I did some tests with the original frames to find out how much I could compress without introducing many visible artifacts. PNG quality was of course great, but would only reduce the original BMP size (roughly 550kb for a futurama screenshot) to 220kb. JPEG @ 100% was about 100KB, and JPEG @ 97% is around 70-76KB whereas the original JPEG @ 85% was 30-36KB. I believe the current shots are a good compromise between loading time and quality, the old ones definitely werent.
Re:Doom9 is my hero, dvd2svcd owns you.
on
Video Codec Comparison
·
· Score: 4, Informative
why provide them? because people demand them.
Watch out for the next site update (due in roughly 2h).. I have made some improvements in the futurama comparison (no PGN.. that would increase the size too much, but the new shots are a lot nicer).
Re:Isn't there something missing from this "review
on
Video Codec Comparison
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I would gladly encode material from the digital master tapes but my chances of getting access to those are pretty slim:/
Slashdot Mirror
I did some tests with the original frames to find out how much I could compress without introducing many visible artifacts. PNG quality was of course great, but would only reduce the original BMP size (roughly 550kb for a futurama screenshot) to 220kb. JPEG @ 100% was about 100KB, and JPEG @ 97% is around 70-76KB whereas the original JPEG @ 85% was 30-36KB. I believe the current shots are a good compromise between loading time and quality, the old ones definitely werent.
why provide them? because people demand them. Watch out for the next site update (due in roughly 2h).. I have made some improvements in the futurama comparison (no PGN.. that would increase the size too much, but the new shots are a lot nicer).
I would gladly encode material from the digital master tapes but my chances of getting access to those are pretty slim :/