this thing seems to be designed to do video conferencing
this thing seems to be designed to do video conferencing
Can do, they were displaying it as a phone movie codec, a streaming codec, and a professional HD codec. They had one g5 running the Troy trailer full screen on a 23" cinema display 1080p and on another they had 720p, 480 and video phone resolution simultaneously decoding on the G5's internal hardrive, again very good quality.Originally Posted by samsc
Will be interesting to see how it does when it comes out.
Christian
all going in the forwards direction.....all interframe compression codecs have to assume the uniform flow of time or movie data in the forwards direction.Originally Posted by litemover
If I could get great HD color sampling with good compression and decoding speed, I'd use it, if only for going forward.
Christian
An h264 report.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...dtv_recording/
This really probably isnt going to be great in catalyst - but maybe cell processors will process this stuff really fast?
Codec is truly amazing. It takes a lot of proccessing power to encode these files as well as power to decode them but here are some results along with a test file.
This file was encoded at 50% quality automatic keyframing
It started as a 1.89 gigabyte file and turned out as a 7.8mb file. Judge for yourself how good the quality is. It's amazing to me.
This is a 1080p file 30fps.
Equip:
dual 2.5 G5
Seagate 160 boot drive
Firmtek 1e4 external card in slot 4
4 raptors in a zero striped array
Tiger os with qt7 pro
Radeon x800xt Mac
Ramps up slowly to 28fps
Will play backward, random, but it slows down the performance. Every time you change files, it ramps up, same with play modes.
If this could be worked on, Hidef files in H264 would be really space saving.
This is my initial report.
h264 testfile
'ramping' up will be due to interframe compression....this will be impossible to get around, as this will be the way quicktime works.Originally Posted by litemover
makes it not really usable for catalyst type things.
suggest you test photojpeg at 1920x1080 at between 50% and 60% by way of a comparison.
photojpeg worked much better than pixlet last time i checked.