As a lossy consumer delivery codec, I suppose one could draw a parallel between H.264 and its arguable audio equivalent MP3.
And one could argue that the explosion of online video would not have happened without H.264 -- and, similarly, the audio explosion of yesteryear would not have happened without MP3 (not that those "explosions" have been profitable for the rights holders).
As professionals, we will always be hitting our heads against the popularly-held belief in media (audio or video) that is "good enough" -- meaning it is really crap, but ever-so-slightly better than the average persons's threshold of pain.
However, I must agree that the lack of unity between H.264 encodes, compared to their respective source files, even an excessively high bit rates, has been the cause of much pain and suffering in my world, and in the world of my clients.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote :
Again, don't blame the codec. It was not designed to be an acquisition format, but manufacturers decided to force it into that work. The codec itself is a fantastic delivery vehicle - it never asked to be used as an intermediate or editable format. Used as intended, it's nearly unimpeachable.
__._,_.___
Posted by: blafarm@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (9) |
this is the Avid-L2
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment