Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by RobertR, Mar 2, 2002.
What quality does MPEG-4 yield? I'm rather annoyed by the use of the word "acceptable" in that article. Acceptable = half-assed, imho.
Here we go...
I'll keep my fingers crossed on this one. Remember how 90 percent of audio/videophiles said DVD picture quality and "AC-3" were going to look and sound terrible right before the format's launch? Let's just hope that Hollywood will do whatever it can to put out the HIGHEST QUALITY HD-DVD product. Personally, I would prefer they develop the blue-ray disc more.
Guys, Blue-Ray is a format, not a compression style.
MPEG-4 is a great format, I'll wait till I see some actual video in the new format, but I'd say it'll be fine. It doesn't matter what kind of disc they use, it's what you do with those bits! Encode a video clip in MPEG-2 on your computer, then encode the same clip in MPEG-1. MPEG-4 (on which the current Windows Media Player is based) achieves astonishing quality in small file sizes on the computer.
This is a separate development from Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray uses a blue laser to put more data (27 GB) on the disc, but still using MPEG2 standard video compression.
This new development uses the current 4.7/8.5 GB DVD disc, but with either MPEG4 or some improved variant of MPEG2 to encode the video.
Another difference is that the MPEG4 idea comes from a vote by the DVD Forum while Blu-Ray comes from agreement by a group of 9 companies (who are also members of the DVD Forum).
You can bet the farm that either one, being a new format that will require new hardware, will include new copy protection. They'll probably have watermarks too.
I've got a feeling that MPEG-4 will be a fine format for HD-DVD. I know it's taboo to speak about this sort of thing around here, but since it's relevent, I will. Admins, if you feel the need to censor my post, please do.
A friend gave me a copy, burned onto 2 CD-Rs, of a recent major film release. The film was encoded in widescreen format using MPEG-4 and it looks pretty spectacular, appearing to equal DVDs MPEG-2 when viewed on my computer screen. I was pretty impressed considering the length of the film and the fact that it is on just 2 CDs. If the compression scheme of this format can provide DVD-like quality on a simple CD-R, it may be able to work HD type miracles on a dual-layer DVD.
Current dual-layer discs aren't big enough for fully-loaded movie releases in SD, which are spilling over to two-disc and three-disc sets. What's the point of trying to shoehorn HD content onto the same discs?
Then again, if this works it would sure simplify the manufacturing process -- and Warner is a major optical-disc manufacturer. I suspect studio/manufacturer politics may be to blame (with the Warner/Toshiba axis backing current disc technology), but have no evidence to back up that hunch.
Wha? There's something off about this.
As I understood it, Mpeg4 was developed as a streaming solution and currently only supports up to 10mbps encoding, which is about DVD quality. Not only video, but it was developed to stream HTML, audio, midi, etc. That is why many cable companies have picked up on it to use for "digital" cable.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
10Mbps for MPEG-4 is a totally different animal from 10Mbps MPEG-2.
MPEG-4 has a lot of artifacts when overcompressed, and everybody always seems to want to overcompress it.
DVD bitrate is not enough for MPEG-4 to do HD that looks as good as current HD. Yes, it's more efficient than MPEG-2, not twice as efficient if you care about artifacts.
Time Warner Digital Cable uses MPEG-2, same as DirectTV but with a higher average bitrate. What cable company is using MPEG-4, and what settop boxes are they using?
This idea and Blu-Ray are both stop gap solutions. I don't want video that's compressed more, I want better video. I can already see flaws in every disc I watch, I don't need more added.
For companies worried about file sharing, the last thing they should be doing is finding ways to deliver high (ahem) quality video in a smaller format. Give us HD on a 200G file. It won't get shared.By the time bandwidth makes it feasable, they'll have something else.
High capacity FMD or something like should be the future, not more compression or marginal increases in storage capacity.
Why don't they create a high-bitrate MPEG-4 based format for the Blu-Ray discs to use? Better compression + less compression = doubly better picture, right?
If they are able to achieve HD resolution with just an MPEG-2 variant (as opposed to a new scheme like MPEG-4) on a standard 9 gig DVD, then why are we not seeing artifact free SD DVD now?
Maybe they are using a very loose definition of the term "vareint".
I would really rather see them look at technologies capable of HD resolution with excellent quality and looking into making them cheaper and less bit hungry rather than trying to force HD out of technologies and mediums that are not as capable and just have it be "acceptable".
You're forgetting that high bitrate is not the be-all, end-all of quality. In fact, if you ask most compressionists, it's what you DO with those bits. That's why the Superbit discs don't fill the volume.
Damn, if these standard DVD HD MPEG4 discs end up looking overly compressed and are found lacking in general image quality, then I may be forced to go with digital VHS
At least the content won't be compressed all to hell.
I am hoping for the blue laser tech to win out.