G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Matthew Vaughan (matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> WMV9 is fully capable of the same
> quality as standard 720p or 1080i TV signals, and appearantly using
> substantially less bandwidth
There is no real indication this is true for actual 720/60p or 1080/60i,
since there have been no WMV samples with sources coming from either of
these HD modes, nor have there been any demonstrations of real-time
compression for WMV HD video.
Based on the uncompressed bitrate, WMV seems to be only about 10-20% better
than MPEG-2.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/MotherGooseAndGrimm/GatewaySource.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Matthew Vaughan (matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> WMV9 is fully capable of the same
> quality as standard 720p or 1080i TV signals, and appearantly using
> substantially less bandwidth
There is no real indication this is true for actual 720/60p or 1080/60i,
since there have been no WMV samples with sources coming from either of
these HD modes, nor have there been any demonstrations of real-time
compression for WMV HD video.
Based on the uncompressed bitrate, WMV seems to be only about 10-20% better
than MPEG-2.
--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/MotherGooseAndGrimm/GatewaySource.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |