Re: Best way to capture QuickFlix ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Me, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. Me

    Me Guest

    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.
     
    Me, Apr 6, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff" <>
    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
     
    Frank Williams, Apr 6, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Me

    Me Guest

    On 7/04/2012 10:22 a.m., Frank Williams wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff"<>
    > 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.
     
    Me, Apr 7, 2012
    #3
  4. Me

    Richard Guest

    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.
     
    Richard, Apr 7, 2012
    #4
  5. Me

    Richard Guest

    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.
     
    Richard, Apr 7, 2012
    #5
  6. Me

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-04-06, 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.


    Or rather they are try to do the nipple pulling here for $. Worth a go,
    sorry profit. History is on their side.
     
    Gordon, Apr 7, 2012
    #6
  7. Me

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-04-06, Frank Williams <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff" <>
    > 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.
     
    Gordon, Apr 7, 2012
    #7
  8. Me

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-04-07, Me <> wrote:
    > On 7/04/2012 10:22 a.m., Frank Williams wrote:
    >> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:25:01 +1200, "geoff"<>
    >> 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.
     
    Gordon, Apr 7, 2012
    #8
  9. Me

    Me Guest

    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.
     
    Me, Apr 7, 2012
    #9
  10. Me

    Richard Guest

    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.
     
    Richard, Apr 7, 2012
    #10
  11. Me

    Me Guest

    On 7/04/2012 8:46 p.m., Richard wrote:

    >>>

    >> 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.

    OK - you've got me curious on this, so I got my macro lens out, and this
    is the result:
    http://i42.tinypic.com/2zxw8ja.jpg
    Indeed each R, G, and B sub-pixel is split in half vertically, one half
    "bright" the other half "dark". This an IPS panel, in a large LCD TV.
    This is the result on a smaller Sony 40" TV. The "chevron" shaped sub
    pixels are consistent with VA type panels rather than IPS, the panel
    will be a Samsung panel made for Sony. Magnification ratio is about the
    same in both images.
    http://i43.tinypic.com/rtffh4.jpg
    So both have bright and dark R, G, and B sub-pixel areas. On the
    Samsung VA panel the "bright" sub(sub?)pixels are much smaller, and are
    all in line.
    The particular IPS panel "staggers" the bright/dark RGB subpixels,
    presumably deliberately to reduce any horizontal banding.
    I never really noticed horizontal lines with the Sony TV, perhaps it's
    too small, perhaps it's just not significant, as anyway there's vertical
    RGB lines at about the same scale, just like a trinitron CRT, and that
    never bothered me even at reasonably close viewing distance. So it
    would be interesting to see your macro shot of a perhaps a different
    Samsung panel.
    If there's enough brightness in horizontal lines, then I guess it can
    bring up or accentuate moire patterns. There's usually a "sharpness"
    control on better LCD panels and TVs, which increases micro-contrast,
    much the same as "unsharp mask" in image processing. It's been set much
    too high on every TV I've looked at. If you can display on the TV from
    a PC and 1:1 pixel mapped, then there's a test image with instructions here:
    http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php
    Excessive sharpening will accentuate moire/aliasing.

    Doesn't answer the question as to why there are bright and dark RGB
    subpixels, and how they work. Are just they darker and lighter dyes in
    the RGB matrix - or is there more to it than that?
    My guess is that they're "passive" - just different dye on the matrix
    (or perhaps a resistance added between the bright and dark areas), and
    the reason is to compensate for non-linearity of response of liquid
    crystal at the extremes of rotation.
    I think you'll find that there are 1080 pairs of bright/dark pixels per
    screen height, so at least that's not a "cheat".


    >
    > 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.
    >

    3d isn't my cup of tea.
     
    Me, Apr 8, 2012
    #11
  12. Me

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    [snip]
    > 3d isn't my cup of tea.


    Homer? Is that you? ;-)
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 9, 2012
    #12
  13. Me

    Me Guest

    On 9/04/2012 11:38 a.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> 3d isn't my cup of tea.

    >
    > Homer? Is that you? ;-)
    >

    I saw that episode.
     
    Me, Apr 9, 2012
    #13
  14. Me

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    > On 9/04/2012 11:38 a.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Me wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> 3d isn't my cup of tea.

    >>
    >> Homer? Is that you? ;-)
    >>

    > I saw that episode.


    Heh! Yeah, it looked weird if you ask me.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 9, 2012
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neil
    Replies:
    174
    Views:
    3,312
    Briscobar
    Apr 17, 2006
  2. best way to capture

    , Jan 12, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    537
    Anonymous Joe
    Jan 13, 2004
  3. John John

    AMD Opteron: 1-way, 2-way, ... Up to 8-way.

    John John, Dec 24, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    804
    Tony Sperling
    Dec 27, 2005
  4. hely0123
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,127
    hely0123
    Oct 30, 2007
  5. Gordon

    Re: Best way to capture QuickFlix ?

    Gordon, Apr 7, 2012, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    721
    Gordon
    Apr 7, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page