theres a big difference between 99% quality and 30%. near lossless is a good name for the first one. if you treat it in a binary way where everything short of 100 falls into one "lossy" bucket you lose all the practical differences that make one encoding much better than another.
replyI agree with you somewhat, and I like what is described in the article. But I also feel like we are diluting the meaning of the word to make things sound better. Lossy/Lossless is inherently binary, and it carries a specific meaning. It would not detract from the work at all if it was described differently.
replyYou can't be a little bit on fire :)
> theres a big difference between 99% quality and 30%.
replysure
> if you treat it in a binary way where everything short of 100 falls into one "lossy" bucket you lose all the practical differences that make one encoding much better than another.
no; lossless is an inherently binary term. and I don't lose all the practical differences of better lossy encoders by understanding that; I'm not just going to start using mp3 96k because I have an understanding of lossless vs lossy encoders...
Lossless is an objectively binary term.
Lossless is objective for information theory. To get from the real world to digital world you need an analog to digital converter, this process is by definition lossy. We are interested in the real world, and information is pure but never represents exactly reality.
replyLossyness is baked into our problem statement here.
Using terms like near lossless means we think we are very close to reality for what we’re trying to do
deleted
reply