"Poor" is relative. In this case, the "poor" reference H.264 encoder beat the more 'mature' MPEG4 encoder hands down.
And please bear in mind, the screenshots you see have been recompressed using an MPEG2 codec at a bit rate of 8Mbps in order to play from a DVD on a consumer DVD player. Therefore the MPEG2 codec introduced artifacts on top of those introduced by the H.264 algorithm.
The uncompressed, or 'pure' H.264 decoded video looks quite a bit better.
Also, the encoder I used for the evaluation was circa December of 2001. I have been using the latest H.264 encoder for a High Definition (1080i, or 1920x1080) test, and the results are quite incredible. The grass still gets hammered however. The algorithm tends favor movement over static backgrounds. But it does a great job of suppressing any breakup, even at low bit rates.
Thanks for popping in and explaining that! I think your site captures the excitement of future streaming media. A picture is indeed, worth a thousand words.
Comments
Originally posted by HairyTroll
"Poor" is relative. In this case, the "poor" reference H.264 encoder beat the more 'mature' MPEG4 encoder hands down.
And please bear in mind, the screenshots you see have been recompressed using an MPEG2 codec at a bit rate of 8Mbps in order to play from a DVD on a consumer DVD player. Therefore the MPEG2 codec introduced artifacts on top of those introduced by the H.264 algorithm.
The uncompressed, or 'pure' H.264 decoded video looks quite a bit better.
Also, the encoder I used for the evaluation was circa December of 2001. I have been using the latest H.264 encoder for a High Definition (1080i, or 1920x1080) test, and the results are quite incredible. The grass still gets hammered however. The algorithm tends favor movement over static backgrounds. But it does a great job of suppressing any breakup, even at low bit rates.
Thanks for popping in and explaining that! I think your site captures the excitement of future streaming media. A picture is indeed, worth a thousand words.