Need a Format thats smaller but better then the Huff codec

Quu · Post by **Quu** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:55 am

deiot wrote:heh.. very funny.
mathametical or programming it doesn't matter, somebuddy in this world can do it.

ideot (hopefully not a valid anagram)...

there is a certian point of deminishing returns... (for losless quality)

HuffYUV is optimal in its balance of size against processor requirnments...

to get a marginal decrease in size (gee... instead of 18 gigs per file is 17.3 gigs) JPEG2000 losless requires a massive proessor...

and all the other losless codecs i have tested... have not compressed as good....

HuffYUV is simple elegant... and free

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:04 pm

JPEG has the capacity to be lossless?

Cool!

Quu · Post by **Quu** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:39 pm

yes and no...

its called Lossless jpeg

and its not comptaible with normal jpeg...

i think everybody suports it now... but a lossless jpeg is not the same as a normal jpeg... uses the same math... but they are not compatible

kmv · Post by **kmv** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:55 pm

deiot wrote:mathametical or programming it doesn't matter, somebuddy in this world can do it.

Think of it like this:

Take a piece of paper (bear with me here) and fold it in half. That was easy, right? Now fold it in half again. Slightly harder, right?

Keep folding the paper in half again. With each reduction the time and effort to make the fold increases until you get to the point where you just can’t fold the paper any more. Try it: I’m willing to bet that you will only be able to fold the paper in half about six times – no matter how large the piece of paper was to begin with.

Lossless data compression is a lot like that, except its maths not paper.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:10 pm

kmv wrote:
deiot wrote:mathametical or programming it doesn't matter, somebuddy in this world can do it.
Think of it like this:

Take a piece of paper (bear with me here) and fold it in half. That was easy, right? Now fold it in half again. Slightly harder, right?

Keep folding the paper in half again. With each reduction the time and effort to make the fold increases until you get to the point where you just can’t fold the paper any more. Try it: I’m willing to bet that you will only be able to fold the paper in half about six times – no matter how large the piece of paper was to begin with.

Lossless data compression is a lot like that, except its maths not paper.

I think you picked a bad mathematics analogy...purely mathematically, you can keep on folding infinitively

Of course, physically, it becomes a problem of torque, but...meh

A better way would be to explain the whole concept between Huffman encoding, and that you can only make your substitution tree so small before you start losing information. Not quite sure if deiot will get it, though.

kmv · Post by **kmv** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 6:06 pm

trythil wrote:A better way would be to explain the whole concept between Huffman encoding, and that you can only make your substitution tree so small before you start losing information

You know, I toyed with the idea of explaining Huffman tree population or Ziv-Lempel analysis... but not for very long.

deiot · Post by **deiot** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 6:35 pm

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:43 pm

i'm surprised nobody suggested this already, especially quu who showed me how.

Make editing copies of your stripped files. if you're using premier, you can strip the DVD into crappy quality low rez files intentionally, do all your editing, then when you're done, strip it again with high quality clips and replace the crap quality ones.

if you can't even scrummage the space to do that, buy a hard drive, dude, they're cheap

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:57 pm

sixstop wrote:i'm surprised nobody suggested this already, especially quu who showed me how.

Make editing copies of your stripped files. if you're using premier, you can strip the DVD into crappy quality low rez files intentionally, do all your editing, then when you're done, strip it again with high quality clips and replace the crap quality ones.

if you can't even scrummage the space to do that, buy a hard drive, dude, they're cheap

Do you read?

trythil wrote:You could try the MJPEG/VOB-switchout method outlined in the Technical Guide on this site, though if you're really cramped for disk space, that might not work either.

Right there, he said it.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:11 pm

why yes i do read.

apparently not very well. . . :p

oh wait, i'm not intimately familiar with the guides here so I probably did read that but it didn't register as the same thing as what i was saying.