|
|
Posted by Sven Hesse on 10/09/06 11:43
Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> By "original content" you mean what you see when you watch directly from
>> YouTube via the flashplayer? If so, then "the quality can be adjusted
>> higher" is just plain bullshit. When you capture the screen, you'll get
>> images of an already (lossy) compressed video, (lossy-)compressing them
>> again when returning these to a video will _never_ increase the quality,
>> quite the contrary, it will reduce it severly...
>> For me, as a "quality fetishist", it's downright not acceptable...
>>
>
> True, but I am at least capturing that quality with a better bit rate so
> nothing is missed from what is provided.
>
> Your wrong about the flash player though because the flash player is similar
> to any other player. I have learned to make a flash player call in various
> movies like .mov, .mpg, .avi, etc. Each time you click on the movie at
> youtube the flash player is calling in the originally uploaded movie file.
> You may have room to compare the quality of different movie players not the
> original content that is called into it.
No, what I mean was that the video you see on your end _is_ already
lossy compressed (with a H.263 variant, according to Wikipedia's entry
of FLV), capturing it and compressing it again will definitely reduce
the quality. The quality _will be_ inferior to the straightly-downloaded
FLV (which in turn itself is inferior to the original content the flash
accesses quality-wise)...
>> Asking/Advertising how to download videos from YouTube still isn't
>> relavent in these groups, IMHO. There's probably a
>> alt.comp.internet.culture or something like that, there it would be more
>> appropriate...
>>
>
> Can you give an example of something that is close to being appropriate and
> another that is definately appropriate and then type out the standard we
> shall use to determine this, while showing where my actions are in relation
> to the criteria? This standard cannot contradict itself in order for me to
> agree to what your saying.
Well, it /is/ kind of fuzzy, but IMHO your original message doesn't
fit... Maybe it's just me, but in my eyes, say, a review of a concert
would be more appropriate in the respectiv group...
And as I see it, crossposting in so many groups is a big "no no", per
se...
>> [...] you can get music videos
>> far more easier and with higher quality from nearly everywhere (from one
>> of the thousands of P2P-networks, for example).
>>
>
> I have more than a thousand videos from those P2P networks but have found
> videos in one search on YouTube that I haven't been able to find search
> since the original Napster and all her bastard children. P2P is still great
> but YouTube is more diverse and has more.
YMMV, but I made the experience that on P2P-networks, the quality
of the available videos are really higher, something quite important to
me...
>> It's just that a real name gives you more credibility, since you're less
>> likely to flame or troll away when you're not called "L33THAXORZ" or
>> something...
>
> I believe that the most important thing is the worth of the argument and how
> well it is argued.
It of is, but imagine you see someone posting for the first time,
writing a lengthy text. Would you rather read it if it where
a) written by someone named "L33THAXORZ" with lots of "u" instead of
"you" and the like
or
b) written by someone named "Daniel Smith", written in clean English
?
Also, your real name bears some responsibility to post clear, troll-free
messages, while you can always change a pseudonym without much strain...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|