mean. (Well, other than misleading the
> > public by using a term most people don't understand technically and
> > sounding really cool as a marketing ploy. I get that -- but are those
> > companies really that willing to lie?)
> >
> > Technically, if you've shrunk your video down to anything less than
> > 720x480 progressive scan or 1920x1080 interlaced, then it's not
HD. If
> > it is that big, then what happens to people with screens that are
> > smaller than that? (I can't watch your videos, cause I don't have
QT7,
> > and my 2003 computer isn't fast enough anyway).
> >
> > And I don't mean to be picking you Kyle -- I truly am fascinated with
> > how the words "high-definition" are getting used, and what they
mean to
> > people.
> >
> > jen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2005, at 4:40 PM, kylefasanella wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys I have my newest High definition video blog relesed.
> > >
> > > http://vilekylefasanella.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > > does anyone know if I am the first High definition video blogger or
> > > not?
> > >
> > > PS make sure you have quicktime 7 for the footage! and a decent
> > > computer doesn't hurt.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Individual | Fireant | Explains |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
