Re: Why is Microsoft preventing itself from making HD revolution?



Den 14.02.2007 kl. 04:38 skrev R Sweeney <DockScience@xxxxxxxxx>:


"Lyrik" <lyrik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:op.tnpvtjqscof222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Den 14.02.2007 kl. 02:10 skrev R Sweeney <DockScience@xxxxxxxxx>:


A calculation gives us:
3.474 gigabytes per hour!! In top notch quality here on my desk.

But Microsoft throws it all away in the DRM-bin.

didn't notice the capital B vs the lower case b did you?
Bytes vs bits... a factor of 8
30mb/sec gives 27GB for 2 hrs
which "coincidentally" is 3GB short of the dual layer HD-DVD capacity

The Microsoft WMV codec (aka AV1) website indicates that up to 30mb/sec is
needed for full res.
You are watching bit-starved HD @ 8mb/sec

"Top notch", unless you have seen it at higher bit rates.
++++++++++++++++
Well sorry about not noticing bits. Then a correction. The WMV HD is actually 1080p and not 1080i.
I would not call it bit-starved.
It is their certified HD stamped quality. So how can it be their certified standard and by themselves called insuficient? And i think it should be very satisfying to most people.
The wmv9 codec is very efficient and smooth running. It includes room for menues. It is the "Divx of HD films" IMHO.
And wether M. wants it or no,t it will be used as such i think.
It is amazing that they do not want a piece of the cake. Most people have DVD drives and they are much cheaper than the HDCP restricted DVDR and Blueray.

Greets Jens


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
.