Posted by Jeff Rife on 04/18/06 03:26

~P~ (bmxtrix2005@cox.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The type of stuff we find on
> DVDs, etc. I was specifically talking about MPEG1 layer 2 (mp2), vs. MPEG1
> layer 3 (mp3) and how mp2, despite not having the newer compression scheme,
> is considered a better format and so

No, MPEG-1, layer 2 is *not* considered a better format than MPEG-1,
layer 3. It is, however, considered cheaper (easier to encode and decode
with less CPU). This is why it was once popular for limited-resource
systems. Now, however, MPEG-2 is the beginning of what is considered
"good", with things like AC-3, DTS, and AAC far surpassing it. MPEG-1
audio is still supported because MPEG-2 decoders are required to (MPEG-2
audio is a superset of MPEG-1 audio), but it's not used much anymore
where quality is desired.

> while VC1 and H.264 are both newer -
> they are in many ways optomized for HIGH compression rates (512kbs) not low
> compression rates (20+Mbs) which Blu-ray and HD-DVD offer.

No, that's not true at all. The extensions for HD for the various MPEG-4
codecs all do high bitrate very, very well. They don't offer the
compression gains that are claimed, but they can realize the same quality
in 60-80% of the space.

--
Jeff Rife | "The old guy was leading a 'Simon Says' game
| when he collapsed. On the way down he yelled
| 'call an ambulance!', but no one moved."
| -- Wings

[Back to original message]