5 out of 5 members like this post.
Interesting comparison of formats. Thank you for sharing and welcome. Its important to keep in mind that not all MPEG2 encoders are created equal. That analysis may not play out as consistently as you might think when comparing across various encoders. It is a bit of a running joke among technical geeks that there are open source encoders capable of doing a better MPEG2 encode than what the studios usually produce with their fancy proprietary encoders. Compare the DVD of my Matrix edit against the official studio DVD. You may find the comparison to be shocking.
Originally Posted by mz23
Certainly the various MPEG4 codecs produce smaller file sizes than MPEG2. They produce smaller file sizes by a significant amount actually. H.264 is something like 40% more efficient than MPEG2. The comparable quality is also undoubtedly a bit better. The problem though is that even if I agree with all that, it doesn't take away from a great many reasons to work with DVD. It is relatively easy to work with. It has universal compatibility. There are no creativity limitations for menus, extras, subtitles, alternate tracks, etc. The format feels more tangible and fun because you can print out artwork, stick it in a case, and put it on a bookshelf. You can play it in a kick-ass home theater or on your computer.
I love HD but am only interested in working in the physical media BD and DVD formats. To hell with the rest. People can strip my edit down and rip it to whatever format they want on their own time, but I am not going to do it for them. I do this to make fun collectible rarities for movie fans; not to provide a free throw-away rental service for Internet geeks.