Will Warner support Blu-ray?

[iknowall]

Just wrong.
More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality when talking about different algorithms.

We are talking about advanced DCT and DPCM aloritms, that let you to compress more the video masking better the artifact .

You can't downsample resolution, color information,and think that nothing appens at the image, unless you can vhange the physic laws.

Mpeg4 is a better algorithm for motion pictures and can produce similar quality with much less data than Mpeg2.

Actually no motion pictures are using mpeg4 for screening but all are using mpeg2 hd.

 

[iknowall]

Just wrong. More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality when talking about different algorithms.
Mpeg4 is a better algorithm for motion pictures and can produce similar quality with much less data than Mpeg2.

What you say make no sense really, even professional codecs compress and lose image quality , and we are talking about codecs that are light and years better in temrs of quality compared to mpeg4, and even a lot better when mpeg2 .


Sony HDCAM

Sony's HDCAM format uses a proprietary 8-bit compression technology with a bit rate of 135Mbps (1080i, 1080p24, and 720p). The luminance is down-sampled to 1440 and the chroma sub-sampling follows the 3:1:1 scheme, resulting in 480 samples per line.

DVCPRO

HD DVCPRO HD is a 100Mbps DV-derived compressed HD format. Luminance is downsampled to 1280 samples per line, and the chroma subsampling follows the 4:2:2 scheme, resulting in 640 chroma samples per line. As a result, the frequency range goes down to two thirds of the original uncompressed image.


These codecs use the most industry advance tectiques to try to lose less quality possible, and still where is a quality loss, i can't even think at how much quality you are going to lose
with a non professional codec like mpeg4 codec.

 

[AlphaWolf]

What you say make no sense really, even professional codecs compress and lose image quality , and we are talking about codecs that are light and years better in temrs of quality compared to mpeg4, and even a lot better when mpeg2 .


Sony HDCAM

Sony's HDCAM format uses a proprietary 8-bit compression technology with a bit rate of 135Mbps (1080i, 1080p24, and 720p). The luminance is down-sampled to 1440 and the chroma sub-sampling follows the 3:1:1 scheme, resulting in 480 samples per line.

DVCPRO

HD DVCPRO HD is a 100Mbps DV-derived compressed HD format. Luminance is downsampled to 1280 samples per line, and the chroma subsampling follows the 4:2:2 scheme, resulting in 640 chroma samples per line. As a result, the frequency range goes down to two thirds of the original uncompressed image.


These codecs use the most industry advance tectiques to try to lose less quality possible, and still where is a quality loss, i can't even think at how much quality you are going to lose
with a non professional codec like mpeg4 codec.

No one said that Mpeg4 is lossless, the comparison is to Mpeg2(which is also lossy).

oh and btw h.264 has support for 4:4:4 under FRext, I believe the best Mpeg2 can do is 4:2:2

 

[iknowall]

No one said that Mpeg4 is lossless, the comparison is to Mpeg2(which is also lossy).

You said "More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality" with is false, even with professional codecs compression means lower quality.

oh and btw h.264 has support for 4:4:4 under FRext, I believe the best Mpeg2 can do is 4:2:2

MPEG-2 uses the YCbCr color space with 4:2:0, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 sampling .

 

[randycat99]

...and the best we'll ever see in a consumer release material will be 4:2:0!

 

[one]

Pre-processing filters in MPEG4 compression tend to remove film grains and other subtle film characteristics. Because of this, you have to use higher bitrate MPEG4 to match MPEG2 quality.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You said "More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality" with is false, even with professional codecs compression means lower quality.

You need to work on reading comprehension. You clearly either cannot or refuse to understand what I am saying. There is no point in continuing.

 

[iknowall]

Pre-processing filters in MPEG4 compression tend to remove film grains and other subtle film characteristics. Because of this, you have to use higher bitrate MPEG4 to match MPEG2 quality.

Well take in account that you wil se no film grain for star wars 2 and 3 , costantine, i robot, and all the other films originally shooted on hd cameras , these movies will be the real deal in terms of quality.

 

[iknowall]

You need to work on reading comprehension. You clearly either cannot or refuse to understand what I am saying. There is no point in continuing.

Dude if you say "More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality whene in the real world more compression always equate in a quality loss , you are the one twrong here.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Dude if you say "More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality whene in the real world more compression always equate in a quality loss , you are the one twrong here.

No I am not you are just too thick headed to admit the facts.

Look at simple image compression, using png format I can compress a bmp image to 1/4th it's original file size, yet the image is exactly same quality as the original. How can that be possible!?!??

Well this argument is beyond pointless now, good day.

 

[randycat99]

How about 10x compression? 50x? 75x? Do you have an understanding of how png compresses data vs. how jpeg/mpeg compresses data? Did you look at it scaled to the size of a large TV screen? Did you also consider that still image compression is considerably easier to get good results than moving image? Your comparison is topical at best.

 

[iknowall]

No I am not you are just too thick headed to admit the facts.

lol go again to say you are not when the evidence is aganist you. i will spend more time on
this.

Look at simple image compression, using png format I can compress a bmp image to 1/4th it's original file size, yet the image is exactly same quality as the original. How can that be possible!?!??

Well this argument is beyond pointless now, good day.

You don't see the change in quality but this don't means where is no quality loss.

This tipe of examples means nothing , and in the real world and things work different, so when you compress a video you always lose quality, wharever you say making assumption and example about image compression that have nothing to do with the video encoding.


When you deal with mpeg4 you are talking about a very hi compressed standard not a low compression where you don't notice the artifact.

More you compress the video , more you have evident articact and more quality you lose, period.

If you have an hd source and you watch it on a big screen you can easly see all the effect of the comprerssion.


Since the point to have more space is to use less compression, and less compression always means better image quality, no pixel downsamplig, croma dowsampling ecc, all this new codeds are pointless, because are too much compressed.

Mpeg2 , as a less compressed codec, have a better quality , and just the fact that the blu ray disk size is made with the mpeg2hd in mind say all .

 

[Inane_Dork]

Dude if you say "More compression does not necessarily equate to lower image quality whene in the real world more compression always equate in a quality loss , you are the one twrong here.

Always? I already cited JPEG2000 vs. JPEG. So... the ball's in your court.

 

[iknowall]

Always? I already cited JPEG2000 vs. JPEG. So... the ball's in your court.

I already stated that the jpeg2000 compression example have nothing to do with video compression .

Btw even when you compress an unmcopressed image in a jpeg2000 file you are losing quality, every time you compress an image you lose quality, so yes always.
You may not notice but this don't cange the fact that you are losing information.

 

[iknowall]

Always? I already cited JPEG2000 vs. JPEG. So... the ball's in your court.

Sorry i did not read right, so i am going to answare , you said :

And the "less compression = better image quality" thing really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. JPEG2000 compresses more than JPEG but can have better image quality at the same file size. I would be pretty shocked if the same is not true of MPEG2 and MPEG4. It's not about more vs. less compression. It's about better vs. worse compression.

So i would make you shocked saying you this...but it is impossible to have the same file size
with the same bitrate comprerssed using mpeg2 and mpeg4.

Just because mpeg4 compress more by default, you will never end in an mpeg4 file with the same size of the mpeg2 one.

Do you want to lower the size of the mpeg2 one ? you simply can't because the mpeg2 coedec was not made to be lowered so much . And this is the reason why the mpeg4 codec exist. So you can compress more . For the same reason that you can't make the mpeg4 file bigger. Because it use a base compression that is higer whan the mpeg2 one.

If you have a limited space, you would use the mpeg4 because can be more compressed where Mpeg2 simply can't .

The same if you have a big space you better use mpeg2 because it can be less compress and can be a bigger file , where the mpeg4 one simply can't be so less compressed and can't fit the same space.


Do we have more or less space avaible with the blue ray format ?

We have more and this means that the most logical choise is to use the mpeg2 hd codec

 

[Inane_Dork]

It's funny how you backed away from the universal claim you made when faced with a clear counterpoint. The fact that it's a picture instead of a video is irrelevant.

Anyway, I think I finally get the gist of your position. To insert arbitrary numbers, I think you mean that MPEG4 can go from 100 Kbps to 10 Mpbs whereas MPEG2 can go from 500 Kbps to 54 Mbps. Is that roughly what you mean? If so, it seems within reason though not proven.

 

[deathkiller]

I would like to see how anyone can get better picture quality with 1Mb/s 640x480 using MP2 vs MP4(AVC)...

 

[scooby_dooby]

I already stated that the jpeg2000 compression example have nothing to do with video compression .

It's relevant because it shows how some compression types are superior to others.

JPEG2000 will produce the same quality image as JPEG at in a smaller file, it's compressing it more AND producing a superior image. This is the point you are refusing to accept.

You can compress more AND have superior quality, some codecs are better than others and MPEG4 is superior to MPEG2 simple as that.

 

[randycat99]

It's relevant because it shows how some compression types are superior to others.

It may or may not be. One example doesn't prove the other. Given that the use of any of these codecs are not fixed (the quality will depend on the settings, and the settings will depend on the objective), simply saying one thing will give "superior" results across the board is far too simplistic. Do you honestly believe the newfound freedom to choke down on datarate even further will encourage the industry to strive for greater quality? Think again. They'll just take that as justification to increasingly squeeze digital video streams into mediums they just don't "belong", just for the hell of it.

 

[one]

JPEG2000 will produce the same quality image as JPEG at in a smaller file, it's compressing it more AND producing a superior image.

You can compress more AND have superior quality, some codecs are better than others and MPEG4 is superior to MPEG2 simple as that.

(bold mine)

Or you are tricked to believe it's superior by a certain perceptual completion technique in cognitive science often employed in advanced video compression codecs. In terms of source fidelity, it's not very welcomed by the likes of film directors and videophiles even though it has better compression and seemingly superior quality.