|
|
|
MEDIA
|
|
|
DGREG07
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. October 2002 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
WERE TO BUY 9.2 +R/+RW
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
26. October 2002 @ 02:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Buy two discs anywhere.
Squish some Crazy-Glue on the label side, stick 'em together and sit on 'em for a while. Voila! A nice shiny new (& probably unworkable) "9.2 gig" disc.
Single-sided 9.2 gig discs don't exist. At least yet. If they did they wouldn't be DVD player compatible.
-- mgb --
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
26. October 2002 @ 05:42 |
Link to this message
|
And DVD-9 discs are 8.5GB discs anyway :-) List of the discs (with guestimated "Japanese gigabytes"):
DVD-5 = one-sided single-layer disc, 4.7GB (4.38GB)
DVD-9 = one-sided dual-layer disc, 8.5GB (7.95GB)
DVD-10 = two-sided single layer disc, 9.4GB (8.75GB)
DVD-14 = two-sided disc with other side dual layer, other single layer 13.4GB (12.33GB) -- never seen these
DVD-18 = two-sided dual-layer disc 17GB (15.9GB)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. October 2002 @ 05:45
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just wish we could get (most) normal-length movies on a single dvd *whatever* it's capacity. Swapping vcds has proven to be a major pain in the a--, and dvd changers (which will also handle vcds) are expensive.
With dvds, I had hoped for * 1 * movie on * 1 * disc, and if the normal high (dvd) resolution would have to be reduced somewhat in order to accomodate this, fine. For a normal TV set (non 16:9 hi-res), you'd never notice much if anything in the way of reduced picture clarity, but of course, it takes _Eons_ to re-encode the damned video.
The following are just rhetorical questions and random musings, and don't need a reply.
Does anyone know if "D1" resolution refers to "normal" dvd mpeg2 resolution? What ARE the basic specs for dvd resolution? 704 x 480 for ntsc or something, plus a little better for pal, I think. But I don't mean that. Rather, what is the average bit rate for a standard dvd release? I know mpeg2 is vbr (good!), and is therefore much more efficient than mpeg1, but I wonder if the average mpeg2 bitrate varies very much over different retail dvds? Is there a defined minimum and maximum bitrate for "dvd" video?
Verbatim, the disc-making people, describe playing time-per-disc as:
60 minutes = Avg 9.7 Mbits/s
120 minutes = Avg 5.1 Mbits/s
180 minutes = Avg 3.4 Mbits/s
240 minutes = Avg 2.5 Mbits/s
Is it fair to say, then, that "normal" retail dvd average bitrate is 5.1 megabits per second? (yielding a max of 120 minutes). Would this correspond, roughly to "D1" resolution?
I've been looking at ReMPEG2 - a program to ("weaken" as dRD puts it :) ), reduce resolution to *one-half* D1 resolution. Would this then, at 240 mins playing time per disc, be around the (above) quoted 2.5 Mbits/s?
Bottom line: I bet half D1 resolution at 2.5 Mbs/s would look *deelightful* when played back on a regular tv set -- much better than VHS -- and afford 240 mins per dvd which is enough for 98% of all Hollywood movies.
Now, if I can scrape up some more $$$, maybe I'll buy Nero or something to Author all this stuff to dvd. My new dvd-burner came with its own burning software, but it didn't include ANY *dvd-authoring* software. (just vcd-authoring, and I'm now dissatisfied with regular vcds).
For decent looking half-D1 res @ 240 mins per disc, I'll endure the horrific time needed to encode it all.
Of course, dvdxcopy will likely spoil even *these* thoughts of mine as we get closer and closer to having 120-ish minute movies at full res on a single dvd. Their latest news-email (for the beta testers) was *most* refreshing!
Sorry, I do believe I'm thinking (typing) out loud again.
One movie @ decent res on 1 disc for playback on regular tvs. That's my elusive goal. :-)
Damned hard getting there though !!!
-- Mike --
|
|
jnihil
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 03:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
isn't 5Mbps average VBR enough for most films Mike?
|
|
slickster
Junior Member
|
30. October 2002 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Half of all the DVD's that i've copied (which equals 2!) have been small enough with the menus stripped out to fit on a DVD-R. I dont think changing discs is that big a bother since your getting MAX resoulution and menus and extras. Maybe your a bit of a perfectionist although 1 movie 1 disc would be nice. :-)
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello jnihil !
(My goodness! How many moderators does a/D have?) <ggg>
Well, "enough" is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. I suspect that 5 Megabits/s is more than my eyes really need, for viewing on a *normal* tv set. I'm assuming that 'normal' retail dvds average out at 5 Mbits/s, yes.
I mean really, how many of us have wide-screen, wall-to-wall high resolution motion picture screens hanging off our living room walls?
Slickster: I guess my main question is really this:
We'll assume a blank dvd will hold 120 mins at full resolution. What do you do with a movie, then, that is 128 minutes long?
A wee *tiny* bit of bit-reduction would get that sucker to fit on one dvd and *still* look terrific. When you consider current, expensive blank dvd prices, *PLUS* the convenience of *not* having to change the disc in mid-movie, I think that that's more than enough compensation for having to sit through the long-long-long re-encoding process.
Thoughts?
-- Mike --
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
30. October 2002 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
off-topic :-)
Quote:
(My goodness! How many moderators does a/D have?) <ggg>
Three moderators, seven admins :-) Look at this: http://forums.afterdawn.com/users/all_new_messages.cfm ... all threads updated during the last 24hrs; even _I_ can't handle all of those anymore :-)
*back to topic*
And the bitrate is really dependent on various aspects -- including the resolution of the video (as you all must know, DVD _can_ contain other than 720x480/576 as well, including CVD resolution -- with CVD resolution, smaller amount of bitrate makes the smaller number of pixels look better and sometimes 3MBit/sec 352x480/576 looks better than 4MBit/sec 720x480/576..), the video itself (solid areas with small amount of movement requires less bitrate), the used audio (which effects to the total bitrate and thus pushing the bitrate avail for video up or down) bitrate, etc...
|
|
jnihil
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 05:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you look back at the days when we were forced to be satisfied with VCD quality, then our current problems with DVD-R quality is... minimal? a luxury? :-)
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 05:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ouuuuu...... that's a pretty big list, yeah.
OK, but the admins & mods don't really *have* to reply to anything, right? Just keep an eye out for such things as:
Spam
Flaming
posting email addresses
cuss words
links to self-serving ads
asking for links to full movie dl/s
Stuff like that, right?
(Yeah, ok, that _would_ take a lot of time, especialy in *two* languages!)
dRD, we gotta get you a burner, man. Someone <ahem> shoulda seen that by now.
-- Mike --
ps : thanks for the res info. I'm going to fiddle with some rempeg2 settings as soon as I go offline.
pps: Oh, btw, did I mention that _someone_ should have sent you a burner by now? (or at least offered)
-------
ppps : Re: your link to the rhmoore interview newsreport: Has 321 *really* made "multi-millions" like the report says? (????? !!!!)
Oh yeah, I would've hoped by now _someone_ would've seen you could use a burner.
Especially for such things like writing personal __dvdxcopy__ tutorials (or helpful hints-type articles) using the product.
Just my thoughts.
-- mgb --
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 05:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
jnihil -- In some ways our situation is worse. We are *still* looking at swapping discs in the middle of a movie, and those new discs cost a lot more than the old ones did!
1 dvd = about 10 cds in overall cost. (retail)
-- mgb --
ps : I want a blue-laser-burner. 30 gig capacity. Then Hollywood can put as many BONER tracks in as they want to. :-)
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
30. October 2002 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
*offtopic*
*Someone* actually sent me a burner a while ago and I thank him for that once again, but unfortunately it was one of those "Monday editions" of A03 that burned CDs nicely, but didn't burn DVDs :-P
But you guys are going to buy me the burner anyway, just keep on increasing the page imps and the next DoubleClick check might do the trick ;-)
...and yes, even going through the messages to look for spam/etc is a pain and the number of posts increases daily -- three days ago there were 50k page imps in forums alone, yesterday 70k. But the current team is almost enough to do it, so we (Ketola, our gfx'er Teemu and me, mostly) can focus on improving the site and readying for aD v3.0 launch sometime in January - March.
*/offtopic*
Yes, playing around with the resolutions is a good way to tweak the quality further, if you consider on squeezing more stuff into one disc. Two 100min movies can be stored with very good quality on one DVD-R when using CVD resolution and one audio track -- good solution for "plus" drive owners who still pay £2 a disc and want to backup some of those "not necessarily a great movie, but would be nice to keep it anyway" clips.
|
|
jnihil
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 21:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
You know Mike that when blue ray becomes available the bastards will start encoding the video streams at 30Mbps...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
30. October 2002 @ 22:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's right, jnihil. And it's called "Hi-Definition Video", and that, my friend, is going to open up yet another whole can of worms with Hi-Def's multiple-yet-compatible formats.
dRD -- that was cute - we speak the same language (not even Finnish!)
*offtopic* = beginning of off topic
*/offtopic* (slash/offtopic) = end of offtopic
Just like html! :) We're computer geeks, I fear.
Also, "Monday Edition" of the A03. I guess that refers to folks getting drunk over the weekend, then coming back to work all hung over & feeling like s---, and producing shoddy products (like your A03), when, say, a "Thursday Edition" of the same A03 would have been built better and burned dvds fine.
Hey, you're pretty clever for a 26 year old. :)
I think Pioneer should be hammered for not responding to your returned unit, AND feel they should have replaced it immediately -- whether you purchased it yourself or if it was a gift doesn't matter. Shame on Pioneer. I'd write to them again too. (Maybe you already have).
Yes, I feel a couple of 100 min movies fitting on a single dvd makes a lot of sense. Frankly, I'd be happy just to get one-longer movie on the disc that would normally take a dual-layer dvd. As I say, most people in this life still use regular tv sets. And +RWs over here in Canuck-land cost *way* more than the 2 pounds you quoted over there. Radio Shack now sells them for the "low-low-discounted" price of $10.00 each.
ReMPEG2 has been 'at' it now for 16 straight hours doing up a 90 minute Python movie in the background, and the thing is only 63% completed. Kinda makes me wonder if it's all worth it, you know? The slowness of the encode is, I believe, a product of my slow 450 Mhz cpu, and the fact that I chose "Full" search in rempeg2 (instead of "Prediction" search, which the readme filed warned, was very slow).
I'm using what I hope is a dvd-compatible resolution (352x480) - perhaps I should read your articles more closely - anyway, I *think* this corresponds to "Half D1 Resolution". Since I have halved the resolution, I have also halved the original dvd bitrate to 50%.
So after this thing is done, I'll be able to see what kind of mess I've created. :-)
Take advantage of those page-imps while they last. This is a fickle world, and just like my taxi-driving, the bottom can fall right out of business in a flash (to hopefully pick-up again later). If all these page-imps translate into a quality dvd burner for you, then you have *earned* it.
Then, just like me, you *too* can waste scads and scads of time doing even *more* stuff!
OK, enough blabbering. I just got 48 a/D post reminders - that must be a record for me. I see the 321 thread is still skyrocketing - must check it out. In a way, I feel like you do - I can't run the betas either. The Finnish Forum side *never* got close to the 600-post mark in a single thread, did they? This also is an all-time a/D record.
You must be doing a lot of 'right' things. :)
-- Mike --
|
|
