| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
DpornGuy (Suspended)
|
hi def is usually pretty wide and big. crystal clear. and usually a file size to match that...lol...
|
10-20-07 10:49am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
asmith12 (0)
|
Actually it's about feeling, but bitrate is IMO the next closest thing (provided that you're comparing files of the same type; old .MOV files can look horrible in rather high bitrates).
|
10-20-07 02:20pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
SnowDude (0)
|
Some sites do screw you over with the screen size resolution, but I usually go by the bitrate in my reviews.
|
10-20-07 07:07pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
kkman112 (0)
|
I choose "Other" because there are a few properties that are required to make a video HD. Today there are only a few codecs that are capable of true-to-the-standard HD. I will typically accept DivX/XVid, WMV (Windows Media Video), MP4 (MPEG-4), OGG Theora (open-sourced MPEG-4), and MOV (Apple Quicktime), and any other codecs that are H.264 compatible. I listed the codecs that are used most often and must meet certain criteria:
The video dimensions must be the right size: 1280 x 720 or higher.
With current compression methods, HD video is usually between 900 kb/s - 2mb/s bitrate depending on the codec and overall quality. 900kb/s will usually give you about a DVD-quality picture (with larger dimensions than a DVD) which is fine for my requirements.
Even that is a conservative estimate because beyond the video's dimensions, I accept a video as HD even if it does not precisely meet the written standards for HD in broadcasting.
|
10-20-07 08:32pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Play Toes (0)
|
There is no secret about it, if you have a "stamp-looking" vid, do not bother trying to see it full screen, you often will see less than in original size.
Having a good scenario, georgous models is not enough nowadays to have a good vid.
Technology now is available, why webmasters of some (too many) sites continue to feed us with poor frustrating quality only? are they lazy? or do they think we are stupid?
|
10-21-07 12:38am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Denner (0)
|
hi-def is both playback dimensions and quality in general.
But like the SnowDude says - you can't always trust the sites when they state: Videos in Hi-Def - the screen size resolution might be a bummer....
|
10-21-07 07:22am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
User (0)
|
I use the Bitrate and the Frame Dimensions both. You can sometime get high Bitrate with small FD and the quality is just so-so. THe same came be reversed.
I look at overall quality of the video and usually it is a good combination of both.
|
10-21-07 08:01am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
pat362 (0)
|
I'm with SnowDude and Denner on this one. Some sites will claim something but in reality it's not true.
|
10-21-07 09:21am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
DivBZero (Suspended)
|
This is clearly a set of combinational factors.
i) Screen Resolution
ii) Frame rate
iii) Video codec
iv) Compression applied
These are combined with the CPU and graphics capabilities of the viewing system.
The only way to really tell is to try the video, samples are of course helpful.
Cheers DivBZero
|
10-21-07 12:51pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
I say a mix between bitrate and playback dimensions.
|
10-28-07 02:55pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Toadsith (0)
|
Generally, screen resolution and bit rate are enough to judge. The issue is the amount of compression they used - if you start seeing blocks showing up during high-speed motion, they have compressed it too much and I wouldn't classify that as HD.
I find that DVD quality is equal to about 1.5GB of data for 1 hour of video, HD I would say you are looking at 1GB for 25min of video.
Roughly speaking - the visual complexity of the content can vary this quite a bit.
|
12-10-07 12:29pm
Reply To Message
|
