Talk:Qpel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm removing the 'Implementations' section. It doesn't seem concerned directly with implementations. It hinges on the phrase 'typically no net gain in overall compression is obtained by enabling QPEL', but it doesn't define the term 'compression' so isn't meaningful as stands. It seems to suggest enabling QPEL does not increase quality/bit, which not the experience of myself and others - see for example: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=104621 --Tower 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope my re-wording of my text makes it clear for you. You're probably right. My use of 'compression' was sloppy in that context. I should have said smaller file size. But its very hard to get good definitions in this area. Yes, QPEL does give sharper images for the same file size, which technically, is an increase in compression, I guess. Timharwoodx 07:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It continues to distress me greatly, that the WIKIPEDIA is full of self opinionated editors, who can not even write simple English sentences. Add User:Dark_Shikari to the list. He fails to see it even when pointed out. How bad is that? Timharwoodx (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And of course, you proceed to blatantly violate WP:CIVIL with repeated personal attacks on a veteran editor with years of experience who you've never even met before, and refusing to discuss the issue on either this or your own talk page, even though I politely asked to do so. I don't think this is going to end well. I'm not going to revert again after this; more likely, an admin will block you for incivility if you continue. I'd love to see the grammar errors you feel exist--but I can't fix them if you refuse to even say what they are! I mean, come on, this is getting to be a candidate for WP:LAME. —Dark•Shikari[T] 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets discuss grammar. I maintain a child should understand the following is not correct. Thats not an insult, its a statement of fact. Thus, you fail to meet basic educational standards. Are you ready? Here we go?

"Since the quality increase gained by the use of Qpel is not always enough to offset the increased bit cost of a quarter-pixel precision motion vector, rate-distortion optimization significantly improves the effectiveness of quarter-pixel precision motion estimation."

Do you see that at the comma, the sentence is broken? The second half of the sentance, has nothing to do with the first half. The comma should be a full stop. The sentence should have the missing content re-added. Something like 'smaller files sizes do not necessarily result.'

So for pointing out your hopeless English language skills, I'm now threatened with being blocked from the WIKI? What a joke. Is this how you treat everyone who exposes your below high school English language skills? Timharwoodx (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I think Dark Shikari is in the right here, Tim. His revert of the article is more grammatically correct than yours. Of course, the issue isn't who can soliloquize more fluently; if you think Shikari is in the wrong, please tell him in a calm, civil way. Be specific about what he's done incorrectly; walk him through it. You don't have to treat him like a child. If you continue to make personal attacks and antagonize other editors you will be blocked. That isn't a threat; rather, consider it a notification. Please consider what I've said and cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I did not sufficiently explain the concept of rate-distortion optimization. The second half of the sentence is completely related to the first half of the sentence. —Dark•Shikari[T] 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like 'smaller files sizes do not necessarily result.' - that period should be outside of the quotes, not inside; sentance - elementary spelling error; WIKI - should not be capitalized; What a joke. - should have an exclamation point, not a period; Here we go? - should have a period or colon, not a question mark; Lets, Thats, its - missing apostrophes; its a statement of fact - no, it's an opinion; Would you like me to look for more? Ros0709 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Since I seem to enjoy stepping into things, I took a shot at copyediting the most recent version -- mostly some rearrangements of correct but could-be-improved sentences. Let me know what y'all think. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Thanks for the edit--its definitely clearer now. —Dark•Shikari[T] 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)