Talk:MPEG-1/Archive 1

message: This is actually not all true, as far as I know. The 1 and the 2 in MPEG stands for the Phase it usually deals with, it's not "MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3", it's "MPEG Phase 1 Layer 3". You should ask the inventors, but as of this day, the software deals with the phases on that level (see MP3 discussion page).
:Response: No, I'm afraid not.  Refer to the official MPEG sites and their terminology - e.g., the MPEG official site and the MPEG Industry Forum site.  For example, MPEG-21 is not the 21st "phase" of MPEG work.  The suffix is just an identifier for a set of standardized technologies that are associated in some way (in particular, it identifies those Parts sharing the same ISO/IEC standard number, which in the case of MPEG-1 is 11172 and in the case of MPEG-2 is 13818).  And sometimes multiple phases of work are found within one MPEG suite (e.g., the two distinct generations of audio codec designs within MPEG-2).  And if you say MPEG-1 Layer 3, you're leaving out the Part number that tells you where to look for the Layer number, because Layer 3 is something defined only within Part 3.  You have to either say "Audio" or "Part 3" (which are synonymous terms in MPEG-1 and MPEG-2) to indicate which part you're referring to.  When you say "the software", I don't know what software you are referring to.  Are you referring to the software found in MPEG-1 Part 5? Pangolin 08:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phases and Parts and Layers

message: Original posted on main article by Daniel.Cardenas:
"Please enhance this article.  Topics that need addressing are:
* How is compression achieved
* Simple diagram that shows the compress and decompression process"
AlyM comment: The standard 'closed-loop compression' diagram seen on many video compression overview papers may be useful here. AlyM 10:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: The MPEG-4 article covers patents and licesnsing, should the MPEG-1 article have an IP section? Or is it patent-free? Mike Linksvayer 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  patents/licensing? 

message: Where the hell did this number come from?  I've been studying a lot about compression and the various techniques different codecs use to achieve quality video at lower and lower bit rates.  But, seriously, I've never heard any mention of designing a video codec with a specific bit rate in mind beforehand like 1.5 Mb/s.  Rather, efforts in designing new codecs stress greater efficiency in general.  Does anyone know where this reference 1.5 Mb/s came from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.160 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they don't ever try for LESS efficiency, but getting greater coding efficiency is a trade-off in development time and computational complexity.  So, they most likely intended to improve MPEG-1 until they got something acceptable for CD (VCD) bitrates, and then finalized it.  Rcooley (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Added citation to the article (only one so far) to confirm that they were, in fact, working on/aiming for 1.5Mbps from the very beginning (1989). Rcooley (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed for 1.5 Mb/s bit rate? 

message: WHile wikipedia has standards I do not think that this section should merely be a reference guide of computer genuis tech-heads - the average idiot should be able to make sense of the article without wading through surging tides of complex and unfamiliar jargon.
--122.107.228.233 (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People aren't exactly falling over themselves to spend their time working on unpopular articles like this one.  In other words, feel free to fix it yourself...  It's unlikely anyone else will do so in the near future.  (Eventually, I'll probably end up doing it, myself.) Rcooley (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  complexity