1- Your program is unanimous. All use.
So it's a exelente propagation medium standards for the community.
2- There is currently no good Quality Index to set the image quality of a movie file.
a- Most people using 720 or 1080 as indicator.
b- We know that many 720 are infinitely better than others in 1080.
c- The question always was "bps".
3- The current "Bits/Pixel*Frames" calculates an index regardless of where the movie screen size is displayed.
If two file versions of the same movie, with the same codec, with the same basic configuration, coming from the same source with the same "Bit/Pixel*Frames", however, in 1080 and another one in 720, the 1080 will best picture quality when viewed on a TV with 1080x1920 screen.
It seems to me that the right would be to convert the index of "Bit/Pixel*Frames" considering a TV-HD 1080x1920.
The factor "pixels" of the equation should be increased to the size of a 1080x1920 display.
It would be a new image quality factor considering the display on a TV set with full HD screen (1080x1920).
============
Of course we would not be considering the differences in quality of video codec (h263, h264, h265, etc ...).
Perhaps in the future can be created "correction factor" considering the codec.
Making an analogy with the exchange between currencies:
I have no technical knowledge to suggest a ratio.
Maybe it's a fairly subjective correction.
============
We are not considering the audio. Neither codecs (MP3, AC3, AAC), nor the amount of channels.
But I suppose that if we think a quality index for the audio too, should determine the basic conditions of the viewer.
1- A home theater with support 5.1
or
2- A TV Set whit support 2.0
============
In the future this index could be converted to a scale 0-9, maybe logarithmic.
With 2 digits. One for video and one for audio.
Full (1080x1920) "Bits/Pixel*Frames": Video 7, Audio 3: FBPF = 73
or
Subjective Quality of Exhibition: Video 7, Audio 3: SQE = 73
I'm an engineer. I've been working on a Quality Factor for a couple of years. It is not easy. Yes, the codec matters, but many, many other things matter also. The field of vision matters. The sample rate and sample depth matters. The storage media matters.
It is not simple. For example, bits/pixel is not so important. The actual SIZE of pixels is more important.
Mark.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In my country we have an old saying goes: "Perfect is the enemy of good".
If we do not have a great solution we will be no solution?
I think it's not a good decision.
I'd rather have something better than the current Bits/Pixel x Frames.
Even if it is not the optimum solution.
I believe my initial request was very ambitious.
The current Bits/Pixel x Frames considers the file pixel values.
Best would be to consider the pixel values raised to a display on TV HD or 1080x1920.
It's not great. But I think it is better than the current Bits/Pixel x Frames.
It might be called "Quality Factor for Newbies".
Excuse my insistence.
Antonio
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
translate by Google
Proposal: Create a new "Quality Factor"
1- Your program is unanimous. All use.
So it's a exelente propagation medium standards for the community.
2- There is currently no good Quality Index to set the image quality of a movie file.
a- Most people using 720 or 1080 as indicator.
b- We know that many 720 are infinitely better than others in 1080.
c- The question always was "bps".
3- The current "Bits/Pixel*Frames" calculates an index regardless of where the movie screen size is displayed.
If two file versions of the same movie, with the same codec, with the same basic configuration, coming from the same source with the same "Bit/Pixel*Frames", however, in 1080 and another one in 720, the 1080 will best picture quality when viewed on a TV with 1080x1920 screen.
It seems to me that the right would be to convert the index of "Bit/Pixel*Frames" considering a TV-HD 1080x1920.
The factor "pixels" of the equation should be increased to the size of a 1080x1920 display.
It would be a new image quality factor considering the display on a TV set with full HD screen (1080x1920).
============
Of course we would not be considering the differences in quality of video codec (h263, h264, h265, etc ...).
Perhaps in the future can be created "correction factor" considering the codec.
Making an analogy with the exchange between currencies:
I have no technical knowledge to suggest a ratio.
Maybe it's a fairly subjective correction.
============
We are not considering the audio. Neither codecs (MP3, AC3, AAC), nor the amount of channels.
But I suppose that if we think a quality index for the audio too, should determine the basic conditions of the viewer.
1- A home theater with support 5.1
or
2- A TV Set whit support 2.0
============
In the future this index could be converted to a scale 0-9, maybe logarithmic.
With 2 digits. One for video and one for audio.
minimum: DVDRip +-700M, MPG2, audio mp3 2ch 98kbps = 11
maximum: BluRay +-25G, h265, audio DTS 1536kbps 6ch = 88
In the future, with the 4K, the scale can be hexadecimal, from 0 to F
Antonio,
I'm an engineer. I've been working on a Quality Factor for a couple of years. It is not easy. Yes, the codec matters, but many, many other things matter also. The field of vision matters. The sample rate and sample depth matters. The storage media matters.
It is not simple. For example, bits/pixel is not so important. The actual SIZE of pixels is more important.
Mark.
translate by Google
In my country we have an old saying goes:
"Perfect is the enemy of good".
If we do not have a great solution we will be no solution?
I think it's not a good decision.
I'd rather have something better than the current Bits/Pixel x Frames.
Even if it is not the optimum solution.
I believe my initial request was very ambitious.
The current Bits/Pixel x Frames considers the file pixel values.
Best would be to consider the pixel values raised to a display on TV HD or 1080x1920.
It's not great. But I think it is better than the current Bits/Pixel x Frames.
It might be called "Quality Factor for Newbies".
Excuse my insistence.
Antonio