Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Best way to capture QuickFlix ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Best way to capture QuickFlix ?

 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2012
On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
> As above - welcome suggestions.
>
> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>
> geoff
>
>

Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
"better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits in
little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2012
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Me wrote:
>> On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>> As above - welcome suggestions.
>>>
>>> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>>>
>>> geoff
>>>
>>>

>> Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
>> I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
>> 1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
>> "better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
>> I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits
>> in little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.

>
>5 or even 1.5 seemsnot reliable for me. And will be less so the more people
>do streaming video shite.
>
>geoff
>




This streaming video shite. will kill the Internet, and is not totally
viable here due to bad low caps..

For what reason do we need Ultra fast broad band here, as the data caps
will be killing it
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 7/04/2012 10:22 a.m., Frank Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff"<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Me wrote:
>>> On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> As above - welcome suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
>>> I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
>>> 1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
>>> "better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
>>> I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits
>>> in little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.

>>
>> 5 or even 1.5 seemsnot reliable for me. And will be less so the more people
>> do streaming video shite.
>>
>> geoff
>>

>
>
>
> This streaming video shite. will kill the Internet, and is not totally
> viable here due to bad low caps..
>
> For what reason do we need Ultra fast broad band here, as the data caps
> will be killing it
>

I understand that Quickflix has struck a deal for "no cap" with a couple
of broadband providers.
IMO the greatest threat from streaming video is to Bluray and possible
future extra HD formats. If BD market penetration doesn't pick up, then
I doubt there's going to be enough demand for 4k for home cinema - to
gain enough momentum for a new format to be standardised, for hardware
to become affordable. Higher definition TVs (than full HD) might be
made - but there's really not much point unless there's some content.
Most of the existing content isn't going to be up to it (movies have
been intermediate edited in 2k over the past decade or so - barely above
"full HD" resolution) If shot on 35mm, a bit more might be able to be
extracted from the film stock, but I doubt it will happen. Some movies
are now being shot and/or intermediate edited in 4k, but I suspect the
only way we'll ever get to see this will be in a cinema.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 4/7/2012 12:39 PM, Me wrote:

> I doubt there's going to be enough demand for 4k for home cinema - to
> gain enough momentum for a new format to be standardised, for hardware
> to become affordable. Higher definition TVs (than full HD) might be made
> - but there's really not much point unless there's some content.
> Most of the existing content isn't going to be up to it (movies have
> been intermediate edited in 2k over the past decade or so - barely above
> "full HD" resolution) If shot on 35mm, a bit more might be able to be
> extracted from the film stock, but I doubt it will happen. Some movies
> are now being shot and/or intermediate edited in 4k, but I suspect the
> only way we'll ever get to see this will be in a cinema.


Plenty of reason for displays to go to 4k even when the content isnt
available yet, simply because at 55+ " screens, the pixels are so bloody
big when there are only 1080 of them for the entire screen height that
you can see them from a couple of meters away clear as anything, ruining
the experiance.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 4/7/2012 4:11 PM, geoff wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>>
>> Plenty of reason for displays to go to 4k even when the content isnt
>> available yet, simply because at 55+ " screens, the pixels are so
>> bloody big when there are only 1080 of them for the entire screen
>> height that you can see them from a couple of meters away clear as
>> anything, ruining the experiance.

>
> Serve people right for buyinng TVs too big for their viewing areas !
>
> geoff


Exactly, when the 4k stuff becomes available then I will be able to put
something bigger than 50" in the bedroom and not hate it.

Its even worse on screens where they have the 2 sub pixels so you get
lines across things.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 2012-04-06, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
>> As above - welcome suggestions.
>>
>> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>>
>> geoff
>>
>>

> Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
> I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
> 1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
> "better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
> I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits in
> little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.


Or rather they are try to do the nipple pulling here for $. Worth a go,
sorry profit. History is on their side.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 2012-04-06, Frank Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Me wrote:
>>> On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>> As above - welcome suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
>>> I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
>>> 1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
>>> "better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
>>> I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits
>>> in little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.

>>
>>5 or even 1.5 seemsnot reliable for me. And will be less so the more people
>>do streaming video shite.
>>
>>geoff
>>

>
>
>
> This streaming video shite. will kill the Internet, and is not totally
> viable here due to bad low caps..
>
> For what reason do we need Ultra fast broad band here, as the data caps
> will be killing it


For now yes. However this is a pressure to have a cap higher than any place
on earth under the most extreme global warming option.

One ISP is at least providing that option now. The TERRAbyte per month. As
in the past it will cost you plenty.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 2012-04-07, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 7/04/2012 10:22 a.m., Frank Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff"<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Me wrote:
>>>> On 6/04/2012 1:49 p.m., geoff wrote:
>>>>> As above - welcome suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Streaming is not 'Quick' enough for flawless play.
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is that "not quick enough" for standard definition?
>>>> I note that Quickflix suggested minimum d/l speed for SD is about
>>>> 1.5Mbps. Netflix USA suggested minimum for SD is 3Mbps, 3.5Mbps for
>>>> "better than DVD" 5Mbps for 720p.
>>>> I'm guessing that it's easier to get away with pulling people's tits
>>>> in little old NZ, than may be the case in the US.
>>>
>>> 5 or even 1.5 seemsnot reliable for me. And will be less so the more people
>>> do streaming video shite.
>>>
>>> geoff
>>>

>>
>>
>>
>> This streaming video shite. will kill the Internet, and is not totally
>> viable here due to bad low caps..
>>
>> For what reason do we need Ultra fast broad band here, as the data caps
>> will be killing it
> >

> I understand that Quickflix has struck a deal for "no cap" with a couple
> of broadband providers.
> IMO the greatest threat from streaming video is to Bluray and possible
> future extra HD formats. If BD market penetration doesn't pick up, then
> I doubt there's going to be enough demand for 4k for home cinema - to
> gain enough momentum for a new format to be standardised, for hardware
> to become affordable. Higher definition TVs (than full HD) might be
> made - but there's really not much point unless there's some content.
> Most of the existing content isn't going to be up to it (movies have
> been intermediate edited in 2k over the past decade or so - barely above
> "full HD" resolution) If shot on 35mm, a bit more might be able to be
> extracted from the film stock, but I doubt it will happen. Some movies
> are now being shot and/or intermediate edited in 4k, but I suspect the
> only way we'll ever get to see this will be in a cinema.
>

Thanks for that viewpoint. From it, seems to me that we have reached the
limit of improvement which people are willing to pay for.

Some time ago I read that the Blue ray greatest opposition was the DVD.

Think on this, Concorde; mach 2 passanger aircraft, buillt and flown into
history. Subsonic aircraft rule yes?

Nuclear energy, how to use?

There are limits, some of the absolute, others commerical.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 7/04/2012 4:32 p.m., Richard wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 4:11 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>> Plenty of reason for displays to go to 4k even when the content isnt
>>> available yet, simply because at 55+ " screens, the pixels are so
>>> bloody big when there are only 1080 of them for the entire screen
>>> height that you can see them from a couple of meters away clear as
>>> anything, ruining the experiance.

>>
>> Serve people right for buyinng TVs too big for their viewing areas !
>>
>> geoff

>
> Exactly, when the 4k stuff becomes available then I will be able to put
> something bigger than 50" in the bedroom and not hate it.
>

Oh - I love seeing well mastered bluray on a screen larger than that.
Pixels schmixels.
4k? Yes, I'd love that even more, but I don't think this will become a
commercial reality - not because I don't want it to - but because most
people just don't seem to give a damn.

> Its even worse on screens where they have the 2 sub pixels so you get
> lines across things.
>

What devious wizardry is this 2 sub pixel thing of which you speak? I
have not come across this before.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2012
On 4/7/2012 7:01 PM, Me wrote:
> On 7/04/2012 4:32 p.m., Richard wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 4:11 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of reason for displays to go to 4k even when the content isnt
>>>> available yet, simply because at 55+ " screens, the pixels are so
>>>> bloody big when there are only 1080 of them for the entire screen
>>>> height that you can see them from a couple of meters away clear as
>>>> anything, ruining the experiance.
>>>
>>> Serve people right for buyinng TVs too big for their viewing areas !
>>>
>>> geoff

>>
>> Exactly, when the 4k stuff becomes available then I will be able to put
>> something bigger than 50" in the bedroom and not hate it.
>>

> Oh - I love seeing well mastered bluray on a screen larger than that.
> Pixels schmixels.
> 4k? Yes, I'd love that even more, but I don't think this will become a
> commercial reality - not because I don't want it to - but because most
> people just don't seem to give a damn.


I cant enjoy things when I am looking at something that is like a
screendoor over the view.

>> Its even worse on screens where they have the 2 sub pixels so you get
>> lines across things.
>>

> What devious wizardry is this 2 sub pixel thing of which you speak? I
> have not come across this before.


I will have to find the macro photos of my samsung I took on the slr,
but basically the pixel is broken into 2 pieces, one twice the size of
the other and if something is dim then only the small one lights up. It
means that you get werid lines across some colours like kenny's jacket
orange, windows title bar blue, marges hair blue, and many other things.

I havent counted the pixels to see if it is really each of the 1080
broken into 2 or if it is fudging it even more and only having 540 pairs
of these dissimilar pixels.

Wouldnt suprise me if its cheating since the bloody liers at samsung
made a tv that cant even do 1080 3d and ends up downscaling in both
directions when 3d is enabled. Still, with its total inability to not
flicker or have crosstalk then 3d aint anything more than a waste of
space on the remote.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Best way to capture QuickFlix ? Gordon NZ Computing 0 04-07-2012 05:11 AM
Best way to capture input. Aaron Fude Java 6 11-29-2008 12:54 AM
Best way to capture output from an exec'ed (or such) script? exscape@gmail.com Python 6 08-05-2007 04:56 PM
Best way to capture output of another command-line program in Win32? Peter A. Schott Python 4 02-07-2006 12:30 AM
best way to capture chill@will.com DVD Video 2 01-13-2004 07:10 PM



Advertisments