alpha_dk said:
Okay, I know you aren't saying this. I just am going to say, for those who may believe what he is quoting people as saying: ::Wiki Article:: ::Wiki Article on an easy to understand Lossless algorithm:: Lossless compression is REAL. It is a mathematical truth, and especially in anything digital, lossless compression is cheap and easy. I was going to have an example here, but it took up too much space. There is a good example on the Huffman page (link #3). In any case I am not saying this to you euclid. Just to those who might believe what he was saying some people believe. |
Yes but it only works good in situations where the data isn't heavily randomized but suffers from repetitive information. Like language.
Besides it is being used already, even a bitmap format has some form of lossless compression but it isn't near as good as for instance JPG.
For the people stating that HD content looks better even on sd-tv's. That can be true, yet it's like sattelite vs cable: if you switch between twice the same channel you can indeed notice that it is sharper and brighter (and delayed) but we did a test afterwards in witch we had to guess if we were watching the one of the other: you just can't tell the difference.
It's like having a photo printed by two firms: you will always notice a difference when you compare them but you just can't tell what firm printed it by just looking at one picture.
Besides video compression is very difficult to compare with other codecs, i would almost say insane difficult.
