We are probably reaching the limits of compression technology. It doesn't matter what space (DCT or Wavelet) you do your compression in, after a certain point you just can't throw out any more information without seeing visual artifacts.
With the jump from MPEG2 to MPEG4 type codecs we can see a compression gain of about 5-10 times the compression effiency. But basically MPEG4 came out of the "lesson" of MPEG2 and as such you should expect that it does some things better and some things worse. MPEG2 was the first major leap and MPEG4 was able to jump off even further because MPEG2 was so immature. MPEG4 is both highly developed and optimized and non likely to get much better. H.264 is supposed to be the next big thing, but it turns out that it is only incrementally better in terms of quality (and not in all cases!), but is far more complex and less attractive to chip manufacturers.
Essentially we are reaching the hairy edge of compression and more advanced codecs will be orders of magnitude more complex and the incremental gains will be very small. It is unlikely that we will see any more revolutionary video codecs that are "the greatest thing since sliced bread."
It is starting to reach a point where the surrounding features are the selling points. For example the DivX certified program ensures that your certified DVD player can play your DivX movies. You can't do that with real, wmv, or even Xvid. Our marketing department loves to say this, but DivX is the MP3 of video. Most codecs simply focus on compression, but it really is more than that! Video is the entire experience starting with the encode and ending at all the places you can watch the movie.
The bottom line is "Content is King." Even if you are 5% behind the best video codec, studios are going to look to the codec with the widest consumer base. PSNR be dammned, how many people can watch the movie is a far more powerful business case.
I am glad that the BBC is out there looking at this stuff as it is a breath of fresh air to have a studio actually understand how video compression works! However, I don't know that they will be able to "add value" in a way that will encourage people to use their codec.
Keep on encoding, people!
(NB- I have a slightly biased opinion as I am a codec developer at DivX...;p )
Annihilation of an electron positron pair at rest (i.e. not flying at each other at say 99% the speed of light) results in two.511 mega electronVolt photons that fly apart to conserve momentum. In other words, you get light in the form of high energy (gamma ray) photons.
However, those two photons are going to start running into electrons and interacting with surrounding matter to bleed off energy to "heat" the matter. FAST. Imagine all the little molecules absorbing energy in a fashion that resembles drinking from a firehose. What you have is a massive amount of unbeliveably fast heating--an explosion.
I was just trying to be funny with a quote from Star Wars that has never sat right with me...
However, if you want to go the Sci-Fi science route:
Getting near a black hole only stretches space time, this means that you will end up going further...
YES!
Also... I weigh 180 seconds and My PC's power supply is rated at 300 Angstroms...
Uhhh yeah.
1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30856776000000000 meters. Mr. Lucas needs to check his units...
Slashdot Mirror
We are probably reaching the limits of compression technology. It doesn't matter what space (DCT or Wavelet) you do your compression in, after a certain point you just can't throw out any more information without seeing visual artifacts.
;p )
With the jump from MPEG2 to MPEG4 type codecs we can see a compression gain of about 5-10 times the compression effiency. But basically MPEG4 came out of the "lesson" of MPEG2 and as such you should expect that it does some things better and some things worse. MPEG2 was the first major leap and MPEG4 was able to jump off even further because MPEG2 was so immature. MPEG4 is both highly developed and optimized and non likely to get much better. H.264 is supposed to be the next big thing, but it turns out that it is only incrementally better in terms of quality (and not in all cases!), but is far more complex and less attractive to chip manufacturers.
Essentially we are reaching the hairy edge of compression and more advanced codecs will be orders of magnitude more complex and the incremental gains will be very small. It is unlikely that we will see any more revolutionary video codecs that are "the greatest thing since sliced bread."
It is starting to reach a point where the surrounding features are the selling points. For example the DivX certified program ensures that your certified DVD player can play your DivX movies. You can't do that with real, wmv, or even Xvid. Our marketing department loves to say this, but DivX is the MP3 of video. Most codecs simply focus on compression, but it really is more than that! Video is the entire experience starting with the encode and ending at all the places you can watch the movie.
The bottom line is "Content is King." Even if you are 5% behind the best video codec, studios are going to look to the codec with the widest consumer base. PSNR be dammned, how many people can watch the movie is a far more powerful business case.
I am glad that the BBC is out there looking at this stuff as it is a breath of fresh air to have a studio actually understand how video compression works! However, I don't know that they will be able to "add value" in a way that will encourage people to use their codec.
Keep on encoding, people!
(NB- I have a slightly biased opinion as I am a codec developer at DivX...
You are both right and wrong.
.511 mega electronVolt photons that fly apart to conserve momentum. In other words, you get light in the form of high energy (gamma ray) photons.
Annihilation of an electron positron pair at rest (i.e. not flying at each other at say 99% the speed of light) results in two
However, those two photons are going to start running into electrons and interacting with surrounding matter to bleed off energy to "heat" the matter. FAST. Imagine all the little molecules absorbing energy in a fashion that resembles drinking from a firehose. What you have is a massive amount of unbeliveably fast heating--an explosion.
Boom.
It *IS NOT* a ninja... It doesn't even look like a ninja. Don't make me flip out and start cutting off heads.
I was just trying to be funny with a quote from Star Wars that has never sat right with me... However, if you want to go the Sci-Fi science route: Getting near a black hole only stretches space time, this means that you will end up going further...
YES! Also... I weigh 180 seconds and My PC's power supply is rated at 300 Angstroms... Uhhh yeah. 1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30856776000000000 meters. Mr. Lucas needs to check his units...