Okay, I'm all for "perceptually lossless" but your test case is the epitome of horrible, limited motion animation. And since codecs use reference frames and encode differences from that, tons of static imagery is going to give you great results.
But give that a shot on something like Howl's Moving Castle, which looks beautiful in HD (MPEG2, 18mbps). It would not be possible. And your stated 2mbps for regular old anything is way beyond optimistic. Check the rates on DirectTV if you want to know what's what. My nice looking Three Amigos H264 is 15mbps average, and it's one of my "perceptually lossless" caps.
So to put it bluntly, your numbers are way off the mark. Take a look at Lady in the Water on Blu-ray or HD-DVD, VC-1 (claimed by MS to be more efficient than h264) but compressed to smitherenes, to see how bad things get even when the encode is done very very carefully. And that averages near 10mbps.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
EatingPie @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:41PM
Okay, I'm all for "perceptually lossless" but your test case is the epitome of horrible, limited motion animation. And since codecs use reference frames and encode differences from that, tons of static imagery is going to give you great results.
But give that a shot on something like Howl's Moving Castle, which looks beautiful in HD (MPEG2, 18mbps). It would not be possible. And your stated 2mbps for regular old anything is way beyond optimistic. Check the rates on DirectTV if you want to know what's what. My nice looking Three Amigos H264 is 15mbps average, and it's one of my "perceptually lossless" caps.
So to put it bluntly, your numbers are way off the mark. Take a look at Lady in the Water on Blu-ray or HD-DVD, VC-1 (claimed by MS to be more efficient than h264) but compressed to smitherenes, to see how bad things get even when the encode is done very very carefully. And that averages near 10mbps.
-Pie