Um, 8-bits is a byte, not a bit. You said that "MPEG4 and VC9 have a higher information density per bit than MPEG2 does" which again isn't true. Per bit the information density is either 1 or 0. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps you meant higher information density per byte? Or per megabyte?

I can't believe you're wanting to get into a pissing contest over something that can be easily proven.

A bit is either a one or a zero. No single bit contains anything other than a one or a zero. So saying that one "kind" of bit being more "information dense" than another is absurd, and shows you don't know what you're talking about.

From the webopedia:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bit.html

When you talk about the "information content" of a STRING of bits, of MORE THAN ONE bit, then yes, not all STRINGS of bits are equal. But that's not what you said. You said the the bits used in mpeg4 were somehow MAGIC bits that contained more information than the bits used in mpeg2, which is just flat-out untrue and ridiculous.

Anyway, if you want to discuss this further you may as well take it to e-mail. No use taking up more space here.

And yes, I wasn't aware that the xvid folks claim to have completely re-written xvid - if that's the case, then a) it's not the same product as it was a year ago when it was based on OpenDivx, and b) it's not really relevant to this discussion, since neither the BD or AOD will use it.

Dude!
You are such a riot!
You almost made me blow dr pepper out of my nose. Good one!

Um, 8-bits is a byte, not a bit.

Like I EVER said otherwise. Good idea to start with a mostly true statement though! Points for that.
Too bad it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Per bit the information density is either 1 or 0. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oops, you blew it! Ok, HALF-WAY blew it. The information density of a bit is indeed never more than 1 nor less than 0, but it certainly can be a fraction between 1 and 0. If you had done your assigned reading like I instructed you to, you would have known that. For some clarity on the subject, let's just take a quick look at that homework right now, shall we?. Please turn to the entry on Claude Shannon and Information Theory.

Ah, here it is, let's start off with the definition of entropy: In other words, Mr Shannon defines entropy as the amount of information carried by a bit.
Or, as the reading material says later on:Got that? No? Too bad, you should have done your homework.

Moving on now, you can see in your homework where Mr. Shannon made two key conclusions about entropy:Holy smackerols Batman! He said that information density is not always an integer number of bits!

I know what you're thinking now:

Daah-mn!!! Fricking web-o-pedia! I should never have used that Cliff's Notes of a dictionary. It was way too simple, must'a been written for 2nd graders or something!

Hey, don't sweat it, some people just can't help it.
Next!!!

You said the the bits used in mpeg4 were somehow MAGIC bits that contained more information than the bits used in mpeg2, which is just flat-out untrue and ridiculous.

Yes, it is all MAGIC woo-ooo-ooo, MAGIC! My good friend Art was chilling out over in Sri Lanka one day when he said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I guess this information theory whatsits is just too advanced for you. So you go ahead and call it MAGIC. One day you can tell your grandkids about how you ran into MAGIC when you were on the internet.

Next!!!

the xvid folks claim to have completely re-written xvid - if that's the case, then a) it's not the same product as it was a year ago when it was based on OpenDivx, and b) it's not really relevant to this discussion, since neither the BD or AOD will use it.

Yes!! Of Course!! Let's just drop all the points about xvid's significant quality advantage compared to an MPEG2 encoder because, hey it is probably the best freaking MPEG4 encoder available to anyone and it is FREE. Now that YOU know that is not a "hack" (man, hacks are soo terrible, I hate 'em, do you hate 'em? I sure do!!) there is not a chance in the world it would ever be used to professionally master MPEG4 material. NOT!!!! Pass the bong man, I really want some of what you've been smokin!

Anyway, if you want to discuss this further you may as well take it to e-mail. No use taking up more space here.

Well, now that we've taken the discussion to the level of a second year electrical engineering course, I think it is quite useful INFORMATION to take up a few more MAGIC BITS. Heck of a lot more useful than yet another discussion on missing inserts! But, if you want to stick to that cliff's notes web-o-pedia junk, then I can see why you would prefer to just embarass yourself in private.

Well, there's no arguing with the above. It's not even worth pointing out the irrationality of your claims since you do a good enough job discrediting yourself with immaturity and an unwillingness to seriously discuss the actual issues we've been discussing in this thread, rather than made-up issues you seem to be arguing with yourself about.

Your treatise on information density and data entropy is an amusing way to try to cover up the fact that you didn't know that a bit was either a 1 or 0. The computer doesn't process non-integer bits. At least, not any computer most people would be using today. It's binary: 1/0, on/off, yin/yang.

You can pretend that it isn't, and you can put on your tin foil hat and claim the moon landing never took place, or that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who shot JFK, or that snappers are better than keepcases, but over here in the real world, we'll be discussing the "Latest Blu-ray News!"

My offer to take the discussion to e-mail is hereby rescinded. Why waste the time?

So, tell me this. If I just pulled Claude Shannon out of my ass in response to your silly little "8-bits is not a bit, its a byte" line how is it that I referenced him BEFORE you said that?

Was it the Butterfly Effect? Or maybe, just maybe, it's because I know a hell of a lot more about data compression than you do.

And, if you think that information theory and data entropy have nothing to do with data compression, tell me why searching google for "entropy encoding" brings up a bazillion hits, literally 1.256 bazillion hits, and every single one of them is about data compression? Hhhm. Google and Elijah live in a fantasy world all to themselves or jough just can't see the forest for the bits?

PS - your computer processes fractional bits of information every single day, probably with every single web page you load. Don't have a cow, man! MPEG4 rulez!

Well, since no one else is likely reading this thread I'll point out where I think you're getting hung up.

Shannon wrote, in 1949 no less, about "information bits" which are not the same as "computer data bits" nor do they have even the slightest thing in common other than the fact that both the theoretical mathematics and computer science fields both use a term called a "bit," and in both cases the bit signifies the SMALLESST POSSIBLE UNIT OF INFORMATION.

Now, even Shannon isn't saying that you can have a fractional bit - but he did say that the average size of a bit in a piece of data (i.e. something comprised of multiple bits) can be between zero and one.

Now, a PC may process fractional *bytes* (which is I think where you're getting confused) but the processor ONLY processes 1s and 0s. NOTHING ELSE. It's all just strings of 1s and 0s. It's what we, in the business, call "binary data."

All digital data for public consumption is binary data. Everything stored on a DVD is either a 1 or a 0. Granted, they're VERY long strings of various combinations of 1s and 0s, but in the practical world, dealing with REAL computers or digital processors and REAL DVDs (or HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray, etc.) it's all ones and zeros, baby.

And I find it ironic that you belittle the "web o pedia" which was written by experts, and then cite the wikipedia which is written by whomever decides to write something there.

Anyway, from that page you cited above, it says thus:
Interesting that you should leave that last part off.

I suggest you find the definition of a computer data bit anywhere you'd like. Your perceived quality of the source does not alter the reality that a bit in a computer processor is either a zero or one, and can be nothing else, so check up with whatever you consider a "good" dictionary to be. I'd suggest the OED, but you have to pay for a membership to get access to their web site.

However, here are a few sites that I (and many others) would consider fairly legitimate that discuss binary math a bit:

NASA

Erik Østergaard

Tutorial for school children on binary arithmatic

Dr. Math at the MathForum.org

How Stuff Works "How Bits and Bytes Work"

I defy you to find a SINGLE even somewhat legitimate source that claims that binary math in a PC processes anything but ones and zeros.

Face it, buddy, YOU GOT SERVED.

jough, by focusing on a single bit I think you are missing the point: a collection of bits can represent varying amounts of information.

Redundant information can be condensed and represented by fewer bits. If the information could be restored exactly as it was before, this would be "lossless" compression. Similar information can also be condensed to fewer bits and if it was restored to approximately as it was before then this would be "lossy" compression. In either case, the density of the stored information would be greater than the original file, a "higher information density per bit", if you will.

Depending on the compression algorithm (and its implementation), one will have varying quality of the restored data (although it can't be better than the original source, of course). And a better algorithm can, indeed, store a more accurate representation of the original data in a smaller space (fewer number of bits) than a poorer algorithm. The suggestion that MPEG4 and VC9 algorithms can store a better representation of original data in a smaller space than MPEG2 is entirely possible.

The fact that an MPEG2 file is less compressed than an MPEG4 file does not mean that it is a more accurate representation of the original when it is restored to full size. That depends on the sophistication of the encoding algorithm.

I, for one, hope that the Blu Ray folks choose to implement the newer, better compression algorithms in their format.

I find it ironic that you belittle the "web o pedia" which was written by experts, and then cite the wikipedia which is written by whomever decides to write something there.

1. The web-o-pedia is not written by experts, it is professionally edited. There is a huge difference -- your local penny-saver is professionally edited, JAMA is written by experts. All that professional editing means is that someone gets paid to do fact-checking, grammar-checking and spell-checking. For the editor, it is usually just a job and usually a low-paying job at that.
   
2. Wikipedia is maintained by people who personally care about each and every subject. It's not a job, but it is often a labor of love. Maybe the topic is their field of professional expertise, maybe it is a hobby that they are deeply involved in.
   
   Whatever their reason, personal pride in the end-result is a big part of what makes the level of quality head and shoulders above what a wage-slave, with no personal investment beyond his paycheck, typically produces.

Ever hear of a man called Raymond? Or a paper called, "The Cathederal and the Bazaar?" Maybe you should do your homework this time. You'll find that the reason wikipedia tends to be of such high quality is the same reason XviD, another labor of love written by "whoemever decides to write something there" is close to, if not, the best quality MPEG4 encoder available. Not to mention all the other Free software that you use every day without even realizing it because it is so good it just plain works.


Anyway, from that page you cited above, it says thus:

Quote:

2. The amount of entropy is not always an integer number of bits. (However, when applied to computer information a bit is always either a 1 or a 0).

Interesting that you should leave that last part off.


jough, do you take pride in pissing all over someone's work for your own self-aggrandizement? We all know that you went and edited that page for your own personal vendetta. Your actions sure haven't earned you any favors with the real authors.

Not a big deal though, you can vandalize wikipedia all you want, it won't change the facts. It won't change what everybody writing data compression algorithms and software takes for granted as baseline knowledge. I didn't link to the wikipedia entry to prove that you were wrong, I linked to it to show you that there are more things in heaven and earth, jough, then are dreamt of in your philosphy. You might as well have gone to the entry for the moon and changed it to say that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it would make.

I'm sure your vandalism will be reverted by one of the maintainers, it isn't even committed yet - that is the beauty of an open, free collaborative project like the wikipedia, it is self-correcting and self-healing. You aren't the first loser with the impulse control of a 6-year old to come along and try to abuse them and you certainly won't be the last.

What it comes down to is that you are just a jough-sixpack of video compression. You have your little piece of the picture and think that's all there is to the world.

Your inability to distinguish between bits of data and bits of information is part of the reason you keep watching that foolscreen of your own simplistic knowledge instead of looking around and realizing that there are whole new dimensions to the topic that you never even noticed before.

Since you've conceded that your position has no merit by stooping to base cheating, please refrain from going around to any other threads and expounding on what MPEG2 and MPEG4, or any video codec for that matter, are and are not.

If you can't, a simple link to the evidence of your intellectual dishonesty here will easily discredit whatever you say. And, since you've shown a propensity for trying to edit things after the fact -- don't bother. The change log on wikipedia is permanent, even after your vandalism gets reverted, the records will still show when and what you did and this entire thread has already been archived in its unedited entirety.

For more information read this thread .

jough/Jah-Wren Ryel, both of you are making posts that are agressive and insulting toward each other. Doing so does nothing to help your points and only serves to take things into a downward spiral. In the future, please leave out the personal commentary and stick to the topic.