Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Su-47 I didn't get this one. Won't HD delievered this way be very compressed, and may be worse than SD!
SD (NTSC for example) 720*240*60 Fields/sec ~= 10.4 Mpixels/sec
HD (720p for example) 1280*720*60 frames/sec ~= 55.3 Mpixels/sec
Even with a optimistic packing ratio of 1:2 (for MPEG vs AVC), packing 55.3 Mpixels/sec into same bandwidth as 10.4 Mpixels/sec seems like a sure path to ugly video. |
HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality. H.264 provides DVD quality at about half the data rate of MPEG-2. Today for eg. Tata Sky distributes MPEG-2 encoded channels @ 6-8Mbps and if they switched to H.264, they could distribute a HD signal at the same bit rate. The only issue is a STB that is capable of decoding H.264.. Regarding the trials in India - it really is not a workable solution - the actual bitrate on a xDSL line to an average home is around 2Mbps max. On this the likes of MTNL/Times Broadband/HP want to run a triple play service which includes EPG, VOD etc.. Tried telling them that it would not work, but then when telecom/IT guys who do not know much about Video start implementing solutions based on theoritical knowledge, roadblocks do occur !!