3 ms·

At some point comparing highly efficient codecs with metrics like PSNR becomes meaningless, I'm not sure why so much emphasis is still put on it. Verification a

At some point comparing highly efficient codecs with metrics like PSNR becomes meaningless, I'm not sure why so much emphasis is still put on it. Verification against human preference is the way forward. I believe methods like A/B preference testing have been done for audio codecs for a few decades, idk why video didn't catch up. In this respect I look forward to the work done by the Daala guys, seeing how they come from the highly successful OPUS audio codec seem to be very mindful of perceptual optimization.

anon1385 12y ago
>At some point comparing highly efficient codecs with metrics like PSNR becomes meaningless, I'm not sure why so much emphasis is still put on it. Because (some) codec developers have put a lot of effort into optimising for it, and simple numbers are easier to market to people who haven't actually compared the codecs themselves. You can see how successful it is from the many posts in this thread that assume VP9 gives you higher quality at the same file size than H.264. On2 codecs were known for relatively heavy blurring that improved PSNR stats but looked subjectively worse. Most comparisons I've seen indicate this is still the case with VP9. Of course it does depend a lot on the source material - some things make it more noticeable than others.