- Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units full#
- Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units Pc#
- Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units mac#
- Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units windows#
In the modern era, this rate could be comfortably be carried by full-rate ADSL1 / T1 services and most 3G/HSPA services (and faster).Īs a result, I thought it would be good to see just what 1.2Mbit/s could deliver in terms of video quality, as many things have changed since the early 1990s. 66x, 533x, etc) and was approximately the same data rate as used by Video CD standards (although it opted for Mode 2 Form 2 which allowed a little more bitrate at the cost of error correction capability). This data rate nomenclature also persisted into Flash memory cards which often denoted their speed in “x” (e.g. However, because many multimedia titles were expected to be used on whatever hardware was available to the end user, many of them targeted the “lowest-common-denominator”, so the rate of 150KB/s became significant. Later specifications increased requirements to 2x (300KB/s) and 4x (600KB/s).
Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units Pc#
When referring to data, the rate of 1X corresponds to 150KB/s of data. It is this rate which corresponds to 1.2Mbit/s (more-or-less) and was standardised as the minimum speed requirement for compliance to the Multimedia PC Level 1 specifications (also known as MPC).
Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units full#
This unit of measurement is most easily related to the audio play-time of an Audio CD – when played at 1X, a full 74-minute disc will take 74-minutes to read. In those early days, the first CD-ROM drives operated at “one speed”, denoted as 1X. Users may have experienced keeping discs in caddies and swapping them in and out as needed.
Because of the vast storage offered by these discs, sometimes you would find network servers consisting of libraries of CD-ROMs for the shared use of patrons in libraries and businesses. The CD-ROM was pivotal to delivering a multimedia experience as it could hold 650+MB of data in a relatively inexpensive medium. While this was not “broadcast-quality”, some of these algorithms reached surprisingly good levels of quality by the mid-late 1990s, especially with the popularisation of Intel Pentium-grade CPUs and the MMX instruction set. As a result, the use of compression was necessary to bring video to computers.Įarly compression algorithms were necessarily relatively simple owing to the limited computing power and memory available, thus many early attempts at multimedia video were relatively small clips (320 x 240 or below) with frame rates usually at 15fps or thereabouts. Likewise, the gold-standard for video quality would have been standard-definition broadcast which would have 625-lines of resolution and would have required data rates then impossible to achieve with commodity consumer-grade equipment. Hard drives were often in the tens to hundreds of megabytes at the most. In the early 90s when digital video on computers began, storage was nowhere near as plentiful as it is today. So I decided I should do a simple, quasi-scientific experiment accompanied by a blog post so as to remember where digital video on a PC started. But I did have first-hand experience with PCs and Macs of the era … and I know for a fact we have come a long way.
Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units mac#
Amiga users may have had a “jump” on PC and Mac users in this regard, but they weren’t really popular around here, so I never had any first-hand experience with them. Back then, we were satisfied with the novelty of just being able to see moving images on our computers.
Tmpgenc 6 change bitrate units windows#
To be fair, this isn’t an issue restricted to just YouTube – the economics of video delivery are constrained by processing, bandwidth and storage considerations.īut this got me thinking – it got me thinking all the way back to when digital video first came to mainstream PCs in the form of Video for Windows or QuickTime. Just the other day while watching a YouTube video, I found myself annoyed at the smeary appearance of bitrate-constrained streaming.
0 kommentar(er)
