I read this article several days ago and I agree with the author whole-heartedly. I have never been much of a spec junkie myself. I tend to rely on a few reviewers that I have grown to trust and then go see/listen for myself. If my eyes and ears match well enough with what the reviewer said I tend to buy the reviewers suggestion. However, after reading this article for the second time something made me start to wonder.
He says that as time passes that codecs and compression tools get better and better and thus require less and less space. At the same time he says that video quality is not linearly proportional to file size. Both of these seem fairly obviously true to me. I also understand that at some point you get diminishing returns for extra filesize with every codec. So my question is this: With each of the codecs, where is that boundary? To use his examples:
Would 'King Kong' using VC-1 be 10% better if it were 30% larger file size? Would 'Final Fantasy' using AVC be 5% better if it were 20% larger file size? Would 'Kingdom of Heaven' using MPEG-2 be 20% better if it were 50% larger file size?
Are any of these answers yes? Are all of these films maxed for picture quality because of source material?
If anyone reading this really is a compressionist I would like to know the answers to these questions.
For the record, I am very happy with both my Blu-ray and HD DVD films.
Sorry, you must login or register to leave a comment!
“That iconic Klipsch sound is here in full force, with crisp highs, delicate mids (which can easily have a bit more meat added with an EQ tweak) and tight, booming bass.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I read this article several days ago and I agree with the author whole-heartedly. I have never been much of a spec junkie myself. I tend to rely on a few reviewers that I have grown to trust and then go see/listen for myself. If my eyes and ears match well enough with what the reviewer said I tend to buy the reviewers suggestion. However, after reading this article for the second time something made me start to wonder.
He says that as time passes that codecs and compression tools get better and better and thus require less and less space. At the same time he says that video quality is not linearly proportional to file size. Both of these seem fairly obviously true to me. I also understand that at some point you get diminishing returns for extra filesize with every codec. So my question is this: With each of the codecs, where is that boundary? To use his examples:
Would 'King Kong' using VC-1 be 10% better if it were 30% larger file size?
Would 'Final Fantasy' using AVC be 5% better if it were 20% larger file size?
Would 'Kingdom of Heaven' using MPEG-2 be 20% better if it were 50% larger file size?
Are any of these answers yes? Are all of these films maxed for picture quality because of source material?
If anyone reading this really is a compressionist I would like to know the answers to these questions.
For the record, I am very happy with both my Blu-ray and HD DVD films.
Thanks in advance,
Jimmy