Independent Codec Comparisons

Buck Forester · March 31st, 2011, 06:25 PM

I think my problem (and it is my problem, ha!) is the use of the word "detail" in the original post... it says, "Thus, the more detail that one can see in these images, the less fidelity to the comparison image"

I read that as implying the better/more detail you can see, the less 'close' it is to the comparison image (the standard set). I guess what is meant by detail is really noise, making detail 'bad'. Because I too see that 280 mbps looks the closest to the comparison image and has the 'most' detail. I don't know if the original wording was wrong or my brain is wired backwards! :^D

Short story long, it appears obvious that 280 mbps is the best. Which is what I'll shoot for my critical stuff.

March 31st, 2011, 06:25 PM	#16
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Re: Independent Codec Comparisons I think my problem (and it is my problem, ha!) is the use of the word "detail" in the original post... it says, "Thus, the more detail that one can see in these images, the less fidelity to the comparison image" I read that as implying the better/more detail you can see, the less 'close' it is to the comparison image (the standard set). I guess what is meant by detail is really noise, making detail 'bad'. Because I too see that 280 mbps looks the closest to the comparison image and has the 'most' detail. I don't know if the original wording was wrong or my brain is wired backwards! :^D Short story long, it appears obvious that 280 mbps is the best. Which is what I'll shoot for my critical stuff.