|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>> 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.
Commercial DVDs do seem to do this quite well. (For some reason, DVDs I
encoded myself aren't quite as good - although they're still not bad
considering the compression ratio.)
> 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.
That's some pretty steep claims. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |