| |||||||||||||
Lossy format conversionLossy format conversionPosted Dec 10, 2011 15:20 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums by ibukanov Parent article: Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Pretty far off-topic, but: it is a rare situation indeed where the removal of information will improve the fidelity of a signal. One might not be able to hear the difference, but I have a hard time imagining how conversion between lossy formats could do anything but degrade the quality. You can't put back something that the first lossy encoding took out, but you can certainly remove parts of the signal that the first encoding preserved.
(Log in to post comments)
Lossy format conversion Posted Dec 12, 2011 2:54 UTC (Mon) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link] You can't replace missing information, but you could still make something that sounds better -- in a subjective sense. For example, maybe the mp3 has harsh artifacts at higher frequencies that the ogg encoder would remove. It could apply to lossy image transformations too. Consider this sample set of images. An initial image is pixelated (lossy), and that result is then blurred (also lossy). Some might argue that the final result looks better than the intermediate one, even though all it did was throw away more information. But I do agree that this is off-topic, and that such improvement is probably rare in practice.
|
|||||||||||||