Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542903
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: IE10 still disappointing
by saynte on Sun 18th Nov 2012 08:32
in reply to "RE[13]: IE10 still disappointing"
No, my definition allows VBR to exist, but it's clearly not used for the output bitrate, just the compression bitrate. You said that the bitrate refers to the "video as rendered", my explanation was to inform you as to why that couldn't be the case.
You're repeating something correct in the second half of your reply: that x264 has a higher quality/bit/second than WebM. I'm glad you got to the correct conclusion eventually.




Member since:
2007-02-17
According to your definition, VBR doesn't exist, and it is not possible to have a video at a certain output bit-depth*width*height*fps with fewer bits.
Your definition is clearly nonsense. Variable Bitrate means the bitrate varies (even though the output bit-depth*width*height*fps does not).
Now if I only need a certain bitrate to get a certain quality for part of a video, and I actually use more bits, then am am using a higher bitrate, and I get better quality as a result. That is how it works, chum. The very graphs you keep referencing say so.
Edited 2012-11-18 07:42 UTC