Storing 200-300 DVDs?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by (PeteCresswell), Mar 15, 2009.

  1. Mine are all ripped to a media server and that's where we watch
    them from.

    Right now they're taking up a bunch of shelves in a bookcase.

    Seems like a waste of space bc they're hardly ever accessed -
    being on the server.

    My first thought was that there's gotta be loose-leaf binder
    pages made to hold a couple of discs.

    Trash the containers they came in, just fill up a few 3"
    loose-leaf notebook binders and stash them in a drawer or
    something.

    Anybody got a storage method they like?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. (PeteCresswell)

    AnimalMagic Guest

    On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:09:58 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    >Mine are all ripped to a media server and that's where we watch
    >them from.
    >
    >Right now they're taking up a bunch of shelves in a bookcase.
    >
    >Seems like a waste of space bc they're hardly ever accessed -
    >being on the server.
    >
    >My first thought was that there's gotta be loose-leaf binder
    >pages made to hold a couple of discs.
    >
    >Trash the containers they came in, just fill up a few 3"
    >loose-leaf notebook binders and stash them in a drawer or
    >something.
    >
    >Anybody got a storage method they like?



    You could also build nice, Walnut vertical cabinets that would hold
    like 1000 titles each, once the cases are pitched, like you say.

    Notebook binders sound pretty lame. Like stamp collecting.

    I wonder how many Titles Per Terabyte I could get laid down on a nard
    drive. I already pump my 46" with my PC, so full bore media server would
    not be far off that, and I would stop burning through optical disc
    readers, which have gotten pretty lame on longevity of late.
     
    AnimalMagic, Mar 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Per AnimalMagic:
    > I wonder how many Titles Per Terabyte I could get laid down on a nard
    >drive. I already pump my 46" with my PC, so full bore media server would
    >not be far off that, and I would stop burning through optical disc
    >readers, which have gotten pretty lame on longevity of late.


    I've got just under 150 on my server right now.

    For most of them I ripped only MainMovie, but did it with
    compression turned off.

    Godfather I MainMovie is about 8 gigs. Most of the others are
    less, but they're almost all at least a little over 4.

    The "Movie" drive is 1 terabyte and has about 135 gigs free as I
    write this.

    I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for both
    DVDs and OTA recordings.

    I use VLC Media Player to watch the .ISOs on my little
    Atom-powered laptop and SageTV HD200 "Media Extenders" to watch
    them on TV sets.

    Tried Microsoft Media Center, something called "MythTV", and
    something called "BeyondTV" - but found fault with each. I'm
    pretty much a happy camper with SageTV.

    I wish I had known about SageTV before I blew $300+ on a digital
    DVD/VHS recorder to replace the wife's analog version.

    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 16, 2009
    #3
  4. (PeteCresswell)

    Bozo9 Guest

    1- I got rid of all the cases, gave them to people who care.
    2- I stored all my originals in a briefcase-style 8"x20"x18" aluminium case
    (up to 600 DVDs)
    3- I have a 1.5T drive, on which 257 movies occupy 85%. It is mirrored
    monthly to another 1.5T drive. I also have a separate 1T drive (also
    mirrored) for series.

    Works for me.

    When drive prices drop enough, I'll rotate my mirror drives with another set
    off-site.


    "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Per AnimalMagic:
    >> I wonder how many Titles Per Terabyte I could get laid down on a nard
    >>drive. I already pump my 46" with my PC, so full bore media server would
    >>not be far off that, and I would stop burning through optical disc
    >>readers, which have gotten pretty lame on longevity of late.

    >
    > I've got just under 150 on my server right now.
    >
    > For most of them I ripped only MainMovie, but did it with
    > compression turned off.
    >
    > Godfather I MainMovie is about 8 gigs. Most of the others are
    > less, but they're almost all at least a little over 4.
    >
    > The "Movie" drive is 1 terabyte and has about 135 gigs free as I
    > write this.
    >
    > I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    > arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    > 1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for both
    > DVDs and OTA recordings.
    >
    > I use VLC Media Player to watch the .ISOs on my little
    > Atom-powered laptop and SageTV HD200 "Media Extenders" to watch
    > them on TV sets.
    >
    > Tried Microsoft Media Center, something called "MythTV", and
    > something called "BeyondTV" - but found fault with each. I'm
    > pretty much a happy camper with SageTV.
    >
    > I wish I had known about SageTV before I blew $300+ on a digital
    > DVD/VHS recorder to replace the wife's analog version.
    >
    > --
    > PeteCresswell
     
    Bozo9, Mar 31, 2009
    #4
  5. Well he's organized.



    "Bozo9" <> wrote in message
    news:gqtuof$gcg$...
    > 1- I got rid of all the cases, gave them to people who care.
    > 2- I stored all my originals in a briefcase-style 8"x20"x18" aluminium
    > case (up to 600 DVDs)
    > 3- I have a 1.5T drive, on which 257 movies occupy 85%. It is mirrored
    > monthly to another 1.5T drive. I also have a separate 1T drive (also
    > mirrored) for series.
    >
    > Works for me.
    >
    > When drive prices drop enough, I'll rotate my mirror drives with another
    > set off-site.
    >
    >
    > "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Per AnimalMagic:
    >>> I wonder how many Titles Per Terabyte I could get laid down on a nard
    >>>drive. I already pump my 46" with my PC, so full bore media server would
    >>>not be far off that, and I would stop burning through optical disc
    >>>readers, which have gotten pretty lame on longevity of late.

    >>
    >> I've got just under 150 on my server right now.
    >>
    >> For most of them I ripped only MainMovie, but did it with
    >> compression turned off.
    >>
    >> Godfather I MainMovie is about 8 gigs. Most of the others are
    >> less, but they're almost all at least a little over 4.
    >>
    >> The "Movie" drive is 1 terabyte and has about 135 gigs free as I
    >> write this.
    >>
    >> I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    >> arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    >> 1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for both
    >> DVDs and OTA recordings.
    >>
    >> I use VLC Media Player to watch the .ISOs on my little
    >> Atom-powered laptop and SageTV HD200 "Media Extenders" to watch
    >> them on TV sets.
    >>
    >> Tried Microsoft Media Center, something called "MythTV", and
    >> something called "BeyondTV" - but found fault with each. I'm
    >> pretty much a happy camper with SageTV.
    >>
    >> I wish I had known about SageTV before I blew $300+ on a digital
    >> DVD/VHS recorder to replace the wife's analog version.
    >>
    >> --
    >> PeteCresswell

    >
    >
     
    JeffryMakesSense, Apr 5, 2009
    #5
  6. Per (PeteCresswell):
    >I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    >arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    >1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for


    FWIW, been running it since a day after that post and, as
    somebody else said, "Microsoft hit the ball out of the park with
    Windows Home Server."
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 7, 2009
    #6
  7. (PeteCresswell)

    UpGrade Guest

    On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:24:18 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    >Per (PeteCresswell):
    >>I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    >>arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    >>1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for

    >
    >FWIW, been running it since a day after that post and, as
    >somebody else said, "Microsoft hit the ball out of the park with
    >Windows Home Server."



    Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box that reads
    BluRay.
     
    UpGrade, Apr 8, 2009
    #7
  8. Per UpGrade:
    > Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box that reads
    >BluRay.


    I wonder if the juke box concept is already obsolete even for
    BluRay.

    I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.

    Just finished ripping my couple-hundred video DVD collection to a
    few t-byte drives.

    Dunno what the turnaround time is on drive size, but can 100-T
    drives be that far away?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 9, 2009
    #8
  9. On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:23:37 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    >Per UpGrade:
    >> Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box that reads
    >>BluRay.

    >
    >I wonder if the juke box concept is already obsolete even for
    >BluRay.


    Both Pioneer and Sony have had them for years, and folks buy even their
    most recent models.

    I now where you are headed though, and though we can put movies on the
    HD media server now, we still do not have BD quality in video, and when
    the dopes get that, they will still NOT get the audio streams BD has.

    So media servers are now, and will be for a long time, a poorer quality
    solution than the actual BD release. It will likely be that way for a
    while too, since the data rate required for BD is higher than the stream
    that a PC can provide continuously without interruption.

    >I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    >before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.


    iPuds are lame. Besides, I am talking about video not audio.

    >Just finished ripping my couple-hundred video DVD collection to a
    >few t-byte drives.


    If they are just DVDs, you could likely have converted them to a much
    smaller per disc file size, and not even noticed the difference.


    >Dunno what the turnaround time is on drive size, but can 100-T
    >drives be that far away?


    At least a decade away. SAS will become hot swappable drive arrays,
    and folks will simply add another 1 or 2 TB drive to their stack. That
    will last for a while.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #9
  10. In message news:,
    "(PeteCresswell)" <> said:

    > I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    > before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.


    In shit quality.
     
    Father Guido Sarducci, Apr 9, 2009
    #10
  11. On 09 Apr 2009 11:34:34 GMT, Father Guido Sarducci <>
    wrote:

    >In message news:,
    >"(PeteCresswell)" <> said:
    >
    >> I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    >> before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.

    >
    >In shit quality.



    Your appeal has been denied... like you knew it would be.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #11
  12. On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:39:23 -0700, "CLicker" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Archimedes' Lever" <> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >
    >> the data rate required for BD is higher than the stream
    >> that a PC can provide continuously without interruption.
    >>

    >
    >
    >You're joking, right?


    No.
    >
    >My little 32 bit AMD 3800 (dual core, 2 GHz) processor plays all
    >but the most demanding Blu-Ray discs.


    "Playing" a disc, and streaming a BD quality stream are two different
    things.

    Your retarded PC player does NOT "play" the DAT audio stream NOR does
    it play ANY of the other high bit rate streams. Also, it does NOT have
    an HDMI output to your display, so it cannot pass HD signals at the same
    rates yet either.

    The video stream alone is 18Mb/s data rate. That, AND the audio stream
    a REAL BD player runs at is NOT something that a media streaming PC has
    the capacity to feed currently. The BD readers can read at those rates,
    but the decode software, as well as the fact that NO software as yet
    carries the HQ audio included on BD titles means that your claim is only
    half what it needs to be to be a valid claim.


    > I recently acquired a
    >later model 64 bit AMD Phenom II 940 (quad core, 3 GHz)
    >processor with xfire ATI video.


    Good for you.

    > All Blu-Ray discs play
    >perfectly while demanding little more than 5% of the CPU's
    >potential speed.


    You likely don't have the brains to notice the glitches, but I have
    seen them, and they are industry wide. I have worked in the industry
    though, and can spot video anomalies pretty good.

    >Blu-Ray and PCs are a perfect fit,


    For any idiot that downgraded playback is sufficient for. In such
    cases, a standard DVD is sufficient. Your claims of playback are lame
    because the disc does not play back the same as it does an a real BD
    player.

    Leaving out the HQ audio streams alone is enough to say that you are
    wrong, and uninformed.

    > for HD video and all the HD
    >audio codecs presently on the discs,


    You are full of shit, considering that there are not even any PC audio
    cards out there yet that utilize it, much less feed it to your stereo
    receiver.

    > presenting today's best a/v
    >in a quiet and lower-power-consuming home theater.
    >

    Wrong. The best playback is from a real player, and as yet ALL PC
    players cannot match it (cannot even come close).

    The disc readers are fine. The software is the problem. The solution
    is a dedicated decoder card, just like the original PC based DVD players
    had.

    So actually, you are the one that must be joking, because you are the
    one that takes downgraded outputs and assumes that it is the same as the
    pro gear in the channel.

    Raeding a disc at a given rate and PROCESSING that stream are two
    different things. We are not yet there, and I don't care what you say
    about it, because I have watched this since the CD days.

    Without a hardware decoder that is CPU independent, a PC will not be
    streaming at the same rate or quality a dedicated player does anytime
    soon.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #12
  13. On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:02:39 -0700, "CLicker" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Mark Jones" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    >>> Per UpGrade:
    >>>> Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box
    >>>> that
    >>>> reads BluRay.
    >>>
    >>> I wonder if the juke box concept is already obsolete even for
    >>> BluRay.
    >>>
    >>> I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    >>> before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.
    >>>
    >>> Just finished ripping my couple-hundred video DVD collection
    >>> to a
    >>> few t-byte drives.
    >>>
    >>> Dunno what the turnaround time is on drive size, but can
    >>> 100-T
    >>> drives be that far away?

    >>
    >> Here is an 8 TB drive that uses 1 Gbps ethernet. It is made
    >> using 2 TB drives.
    >>
    >> MSRP is $1800.
    >>
    >> http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=584&language=en
    >>

    >
    >For roughly the same price, or less:
    >http://www.datoptic.com/cgi-bin/web.cgi?product=Sbox-4e&detail=yes
    >plus four of these
    >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136344
    >
    >Hot swapping drives makes more sense, to me!
    >http://mysite.verizon.net/kaakoon/hotswap/index_enu.htm is a
    >free product which actually works as the OS should have done.
    >
    >Presently WD 2 TB drives are thrice the price of their 1 TBs.
    >So, I've been using 750 GB over the past 1.5 years or more and 1
    >TB more recently - bringing the cost of the unit in operation
    >closer to $700.
    >
    >I've yet to see sustained transfers at 270 MBps, but I regularly
    >copy or move data between drives at 180 MBps, using eSATA ports
    >on the mother board.
    >
    >

    The data rates of the system and its interfaces are one thing.

    The data rate of a running decoder software process is far less.

    BluRay on PC needs to have a dedicated decoder card implementation if
    one wants to do it right.

    That is to match the resolution and audio performance of a dedicated
    player. Otherwise, it is a case of "Yes, it plays the disc, but the
    output is far less than what a dedicated player produces".

    Also, ANY current PC BD player/playback implementation streams
    EVERYTHING to your hard drive first, and then processes it. That
    increases my PC's temperature, and eats away at my hard drive longevity.
    I think it is a sad way to reduce underruns, especially with everyone
    touting how capable a machine is at doing such data rates. If that is
    the case, why do we need a huge HD based pre-cache of the data as it
    streams? Home players do not do that. Even the PS3 goes directly from
    disc to video. Why do PCs feel the need to cache hundreds of MB at a
    time as they read the disc? Sounds to me like the player software
    authors are too stupid to know how to do their jobs correctly.

    So far, all PC implementations of BD playback I have seen are all quite
    inadequate, and quite detrimental to one's PC hardware.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #13
  14. On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:20:23 -0700, "CLicker" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Archimedes' Lever" <> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:39:23 -0700, "CLicker"
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>>You're joking, right?

    >>
    >> No.
    >>>
    >>>My little 32 bit AMD 3800 (dual core, 2 GHz) processor plays
    >>>all
    >>>but the most demanding Blu-Ray discs.

    >>
    >> "Playing" a disc, and streaming a BD quality stream are two
    >> different
    >> things.
    >>
    >> Your retarded PC player does NOT "play" the DAT audio stream
    >> NOR does
    >> it play ANY of the other high bit rate streams. Also, it does
    >> NOT have
    >> an HDMI output to your display, so it cannot pass HD signals
    >> at the same
    >> rates yet either.
    >>

    >
    >Actually, it does have an HDMI/HDCP output - though it's hardly
    >necessary.


    Modern displays get fed far better via HDMI digital feeds than ANY
    component feed though DVI or other means.

    >My monitor is certainly not the latest. It plays only 1080p/60.
    >The video cards feed it at that rate.


    See above.

    >> The video stream alone is 18Mb/s data rate.

    >
    >Just a cursory glance at the PowerDVD video info block shows
    >that the variable bit rate stream reaches 50 mbps and seems to
    >typically play around 28 mbps.


    I am pretty sure that I should have stated MB/s, not Mb/s.
    Also 18 was the low end of the number. It is typically 25 MB/s.
    (he checks the data) YEP, it is MB/s.

    So your "PowerDVD video info block" data is PROOF that it does NOT do
    the same thing that a dedicated player does. PERIOD! For that, you would
    need 200mb/s. Using math alone I have disproved ALL of your claims.

    >> That, AND the audio stream
    >> a REAL BD player runs at is NOT something that a media
    >> streaming PC has
    >> the capacity to feed currently.

    >
    >The typical DTS-HD audio is only 5.1, and plays flawlessly.
    >Initially PowerDVD, the only software I have which will play a
    >Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc, was indeed lacking DTS-HD. No longer.


    So the SOFTWARE can now see and read the stream, but the sound card
    doesn't handle it, and likely doesn't pass it via digital means to your
    sound system either.

    >> The BD readers can read at those rates,
    >> but the decode software, as well as the fact that NO software
    >> as yet
    >> carries the HQ audio included on BD titles means that your
    >> claim is only
    >> half what it needs to be to be a valid claim.
    >>

    >
    >Here's some player product specs
    >http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdvd/overview_en_US.html
    >
    >>
    >>> I recently acquired a
    >>>later model 64 bit AMD Phenom II 940 (quad core, 3 GHz)
    >>>processor with cross-fire ATI video.

    >>
    >> Good for you.
    >>

    >
    >Thank you! It is indeed one superb piece of equipment,
    >reasonably priced.
    >
    >>> All Blu-Ray discs play
    >>>perfectly while demanding little more than 5% of the CPU's
    >>>potential speed.

    >>
    >> You likely don't have the brains to notice the glitches, but
    >> I have
    >> seen them, and they are industry wide. I have worked in the
    >> industry
    >> though, and can spot video anomalies pretty good.
    >>

    >
    >On my older system (AMD 3800), there were, as I mentioned, the
    >occasional BD disc which stuttered and two or three severely.


    That relates to the CPU decode process, not any of the interfaces
    between readers and such. That is the main problem with software based
    players.

    >That's out of well over 100 BD discs viewed. On the new
    >hardware, there are no such happenings and even the upconversion
    >is improved beyond what was already quite good.


    BDs do not get upconverted. DVDs on HD storage media do not even need
    upscaling if the file stored was managed correctly.

    > All this I
    >attribute to ATI.


    ATI is lame and out of use for me, due to their retarded stance on Linux
    support in years past. Regardless of what they do now, I won't buy their
    crap hardware. I'll stick with Nvidia, thanks. I feel similar about
    Creative Labs. The bastards should have had the foresight to know that
    Linux support was needed.


    >>>Blu-Ray and PCs are a perfect fit,

    >>
    >> For any idiot that downgraded playback is sufficient for.

    >
    >Well, if I chose to down-convert any video, I'd fully agree.


    I never said anything about downconversion.

    >However, that's far from the case. Everything I play, plays at
    >1080p/60, it's the only way this display operates.


    Same claim made by the HD satellite and cable providers. It shows up
    on a 1080p screen, but the actual video is downgraded from the original
    source data. Yet they can still claim HD since it goes up on an HD sized
    array. It is really sad how many folks there are that think that because
    it is feeding at 1080 resolution that the information in the video is
    actually at that pixel array level. A good, simple proof is how even
    LOST in HD at broadcast time is at a lower resolution that the disc sets
    they sell each season. They even say so themselves in the video extras
    included.

    >> In such
    >> cases, a standard DVD is sufficient. Your claims of playback
    >> are lame
    >> because the disc does not play back the same as it does an a
    >> real BD
    >> player.
    >>

    >
    >Well, I'm not about to buy a player to do the side-by-side
    >comparison.


    No PS3 in house? What a pussy. I have two... and two readers in my PC
    drives as well.

    > So we'll leave it as loud is not always (maybe
    >ever) right.


    So far, it is not ever right.

    >> Leaving out the HQ audio streams alone is enough to say that
    >> you are
    >> wrong, and uninformed.
    >>
    >>> for HD video and all the HD
    >>>audio codecs presently on the discs,

    >>
    >> You are full of shit, considering that there are not even any
    >> PC audio
    >> cards out there yet that utilize it, much less feed it to your
    >> stereo
    >> receiver.
    >>

    >
    >You are pontificating without actual experience,


    Actually, you are, as you have no clue as to what my experience is.
    I am currently on PDVD8. NO HD audio streams anywhere, regardless of
    their claims. They MIGHT read the HD stream and FEED a 5.1 dolby stream,
    but that's about it.

    > obviously!


    You are obviously a few things. One is quite gullible. The other is
    not well educated enough to understand data streams, data rates, and the
    hardware that carries them.

    >For the sake of anyone who might be mislead by your
    >vituperation, you've apparently no idea what's available to any
    >home user of PC, BD, and HD (be it TV or monitor) in combo.


    vituperation is what describes your claims. You are typical of the
    idiots that STILL claim that "HD" from cable os satellite feed is
    actually HD.

    >If you'd like to call copying DVDs (or presumably BDs) to a
    >server and then playing them "streaming" fine.


    Dumbfuck, if it is fed by a server, it IS streaming, asswipe. Just
    because you have a limited grasp of the nomenclature used in the industry
    doesn't change the fact that such terms exist.

    > There is nothing
    >presently in the home video entertainment arena that this
    >modestly priced set-up can not do.


    You're an idiot. If you have no dedicated BD player in your "system",
    then you have no BD quality media displayed on your screen. Pretty
    simple shit.

    > Its predecessor did indeed,
    >as mentioned, struggle with a few BD discs.


    And that fact should have clued you in to the fact that I am correct
    about the PC CPU being the WRONG place for decode sessions to take place.

    >>> presenting today's best a/v


    Wrong. Presents a facsimile of the best, but the trained eye and ear
    knows better. Then, of course, there are always the FACTS to back me up,
    which dopes like you insist on ignoring. Like I said, you likely
    actually think that cable and satellite feeds HD streams, when folks that
    know are aware of the FACT that they do not.

    >>>in a quiet and lower-power-consuming home theater.


    Sorry, dipshit, but your PC and your media server, and the routers and
    all the other horseshit you have does NOT consume less than a stand alone
    player feeding a home stereo/display combo does.

    Just one more proof of total cluelessness on your part.

    >> Wrong. The best playback is from a real player, and as yet
    >> ALL PC
    >> players cannot match it (cannot even come close).
    >>

    >
    >Opinion,


    No. Total fact, idiot. A PC does NOT send the same signal to your
    display that a stand alone player would. PERIOD. Known fact.

    > therefore debatable.


    By retards that ignore that facts, sure.

    > Fact is not debatable, but is
    >often poorly interpreted.


    Yes, as evidenced by dipshits like you that actually think that cable
    and sat feeds are at HD resolutions, and that you PC BD software actually
    provides the same data streams that dedicated players do.


    >> The disc readers are fine. The software is the problem. The
    >> solution
    >> is a dedicated decoder card, just like the original PC based
    >> DVD players
    >> had.
    >>

    >
    >I'm sure that the ATI cross-fire cards are not the only cards
    >capable of handling BD pretty much on their own.


    The decode process does NOT take place on the video card, idiot. A PC
    IS perfectly capable of displaying at a given array size. The problem is
    that the PC has to take a BD reader's stream, and PROCESS it and then
    pass it to the video card already ready for the screen. THAT processing
    LIMITS the quality that the software can provide the user with. There
    ids nothing you can spew that will change that FACT.


    >> So actually, you are the one that must be joking, because you
    >> are the
    >> one that takes downgraded outputs and assumes that it is the
    >> same as the
    >> pro gear in the channel.
    >>
    >> Raeding a disc at a given rate and PROCESSING that stream are
    >> two
    >> different things. We are not yet there, and I don't care what
    >> you say
    >> about it, because I have watched this since the CD days.
    >>

    >
    >Perhaps you still are watching CDs on the same PC?


    Perhaps you are just to retarded to look at what is being said.

    >> Without a hardware decoder that is CPU independent, a PC will
    >> not be
    >> streaming at the same rate or quality a dedicated player does
    >> anytime
    >> soon.

    >
    >see ATI cross-fire above.


    ATI is NOT the decoder.

    >Much has changed since you began watching CDs on PCs.


    You're an idiot. A CD is an audio device, dumbfuck. Then again, idiots
    like you probably got started watching pirated DVDs on a CD.

    > Take some
    >time off and update yourself.


    More opinionated, presumptuous baby bullshit. **** you.

    > Your input could be useful.


    Your opinion is not, and I could give a fat flying **** whether a
    disphit like you EVER thinks that my input could be useful. If folks BUY
    a dedicated player instead of attempting your retarded, downgraded
    "solution", then I have succeeded in informing folks about the facts
    regarding HD feeds.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #14
  15. On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:26:07 -0700, "CLicker" <> wrote:

    >More mythology!


    You're a goddamned idiot.
    >
    >Dedicated players buffer BD data before presentation on the
    >screen.


    MAYBE in a memory based cache, but not on ANY hard drive. Are you
    having reading comprehension problems, boy?

    > So do PCs.


    No shit. I said that.

    > It's done in RAM, not HDD.


    WRONG! PowerDVD8 most certainly buffers to HD, and it is in CONSANT use
    the entire time the disc is playing, even on the menus, which is pretty
    lame, and then the retarded software spends time AFTER playback, clearing
    their temp storage file area. Totally retarded behavior.

    PDVD does NOT EVER buffer to RAM. ANY idiot with knowledge of how to
    use Windows task manager can see and prove that fact. You should likely
    try to actually gather facts to write, instead of making shit up as you
    go your entire life. It is glaringly evident that it is YOU that has done
    no research on this.

    > Though, I
    >suppose it's possible, when running multiple apps on the PC, to
    >cause an OS required write/read to disc memory.


    You're a total retard that is guessing as you go along. You have ZERO
    facts. On a PC where there is NOTHING running except for the player app,
    it STILL buffers to HD, you stupid twit.

    >I get the feeling that you've not seen a new piece of PC
    >hardware since the CDs you mentioned in your other reply.


    I have about ten PCs. Most are in storage. My current PC runs Vista
    and Windows 7 just fine, and benchmarks fine as well. You are about as
    clueless with this line of retarded remarks as all the other horseshit
    you have been spewing about your system.

    I suspect that you having been making up presumptuous horseshit most of
    your pathetic life.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
    #15
  16. Per Archimedes' Lever:
    >SAS will become hot swappable drive arrays,
    >and folks will simply add another 1 or 2 TB drive to their stack. That
    >will last for a while.


    Dunno from SAS, but I'm already doing the rest w/Windows Home
    Server.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 10, 2009
    #16
  17. On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:27:06 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
    wrote:

    >Per Archimedes' Lever:
    >>SAS will become hot swappable drive arrays,
    >>and folks will simply add another 1 or 2 TB drive to their stack. That
    >>will last for a while.

    >
    >Dunno from SAS, but I'm already doing the rest w/Windows Home
    >Server.



    Serial Attached SCSI.

    It is typically a 2,5 inch or smaller form factor drive, and they spin
    (some of them) at 15k rpm. They have terrific numbers on them for data
    transfer and access. The size is the big important factor smaller
    platters have less mass, and last longer too. IBM really pulled off some
    great stuff with MR head technology. They got write densities WAY up
    there.

    SAS is where things should move. Doesn't mean they will though, in this
    royally screwed society.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 10, 2009
    #17
  18. On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:52:56 -0700, "CLicker" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Archimedes' Lever" <> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >
    >>>> The video stream alone is 18Mb/s data rate.
    >>>
    >>>Just a cursory glance at the PowerDVD video info block shows
    >>>that the variable bit rate stream reaches 50 mbps and seems to
    >>>typically play around 28 mbps.

    >>
    >> I am pretty sure that I should have stated MB/s, not Mb/s.
    >> Also 18 was the low end of the number. It is typically 25
    >> MB/s.
    >> (he checks the data) YEP, it is MB/s.

    >
    >Might you cite a reference for that erroneous piece of info?
    >
    >For your edification:
    >http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_vs_dvd_comparison
    >
    >1xBD = 36 megabits per second
    >1.5x (the present BD movie standard) = 54 megabits per second,
    >of which 40 mbps may be video.
    >
    >Note, also for your edification: elbow != ass
    >
    >The limiting factor for a low powered PC, such as the AMD 3800
    >I've used, is not the Blu-Ray bit rate but h.264 decompression -
    >which exercises that processor above 90% for almost every disc.
    >Those few movies requiring more than 100% stutter.
    >
    >Utilizing the AMD Phenom II processor and the ATI xfire cards
    >(dual GPUs), the decompression algorithm's demand for CPU power
    >hovers around 5% and there's ample CPU and HDD speed available
    >for other simultaneous tasks, such as operating two HDTV capture
    >devices, which the AMD 3800 could never have handled.
    >
    >The advantages of utilizing a BD player equipped HTPC for all
    >a/v processing is not limited to merely playing Blu-Ray
    >audio/video as well as it can be played, though those other
    >advantages should be obvious even to you.
    >
    >When you're able to cite facts, supported by some authoritative
    >source, get back to me!
    >



    Sony PS3 playing ANY BD disc. Hit the display key on remote and see the
    data rate.

    It is as I described. That being between 15 and 30 MB/s on the video,
    and 500kB to 2MB/s on the audio.

    It is right there in front of your face, boy.

    Oh yeah, your quoted rates are what? read rates for your fucking
    reader? Hahahaha! You prove *my* point.

    The bit rate into the decoder is NOT the bit rate that the decompressed
    stream goes to the display at, you retarded twit.

    THAT is why a PC cannot do it well. It is not merely the pick rate
    that the data is read at, the PROCESSING makes for several data streams
    within the PC, and the final data rate that has to go to the display and
    audio ports is significantly higher than the bit rate the gets used to
    pick up data from the disc.
     
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 12, 2009
    #18
    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. raymond  austen

    Referral Fees $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 300.00 Over & Over

    raymond austen, Nov 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    527
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Nov 9, 2004
  2. Pierre Bellavance

    Canon CP-200 / CP-300 Photo Printers - How Good?

    Pierre Bellavance, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    474
    FredBillie
    Jul 24, 2003
  3. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,680
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,597
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Cynicor

    200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    1,513
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page