Content deleted Content added
Mulligatawny (talk | contribs) →Please call it algorithm but not format: expanding remark |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Computing}}
{{WikiProject Computer science}}
}}
== Examples ==
Line 13 ⟶ 18:
::I called the article "Video compression format" instead of "Video compression standard" when I created it because all the Wikipedia pages for individual specifications called it "Video compression format". I wrote this article to further my own understanding (I was confused about codec vs format, because everybody were using them interchangably, wrongly), so there were absolutely no expert judgement behind the choice of "format" over "standard". While I have the impression that you (J. M.) is a bit more knowledgeable, so feel free to overrule me. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 11:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Using "format" is more correct than "standard" in this context, because some formats are not [[standardized]]. In this context, a "standard" ordinarily refers to a [[technical standard]] approved by a [[standards organization]]. Sometimes the word "standard" is used more loosely, to refer to a [[de facto standard|''de facto'' standard]], but some formats are not ''de facto'' standards either. A ''de facto'' standard, per the article on that topic, should be something "that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces", although that term is also sometimes used more loosely (esp. by promoters – e.g., to convey a false impression of broad acceptance and approval). Some formats aren't even documented, much less standardized. —[[User:Mulligatawny|Mulligatawny]] ([[User talk:Mulligatawny|talk]]) 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::I added a section on why a video compression format is not an algorithm. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Line 21 ⟶ 26:
::::Read what I and J. M. wrote again. We are both specifically saying a video compression format is NOT a Video compression algorithm. Format is simply right. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 18:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::::There is a difference between being a "format" and being a "file format" or a "container format". A format is not necessarily a file format. See, for example, the article [[Digital container format]] versus [[Content format]]. A "file format" or "container format" is something that may contain other formats within it. It generally defines a "wrapper" for containing different types of data that are each in their own particular formats (e.g., a file may contain an audio format, a video format, a format for subtitles, synchronization information, menu overlay and control data, etc. – sometimes with multiple A/V tracks, each in their own identified format, sometimes with multiple audio tracks or multiple subtitle tracks for the same video track, etc.). I agree that "format" is the correct term to use here. It is certainly incorrect to use "algorithm", since different algorithms can use the same data format. That is especially true for encoders (e.g., since different encoders use different search and decision-making algorithms), but it is also true for decoders as well (e.g., since different decoders use different algorithms for optimization of processing speed, memory usage, degree of parallel-processing, etc.). —[[User:Mulligatawny|Mulligatawny]] ([[User talk:Mulligatawny|talk]]) 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: Hmm, this is quite convoluted. The article gives examples: " Examples of video compression formats include MPEG-2 Part 2, MPEG-4 Part 2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10), HEVC, Theora, Dirac, RealVideo RV40, VP8, and VP9". And I still do not know, what this article is supposed to describe. Very convoluted indeed. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black">[[User:ScotXW]]</span><sup>[[User talk:ScotXW|t@lk]]</sup> 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
== Rename to "Video format"? ==
I want to rename the article to "Video format", because it is not all video formats which use compression ([[Uncompressed video]]). Limiting this article to only formats using compression seems inelegant.
There does not seem to be a standardized term for the concept, like "Video compression format" was just a description and not standardized, so no reason I can see for not renaming.
Any objections? [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 16:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:How about "video coding format"? Coding does not necessarily imply compression. I think "video format" might sound like a file/container format. (Also, I wonder whether it's really necessary to consider uncompressed video to be within the scope of this article.) —[[User:Mulligatawny|Mulligatawny]] ([[User talk:Mulligatawny|talk]]) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, uncompressed video is probably outside scope - I added a few appropriate mentions in passing, but that is probably enough. I do like "Video coding format" as a title though, perhaps even better than "Video compression format". Is there no authority that says what the official term is? [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:::I think there's a pretty well-established precedent for that "video coding" phrasing in the titles of the two most recent major standards on the topic: the ''[[Advanced Video Coding]]'' and ''[[High Efficiency Video Coding]]'' standards – and in the name of one of the committees that developed it – the [[Video Coding Experts Group]]. There's also the extension projects known as [[Scalable Video Coding]] and [[Multiview Video Coding]]. —[[User:Mulligatawny|Mulligatawny]] ([[User talk:Mulligatawny|talk]]) 20:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
== delete and redirect to [[Digital container format]] ==
Wouldn't it be better to delete the current article and transform it into a redirect to [[Digital container format]]? <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black">[[User:ScotXW]]</span><sup>[[User talk:ScotXW|t@lk]]</sup> 23:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:No – certainly not. Please look at the list of examples ("MPEG-2 Part 2, MPEG-4 Part 2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10), HEVC, Theora, Dirac, RealVideo RV40, VP8, and VP9"). None of those are container formats. You seem to have some misunderstanding of the topic. —[[User:Mulligatawny|Mulligatawny]] ([[User talk:Mulligatawny|talk]]) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
:Clearly this article has to exist for people just like you, who have no idea what the clearly defined concept "Video compression format" is :) . You should really try reading it, some time. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 00:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
== Overcoverage of WebM ==
<blockquote>
Another example is the initial specification for the file type WebM, which specified the container format (Matroska), but also exactly which video (VP8) and audio (Vorbis) compression format is used inside the Matroska container, even though the Matroska container format itself is capable of containing other video coding formats (VP9 video and Opus audio support was later added to the WebM specification).
</blockquote>
This strikes me as to heavy and specific for the lead—unless we introduce it with language such as "a video coding file format may be more specific than the container format it designates ..." — [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 18:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
== Wrong link in History section ==
In first paragraph of history section there is the following sentence:
"The concept of [[digital video]] compression dates back to 1952, when [[Bell Labs]] researchers B.M. Oliver and [[Chris Harrison (American football)|C.W. Harrison]] proposed "
Not only C.W. Harrison links to an american football player with no mention of any computer science activity, but also the link code explicitly says "Chris Harrison (American football)".
There is a computer science person on Wikipedia named Chris Harrison: [[Chris Harrison (computer scientist)]], but I doubt the paragraphs tells about them - they were born after 1952.
The verification link for the paragraph: https://www.itu.int/wftp3/av-arch/jvt-site/2002_07_Klagenfurt/JVT-D068.doc
and the document points to an article by the said C.W.Harrison: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1952.tb01405.x
Brief googling didn't uncover much about this person, and the paper seems to be their only known appearance in the press.
Overall, either the link should be removed, a proper article for the C.W. Harrison from bell labs written, or, if the mentioned football player is really the scientist here, the appropriate mention should be added to the article about the player.
Thanks [[Special:Contributions/31.153.10.98|31.153.10.98]] ([[User talk:31.153.10.98|talk]]) 18:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
| |||