HD Videos

[WesHet]

Have you ever considered going substantially up on the video resolution? The content, obviously, is excellent. Resolution, on the other hand, ok at best. I know the issue is people on slow broadband etc. as well as cost. I would be more than ready to pay for extra resolution, say 720p. That would mean about 450Mb for 10 minutes, which is alot but not beyond reason. 25 and 50 Mbit are popping up everywhere and harddrives go to 500GB nowadays.

[Frans]

Have you ever considered going substantially up on the video resolution? The content, obviously, is excellent. Resolution, on the other hand, ok at best. I know the issue is people on slow broadband etc. as well as cost. I would be more than ready to pay for extra resolution, say 720p. That would mean about 450Mb for 10 minutes, which is alot but not beyond reason. 25 and 50 Mbit are popping up everywhere and harddrives go to 500GB nowadays.

That's about 6100 kbit/sec, bit overkill ain't it? At what resolution do you want to view those vids anyway? I myself wouldn't mind such huge downloads, but I fail to see the point. It would generate a LOT more traffic, which costs money and it's unlikely to activly attract enough new customers to compensate. Not everybody has ADSL2+ or FiberToTheHome yet, for that matter AW still has dial-up customers The current worldwide average net-speed of properly connected countries is 500Kb/sec, though over here in the Netherlands we're way above that at 1.5Mbit

Never mind that you have to actually shoot for HDV, not sure the current AW video-equipment can do that?

I've seen some HD scenes from cdgirls and although they are indeed bigger and higher res. I can't say I was all THAT much impressed. Higher res/bitrate itself doesn't improve the actual content. I understand HDTV is bigger in the USA, it's pretty much just hype over here in the Netherlands (we have PAL already ;-). Cost of both recording and viewing equipment are a bit prohibitive at the moment I think.

-Frans

[WesHet]

Thanks for responding.

That's about 6100 kbit/sec, bit overkill ain't it?

I agree it's a bunch but not overkill.

At what resolution do you want to view those vids anyway?

1280 x 720

It would generate a LOT more traffic, which costs money and it's unlikely to activly attract enough new customers to compensate.

I disagree here. The AW content is really the best there is. It's a shame to have such excellent content packaged in mediocre resolution. I would be willing to pay 3-4x what I pay now (which is REALLY cheap by comparison) and would be bet there are others as well. It could be a different section like AWHD and doesn't have to feature all videos. Maybe just some selected ones. I don't know with what they record. Getting the right equipment would be a hefty investment, and I understand that. Maybe, for starters, simply using the full recording resolution and not braking it down?

Not everybody has ADSL2+ or FiberToTheHome yet, for that matter AW still has dial-up customers

Dial-up? The horror. But fast broadband is coming. I know at least a dozen people with speeds beyond 16Mbit at home and quite a few more with 6Mbit. The section would pay for itself (plus a margin of profit for AW of course).

I can't say I was all THAT much impressed. Higher res/bitrate itself doesn't improve the actual content.

My friend, look at wmvhd.com. Go to the WMV HD Showcase. I find the resolution makes the content even better.

we have PAL already ;-

You must be joking. NTSC is bad but PAL is just marginally better. NTSC is the early medieval age, PAL the late.

[Vid Dude]

One day, maybe. But not yet.

[alleyes1]

If I might ask 3 guys who would know the answer to this question. I live in the States and believe it or not, i've been living in the stone age regarding television. (I'm not much into t.v.) I have never gotten a DVD player except in my computer. Anyway, i"ve heard that there are two different competing formats for high definition dvd, and i was wondering if anyone knows which one will win out and what I should buy. Also, if i go ahead and by a regular dvd player now, will the new format dvd players be able to read the present format dvd"s?

Thanks,
Alleyes

[Luxman]

There are actually 2 standards fighting to get the best marketshare: Blu-Ray Disc and HD-DVD.

Blu-Ray is developped by a consortium under the leadership of Sony, HD-DVD under the leadership of Toshiba.

Both systems use a short wavelength blue laser beam.
The main difference is the capacity: 15 GB per layer for HD-DVD and 25 GB per layer for Blu-Ray.

There's also a difference in the copy protection capability of both systems.

Good news: Both systems are backward compatible with the actual DVD standard.

I'm not a fortuneteller, so I'm not able to tell you which system will finally win.
In my eyes it's sad that we consumers are bothered with two, basically incompatible systems by the industry who is unable to find one world wide standard for everyone like it was the case with DVD and Digital Video (DV).

I think, later we will get drives that are able to read (and write) all the standards, DVD, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

I would suggest to buy a standard DVD player (very cheap) today and wait a bit to see what's coming up on the High Definition front.

Lxm

[alleyes1]

Thanks for the info, Luxman. Ironically, one of the reasons i told myself for not upgrading to DVD was that I had taped a lot of Star Trek on VHS and didn't know that they would release all the seasons on DVD.

It's interesting, I remember well the first CD I ever bought was a Glen Miller CD where they put his songs on CD and the title was, "In The Digital Mood". I still have it and still love his music.

I'll go ahead and get a regular DVD player and let the chips fall where they may!

ae

[valerie]

I shudder to think of the cost of that bandwidth Abby'd be paying for...I read WesHat's original post to Mr Val and he said if this were to happen, it'd have to be a special sub, at a much higher cost, so you'd have to have decided you wanted this at time of purchase. Think of how much longer those vids would take to process on the AW end... **Val's head spins**

Interesting idea though! Are there other sites out there (adult or not) that offer this sort of quality/size?

[Vid Dude]

I'll go ahead and get a regular DVD player and let the chips fall where they may!

Absolutely the best idea. HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray or whatever) will not be the hit these companies are anticipating. Not only will the competing formats dilute the results, but people will stay away until it's sorted out.

Plus, most people do not want to buy all their movies again in a new format that they need additional expensive equipment to see the minimal difference with.

It will be many years before HD becomes the new standard, and by then an even better format will have been created, one with wider compatability and cheaper equipment.

[BigSpud]

I shudder to think of the cost of that bandwidth Abby'd be paying for...I read WesHat's original post to Mr Val and he said if this were to happen, it'd have to be a special sub, at a much higher cost, so you'd have to have decided you wanted this at time of purchase. Think of how much longer those vids would take to process on the AW end... **Val's head spins**

Interesting idea though! Are there other sites out there (adult or not) that offer this sort of quality/size?

Lactation-fantasy.com offers vids in 2 quality settings. Their HD is 1280x720 and the quality is definitely better. My computer isn't fast enough to play them, but I did try one on another computer and the video was superb. File size difference: SD 81MB HD 113MB for identical content. I am not a big video fan, but could become one at HD resolution.

Spud

[Black13]

Hey, kittycats. Just thought I'd jump in to provide some interesting info I've come across.

First, alleyes1, not sure if you were aware, but as of this year every season of every series in the Star Trek universe is available on DVD. Something like 250-280+ discs of content. I've even seen places selling the whole collection, including all 10 movies for around $2,600. I'll just continue to buy the seasons one at a time, thank you very much.

And Vid Dude, you're right about there being another broadcast standard being developed. It's called UHDV. The U of course for Ultra. The difference is staggering. HDTV resolution: 1920x1080, about 2 million pixels. UHDV: 7680x4320, with 32 million pixels. Around 16 times the resolution. I've heard this is at least 15-20 years away. I disagree with you on the minimal difference between NTSC vs HDTV, however. I've had the opportunity to see quite a lot of content in HD, both from video and film sources. There can be serious improvements in areas such as the texture of fabrics, color purity and difference between subtle shades. In the best examples, there is a definite sense that you could almost reach out and touch the image. You are also right that it will be a slow transition to HD, though. Even without a format war, people will have to want to pay for the improved resolution. And right now, with initial costs high for the equipment and little software to play on it, most of us would be best off waiting at least a year to see where things stand when we have more options.

A link to the UHDV article (from 2004) can be found here.

[Luxman]

It's called UHDV. The U of course for Ultra. The difference is staggering. HDTV resolution: 1920x1080, about 2 million pixels. UHDV: 7680x4320, with 32 million pixels. Around 16 times the resolution.

Yes, it's being developped by Japanese TV NHK.
An 18 minutes uncompressed video takes 3,5 TeraBytes.

I suggest the use of an appropriate storage device for this.

That's absolute overkill for me, they are crazy.

Lxm

[Black13]

I dunno, Luxman. Apple seems to have the answer. $5,999 for 36 seconds of video. Sounds reasonable. With about 20 of them you could store a UHDV IM on them. What would that be, about $120,000. But then we'll need a display device. Any suggestions?

[Luxman]

Oh no, it's much cheaper: the 7 TB (14 drives) version only is $12'999 and could store 72 minutes of uncompressed UHDV.

To be precise, for storage the stream will be compressed (MPEG-4) and actually 1 minute of compressed UHDV takes only 6 GB of storage space.
Good news for dial-up users.

Lxm

[BigSpud]

Comparisons of HD and SD can be found here at Lactation-Fantasy along with a discussion of the differences.

I personally love HiDef TV and found myself watching it regardless of the content. I have always been a high def person. When the PC first came out with color and people were flocking to it, I said "trash". I will wait for a decent image. I waited a few more years till the PS/2 monitors came out and we started to see decent definition.

.02 from da Spud.

[Frans]

Comparisons of HD and SD can be found here at Lactation-Fantasy along with a discussion of the differences.

Watched it, also watched the non-HD vs. HD demo movies from cdgirls (although those two movies differ in content making comparing rather hard;-). Aaanway what I noticed is that the girl's skin looks worse on the HD movies. I heard that explained from a BBC HiDef Exec as the make-up needs to be adjusted for HD as well. As a matter of fact all fake stuff needs adjusting for hi-def... which would make it easier for AW 'cos there's less fake stuff on there to begin with

-Frans

[Vid Dude]

I couldn't even play the HD one, it was too much bandwidth for my averagely powerful computer. That's a good reason for me to continue my wariness on this new level of "quality". The last thing I want to have to deal with is thousands of people emailing me asking why the videos are all stuttery and jerky.

[Diablo]

Absolutely the best idea. HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray or whatever) will not be the hit these companies are anticipating. Not only will the competing formats dilute the results, but people will stay away until it's sorted out.

Allegedly, one of the reasons why the entertainment industry is pushing to have these HD formats become the new standards, is because the CSS copy-protection scheme used in DVD video has long since been reverse-engineered by third parties; they simply might be wanting to thrust stronger restriction mechanisms on consumers. Already, there's been speculation with the FCC failed "Broadcast Flag" legislation, and confusion over new copy-protection systems like HDCP.

WesHet: Perhaps a good idea might be to search these forums for Vid Dude's past responses to members requesting increases to video definition. You'll probably understand better why he's reluctant to increase the size as it is, right now.

As for me... I'm happy enough with plain old PAL, as it is, right now. Does the job for me, and my eyes aren't begging for anything more. Remember that resolution isn't everything; don't forget things like dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio, which often sometimes get compromised in digital video formats, just to satisfy the "more resolution is better" crowd.

[Black13]

Luxman, I realized at work this morning that I had misinterpreted your comment about "18 minutes of uncompressed video" as 18 seconds. This threw my calculations totally out of whack. I must note, though, that I never said I was a Math major. Mine was Englisch.

Diablo, I am a believer in the idea that it's hard to miss something you've never had. Translated to this topic, as long as you see little to no HD, you may never develop a craving for it. Too late for me. I've had a 65" HD set for three years now and I'm dying for some prerecorded content. I expect I'll make the plunge with one of these formats by the end of this year. While on a forum at a Blu-ray site, one poster suggested that the quickest way to get this format war over with is to vote for one with your wallet. If all of us sit on the sidelines, the stalemate could last indefinitely. At least one company, LG, has tentative plans to introduce a player that supports both formats.

My vote will likely go with Blu-ray disc. More studio support, more manufacturer support, larger storage space.