--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sparaig wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote:
> >   
> >> sparaig wrote:
> >>     
> >>>>> <snip>  
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> Answer me this: what is the primary difference between MPEG-2 and 
> >>>>>> MPEG-4?  It's a very simple engineering idea which overcomes a 
> >>>>>> limitation of MPEG-2 and in itself gave MPEG-4 (also h.263) more 
> >>>>>> compression.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> The primary difference between MPEG-4 and MPEG-2 is NOT the compression-
> >>>>> decompression algorithm (codec). That's just crazy. I.. mean... 
> >>>>> literally... crazy.
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> Nope, on the average an MPEG-4 file compresses about 1/3 the size of 
> >>>> MPEG-2 and you can use a lower bitrate.  The first comparison I found 
> >>>> was unlike MPEG-2 you could have one frame repeat as much as 300 times 
> >>>> without repeating that frame in the file.  If you have a static title 
> >>>> image that  saves a lot of space in the file.   That's just one simple 
> >>>> difference in the GOP structure and of course there is a lot more.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> Er, um.... That's NOT the primary difference between MPEG-4 and MPEG-2. 
> >>> That's 
a 
> >>> relatively minor difference. If that was all that was important, they 
> >>> could have 
come 
> >>>       
> > up 
> >   
> >>> with MPEG-2 rev B or something.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> No, the major benefit between MPEG-2 and 4 *is* the compression.  Having 
> >> flexibe GOP structures really helps compression.  The rev was MPEG-4.  I 
> >> would recommend "Video Demystified" 4th Edition by Keith Jack as a 
> >> reference.  Or maybe you ought to spend less time on FFL and more time 
> >> on some AV forums.
> >>     
> >
> > Sigh. No, the major difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 is the purpose for 
> > which 
the 
> > two standards were designed. MPEG-2 is a standard for a relatively simple 
> > multi-
channel 
> > audio-visual presentation, while MPEG-4 goes lightyears beyond that, 
> > potentially 
> > incorporating all sorts of things besides multi-channel video and audio.
> >   
> That kind extensibility the SV folks are always suggesting or putting 
> tags into formats.  Then no one uses them.  Do you know of anything that 
> uses the MPEG-4 format for anything other than AV?  I don't.

Apple?

> > And which AV forum do you want to move this discussion to? 
> >   
> I'm through discussing this with you.  The forums were for your edification.
>


Reply via email to