QT display all the quality of HD 1080p - or not?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: bible stuff
Next: Recommend OCR programs?
From: Mark Conrad on 19 Jun 2010 22:36 In article <190620101916312431%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > where the normal DSL download speeds are only about > 4 to 6 megabytes per minute... Whoops, typo, I meant to say about 1.5 to 2.0 megabytes per minute, sorry 'bout dat. What sort of DSL speeds do you guys in the big cities get? Mark-
From: Tim McNamara on 19 Jun 2010 23:32 In article <190620101936380728%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > In article <190620101916312431%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad > <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > > > where the normal DSL download speeds are only about 4 to 6 > > megabytes per minute... > > Whoops, typo, I meant to say about 1.5 to 2.0 megabytes per > minute, sorry 'bout dat. > > What sort of DSL speeds do you guys in the big cities get? 1.5 at my house. Slow, for broadband by modern standards but good enough for me. Qwest wants too damned much for upgrading. -- That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 19 Jun 2010 23:44 Mark Conrad wrote: > Okay. I guess attempts to keep things simple and standardized > are doomed to failure, when it comes to video formats. No. H.264 video /AAC (MP4 audio) is pretty much it. Apple is pushing it, because recent Apple devices have accelerated decoding hardware for it, with a limited choice of resolutions. That's the real crux of the Flash debate, Jobs is pushing for websites to support the compression method, resolutions and bit rates his devices support. > "What video formats should I use on a modern Mac, if I am > interested in viewing the highest quality video possible? " I think it's simple. The above mentioned standard, 720P if you want it to play on an iPad 1080P on a computer if it is fast enough (your MBP will be), or a specialized device. For example, I have a Western Digital TV Live, it plays 1080P videos on an HDTV and downscales them for older CRT TV's. It cost here in the land of high taxes $200 (I think they are $150 in the US). It has an ethernet port and you can add Wifi. You can also put a USB disk on it (2 without Wifi) and use it to serve files to other players. > Presently, I am using a free utility named "MacTubes" with my > late model MacBook Pro. (17", all the bells and whistles) Try VLC. www.videolan.org. > MacTubes seems to be doing a fairly credible job of > displaying sharp video, along with the QT player built into > Mac OS 10.6.4 - - - but as always I worry that perhaps I > should investigate other possibly better methods. ( Blue Ray ? ) No. Blu-Ray is an "emerging" technology but should not be relied upon. DVD-9 (dual layer DVD) is a much better choice. Commericaly pressed DVD-9's have been around for about 10 years, computer burnt ones for less. They are not popular because a decent blank is about 10 times the price of a cheap dvd-5 (single layer), so almost everyone buys the single layer disks. There are also some compatibility issues with burning them, but once they are resolved (making sure your burner burns them, and works with the blanks), they will play on anything made in the last 5 years or so. > For obvious reasons, I do not want fuzzy images or choppy video. 720P is good 1080P is better but since it counts out iPads, it may not be worth it. 1080P files are about 4 times the size of 720P ones. The difference OFTEN (but not always) can be compensated for by better camera work, i.e. close-ups, etc. On the other hand if you are carefull, you can place a one hour 720P file in iPad format (.mov file) the equivalent 1080P in computer format (.mkv file), on a single DVD 9, with plenty of room. You also have room for a lowres format, such as 360P DIVX .avi files, so that your doctors and operating room staff can watch them on pocket devices. Note that DIVX is close enough to H.264 that many players that claim to play DIVX files play H.264 but they may have trouble with the AAC audio. If that becomes a problem, you can replace it with MP2 or MP3 audio for those files. That way they can familarize themselves with the procedure even if they can't see the detail. DVD players (including the $25 Chinese ones) sold in the last 2 years play the avi files. The DVD players with HDMI interfaces (digital TV) play the MKV files too. The MKV files may include multiple subtitles, you should at least IMHO have English (so that a missed word does cause problems), possible Spanish and French (covers Mexico and the US) and if you want to be at the forefront of cardiac medicine, Hebrew. :-) > Lots of times these medical people are working in the wild outback > of pot-ridden northern California hospitals, away from their usual > dedicated high speed lines - - - also fast "glass fiber" lines are still > unheard of in this wild west area, in fact we are still using oatmeal > boxes and string for most of our local DSL connections. > > My temporary answer is to first download the real-time video with > MacTubes, where the normal DSL download speeds are only about > 4 to 6 megabytes per minute, THEN play the video on the > doctor's late model MacBook Pro, commonly a 15-incher with > 4 to 8 MB of ram. There are lots of filesharing options. Many companies will for a small fee host your files for you and they are better connected than you can be. If you are not concerned about copyright issues, you can publish them as a Miro channel and let anyone in the world download and watch them at almost no distribution cost. Considering that you can buy a DVD player that will play the files on a standard TV (albeit in low res), or 720P on an HDTV for under $100 and send it with a set of DVD-9s, or pack up a kit of a WD TV Live (or similar device), a USB drive already loaded, and have them up and running at a hospital, or just ship a kit of DVD9s to play on a computer (VLC will play both the mov and mkv files on Macs and PCs). > This really slows down the works, risking patient's lives. > > Bottom line, don't suffer your next heart attack in N. California, > 'cause we are barely out of the stone age. You don't have to be, there are all sorts of digital options once you pick a widely used format, and plenty of delivery systems. There is also lots of satellite bandwidth out there, and you may be able to get some for free or cheaply if you ask the right person. Back when I was blogging, I wrote a post about a satellite system for delivery of news, etc. Since I did not patent it, the concept is in the public domian. I was referring to small MP3 players and a cheap earth station. Since then the economies have not really changed, but instead of low resolution MP3 files and "gum stick" USB MP3 players, you can be doing video files and providing doctors with video players. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm(a)mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM I do multitasking. If that bothers you, file a complaint and I will start ignoring it immediately.
From: JF Mezei on 20 Jun 2010 00:12 A couple more things to consider: -Source of your video. If your camera produces H.264 output, then sticking to H.264 and the same recording parameters will save a conversion. -Encoding parameters Programs that let you convert from one format to another will often include various parameters, such as the kilobits per second which determine how much compression is to be done. Higher rates give you better image quality. But there comes a point where increasing the bit rate won't make a noticeable difference. (again, how the images were recorded in the firsrt place will determine a lot of what can be done with the output. Note that the current intel chips (and Apple's A4 for mobile devices) have instructions for H.264 decoding which makes that format far better because it takes less CPU and therefore, the same CPU can handle better precision/larger videos.
From: David Empson on 20 Jun 2010 00:25
Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > In article <190620101916312431%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad > <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > > > where the normal DSL download speeds are only about > > 4 to 6 megabytes per minute... > > Whoops, typo, I meant to say about 1.5 to 2.0 megabytes > per minute, sorry 'bout dat. 2 megabytes per minute is 33 kilobytes per second, or about 260 kilobits per second. That sounds like your DSL line is only able to achieve 256 kbps, which is in the order of five times faster than a good dial-up modem connection. > What sort of DSL speeds do you guys in the big cities get? I don't know about the US, but in New Zealand when I was on DSL (ADSL1) I was getting 3 to 5 Mbps (in the order of 20 times faster than your broadband connection). As the network has improved since then (addition of cabinets thus shorter distance for the signal to travel), and faster standards like ADSL2+ have been introduced, DSL speeds in the order of 10 Mbps to 20 Mbps for download are commonly achievable in a city. I'm currently on cable, which gives up to 10 Mbps but is about to be upgraded to a faster standard which may allow me to get 25 Mbps without paying more for the speed (but data is still horribly expensive here in New Zealand). -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz |