From the article:
Quote:
|
'Advanced formats don't necessarily improve picture quality,' said Eklund. 'Our goal is to present the best picture quality for Blu-ray. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that's with MPEG-2.'
|
Absolutely agree, if it ain't broke and all that.
Quote:
|
makes something of a mockery of Blu-ray's support for MPEG-4 AVC, also known as H.264, which enables content to be encoded at much higher bitrates without huge increases in file size.
|
Yes, quite, but if there's far more capacity than required to use a tried and tested codec why bother using a new super-dooper one simply 'cos it's sexy 'new tech' when doing so adds zero increase in usefulness.
Yes, if/when someone wants to put, say the 3 LOTR EEs in hidef on to one disc and thre isn't room to do so using MPEG-2 then MPEG-4 is obviously the solution, but simply demanding the use of MPEG-4 for MPEG_4's sake like this article does shows the cluelessness of the writer IMHO.
That article is typical of the PC industry (and many others) these days, if it's old it's
legacy and therefore obsolete if it's new it's
cool and everyone should use it 'cos their business models rely on the sheep .. sorry
consumers replacing perfectly usable technology with new gizmos that often fail to add any
real value at all.
Similar Threads
Optimised for Firefox.
Linear Mode
