> Now compare the MPEG2 video back-to-back with the uncompressed original. 
> Are you seriously telling me there is *no* detectable loss of quality?

Depends on the content - if your video consists of data you would typically 
use PNG to encode rather than JPG, or where each frame is vastly different 
from the previous one, then of course it's not going to compress well. 
MPEG2 was designed to work well with real life captured video, and it does 
that pretty well within the 10Mbit allocated by the DVD standard.

Another example, I made a video of some planets rolling about in POV, the 
original uncompressed frames totalled 9.7 GB, after using MPEG4 the video 
came out as 28MB, that's 350x smaller!  Really, there is no noticeable 
difference in quality, I can't tell the difference by looking at a 
freeze-frame in VLC compared to the original BMP.

> Sure, it's a fairly small loss, but it *is* noticable. I wonder what the 
> bitrate would need to be increased to for it to be impossible to tell the 
> difference...

Depends on the content of course.

Post a reply to this message