Video Compression?

[imgod22222]

When God said: Let there be DVDs, people said: in MPEG2 format.
Then (some) of us people found the light, and changed to DivX
The industry had made DIVX and failed miserably.

Then God said: Let there be HD-DVDs and BDs! People then said: (Your answer here)

---Sorry if using the name God in this thread/post has angered anyone. No offense, really.---

[thunderhawk]

LoL, no problem here mate

Erm... In H.264 AVC, VC-1 and MPEG-2 format please.

[Marwin]

I don't really care as long as it looks great

[imgod22222]

But why would we keep mpeg-2 format?!?!?
Have we learned nothing?!?!?!
Do we prefer to have a half hour of TV waste over 700MB of space, or would we EVER be more progressive and keep things such as DivX and H. 264 in our lives? Nvr really heard of av-1. Its based off wmv version9 format. Just keep DivX so we can keep one codec.
H. 264 and DivX seem really similar. Are they?

[AV_Integrated]

Why different CODECs? Well, it is all about giving studios the ability to provide users the highest quality possible. MPEG2 potentially may deliver higher quality than either format at the higher bitrates Blu-ray allows for (wait for actual testing before quoting me on that).

H.264 and AVC1 are great new CODECs but really seem to be more designed about higher compression rates for HD material which can't utilize the full bandwidth that Blu-ray and HD-DVD offer. But, for special features, and extra content, they can all be jumped to HD quality formats without taking up a ton more space than the old standard extras that we are used to on DVDs. Pretty cool I would think overall.

One of the big headaches of this format war is that the content developers simply don't have enough tools available to them and there hasn't been enough testing to properly determine the absolute best of the best and make it easy to integrate for HD disc content creation.

That's still likely a year or two out - at the earliest.

[imgod22222]

Well if it's about getting the best visual quality then,
Why did we move from CRTs to LCDs and Plasmas?
CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. Along with that they have the best viewing angle. So besides the fact that CRTs are just bigger and heavier, why do so many things have a DVI port and no longer a VGA port?

No, it's all about being able to keep something as small as we can get it. Thus, we made compression standards so we can store more video on a media. And we made contraptions (Practically) everyone in the us owns called ipods.

[Marwin]

Originally Posted by imgod22222

But why would we keep mpeg-2 format?!?!?
Have we learned nothing?!?!?!

No matter how you look at it MPEG-2 is a lot more mature with all the years it has been in use, so the tools/encoders have been proven and produce very high-quality video by now. Add to this that the MPEG-2 codec has been further tweaked for HD so it's even better than before and you've got something that's not so bad for starting out. When the tools/encoders for H.264/VC-1 start to improve the studios can then move on to using them.

Also, you need MPEG-2 support for playback of DVDs, so you still can't remove it from the players.