4 ms·

divx, seriously?

• DanBC 11y ago
  > 2002/ 2003 HIPPIES FROM HELL What codec should they have used back in 2003?
  • anigbrowl 11y ago
    Yes, but why are they still using it? This is an industrial problem in the film world. Celluloid film keeps remarkably well in moderately good conditions (cool and dry), and more importantly it's so standardized that you can load a decades-old film into a new projector and it will just play back correctly. The Academy standard for 35mm film has been in place since 1932 for example, and specifies everything down to the shape of the little holes on the side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations Digital video archival is a nightmare. Although the physical storage media problems are now going away thanks to cloud services and suchlike, there isn't yet an established standard for picture storage - the main contenders are MXF and Adobe's Cinema DNG.
    • allthetime 11y ago
      "still" They haven't updated that page, presumably since it was created over 10 years ago. That's why.
    • userbinator 11y ago
      Yes, but why are they still using it? Because it works, and transcoding would lose even more quality? Digital video archival is a nightmare. Although the physical storage media problems are now going away thanks to cloud services and suchlike, there isn't yet an established standard for picture storage MPEG, H.264, etc. are not standards?
      • ubernostrum 11y ago
        MPEG, H.264, etc. are not standards? Sure. Are they still going to be the relevant useful standards 40-50 years from now? Will software/hardware for working with them still be readily available? Will the storage media be in as good condition as film would be? Most "classic" movies are at least that old, and many are decades older than that. Archiving and preserving them requires something other than the flavor-of-the-decade codec.
        • asd 11y ago
          Sure. Are they still going to be the relevant useful standards 40-50 years from now? Will software/hardware for working with them still be readily available? Well, my computer can still decode wav files, and that format is close to 25 years old now. What does it matter if the standards now aren't "useful" standards in the future? Why would projects such as VLC (which plays pretty much every format that has ever been created), etc. go away?
        • ars 11y ago
          Did you seriously call MPEG "flavor-of-the-decade"? Are you aware that probably 1 billion TV's can decode it? If there is ever a codec that can be called a "forever codec" it's MPEG. (MPEG-2 to be specific.) H.264 support is not far behind. It's only getting easier, not harder, to support every video format ever made.
          • ubernostrum 11y ago
            Are you aware that probably 1 billion TV's can decode it? If there is ever a codec that can be called a "forever codec" it's MPEG. And what is the expected lifetime of those billion TVs? Let's talk again in 30 years and see if MPEG-2 and H.264 are "forever codecs" with widespread easy support then.
            • ars 11y ago
              I have a 40 year old TV, works fine (except for a Y2K bug), a little dim but good enough for what I use it for. The point is that the codec is so widespread, used in so many places, there is zero chance it will ever not be supported.
      • anigbrowl 11y ago
        h.264 is a lossy codec and thus unsuitable for archival.