Comments on: Another HD Codec http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/ HDTV Home Theater and Television Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:18:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Another HD Codec by: Henning http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-238 Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:33:29 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-238 Thanks guys! It looks like the DCI chose this codec probably for these very reasons. Thanks guys! It looks like the DCI chose this codec probably for these very reasons.

]]> Comment on Another HD Codec by: Mike Curtis http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-237 Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:24:33 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-237 Author - as Elvis pointed out, JP2K has extremely higher requirements. For example, on my dual 2.5 GHz G5 with ATI XT 800 card, HD plays at just a handfull of frames a second using JPEG2000. Also, at the quality (and therefore datarates) the DCI is talking about, there will be NO visible artifacts for the audience watching on a theatrical screen. I think they are talking about data rates in the 20-30 MB/sec range - hard drive speeds, not optical disk speeds. The reason that the DCI is using it is to get pristine image quality for theatrical presentation. It's pure "no frame to frame compression" approach was to avoid artifacts. By definition, this increases the bandwidth required. It makes for a good theatrical viewing image quality, but the data rate (and thus quantity of data) is far, far too high for affordable optical media. -mike Author - as Elvis pointed out, JP2K has extremely higher requirements. For example, on my dual 2.5 GHz G5 with ATI XT 800 card, HD plays at just a handfull of frames a second using JPEG2000. Also, at the quality (and therefore datarates) the DCI is talking about, there will be NO visible artifacts for the audience watching on a theatrical screen. I think they are talking about data rates in the 20-30 MB/sec range - hard drive speeds, not optical disk speeds.

The reason that the DCI is using it is to get pristine image quality for theatrical presentation.

It’s pure “no frame to frame compression” approach was to avoid artifacts. By definition, this increases the bandwidth required. It makes for a good theatrical viewing image quality, but the data rate (and thus quantity of data) is far, far too high for affordable optical media.

-mike

]]> Comment on Another HD Codec by: Elvis Ripley http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-233 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:20:14 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-233 Well I just read that article and it says it is cheaper than MPEG. The article probably knows best. I still think that it is very computationally expensive. Well I just read that article and it says it is cheaper than MPEG. The article probably knows best. I still think that it is very computationally expensive.

]]> Comment on Another HD Codec by: Elvis Ripley http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-232 Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:09:46 +0000 http://www.hdblog.net/2005/08/30/another-hd-codec/#comment-232 The requirements to play back the JP2K vide are super high. That would be the reason you have never heard of it. No one can really play it. If you had a specialized hardware solution it could be possible in the next few years but it isn't a codec for now, just the future. The requirements to play back the JP2K vide are super high. That would be the reason you have never heard of it. No one can really play it. If you had a specialized hardware solution it could be possible in the next few years but it isn’t a codec for now, just the future.

]]>