Quote:
Originally posted by SirDavidGuy
1. It is clearly worse than the DCT in terms of its ability to seperate the different frequencies; numerous tests have shown that.
|
Are you sure about it? I've read that the difference between this transform and DCT is up to 1% of any coefficient. I might be wrong though. And also, I don't see why separiting frequencies is important.
Quote:
|
The argument which says that it allows more accurate reconstruction doesn't fly. Even at a low quant, the roundoff will almost certainly make any difference very low.
|
I disagree. DCT problems are there, and they are very ugly. Do you remember XviD qpel smearing? It's horrible. Even if we can solve it on PCs by using the same DCT for all projects, I fear that _all_ qpel videos will not be decodable on stand-alone players.
Quote:
|
2. It doesn't allow DCT-domain sub-pixel motion estimation. Since this approach is faster (and may possibly present better quality), in a system like H.26L, where even 8th-pel precision is allowed, this is a must.
|
Can you explain? You always can do DCT if you want to, and you won't use the data during encoding anyway (I doubt 4x4 transforms will do any good for ME)... so I don't see the point.
Again, it might be that I don't understand and am wrong
Please explain, I will be doing "Kludge" and I'm planning on using integer transform
(just note: I _will_ need 100% perfect reconstruction, some stuff will be predicted from the picture, prediction will determine VLCs used so must be the same on both ends)
Regards,
Radek