Stop The Press, Who's She?

[hessiess]

QUOTE
The quality of the video depends mostly on the camera. I don't think it matters that much what site it's on.

... and the codec its recording in, and the number of times it has been re-encoded using lossy formats, and Werther it has been up sampled/ down sampled , and if it has been de interlaced or not.

the pandoras screen is 800*480, youtube is 320*240, or 480*360 in high quality mode. The number of pixels representing the screen is less than the total number of pixels in the video, 276*164 in the frame I grabbed from the video.

800 / 276 = 2.898
480 / 164 = 2.926
2.898 * 2.926 = 8.473~

eatch pixel in that frame of the video represents approximately 8.473 pixles on the Pandoras screen. Because of this, and the lossy compresion it is imposable to gauge how good the screen is. You would neet at lest 720P HD to capture every pixel on the screen, becouse the screen is 800 pixles wide, but PAL is only 720.

Also this video mackes the screens colour balance and gamma look way off. This is almost certainly being caused by the camera overexposing the video.

Im not that good at maths, if i made a mistake in the calculations please tell me .

 

[craigix]

Ed will have the closest thing to a real, final Pandora in Aug and will make some high res video then.

 

[waffles]

WOO ED!

 

[plopperz]

QUOTE
The quality of the video depends mostly on the camera. I don't think it matters that much what site it's on.

... and the codec its recording in, and the number of times it has been re-encoded using lossy formats, and Werther it has been up sampled/ down sampled , and if it has been de interlaced or not.

the pandoras screen is 800*480, youtube is 320*240, or 480*360 in high quality mode. The number of pixels representing the screen is less than the total number of pixels in the video, 276*164 in the frame I grabbed from the video.

800 / 276 = 2.898
480 / 164 = 2.926
2.898 * 2.926 = 8.473~

eatch pixel in that frame of the video represents approximately 8.473 pixles on the Pandoras screen. Because of this, and the lossy compresion it is imposable to gauge how good the screen is. You would neet at lest 720P HD to capture every pixel on the screen, becouse the screen is 800 pixles wide, but PAL is only 720.

Also this video mackes the screens colour balance and gamma look way off. This is almost certainly being caused by the camera overexposing the video.

Im not that good at maths, if i made a mistake in the calculations please tell me .

I only understood about 3 lines of that
But I get your point.
Isn't the point of the videos to show the software on the Pandora, rather than the screen?
I mean, I'm sure there's been a picture of the screen bigger than 800x480 posted somewhere along the line.

I have a feeling August is going to be a good month for us . I'm curious to see the new analogs and layout.

 

[God Ginrai]

QUOTE
The quality of the video depends mostly on the camera. I don't think it matters that much what site it's on.

... and the codec its recording in, and the number of times it has been re-encoded using lossy formats, and Werther it has been up sampled/ down sampled , and if it has been de interlaced or not.

the pandoras screen is 800*480, youtube is 320*240, or 480*360 in high quality mode. The number of pixels representing the screen is less than the total number of pixels in the video, 276*164 in the frame I grabbed from the video.

800 / 276 = 2.898
480 / 164 = 2.926
2.898 * 2.926 = 8.473~

eatch pixel in that frame of the video represents approximately 8.473 pixles on the Pandoras screen. Because of this, and the lossy compresion it is imposable to gauge how good the screen is. You would neet at lest 720P HD to capture every pixel on the screen, becouse the screen is 800 pixles wide, but PAL is only 720.

Also this video mackes the screens colour balance and gamma look way off. This is almost certainly being caused by the camera overexposing the video.

Im not that good at maths, if i made a mistake in the calculations please tell me .

Well, if everyone is willing to install the DivX Web player, then I could host high quality vids on my googlepages account (I'm pretty sure) as long as the devs send me their vids.

EDIT: I'm not sure, but they might have to send the vids in .divx files. I'll look into it.

-God Ginrai

 

[Chip]

The absolute easiest way to distribute high quality videos (or any file under 100MB) is drop.io. It's like imagshack for files.

 

[CyruzDraxs]

Youtube has a high-quality option now, does it not?
The quality of the video depends mostly on the camera. I don't think it matters that much what site it's on.

Youtube's max resolution in 'high quality' mode is 480 x 386 and 320 x 240 on standard quality mode. Vimeo has a max resolution of 1280 x 720. It also has better encoding filters. I made an H264 clip that I had pre-omptimized for youtube's limitations and uploaded it to both sites--it looked better on Vimeo because Youtube reencoded it for no reason, while Vimeo didn't because it could see that it didn't exceed their streaming specs.

A year ago I would've recommended Stage6, but sadly; they're gone now.

 

[God Ginrai]

A year ago I would've recommended Stage6, but sadly; they're gone now.

Yes, sadly. Although that was my point, you can still use the DivX web player, so we could upload the files to a site and use the DivX web player to view them.

-God Ginrai

 

[hessiess]

QUOTE
Isn't the point of the videos to show the software on the Pandora, rather than the screen?



in this instance, no.

QUOTE
As requested a compilation of some arcade games running on the Pandora hardware (sorry no case available right now) showing how blur free and fast the LCD is.


On ubuntu you can play pritymuch any video format in firefox because of the totem move player plug-in, but depending on the video's bit rate, codec and your connection speed it may not play real-time. I suspect it can play divX.

Personally I like Vimeo, because it can stream HD at a reasonable bitrate and most people will be able to view it. i.e.http://www.vimeo.com/1241380