ATSC and H.264

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

It wasn't too long ago that I embarrassed myself here on this newsgroup when
I spoke the following mistaken words: "Compression with H.264, also known as
MPEG-4 Layer 10, employs far more compression than MPEG-2, therefore one can
assume that there is more loss of the original content." Was I wrong! What
I did not realize is that, though H.264 does indeed use more compression, it
is a much less "lossy" compression than MPEG-2. The end result is that one
can achieve both greater compression and relatively better video quality
with H.264 vs. MPEG-2.

ATSC is currently reviewing H.264 and they say that the "Candidate Standard
[...] is expected to progress to Proposed Standard within a period of time
ending 10 February 2005."

Here it is: http://www.atsc.org/standards/cs_d [...] 08reva.pdf

Neil
Salem, MA USA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:23:24 -0500, Neil in Salem, MA USA wrote:

> It wasn't too long ago that I embarrassed myself here on this newsgroup
> when I spoke the following mistaken words: "Compression with H.264, also
> known as MPEG-4 Layer 10, employs far more compression than MPEG-2,
> therefore one can assume that there is more loss of the original
> content."
> Was I wrong! What I did not realize is that, though H.264 does indeed
> use more compression, it is a much less "lossy" compression than MPEG-2.
> The end result is that one can achieve both greater compression and
> relatively better video quality with H.264 vs. MPEG-2.
>
>
>

Note that in implementing the H.264 standard utilizing multiple
overlapping GOPs, you will not be able to channel surf easily. Networks,
Broadcasters and cable systems that utilize H.264 loose the ability for
MPEG splicing meaning that in order to add local commercials, they will
have to decode the mpeg distribution stream back down to baseband and
re-encode for broadcast. The standard without multiple GOPs (proposed
ATSC) will only realize at most 20% more efficiency, not the promoted 50%

The people that want to implement H.264 are not concerned with quality but
with quantity. The consumer looses again. Mpeg4 is MDTV (Medium Def TV)

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

vidguy7@aol.com (Vidguy7) wrote:

>>From: Bob Miller robmx@earthlink.net
>>
>>It was suggested back in 2000 here, on AVSForum, before Congress and at
>>meetings with the FCC that the US incorporate such compression upgrade
>>paths and allow for such as MPEG4 and VP6 along with a better modulation
>>such as DVB-T COFDM. Now we see the cable and satellite companies
>>upgrading while our OTA is stuck in the last century.
>
>Another CLASSIC from BOB! First off Mr. Miller, the upgrade to MPEG4 is being
>done to alleviate the bandwidth problem on satellite. MPEG4 will allow DIrectv
>and Voom to fit many more HD channels on their system with the same number of
>satellites.
>
>The "better modulation" scheme of COFDM is only in your 'mind'. Our 8VSB works
>beautifully and continues to evolve as the receivers evolve. When you say "our
>OTA is stuck in the last century" I have to laugh.

It's hillarious, given that this century is only four years old.