2

Can someone explain what was the original motivation behind using shape coding in MPEG-4 Part 2 and why it was later not implemented/removed in MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264)?

I already read the excellent answer here, so I know that they both codecs were not exactly designed by same group of people. However, I wonder why the idea of shape coding was completely left aside since it seems to involve a lot of intricate, well-thought details to me. Was the reasons mainly computational or did people figure out that other schemes would bring better quality?

Community
  • 1
  • 1
chronosynclastic
  • 1,585
  • 3
  • 19
  • 40

1 Answers1

0

I think the reason is mainly computational. The best example is to look at hardware encoders/decoders. H.264 encoders/decoders have been integrated into many devices, e.g. mobile phones, blu-ray players, etc. This would probably have been very complicated if the hardware designers had had to deal with intricate schemes such as shape coding.

damjeux
  • 320
  • 2
  • 12