On 2016-02-01 17:58:26 -0900, GeoffE <GeoffEdwards@starcadetv.tv> said:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:04:58 -0900, Griff wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-01 14:34:07 -0900, PeggLeg <reply@here.net> said:
>>
>>> That's true...as long as the only factor that you take into
>>> consideration is screen size and how it looks on it. I really have no
>>> idea how much hassle SNS has doing these things, but I love the ones
>>> that have been posted so far. If I want an increase in definition or
>>> some other change, I'll buy the vids in Blu-Ray, if available. Whatever
>>> SNS feels comfortable doing is fine with me. It is, as people are fond
>>> of saying, the posters choice, as it should be.
>>> GeoffE not too many people have 50" TVs in their kitchens. Who'd want
>>> one? I can watch these on a small screen and get just as hungry as I
>>> get watching them on a large screen. And the instructional value seems
>>> the same as well.
>>> But it is, in the end, SNS who will decide. I think they are doing a
>>> great job now.
>>>
>>> PeggLeg
>>>
>>> In article <u1evab9hboi3f1iinqrr9bluq1fg2pf04r@4ax.com>, GeoffE
>>> <GeoffEdwards@starcadetv.tv> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Never stated had a 50" TV in my kitchen. In fact i have no TV in my
>>>> kicthen. I watch all these shows on my only TV set which is 50".
>>>> BTW the higher bitrate and 1080p it also looks noticeable better on
>>>> my 10.1 tablet [Samsung Galaxy Note 2014] but I digress...
>>>>
>>>> It's 2016 bitrates should be geard for HiDef, and in 2015 the median
>>>> TV size sold in the united states was 50". Low bit rate and 720 will
>>>> ensure these shows will only look worse are tech advances. An extra
>>>> 300-400MB to make sure they look ats good as possible given the point
>>>> in history we now live is less than peanuts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 19:09:40 -0800, PeggLeg <reply@here.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While my input was neither asked for nor is it wanted (I'm sure!), I
>>>>> will have to agree with KtchnBtch on this. I've been in more than a few
>>>>> kitchens and not a single one has a 50" TV in them. My Neice, for
>>>>> example, has one of those that you mount under the shelves and it has
>>>>> about a 10" screen on it ( that folds away up inside it for
>>>>> compactness.) To help her cook something, I.m sure that it's great.
>>>>> 1080X1920 would be silly for her. We should also take into
>>>>> consideration StutorNSs part in this. This person is taking their time
>>>>> to encode and post these vids and this is going to eat up their
>>>>> bandwidth and megs/gigs as well. If 720X1280 is better for them, I'm
>>>>> fine with it.
>>>>> Yes, 1605 IS actually 1603 but in a larger format.
>>>>> And StutorNS: Thank You for all of the work you do. I hope you enjoy
>>>>> doing it as well.
>>>>> Later...
>>>>>
>>>>> PeggLeg
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <30asab5lhmnffr44fpao2nk1rgrdqrn0d4@4ax.com>, GeoffE
>>>>> <GeoffEdwards@starcadetv.tv> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:01:47 -0600, KtchnBtch <1@2.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't work for me. It's a cooking show, not a blockbuster movie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOVE your big ass screen. Can't seem to fit it in my kitchen though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just gotta do with the tablet. Ahhh, well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 50" is not large in today's world. They cost less than a 32 inch did 4
>>>>>> years go. I just tested on my 10.1 table and the higher bit rate
>>>>>> looks more natural with deep color depth. The food simpley looks more
>>>>>> real. It's 2016 another 300-400MB is peanuts almost nothing in tech
>>>>>> cost less than storage.
>>
>> Here in the interior Alaska taiga, the U.S. relatively low bandwidth is
>> even narrower ... so, the choice is downloading smaller files or just
>> skip the show completely. Regardless of how impressive the image is,
>> it pales when it takes hours, hours, and more hours (or days) to
>> download a single show.
>>
>> But, I shouldn't complain because I'm grateful for the people who take
>> the time and effort to capture, process, and upload these shows.
>> Especially considering I don't get broadcast TV, cable hasn't reach
>> this far into the woods, and satellite subscriptions are beyond my
>> price range.
>
>
> Never realized it takes that long to download one of these. Takes me
> under 45 seconds and I have the slow package.
>
>
> Still many will regret the lower bitrates in the future.
>
> BTW yet another person noted TV in the kitchen. Once again I do not
> have TV in my kitchen. Is that the only place some folks watch food
> related TV? If so do they only watch travel shows in their
> automobiles?
>
> Stutor my friend. I implore you to think about the future preservation
> and offer bitrates as you did with the first s16e05 aka S16e03. Huge
> thanks again for your effort.
>
> I these shows were on blu-ray I'd buy them in a second. As stutor said
> 2 years back his uploads look better as they are higher-resolution.
I have the "fast" DSL package ... with nothing else using the
bandwidth, my DL speed is 75-100 kB/second. If my wife or I are
reading CNN, the speed drops to about 45-60 kB/second. If we're both
trying to read CNN, it drops even farther, as well as the CNN page
loads taking longer.
For that reason, I generally prefer to buy the DVD, even if they are
starting to go the way of 8-track tapes and Betamax.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
|