Talk:Comparison of H.264 and VC-1

message: #I modified the Goals section, since it was not cited anyway. The previous goal for H.264 made it look as if it was designed to be an inferior codec to VC-1, as it allowed flexibility but not necessarily quality. The rewritten goal, while relatively long (I could not find a way to encase it in a sentence), makes clear that the different profiles do allow for flexibility (such as usage on portable devices), but the high profiles aim at high (efficient) compression and quality, which suggests, standard versus standard, it could rival VC-1 at the high levels. 77.126.249.55 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals section in table modified 

message: #Templates requesting additional references should not be removed until AFTER a change is made or a compromise is reached - not before.  Two different editors have noticed the same thing, so there is definitely the perception that there may a problem here.  
#The biggest problem that I have, and I believe the other editor had, was that all the subjective items on the page are sourced by microsoft.com, the developer of VC-1.  A strong attempt needs to be made to find other sources for these subjective evaluations.
#Citing the number of figures in a specification has almost no meaning on the quality or understandability of the documentation.  This, and other things, make this article boarder on original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia.  Respected sources need to be found that have already made this assertion, and those sources should be cited.
#What are the "Performance demands" for H.264?  What does "more PC's" mean?  A specific example should be mentioned and cited.  As it stands right now, the reader is left with either the assumption that the writer only knows about VC-1 (in which case, how could a valid comparison be made?), or information about H.264 was deliberately left out.   You and I know that H.264 has higher complexity - but how much higher?  Will a E4300 C2D do 1080p with VC-1 but not H.264?
#Also, bit rate is a valid comparison - please leave it in the table.  If you don't agree with which one is better, either request a cite, or change it with a counter citation.  My understanding is that H.264's higher complexity results in a lower bit rate.  
Thank you!  Mrand T-C 04:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references 

message: #references should not be removed until AFTER a change is made
#:The page was edited each time after the such comment was made.
#::Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for the article and the time that you've spent on it, but saying that the page was edited each time is like following the letter, rather than the intent, of the template request.  In both cases, I think the concern was clearly stated about the overwhelming use of only one source for subjective comparisons (see below), and that one source happens to be the developer of the technology.  Since the concern remains, the template needs to remain as well.
#that all the subjective items on the page are sourced by microsoft.com
#:I don't know what you are calling subjective.  Test results are good reference material.  Also if someone has a better product they are going to advertise it.  If someone has a worse product they are not going to advertise that it is worse.
#::Absolutely test results are good material.  But I suspect that we are both well educated professionals here, so we both know that "video quality" can be a very subjective test and that there are many different way to configure the encoder, and therefore many way to make one encoder come out on top of the other.  The other editor, and myself, are simply requesting additional sources to back up the quality claims.
#those sources should be cited (context: with regard to readability of the specifications)
#:They are cited.  How better do you want them cited?  There really is no comparison.  Anyone who has looked at both no what a joke the h.264 spec is compared to VC-1.
#:: Unfortunately, counting figures is not considered a valid way to make the claim that one is more readable than the other.  The H.264 spec may very well be completely unreadable to even the most technical person, but we (editors) are not allowed to make that determination.  Our job is to find and capture reliable information from reliable sources.  If wikipedia allowed editors to make judgements like this, it would not be NPOV.
#:::Comments are out of date.  All the current text does is count number of figures. Daniel.Cardenas 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference discussion 

message: The article cites too many subjective tests.
:How many is too many?  Codec comparisons are typically done subjectively.  Standard industry practice.
*Any is too many. It may be standard practice, but they are all highly subjective and are thus unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia (POV).
the compilation of such work is original research
:Your definition of original research doesn't match Wikipedia's.
*Check 'Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position' under WP:NOR. This does count as original research and does match Wikipedia's definition.
*:Which synthesis are you referring to? Daniel.Cardenas 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a good summary that helps people understand were these codecs are coming from and what maybe there best use.
*It gives no information about the actual performance or suitability of the current codec for a given task. This can only be determined by considering the codec in its final and delivered state.
Senordingdong 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: subjectivity

message: You asked, 'Which synthesis are you referring to?'
I said that, 'I am critical of the overwhelming Microsoft bias, but I don't think that this should be corrected by inclusion of  findings of other groups - the compilation of such work is original research'. This is the synthesis that I refer to.
The compilation/interpretation of such results is considered original research under WP:NOR under the heading 'Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position'. Accordingly, it should not be included. My point is that including the findings of other groups in the article would be a poor correction to the Microsoft bias of the page.
Senordingdong 13:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  I believe others will find that your viewpoint is unique, and is not what is intended by wikipedia policy.  In otherwords there is no synthesis.  You seem to be claiming because the information is from one source that is synthesis, and that is not is not what is meant in the policy.  And then you further try to suggest that if the same data is from two sources then it is still not valid.  Doesn't make any sense to me.  Daniel.Cardenas 17:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming than any synthesis exits. I state that there is Microsoft bias on the page and that this bias should be removed. One way to remove this bias would be to include the findings of other groups along with the current Microsoft citations. However, interpreting or combining such results would be a synthesis of published material, and would violate WP:NOR. Therefore this cannot be done. I propose that a better solution is to remove the subjective tests and citations and instead compare codecs based purely on their specifications. In this way, we remove subjectivity and do not include POV in the article. I do not believe that this viewpoint is unique nor that it contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Senordingdong 18:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Group results based on perception or subjectivity is a standard scientific and engineering practice.  I'll add the reference from C'T magazine; that will address your request for adding findings from other groups.  Are you claiming an incorrect bias for VC-1 video quality?  If yes, then find a reference, subjective or objective that says so.  Daniel.Cardenas 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which synthesis are you referring to?

message: This could end up being a very useful article, but right now it seems put together very haphazardly. I would suggest:
1. Moving ALL references to the very end of the article because currently they make the article very hard to read.
2. Separate objective specification differences from subjective design goal and application differences. Add another chapter which discusses the suggested advantages of each codec's specification differences, complete with references.
3. Add a final chapter which discusses current implementation differences (real-world differences, not design/spec differences).
:1. Moving ALL references to the very end of the article because currently they make the article very hard to read.
:That was a boo boo of mine.  I deleted it. Thanks for pointing that out.  Although probably changing all references to use the ref tag is needed. Daniel.Cardenas 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a serious rewrite 

message: Most of the information is horribly out of date.  A reference stating that VC-1 is better than H.264 (or vice versa) is completely useless if it comes from 2003, before there were any worthwhile encoders for either.  Its like using a reference from 1950 to make the claim that human space travel is impossible.  Is there consensus to do a wipe of all the references that are too old to be valid for modern comparisons? —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wipe the reference, then you will have to wipe the associated comments. Ideally it would be good if there was an alternative reference available, even if it changes the comparison.  Go for it.  Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas 12:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Also note that it is probably a violation of NPOV policy to use any source by a party with a strong vested interest (such as Microsoft, Mainconcept, Elecard, etc) for anything controversial.  For example, if Microsoft makes the claim that VC-1 is faster than H.264, this is not necessarily a fact; I've seen benchmarks demonstrating the opposite with CoreAVC used as the H.264 decoder.  On the other hand, one cannot trust a page by Mainconcept written about how good Mainconcept is, either.  Such sources are obviously by parties with a vested interest and as such can only be used for purely unbiased facts, such as technical specifications. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has some serious issues 

message: Perhaps not fully needed, as it may change over time, but if there were a section that briefly states where one can usually find each codec being used (i.e, industry, personal backups, HD-DVD, etc) it could prove to be useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.252.98 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to add real world uses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of H.264 and VC-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927035059/http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1web.ppt to http://www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1web.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731204707/http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avcweb.ppt to http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avcweb.ppt
*Added  tag to http://www.m4if.org/exhibitions/NAB2005/presentations/session3-cvandusen.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified