Y’know, there’s a similar one used in the gemstone industry: “eye clean,” which only applies if the stone has no inclusions (artifacts) that can be seen with the naked eye. As you can imagine, it’s usually a pretty desirable trait, especially in diamonds. It doesn’t really matter if there’s random garbage floating around in it, it just has to be undetectable to our human eyes.
You’d describe the encoding, not the source. The fun part is that it also applies to audio. “At 256 kbps, MP3 is transparent.”
It only applies to lossy codecs. Lossless codecs, by definition, have no error. “Error” itself being a borrowed term. Good encodings don’t have fewer errors… they have less error. For example, measured as mean squared error, where an individual sample being very wrong counts more than many samples being slightly wrong.
Presumably you know, but for anyone else: the word for this is “transparent.” It’s when the codec leaves no noticeable artifacts.
Huh, there’s a term for that? TIL
Y’know, there’s a similar one used in the gemstone industry: “eye clean,” which only applies if the stone has no inclusions (artifacts) that can be seen with the naked eye. As you can imagine, it’s usually a pretty desirable trait, especially in diamonds. It doesn’t really matter if there’s random garbage floating around in it, it just has to be undetectable to our human eyes.
Misread as “gaming industry” and was briefly very confused.
How would you use that in a sentence? Like “You can compress the hell out of the video and it’s transparent”?
You’d describe the encoding, not the source. The fun part is that it also applies to audio. “At 256 kbps, MP3 is transparent.”
It only applies to lossy codecs. Lossless codecs, by definition, have no error. “Error” itself being a borrowed term. Good encodings don’t have fewer errors… they have less error. For example, measured as mean squared error, where an individual sample being very wrong counts more than many samples being slightly wrong.
“the encode is transparent”
deleted by creator