| Author |
Message |
Just Me
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:05 am Post subject:
Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
I recently purchased a projection wide screen TV. I think its about 56
inches wide. I have the Philips DIVX player attached to it. When I play a
Divx video (encoded by Dr. Divx) on this TV, it looks a little blurred,
especially around people's faces. Using progressive scan helps some but not
enough. If I play the same video on a smaller TV, it looks "near DVD" in
quality. I would guess that the problem is that Dr. Divx is "crap" as I've
heard. Does anyone have the same experience? Thanks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bug
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:01:59 GMT, "Just Me" <theclient@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I recently purchased a projection wide screen TV. I think its about 56
inches wide. I have the Philips DIVX player attached to it. When I play a
Divx video (encoded by Dr. Divx) on this TV, it looks a little blurred,
especially around people's faces. Using progressive scan helps some but not
enough.
|
You have to understand that divX is a highly compression video format.
So, when you playback a divX file on a large TV display screen, the
pixels and artifacts are magnified about a BAZILLION times.
Hence, the picture not looking too good on your new widescreen TV.
| Quote: | If I play the same video on a smaller TV, it looks "near DVD" in
quality.
|
As it should. You're dealing with less screen real estate, so to
speak.
| Quote: | I would guess that the problem is that Dr. Divx is "crap" as I've
heard.
|
Though I've never used Dr. Divx, I don't think you should believe
everything you hear.
Try a particular app yourself and see for yourself.
| Quote: | Does anyone have the same experience? Thanks.
|
No. I have no use for a 56" widescreen TV -- projection or otherwise.
My divX experience comes from my many years of ripping DVDs and
encoding them as divX files -- and as VCDs and SVCDx.
bug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jan Panteltje
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:01 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:01:59 GMT) it happened "Just Me"
<theclient@hotmail.com> wrote in
<XgSqd.3673$u81.1400@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
| Quote: | line, if you stretch it to 56 inch, that will be 2 times bigger.
So you need at least 2 x the bitrate
Small (big) correction to my own statement, you need 4 x the bitrate! |
This is because the information content is proportional to the surface
area of teh screen.
If width and height both double, that area goes up by a factor 4.
JP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:02 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
Jan,
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:36:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | line, if you stretch it to 56 inch, that will be 2 times bigger.
So you need at least 2 x the bitrate
Small (big) correction to my own statement, you need 4 x the bitrate!
This is because the information content is proportional to the surface
area of teh screen.
If width and height both double, that area goes up by a factor 4.
|
The "area", yes, but not necessarily the bitrate required to achieve
the same precepted quality. This would only hold true for moving parts
of the picture, while for still parts, it's mainly the initial intra
blocks that require more bits to encode. Thus, you don't need "at
least" 2 (or, as you've corrected yourself, 4) times the bit rate, but
a theoretical _maximum_ of 4 times the bitrate. In praxi, this maximum
will never be required. Not by far.
Just imagine a picture with a big blue sky in the background with
hardly any movement in it. For the intra blocks, this blue background
may take up a lot more bandwidth in hi-res than in lo-res (depending
on, e.g., how detailled the clouds are etc.), but for every subsequent
frame until the next I block is required (be it because of movement,
or be it because of forced I frames), its memory requirements aren't
much higher than those of a much lower resolution (except, of course,
for the _number_ or intra blocks, which of course would be higher).
Your assertion would be realistic if we only encoded keyframes, but
luckily, we don't have to ;-) .
Greetings,
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bug
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:06 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:58:07 +0100, Christian Link
<C.LinkSPAMBLOCK@GMX.NET> wrote:
| Quote: | Jan,
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:36:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
line, if you stretch it to 56 inch, that will be 2 times bigger.
So you need at least 2 x the bitrate
Small (big) correction to my own statement, you need 4 x the bitrate!
This is because the information content is proportional to the surface
area of teh screen.
If width and height both double, that area goes up by a factor 4.
The "area", yes, but not necessarily the bitrate required to achieve
the same precepted quality. This would only hold true for moving parts
of the picture, while for still parts, it's mainly the initial intra
blocks that require more bits to encode. Thus, you don't need "at
least" 2 (or, as you've corrected yourself, 4) times the bit rate, but
a theoretical _maximum_ of 4 times the bitrate. In praxi, this maximum
will never be required. Not by far.
Just imagine a picture with a big blue sky in the background with
hardly any movement in it. For the intra blocks, this blue background
may take up a lot more bandwidth in hi-res than in lo-res (depending
on, e.g., how detailled the clouds are etc.), but for every subsequent
frame until the next I block is required (be it because of movement,
or be it because of forced I frames), its memory requirements aren't
much higher than those of a much lower resolution (except, of course,
for the _number_ or intra blocks, which of course would be higher).
Your assertion would be realistic if we only encoded keyframes, but
luckily, we don't have to ;-) .
Greetings,
Chris.
|
The info in your post is all well and good, but it really doesn't help
the origonal poster's predicament.
bug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jan Panteltje
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:58:07 +0100) it happened Christian Link
<C.LinkSPAMBLOCK@GMX.NET> wrote in
<9lmqq0lp4vhg97ac27cfg3lsjd36rg7g02@4ax.com>:
| Quote: | Jan,
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:36:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
line, if you stretch it to 56 inch, that will be 2 times bigger.
So you need at least 2 x the bitrate
Small (big) correction to my own statement, you need 4 x the bitrate!
This is because the information content is proportional to the surface
area of teh screen.
If width and height both double, that area goes up by a factor 4.
The "area", yes, but not necessarily the bitrate required to achieve
the same precepted quality. This would only hold true for moving parts
of the picture, while for still parts, it's mainly the initial intra
blocks that require more bits to encode. Thus, you don't need "at
least" 2 (or, as you've corrected yourself, 4) times the bit rate, but
a theoretical _maximum_ of 4 times the bitrate. In praxi, this maximum
will never be required. Not by far.
Just imagine a picture with a big blue sky in the background with
hardly any movement in it. For the intra blocks, this blue background
may take up a lot more bandwidth in hi-res than in lo-res (depending
on, e.g., how detailled the clouds are etc.), but for every subsequent
frame until the next I block is required (be it because of movement,
or be it because of forced I frames), its memory requirements aren't
much higher than those of a much lower resolution (except, of course,
for the _number_ or intra blocks, which of course would be higher).
Your assertion would be realistic if we only encoded keyframes, but
luckily, we don't have to ;-) .
Greetings,
Chris.
Thank you Chris, that makes things clear. |
JP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:47 am Post subject:
Re: Wide Screen Divx |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:06:23 -0500, bug <bug@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The info in your post is all well and good,
|
You wouldn't believe how happy I am to hear this ...
| Quote: | but it really doesn't help
the origonal poster's predicament.
|
Oh, it didn't? Just in case you didn't notice, it was a correction of
somebody else's post which (as I presume, not having followed the
whole thread) did in fact relate to the "origonal" poster's question.
So, besides giving yet another example of senseless full-quoting, what
exactly was the point of your comment?!?
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in