I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
There used to be a legendary blog called "Diaries of an x264 developer" by Fiona Glaser [0] where she'd go on long rants about various ways to cheat in encoder comparisons [1], much like this.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/2012/http://x264dev.multimedia.c...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130215095527/http://x264dev.mu...
It does remind me of how stereo & speaker manufacturers sometimes boost treble a little bit (rather than being perfectly "transparent" to the original signal) because it gives the impression of clarity. But ideally each step in the processing chain "colors" the signal as little as possible, because those little differences can add up.
Of course, you won't get a sound as if you're in the same room (without a very fancy setup), so you'll generally want some sort of transformation to get an acceptable output. And artists often want to aim for a certain effect on top of that. But with how things currently are, many of the decisions going into the final sound are very opaque.
It should be valid because it's "neutral". IIRC it's basically a conversion to simulate how a neutrally tuned speaker would sound if you were in the same room.
There are many reasons objective headphone measurements aren't actually objective for you though. The biggest one is that they're taken in a silent room, so a single CPU fan or anything near you makes it invalid. Noise cancelling can mean a lot in practice.
The other reasons are that different people have different ear shapes, some people wear glasses so the headphones can't get a seal, your amp isn't electrically compatible with the headphone, your music is badly mastered so you prefer a headphone badly tuned the opposite way, etc.
Is it, though? Blogspam posts about it waffle over the exact definition, but Olive's original post [0] gives the methodology, "A panel of 10 trained listeners rated each headphone based on overall preferred sound quality, perceived spectral balance, and comfort," and a later Harman post seems to cite the original methodology without comment [1].
Unless the subjective part was just to select between different headphones that had been calibrated to simulate neutral speakers? The posts don't make it entirely clear where the curves originally came from.
[0] https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-relationship-betw...
[1] https://pro.harman.com/insights/akg/defining-the-standard-th...
> People who work deeply with codecs are usually hypersensitive to these sorts of issues that mere mortals like us need to try to see.
I think that kind of shows that the author is unfairly critical.
They're saying "this should not have shipped", when it seems just fine to us "mere mortals".
Yes, video encoding requires using your eyes. But it also seems like it should use normal eyes, not hypersensitive eyes...?
A consumer's perceived preference can be modulated by any number of issues with which the consumer is not properly informed, such as preferring one sweetener over the other, even if there are valid health concerns, thanks to generational brainwashing and an intentional lack of consumer training. What we have today is the consumer market equivalent to the unsophisticated investor market. People getting economically exploited and feeling like it was their own idea.
In the case of video encoders... Actual domain experts should not be forced to cede to the whim of an untrained eye simply for the purpose of capitalists extracting more money from them.
It's one thing for Netflix to experiment with the latest advances in machine learning, as a lot of us do. But when the opening sentence is to their blog is "When you are binge-watching the latest season of Stranger Things or Ozark, we strive to deliver the best possible video quality to your eyes", it's hard not to find issue with A) the commodification of entertainment and patronizing consumer speak and B) a misleading preposition about commitment to quality which the cited response article makes clear is untrue in the case of this product.
Deferring to domain experts in this case is better for every consumer, as they will not be duped into exchanging an increasingly degraded experience in exchange for increasing monthly rates. People feel very strongly about film quality, and for good reason. We're talking about the preservation of art and culture, but Netflix doesn't see it this way, as to them, it's all a commodity, and they manufacture consent for commodification. If the average user can't see this and push back against the degradation of quality that comes with commodification of art, I have a hard time deferring to them over an actual expert.
My suspicion is that none of this mattered though, because the evaluation was probably "perceptual equivalence" vs bitrate. I can easily believe it might be a marginal win over traditional algorithms from that perspective.
That was in the 00s. It is not the encoder's job to remove or filter out all the details. Background or not. There are some caveat to that but that was comparatively speaking at the time, say RMVB from Real Media or WMV.
Worth remembering it wasn't really the internet era back then. People encode so they could fit more things into CD and DVDs. At least that was how it started.
Somewhere along the line Internet, or mobile internet aka iPhone happened. Now everyone watches on a small screen. With all details washed out, people just want to consume. None of the details mattered. What we would only used to do in AVISyth Filter are now done automatically with Encoder. The 10 min Youtube video doesn't care about any of that. And then the 3 min, now the attention span is basically 30s TikTok or Instagram Reels. Worst of all a lot of these attention to details are also gone when doing Netflix or other long from of movie streaming. VMAF 90 is good enough, lets try to minimise the bit rate as much as possible.
We need higher / best quality at minimal bitrate, instead of having bare minimum / good enough quality at lowest possible bitrate. The two are very different.
While the march of internet / tech giant on video codec means someday we may lose out. Somewhat fortunately we still have a small group of old people in the movie production, broadcast industry, and private torrents release group still cares about these.
Hopefully, someday, especially the west, could move back to celebrate greatness rather than mediocre.
The non-zoomed image looks fine to me, and I (to some extent) know what I’m looking for. Some private torrent trackers that pride themselves on having transparent encodes will look for this kind of stuff; you have to do multiple test encodes tweaking various parameters to ffmpeg, agonizing over A/B screencaps, only to inevitably be told you either missed some minuscule detail in a single scene, or that your encode is bloated.
That's all to say - I also could not find all the things they are talking about, probably a combination of not being trained, not working a lot with video codecs, and not having the best monitors - but I get the authors frustration, and I'm glad there's people who care about these things! But yeah, I hunted for that color shift and just not seeing it...
For the people who are sensitive to a lot of these, it is more of a curse than gift. Some cant taste the difference between Corn Fed ( or Finished ) and Grass Fed Beef. The colour shift in this article, or how the latest TV perform between OLED, QD-OLED, Four Layer OLED, Mini-LED with different brand.
It turns out being able to "compare" is a skill set in itself. I would assume comparing is also a function that requires more brain power / energy, and most people's natural state would be to conserve that energy.
I have been thinking about this for quite some time. Most people dont know how to compare, or what to compare it to. And precisely because most people dont know how to compare or how not to compare, we need marketing. And I think most successful founder are very good at comparing things. Steve Jobs would be a prime example.
Though, even if I could, this is a new way to preprocess an image before feeding it into an encoder, and the examples have both been fed through the new downsizer, then the standard encoder, presumably at the standard Netflix bitrates and then (I think) upscaled back to the original size.
So if this didn't look a little compressed then that would be a methodological mistake, as you don't use downscaled encoding unless you've already decided that a full size encode has too much quality for your task.
And Netflix generally has incentives set up to reduce quality until their customers notice. That's why they quote stats based on that.
In web dev terms it's like reducing the size of your product images until it hurts sales. You're almost guaranteed to have artifacts visible to image compression experts before you hit the point that it affects your bottom line. If you are targeting customers on slow internet (and again if you are downscaling then you basically are) your sales are likely to initially rise as you get usable pictures to people faster.