Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » The Turbo List » turbo-digest digest, Volume 09, Issue 96
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
turbo-digest digest, Volume 09, Issue 96 [message #4575] Fri, 27 July 2012 01:18
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by:
=======================================================================
In this issue:
	Re: Strange Things
	Resolution and disk space

=======================================================================
From: AzelUpAbove@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr  9 07:35:10 EDT 2003
Subject: Re: Strange Things


In a message dated 4/8/03 10:45:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gralo@touchtunes.com writes:

 >  I just wanted to point out there is no direct correlation between =
 >   resolution
 >   and disc space. Disc usage is usually regulated by texture size, and =

Well, I make the statement of HD-resolutions needing more disc space 
predicated on the fact that electronics manufacturers are busy crafting new 
DVD technologies using Blue-rays and higher density discs specifically for 
HD-DVD movies (I will admit that my area of expertise, so to speak, lies in 
Home Theater rather than actual computer graphics.) I believe there are 3 
different formats currently in development. 

Widescreen magazine went so far as to compare the new formats in development 
along with the current DVD format, Video CD as well as D-VHS (currently the 
only format where you can buy pre-recorded HD movies.) They compared the 
amount of storage on each format where the new HD-DVDs and D-VHS went up to 
as much as 50 gigabytes while current DVD maxes out at 9. When they compare 
amount of HD recording time on each format current DVD was listed as "not 
practical" while HD-DVD and D-VHS featured up to 4 hours of HD video. 

So I'm lead to believe that there is a direct correlation between HD 
resolution and storage space.

Thanx for enduring my rantings

Dustin (AKA:Yuushi)



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AzelUpAbove@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr  9 10:07:36 EDT 2003
Subject: Resolution and disk space


I agree with Dustin...  I am quite the home theater buff myself as well as
an active member in the MPEG2 (DVD) manufacturing industry and I can tell
you that resolution certainly has an impact on storage space.  Typical movie
rates run somewhere between 4500kbps to 8000kbps and that is for normal
DVDs.  The new HD DVDs will require almost double that assuming that they
are going to be recorded around 1080i or 720p.  Data needs to be stored for
each line of resolution.  I'm not certain if that rule applies to video
games though since it is often times the video chipsets responsibility to
render the resolutions but I would think that the laws of engineering would
still apply.  Higher resolutions means more data to process and thus more
space required.  I don't have Dragon's Lair for my Xbox so I can't tell one
way or another if the game was programmed in 1080 and then it scales down
the video for lower resolutions or vice versa.  It's possible that the game
was written natively in 480p and then using some sort of software based line
doubling and anti-aliasing to blend it all together providing the appearance
of 1080.  I suppose only the developers know how this was done.  As far as
movies go, better resolution = more space required.  

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: AzelUpAbove@aol.com [mailto:AzelUpAbove@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:35 AM
To: turbo-list@joyce.eng.yale.edu


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: turbo-digest digest, Volume 09, Issue 95
Next Topic: turbo-digest digest, Volume 09, Issue 101
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Jul 05 23:55:38 EDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.41322 seconds