|
Posted by Graham on 10/12/13 11:43
"Tricky Dicky" <tricky@nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:48kklnFkjtveU1@individual.net...
> > Tricky Dicky wrote:
> > > I have to see this thing myself. If I manage to get hold of it I will
> > > stick it in the PC and look at the structure and files sizes
> >>
> > > The DVD player is a quite old Sony so the chances of it being dual
> > > layer are very remote. He says there is nothing on the machine or in
> > > the instruction manual mentioning DivX.
> >>
> > > I smell compression and therefore shite quality and my mate just
> > > seeing DVD as VHS but with flat shiny things ...
> >>
> >
> > I bet your friend is lining you up for something. His next line is going
> > to be "I'll drop it round next Saturday" ...which just happens to be
> > April 1st.
> >
> > Then it'll likely turn out to be that ASCII text version of Star Wars.
> >
> > ...Sorry if that does turn out to be his plan because I think it's kinda
> > funny. :))
>
> Trust me, I love my friend dearly but that kind of stunt is way out of his
> league - think more of a turd in your freezer and that will be his level
> :-)
>
I've been thinking about this.
6 films at 2 hours per film is 12 hours (and the films are /at least/ 2
hours long) total.
Thats 720 minutes.
My rough calculations show that even if the sound is in Mono and encoded at
the very low bitrate of about 128kbps then that would leave a bitrate of
about 670-700kbps for the Video.
Now even if the resolution was dropped to 352x288 (if they are in PAL
format, which I guess they are) that is still going to look pretty awfull
(bearing in mind that VCD bitrate is 1150kbps and even they look barely
acceptable (depending on source material))
Conclusion: Either they are in DivX format or he is blind.
:-)
Cheers!
--
Graham
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|