6 ms·

DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, I don't think it's quite obsolete yet?

digi_owl 9y ago
And likely never will be. Newer codecs basically exist because video resolutions outpace storage space (for questionable benefits). MPEG2, much like MP3, are "good enough" for most common usage.
- zanny 9y ago
  A megabyte saved is still a megabyte saved. An mp3 sourced from a FLAC at 320kbps is ususally indistinguishable from 128kbps Opus to me, but I can often tell the difference between that and a 128kbps mp3. I encode all my music in 128kbps Opus on my storage constrained devices for that reason.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    The value of that MP3 vs FLAC is like 90% less than it was 20 years ago.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Bandwidth and storage have been slowing down and stagnating for some time now. My internet isn't much faster than 10 years ago. The difference between video codecs makes a huge difference in the quality of video I get to see.
  - ttsda 9y ago
    My internet is way faster compared to 2008. Probably had something like 10Mbps back then, paying less for 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home now.
    - rjplatte 9y ago
      You're lucky. I have 100mbps Spectrum, but I've visited a number of slightly more rural areas and been shocked by how truly horrible the network was. 5-6 mbps.
      - mnw21cam 9y ago
        Yeah, I get about 7Mb/s with a downhill moon, a following slope, and a full wind. About 100m away the street-side box is emblazoned with a declaration that "super-fast broadband is here", by which they mean ADSL2+, which is 24Mb/s (again, with a following moon, full slope, and downhill wind). But it somehow hasn't made it to this house.
- ozmbie 9y ago
  Streaming 4K videos (or fitting them onto a 50GB physical disc) requires better video codecs. MPEG2 wouldn't be enough. Personally, I see the benefit in 4K having a setup to take advantage of it.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    Most of MPEG2 was focused on interlaced formats. MPEG1 can already handle 4k by 4k video. MPEG1 and 2 can already handle HD on bluray media. Even at the max bitrate (100Mbps), a bluray can store 1.4Hrs of video. One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases.
    - izacus 9y ago
      > One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases. Well people did exactly that - and they named it: - MPEG-4 Part 2 (also known under names like DivX, Xvid, ...) - MPEG-4 Part 11 (also known as AVC, H.264, ...) - VP8 - VP9 - AV1 - MPEG-H Part 2 (also known as HEVC, H.265) Those are all codecs that build on and extend what MPEG-2 is.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  And people completely gloss over the "good enough" part, and head straight to arguing bitrates and resolutions. Pop quiz hotshots, why did the CD become a big hit, but the DVD-A died a quiet death? Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading! The CD was a massive improvement of convenience over the cassette tape or LP record. Now you could instantly find the one song you wanted, and skip between them with the push of a button. Similarly there is no convenience upgrade to go from MP3 to FLAC or some other audio format. And the same pattern plays out with video. DVD video was a smash hit because no more having to rewind that VHS, and they took up a whole lot less space on the shelf (buying a TV series season on VHS was downright crazy for the physical space it would require). BR and similar is simply not enough of a convenience upgrade.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    > Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading! If anything, DVD-A was a convenience _downgrade_. People already had CD players (and upgrading to DVD-A would provide little-to-no audible upgrade anyway), plus you have copy-protection controlling acceptable output formats and preventing ripping.
- floatboth 9y ago
  MPEG2 good enough? It's horrible! Anything from before H.264 is potato quality.
SllX 9y ago
So I probably should have put this in my original comment as I've gotten a few replies in the same vein. What I mean by MPEG-2 being obsolete is that whilst DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, and DVDs do make use of MPEG-2, we have superior video compression formats available that are mostly, patent encumbered, but also technically superior to MPEG-2 in just about every way other than availability, and now, the lack of patent encumbrance (outside the Philippines and Malaysia at least). Or put another way, it isn't yet commercially obsolete, but it is technically obsolete.

And likely never will be. Newer codecs basically exist because video resolutions outpace storage space (for questionable benefits). MPEG2, much like MP3, are "good enough" for most common usage.

zanny 9y ago
A megabyte saved is still a megabyte saved. An mp3 sourced from a FLAC at 320kbps is ususally indistinguishable from 128kbps Opus to me, but I can often tell the difference between that and a 128kbps mp3. I encode all my music in 128kbps Opus on my storage constrained devices for that reason.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  The value of that MP3 vs FLAC is like 90% less than it was 20 years ago.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Houshalter 9y ago
Bandwidth and storage have been slowing down and stagnating for some time now. My internet isn't much faster than 10 years ago. The difference between video codecs makes a huge difference in the quality of video I get to see.
- ttsda 9y ago
  My internet is way faster compared to 2008. Probably had something like 10Mbps back then, paying less for 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home now.
  - rjplatte 9y ago
    You're lucky. I have 100mbps Spectrum, but I've visited a number of slightly more rural areas and been shocked by how truly horrible the network was. 5-6 mbps.
    - mnw21cam 9y ago
      Yeah, I get about 7Mb/s with a downhill moon, a following slope, and a full wind. About 100m away the street-side box is emblazoned with a declaration that "super-fast broadband is here", by which they mean ADSL2+, which is 24Mb/s (again, with a following moon, full slope, and downhill wind). But it somehow hasn't made it to this house.
ozmbie 9y ago
Streaming 4K videos (or fitting them onto a 50GB physical disc) requires better video codecs. MPEG2 wouldn't be enough. Personally, I see the benefit in 4K having a setup to take advantage of it.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Most of MPEG2 was focused on interlaced formats. MPEG1 can already handle 4k by 4k video. MPEG1 and 2 can already handle HD on bluray media. Even at the max bitrate (100Mbps), a bluray can store 1.4Hrs of video. One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases.
  - izacus 9y ago
    > One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases. Well people did exactly that - and they named it: - MPEG-4 Part 2 (also known under names like DivX, Xvid, ...) - MPEG-4 Part 11 (also known as AVC, H.264, ...) - VP8 - VP9 - AV1 - MPEG-H Part 2 (also known as HEVC, H.265) Those are all codecs that build on and extend what MPEG-2 is.
digi_owl 9y ago
And people completely gloss over the "good enough" part, and head straight to arguing bitrates and resolutions. Pop quiz hotshots, why did the CD become a big hit, but the DVD-A died a quiet death? Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading! The CD was a massive improvement of convenience over the cassette tape or LP record. Now you could instantly find the one song you wanted, and skip between them with the push of a button. Similarly there is no convenience upgrade to go from MP3 to FLAC or some other audio format. And the same pattern plays out with video. DVD video was a smash hit because no more having to rewind that VHS, and they took up a whole lot less space on the shelf (buying a TV series season on VHS was downright crazy for the physical space it would require). BR and similar is simply not enough of a convenience upgrade.
- stordoff 9y ago
  > Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading! If anything, DVD-A was a convenience _downgrade_. People already had CD players (and upgrading to DVD-A would provide little-to-no audible upgrade anyway), plus you have copy-protection controlling acceptable output formats and preventing ripping.
floatboth 9y ago
MPEG2 good enough? It's horrible! Anything from before H.264 is potato quality.

SllX 9y ago

So I probably should have put this in my original comment as I've gotten a few replies in the same vein. What I mean by MPEG-2 being obsolete is that whilst DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, and DVDs do make use of MPEG-2, we have superior video compression formats available that are mostly, patent encumbered, but also technically superior to MPEG-2 in just about every way other than availability, and now, the lack of patent encumbrance (outside the Philippines and Malaysia at least). Or put another way, it isn't yet commercially obsolete, but it is technically obsolete.