41–50 of 230 posts
Very well explained. But I could have understood it all without the bro-approach to the reader. You see where I am going with this? Get it? See where I am going? Ok!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't look like it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC > H.264 is protected by patents owned by various parties. A license covering most (but not all) patents essential to H.264 is administered by patent pool MPEG LA.[2] Commercial use of patented H.264 technologies requires the payment of royalties to MPEG LA and other patent owners. MPEG LA has allowed the free use of H.264 technologies for streaming…
It is an open standard. Anyone can purchase and implement it, and it was developed by ISO. The technologies are not royalty free in the US. Don't conflate the two. * Edit: I emphasize this mainly because the terms have a specific meaning in standards jargon but also because it places the blame for software patent abuses on the wrong parties (the standards developers rather than the lawyers and legislators).
Uh, anyone familiar with the MPEG process will assure you that the companies involved love (let me restate that: PREFER) to bring in technology on which they own the patents so they get a good cut of the resulting patent pool.
Sometimes this is even done even though it technically makes no sense. Best example: hybrid filter-bank in MP3.
The process also provides no protection or discouragement from patents from semi-involved industry partners appearing later on, etc.
This difference in approach is a stark contrast to the IETF, which is why Opus work, and future AV1 work are happening under the IETF rather than the MPEG groups.
Ehm, what?! The image on the right looks really bad and the missing holes was the first thing I noticed. No zooming needed.
And that's exactly my problem with the majority of online video (iTunes store, Netflix, HBO etc). Even when it's called "HD", there are compression artefacts and gradient banding everywhere.
I understand there must be compromises due to bandwidth, but I don't agree on how much that compromise currently is.
"See how the compressed one does not show the holes in the speaker grills in the MacBook Pro? If you don't zoom in, you would even notice the difference. " Ehm, what?! The image on the right looks really bad and the missing holes was the first thing I noticed. No zooming needed. And that's exactly my problem with the majority of online video (iTunes store, Netflix, HBO etc). Even when it's called "HD", there are comp…
Isn't the images above the text a zoomeed version?
>Here is a close-up of the original...
Very well explained. But I could have understood it all without the bro-approach to the reader. You see where I am going with this? Get it? See where I am going? Ok!
Maybe I'm in the minority here but I think it adds a bit of color to an otherwise dry topic to write about.
Very well explained. But I could have understood it all without the bro-approach to the reader. You see where I am going with this? Get it? See where I am going? Ok!
Maybe I'm in the minority here but I think it adds a bit of color to an otherwise dry topic to write about.
Ugh. Comparing the file size difference between a lossless PNG and a LOSSY H.264 video of a STATIC PAGE is absurd. Calling it "300 times the amount of data," when it's a STATIC IMAGE is insulting in the extreme. It really doesn't matter if the rest of the article has insights, because you lost me already.
"See how the compressed one does not show the holes in the speaker grills in the MacBook Pro? If you don't zoom in, you would even notice the difference. " Ehm, what?! The image on the right looks really bad and the missing holes was the first thing I noticed. No zooming needed. And that's exactly my problem with the majority of online video (iTunes store, Netflix, HBO etc). Even when it's called "HD", there are comp…
>No zooming needed Isn't the images above the text a zoomeed version? >Here is a close-up of the original...