User talk:Pawnbroker

Comment on move of MPEG-4 Layer 10 page

Hello, can you please explain why you moved MPEG-4 Layer 10 back to H.264? I believe people have been trying to standardise the names of all the audio codecs. -- FirstPrinciples 05:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Response

My perception is that the three most common names are H.264 or AVC or MPEG-4 AVC. No one properly calls it MPEG-4 Layer 10 ever (the correct term for the standards in the MPEG-4 suite is "part", not "layer"). The longstanding name of the page has been H.264, and I consider the attempt to rename it to be inappropriate, as it is the name used for the development of the page and is highly prevalent and not incorrect. Yes, people have been trying to get convergence on the naming, but different people seem to be trying to get convergence on different names. I see no reason to change the established page name from a correct one to an incorrect one.

Partly the problem is that this technical design fits into two families - ITU-T H.26x and ISO/IEC MPEG-x part x standards. Although H.264 and MPEG-4 part 10 are technically identical, they are formally two different standards. If there is only one page for the technology, the naming in one of the families is going to look a little funny.

(Also, this is video, not audio.)

OK, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure there was some rationale behind the move. Personally I have been quite confused by all the varying names, acronymns, etc. in this category. Thanks for your quick response. :) -- FirstPrinciples 06:57, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lossy compression downsampling

Hi Pawnbroker,

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent contribution to Lossy compression#Downsampling_.2F_compressed_representation_scalability. I was unfamiliar with cases where it was implemented (I just knew that bitrate peeling didn’t work) – I’ve actually just learned about JPEG progressive and JPEG 2000, so I very much appreciate your info. Thanks again.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice remarks. —Pawnbroker (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit

Hey, nice edit to the MPEG1 article removing that idiotic quote that said video compression will never be better than MPEG1. Even in 2001 with the popularity of Divx and the advent of the then-new Xvid were way ahead of MPEG1. Oh and, even though I dont know you: merry christmas!--70.65.229.62 (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not irritated with you!

I'm sorry, I just noticed you apologized to me for on Fischer's talk page for continuing the discussion of his heritage. I assure you, it wasn't you I was upset with, but the anonymous poster who kept this issue going. Thought I'd just let you know. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pawnbroker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]