Convert H264 4:2:2 ts video to 4:2:0 with no quality loss

[Cornucopia]

Touche. Though I wasn't assuming he needed REAL lossless.

Scott

[newpball]

TV's not supporting 4:2:2?

The irony, as all 1.x HDMI cannot even carry 4:2:0!

I suppose it is lucky that the TV does not support 4:2:2 otherwise the only reason you had to degrade the quality was because your editor of choice could not handle it.

[usually_quiet]

Never mind. I misunderstood what kind of lossless video was going to be imported.

[jman98]

jman98, after all the lectures you gave me about fungus boy, I'm surprised that you are not already ignoring newpball.

I was going to send you a PM on this, but you don't allow PMs, so perhaps it's just as well and a public discussion would be interesting.

At first, newpball seemed to me to be sincerely interested in joining the community and helping people. While some of his comments are not correct, namely that 1080 video can't be progressive (I have no idea if he ever came around on that one or not), I did feel that he wasn't a troll and was trying to help. But recently he's pretty much been in full dick mode on a lot of stuff if not everything. The desire to help is clearly gone in this thread. It's all about being a dick all the time now. You have a point and maybe we should just ignore everything he says. I suppose I can start.

[newpball]

1080 video can't be progressive (I have no idea if he ever came around on that one or not)....

Blu-ray standard only allows 1080/24p but it disallows 1080/30p, only 1080/30i is allowed. My position was that there was no technical reason to disallow 1080/30p as the required bandwidth is exactly the same as the interlaced version. And that still stands.

[usually_quiet]

I was going to send you a PM on this, but you don't allow PMs, so perhaps it's just as well and a public discussion would be interesting.

Yes. I got more PMs from people who wanted to avoid the inconvenience of using the forum and waiting to get their questions answered, and from shady retailers who wanted me to shill for them than from those with legitimate reasons for contacting me.

At first, newpball seemed to me to be sincerely interested in joining the community and helping people. While some of his comments are not correct, namely that 1080 video can't be progressive (I have no idea if he ever came around on that one or not), I did feel that he wasn't a troll and was trying to help. But recently he's pretty much been in full dick mode on a lot of stuff if not everything. The desire to help is clearly gone in this thread. It's all about being a dick all the time now. You have a point and maybe we should just ignore everything he says. I suppose I can start.

I'm beginning to think of newpball as sanlyn's polar opposite evil twin.

[Cornucopia]

1080 video can't be progressive (I have no idea if he ever came around on that one or not)....

Blu-ray standard only allows 1080/24p but it disallows 1080/30p, only 1080/30i is allowed. My position was that there was no technical reason to disallow 1080/30p as the required bandwidth is exactly the same as the interlaced version. And that still stands.

There's also no technical reason to disallow 1080p15, or VCD's 352x240p29.97, etc. for that matter. The reason(s) those were disallowed were not technical, but marketing focus, economic, legal/licensing, and logistical.

Blu-ray as a standard was designed to showcase playback of HD consumer media (with the most common legacy SD media thrown in for compatibility-sake). It was designed in ~2003-2005, at a time when the only HD consumer media would either be from 2k 24p film transfers (Hollywood) or from edited footage from pro/pro-sumer/semi-pro HD video cameras (which only did 720p or 1080i). Consumer-level HD camcorders hadn't really gotten off the ground yet, and DSLR video & Tablet/Phone cams either didn't exist yet or only had "VGA"-level resolution (usually 640x480p30). Why would Blu-ray create a standard of support for some HD format that had no user-base? Blu-ray used what was current AT THE TIME.

Times change. Standards can sometimes change, but only when there is a compelling reason (they would almost NEVER REMOVE support, but adding support to newer & important formats makes sense). They added 3D, they'll be adding 4k/UHD. But as I already explained to you earlier, they don't even need to add 1080p30, because PsF enclosed in 30i is already accommodated without having to change anything.

Scott

[newpball]

It was designed in ~2003-2005, at a time when the only HD consumer media would either be from 2k 24p film transfers (Hollywood) or from edited footage from pro/pro-sumer/semi-pro HD video cameras (which only did 720p or 1080i).

I know, they could have never guessed someone came up with something so incredibly out of sight like having 1080/30p.

When you make a standard you are supposed to look a little bit to the future as well.

I suppose you are already working on a defense for the incredible train wreck mess called 4K?

[newpball]

they would almost NEVER REMOVE support

That's another problem, it perpetuates unnecessary overhead and maintenance cost.

I think depreciation and obsolescence is great as it forces people to upgrade otherwise some will never do!

It just seems we have a fundamental difference of philosophy about progress.

[Cornucopia]

I don't know of ANYONE who had a crystal ball that could accurately forecast what enormous change has occurred in the last decade. But why go to the effort to officially cover something that is already "technically" covered? Plus, wouldn't you say 1080p30 is a step backward? Sure looks worse, motion-wise, compared to 30i or 60p, and doesn't really give the impression of sharper video (compared to 1080i30).

re: 4k
I have to ask: why are you, who has already touted the benefits of only the latest & greatest (including 4k), be backpeddling on it? Are you changing your mind? It hasn't taken off yet, but neither was it expected to this early (by anyone who understood the business). Doesn't mean it's an "incredible train wreck". Sounds to me rather your arguments are becoming more and more incredible train wrecks.

**************

Yes, we DO have a fundamental difference - I would never push someone to adopt what they may not be economically or culturally ready for just in the name of my idea of "progress".

Scott

[hello_hello]

TV's not supporting 4:2:2?

The irony, as all 1.x HDMI cannot even carry 4:2:0!

Wow, you've even managed to illustrate your inability to distinguish between decoding a format and accepting a format over HDMI with a ridiculous picture.

1080 video can't be progressive (I have no idea if he ever came around on that one or not)....

Blu-ray standard only allows 1080/24p but it disallows 1080/30p, only 1080/30i is allowed. My position was that there was no technical reason to disallow 1080/30p as the required bandwidth is exactly the same as the interlaced version. And that still stands.

What's the need for 1080/30p anyway, given Bluray has a 1080/24p film mode? I can't see any advantage to having a 1080/30p mode unless you're using a TV that doesn't support "film" mode, but given your numerous rants about old technology I doubt you'd require a mode that's simply there for backwards compatibility with NTSC. Even if there is advantage to 1080p/30 (maybe reducing flicker?) once again where was the 1080/30p content ten years ago?

Last time you waffled on about 1080/30p I pointed out using fake interlaced for the x264 encoder allows you to encode 1080/30p video for Bluray, and while no doubt you didn't read it due to the depth at which your head was buried in the sand, I also pointed out that every USB capable Bluray player I've tested will happily play 1080/30p via MKV because they mostly all support High Profile, Level 4.1 and that includes 1080/30p. I have no idea if they'd refuse to play the same video in Bluray format because I've no particular interest in testing a ten year old format I'm never going to use, but I'd be willing to bet most would. I asked you how many players you've tested to confirm they won't, or whether you're just waffling on about an official spec that may have little relevance in the real world, but you were well into ostrich mode by then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video
High-definition video may be stored on BD-ROMs with up to 1920×1080 pixel resolution at up to 60 (59.94) fields per second. Officially, progressive scan video can go up to 1920×1080 pixel resolution at 24 frames per second, or up to 59.94 frames per second at a resolution of 1280×720 pixels. Many current Blu-ray players and recorders can read and write 1920×1080 video at the full 60p and 50p progressive format.

I know, they could have never guessed someone came up with something so incredibly out of sight like having 1080/30p.
When you make a standard you are supposed to look a little bit to the future as well.

You've got to admit it's fairly ironic, and therefore somewhat funny, that most of the world, including the manufacturers of Bluray players, have moved on from the original standard due to demand/need, yet you haven't managed to do the same.

[hello_hello]

I suppose you are already working on a defense for the incredible train wreck mess called 4K?

That certainly sounds like it'll be a lot of fun. I can't wait for you to expand on that one.