[M4IF Technotes] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG special in EE Times

[Klaus Diepold]

RE: [M4IF Technotes] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG special in EE TimesOlivier,
that's all very true. However, as we have already experienced during the
MPEG standardisation work, there are sometimes arguments that lie outside
the technical spectrum. Those "marketing" arguments are sometimes hard to
understand or overcome. In essence, there maybe uses of the MPEG-4
technology that neither you nor I have anticipated in the first place.
Klaus
  -----Original Message-----
  From: technotes-admin   lists.m4if.org
[mailto:technotes-admin   lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Olivier Avaro
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2023 8:52 AM
  To: 'McClenny, John Doc'; 'Rob Koenen'; yh86us   yahoo.com;
technotes   lists.m4if.org
  Cc: 'M4IF news (E-mail)'
  Subject: RE: [M4IF Technotes] Re: [M4IF News] MPEG special in EE Times
    MPEG-4 is cheap insurance at this point.  The IP STB space is a lot less
tied to MPEG-2 than the DBS/broadcast space.  If MPEG-4 evolves to a
'better' solution for this market, MPEG-2 could go away.
    MPEG-4 is not meant technically to replace MPEG-2. Defining a standard
for STB is much more than just MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. It requires what e.g. DVB
did, which is not done for MPEG-4. Considering all the work done to make
MPEG-2 STB work, I doubt that it makes sense to switch to an MPEG-4 only
solution. If what we are talking is just Video, I also doubt that MPEG-4
Video gain justifies the investment at high bitrates.
    What makes sense to me is the extension of base MPEG-2 services with
MPEG-4 functionnality (streamed audio, video and graphics). This is what
MPEG-4 was meant for in this context and technically it is sound.
    Kind regards,
    Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/news/attachments/20011115/6fff5faa/attachment.html