Welcome, guest! We are a creative arts/general discussion community, and welcome guests and members alike to participate in our discussions. While registration is not required to post, we strongly recommend considering an account with us, as it a quick, free, and easy way to fully utilize all of the features on our forum. We hope you enjoy your stay!


Poll: Will downloadable MP3s ultimately replace CDs?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
50.00%
4 50.00%
Maybe
25.00%
2 25.00%
No
25.00%
2 25.00%
Total 8 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MP3s vs CDs
#31
Video compression relies heavily on the fact that there are major elements of each individual frame that are persistent from one frame to the next, and the compression algorithms are based on a good understanding of what the eye will catch going from one frame to the next. There isn't really a video format that isn't heavily compressed. Some just look better to the eye than others. Big Grin

The standard for WAV is 44.1 KHZ per second. Still not an anolog tape recording, but it's still defined as lossless. You can get anolog audio recording if you really want to be technical, but there's no such thing for video. Sad
[Image: makestation_submatrix31_5.png]
Together, we can make something awesome...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#32
Tongue I've never heard of such a thing. Didn't realize it would spur such deep thought.

Personally, any lossless video would have to include the real 3d that people see and even feel.

In the end, if it ever does 'exist,' then it is what is accepted/defined.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#33
Any lossless audio would then have to include realistic infinite-surround, being able to identify precisely where the sound came from. Not for six speakers. For infinite speakers. Would have to capture every single facet of audio from every single angle. Tongue

Don't think true lossless even exists. Sad
[Image: makestation_submatrix31_5.png]
Together, we can make something awesome...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#34
(May 28th, 2017 at 2:04 AM)Hans Squeaky Wrote: Any lossless audio would then have to include realistic infinite-surround, being able to identify precisely where the sound came from. Not for six speakers. For infinite speakers. Would have to capture every single facet of audio from every single angle. Tongue

Don't think true lossless even exists. Sad

Yeah. I agree with that. But, any 'lossless' anything is defined by acceptance. 
Reply
Thanks given by:
#35
(May 27th, 2017 at 4:30 PM)Hans Squeaky Wrote: Video compression relies heavily on the fact that there are major elements of each individual frame that are persistent from one frame to the next, and the compression algorithms are based on a good understanding of what the eye will catch going from one frame to the next. There isn't really a video format that isn't heavily compressed. Some just look better to the eye than others. Big Grin

The standard for WAV is 44.1 KHZ per second. Still not an anolog tape recording, but it's still defined as lossless. You can get anolog audio recording if you really want to be technical, but there's no such thing for video. Sad

there's laserdisc.
there's also 35mm film
Reply
Thanks given by:
#36
Yeah but those films are still taken with digital cameras Big Grin
[Image: makestation_submatrix31_5.png]
Together, we can make something awesome...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#37
(May 29th, 2017 at 2:22 AM)Hans Squeaky Wrote: Yeah but those films are still taken with digital cameras Big Grin

actually... those are really old purely analog formats  Tongue


35mm actually was the film the camera recorded, that's the film type you had to splice together to make edits!

and laserdisc was from 1978 to 2001 you still had the conversion process but it's probably the closest you'll get to a "lossless" video type
Reply
Thanks given by:
#38
hey here's another thought, what about LCD's vs LED's for screens?

like which one looks better in your opinion... since holograms aren't really a thing yet for 3D video stuffs.
[Image: oEirbE7.png]
Reply
Thanks given by:
#39
(June 25th, 2017 at 6:19 PM)SpookyZalost Wrote: hey here's another thought, what about LCD's vs LED's for screens?

like which one looks better in your opinion... since holograms aren't really a thing yet for 3D video stuffs.

Sometimes, LCDs look so real they look fake.

Does that make sense?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#40
Imma say go back to the good 'ole classic CRTs Big Grin
[Image: makestation_submatrix31_5.png]
Together, we can make something awesome...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#41
CRT's are great right? such high video refresh rates  Tongue

120 htz easy before it was a thing lol.

now I sorta want a 1080p CRT  Big Grin
[Image: oEirbE7.png]
Reply
Thanks given by:
#42
I am forgetting now what CRT's were exactly, sorry ?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#43
(June 28th, 2017 at 8:50 PM)brian51 Wrote: I am forgetting now what CRT's were exactly, sorry ?

Cathode Ray Tubes. 

Old-schoole 'tube' tv. 
Reply
Thanks given by:
#44
in a way they were superior to our LCD's however the technology of the time couldn't really take advantage of their theoretical frame rate limits, once again analog > digital in this case.
[Image: oEirbE7.png]
Reply
Thanks given by:




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Makestation | Return to Top | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication
Proudly powered by MyBB 1.8, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group. Hosted by Ramnode.
Design/theme © 2014 by Makestaton designers.
All rights reserved.
Also see Chatcave chat hosting (owned by us), Forumonic.com (a Harry-K community) and Zalost's Gridzone