1080p movie clips
 

You can download 720p and 1080p movie clips here. Scooby doo 2 is the
latest one. You should have a 2.5 gig hertz or higher computer.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tShowcase.aspx

Thanks alot...i'm gonna try these out.

"Alan" wrote in message
s.com...
You can download 720p and 1080p movie clips here. Scooby doo 2 is the
latest one. You should have a 2.5 gig hertz or higher computer.


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tShowcase.aspx

I have to say...I'm not thoroughly impressed with WVM encoder/decoder
because on my monitor I can still make out some compression artifacts...and
when it comes to HD I expect perfection.

The clips that Fusion have on demo are clear, no artifacts....but some
pixellation does occur during fast motion scenes.


"Son of man" wrote in message
. ..
Thanks alot...i'm gonna try these out.

"Alan" wrote in message
s.com...
You can download 720p and 1080p movie clips here. Scooby doo 2 is the
latest one. You should have a 2.5 gig hertz or higher computer.



http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tShowcase.aspx

Son of man wrote:
...and when it comes to HD I expect perfection.
Ahahahaha! You said perfection....sorry pal, there's no such thing! ;-)

HD is not the end all be all. It's good, but why should it be any
different than any other format?

"Son of man" said:

I have to say...I'm not thoroughly impressed with WVM encoder/decoder
because on my monitor I can still make out some compression
artifacts...and when it comes to HD I expect perfection.

How are you playing it?

I am unable to play them in true HD because AFAIK, there are no video
cards that support true HD output to a HDTV. They look damn good on the
monitor though.
--
McQualude

"McQualude" wrote in message
...
"Son of man" said:

I have to say...I'm not thoroughly impressed with WVM encoder/decoder
because on my monitor I can still make out some compression
artifacts...and when it comes to HD I expect perfection.

How are you playing it?

I am unable to play them in true HD because AFAIK, there are no video
cards that support true HD output to a HDTV. They look damn good on the
monitor though.

I'm playing on my montor at 1280x1024 with black bars top and below.

The opening scene of "the magic of flight" 720p version, when the screen is
full of pink flamingoes (?) I can see compresion artifacts. Also when
there's a title on the screen, around the title I can see some compression
artifacts.

--
McQualude

What if you raise the resolution?

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:20:04 -0500, "Son of man"
wrote:

I'm playing on my montor at 1280x1024 with black bars top and below.

The opening scene of "the magic of flight" 720p version, when the screen is
full of pink flamingoes (?) I can see compresion artifacts. Also when
there's a title on the screen, around the title I can see some compression
artifacts.

"Alan" wrote in message
s.com...
What if you raise the resolution?

Alan, the 720p movies are 1280x720 resolution which my monitor is matching
pixel for pixel at 1280x1024 with black bars above and below -- no scaling
is being performed on the source image...an exact pixel for pixel natuve
playback and artifacts are present. It's still exceptional quality at a low
bandwidth...but I don't care about bandwidth, I care about the achieving the
highest quailty video and this simply isn't it.


On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:20:04 -0500, "Son of man"
wrote:

I'm playing on my montor at 1280x1024 with black bars top and below.

The opening scene of "the magic of flight" 720p version, when the screen
is
full of pink flamingoes (?) I can see compresion artifacts. Also when
there's a title on the screen, around the title I can see some
compression
artifacts.

"Son of man" wrote in message
. ..

Alan, the 720p movies are 1280x720 resolution which my monitor is matching
pixel for pixel at 1280x1024 with black bars above and below -- no scaling
is being performed on the source image...an exact pixel for pixel natuve
playback and artifacts are present. It's still exceptional quality at a
low
bandwidth...but I don't care about bandwidth, I care about the achieving
the
highest quailty video and this simply isn't it.

The 720p sample clips are encoded at 6.884 Mbits/sec, so I think there's a
lot of room to increase bandwidth and still fit in the 19 MBit/sec bandwidth
of HDTV broadcast before it could be compared directly to what you might see
today. It should certainly beat MPEG-2 by a long shot at the same bitrate.
If they had encoded at a higher bit rate, those would be 250-300MB downloads
for 2 minutes of video.

You really can't compare signals and compression techniques unless you are
comparing equal bitrates. So if there are some equivalent-sized,
same-bitrate, same resolution HD clips of the same video material encoded in
other formats that look better, that would be worth pointing out.

From what I've heard of recent evalutations for HD-DVD formats, WMV9 was
considered by most industry experts to have the best video quality of all
the competing standards. Their only real concern seemed to be patent and
licensing issues, which Microsoft appears to be addressing.

On the other hand, it's quite likely that HD-DVD will use a lower bitrate
than HDTV broadcast due to space constraints. (I don't remember the
details.) I doubt that the companies involved (major content providers as
well as consumer electronics) would be seriously considering a format that
had noticeably lower video quality than existing HDTV (though I also doubt
they'd be considering anything with noticeably HIGHER quality either).
Another benefit is that using such improved compression systems in other
applications than HD-DVD will increase the amount of HD material available
on cable and satellite, and perhaps eventually could also allow improved
quality of broadcast HDTV (full 1920-wide 1080p60, for instance).

Another point is that final video quality depends on both encoding and
decoding, as well as the display system. It's quite likely that different
computers with different CPUs, video cards, and software (drivers/decoders)
will produce different results. Many systems may still have bugs,
unoptimized software, or just may not be able to keep up with the bitrate,
resulting in decompression artifacts. Also, if what you are watching on is
an LCD monitor, it's likely to not have as good color discrimination ability
or fast response as a CRT, resulting in effects that could be interpreted as
compression artifacts (flat areas, banding, ghosting, etc.)

I certainly remember watching a number of early DVDs and DVD players that
showed some obvious compression artifacts and other problems.

"Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message
...
"Son of man" wrote in message
. ..

Alan, the 720p movies are 1280x720 resolution which my monitor is
matching
pixel for pixel at 1280x1024 with black bars above and below -- no
scaling
is being performed on the source image...an exact pixel for pixel natuve
playback and artifacts are present. It's still exceptional quality at a
low
bandwidth...but I don't care about bandwidth, I care about the achieving
the
highest quailty video and this simply isn't it.

The 720p sample clips are encoded at 6.884 Mbits/sec, so I think there's a
lot of room to increase bandwidth and still fit in the 19 MBit/sec
bandwidth
of HDTV broadcast before it could be compared directly to what you might
see
today. It should certainly beat MPEG-2 by a long shot at the same bitrate.
If they had encoded at a higher bit rate, those would be 250-300MB
downloads
for 2 minutes of video.

You really can't compare signals and compression techniques unless you are
comparing equal bitrates. So if there are some equivalent-sized,
same-bitrate, same resolution HD clips of the same video material encoded
in
other formats that look better, that would be worth pointing out.

From what I've heard of recent evalutations for HD-DVD formats, WMV9 was
considered by most industry experts to have the best video quality of all
the competing standards. Their only real concern seemed to be patent and
licensing issues, which Microsoft appears to be addressing.

On the other hand, it's quite likely that HD-DVD will use a lower bitrate
than HDTV broadcast due to space constraints. (I don't remember the
details.) I doubt that the companies involved (major content providers as
well as consumer electronics) would be seriously considering a format that
had noticeably lower video quality than existing HDTV (though I also doubt
they'd be considering anything with noticeably HIGHER quality either).
Another benefit is that using such improved compression systems in other
applications than HD-DVD will increase the amount of HD material available
on cable and satellite, and perhaps eventually could also allow improved
quality of broadcast HDTV (full 1920-wide 1080p60, for instance).

Another point is that final video quality depends on both encoding and
decoding, as well as the display system. It's quite likely that different
computers with different CPUs, video cards, and software
(drivers/decoders)
will produce different results. Many systems may still have bugs,
unoptimized software, or just may not be able to keep up with the bitrate,
resulting in decompression artifacts. Also, if what you are watching on is
an LCD monitor, it's likely to not have as good color discrimination
ability
or fast response as a CRT, resulting in effects that could be interpreted
as
compression artifacts (flat areas, banding, ghosting, etc.)

What I am seeing is defintiely not trailing images due to response time. The
artifacts are there -- the whole advantage to Mircosoft's wmv is the lower
bitrate -- what they posted as samples on their website is what we can
expect to see, they have no intention of increasing bandwidth (and hence
lowering compression) so we can expect to see these artifacts though
admittedly probably not from a regular viewing distance...however my point
being that wmv does not produce as great a picture as the current 19.2mbs
HD standard and they are using compromises with compression to keep the
bitrate low. You cannot expect to have equal image quality at the same
resoultion and the lower bandwidth that Microsoft is trying to push. However
like I said, the artifacts I witness when I viewed their sample clips on my
monitor (which don't exist with normal HD playback like the DVICO Fusion
software) probably won't be noticed at a regular viewing distance...I just
don't like the idea of taking a step backwards in image quality to
compensate for bandwidth issues as it is more than likely the bandwidth
problem will be resolved in the future and when it does, I wouldn't like to
be stuck with the inferior image quality of wmv at the lower bitrate which
is what will happen if it becomes a standard.


I certainly remember watching a number of early DVDs and DVD players that
showed some obvious compression artifacts and other problems.