One more time

Here is what I really want from a compressed video format.

No interlacing. No discussion about how bad it is. Too bad. It's a dark-age compression scheme.

No colour reduction. This is a hard one, while we're watching 414720 individual picture elements(pixel for short) on DVD those are all in black and white. Colour is added on top but there are only 103680 pixels for the colours. That is 0.1 megapixel and if somebody tries to sell you a camera capable of 0.1 mp i sincerely hope you laugh in their face. For this reason we are watching huge glaring square flakes of colour float around on our otheriwse good enough video.

For this reason post-processing has entered the mind of the consumer, when a friend of mine wanted advice on what 40" flatscreen tv to buy he said to make sure it had good processing. He does not know what it is, what it does, or why he needs it. But it is a meme and he picked it up, I on the other hand know all about processing. I know for example that it is very very expensive. In order to post-process video to make it look good you need fast chips and memory, you need algorithms that may include high licensing fees. You can buy an external video processor for $5000. Likely more than your TV cost.

And all this post-processing is doing is trying to prevent you from discovering how garish DVD video really is. Try extracting a still frame and you'll know what I mean(pause won't do it).

I work with video and graphics. I work with it in an uncompressed colour and time space, that makes a five minute video occupy 2 dvds.

I compress my videos for distribution and portability. But I don't want to compress the colour space, I'd rather take my chances with time. I've been trying and testing compression algorithms for years, but I have never come across one that allowed me to control the colour space in any significant way. Sure I can choose exactly how to ruin it, but the codecs all imply that I *have* to ruin it. I'm done with that.

Another thing I'm done with is 24 bit colour, it is just not enough. 24 bits means each colour gets a 256 step ladder of shades. It is very little and though 24 bit colour boasts that it is capable of displaying 16777216 colours at the same time that is irrelevant when it just doesn't have that shade orange I'm seeing in the sky now.

Colour must move to 48 bits. 48 bits expands the ladder to 65536 steps which is so fine that the human eye cannot detect the steps, it would dramatically increase contrast.

Now let's talk bandwidth.

If we dispense with colour compression the bandwidth required for colours quadruples, if we go to 48 bits we double that. On the other side we no longer need a black and white layer.

I would argue that if you used the bandwidth allocated to "HD" 2d resolution and used it to actually send more colours the average viewer would prefer the standard resolution image with better colours over the high resolution in image with crappy colours. One of the reasons for this is plain physics, at the average viewing distance(say 3 meters) you need a 50" display to even see that there is a difference in resolution between standard rez and HD. On the other hand, uncompressed colours would be visible from miles away(no, really).

The worst part is watching movies in the cinema which emulates the bad colours of video because now it's popular. You know that device they put on the lead character in "clockwork orange" so he couldn't close his eyes? Well, i feel like strapping some a whole lot of modern dps with the thing and play them Powell and Pressburger till their eyes fall out. The genius of Powell and Pressburger is not present on DVD. They had the best goddamn colours I've seen on a big screen and it's just not there on DVD. DVD looks like various shades of grey, and let's even talk about television. TV is the same as DVD only worse(less bandwidth).

So while the industry moves to HD they're essentially making sure the pictures will never look good.

b