On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 13:31 +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> On 2 April 2016 at 13:54, Karl Auer wrote:
> "compressed for transmission" means "has had much data discarded".
> 
> All digital video is compressed, except maybe the truly lossless
> "raw" digital masters at a studio.  These chew up massive
> bandwidth/storage, and, contain a lot more information than the human
> eye can see. Forget it. There is actually no benefit to the end
> viewer in using this stuff, it's a massive waste of resources.

Well, perhaps.That's why video "compression" works, much as mp3 does
with hearing. Fact is though, that anyone who cannot hear the
difference between even a 320Kbps MP3 and the original probably has a
hearing problem.

Depending on the device being used to view it, "compressed" video may
be really great or really bad. I download iView programs and watch them
in a corner of my monitor, and they look really good. I imagine they'd
look great on a phone, too. But if I watch the exact same download on a
big TV screen (or even just full-screen on my monitor), it looks very
patchy.

Real movie-quality photographic film runs at about 5000dpi; digitised,
that's something like 19TB for a feature film. I don't know what
resolution digital film has, but it must not be too dissimilar, because
for display on a cinema screen, you need as much of it as you can get.
You really don't need all that for a television or a phone.

So I'm not knocking video "compression". But I do think people should
know what they are paying for.

> This is why Netflix look so great compared
> to somecrappy youtube video: they might both have the same nominal
> resolution and bit rate but Netflix really grind the best possible 
> result out of the bandwidth.

Of course. My point was simply that people should understand that in
the video world "compression" does not mean what a reasonable person
might think it does. It means data has been discarded. Cleverly,
selectively, but it's still discarded.

> In this context "compressed for transmission" doesn't mean 
> compressed, every one does that.

That doesn't entirely make sense...

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4



_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Reply via email to