There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.
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.
There is, after you define what you’re ready to loose and understand the lossy space. That’s how we came up with mobile cellphones, audio and video codecs etc. Literally powering all modern devices we use.
So then ... "lossy"
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.
2 replies →
Actually, all of those things are considered "lossy".
Yes, anything not lossless is lossy. Near-lossless is not lossless, so it is lossy. I hope we speak the same language