Talk:Video quality

Description of FR metrics is incorrect
FR metrics do not necessarily perform a pixelwise comparison of the images. Instead, some metrics may perform filtering of the images before comparing them. Also, they may compare only subregions or downscaled (=averaged)regions of the images. It also happens, that some metrics extract one value(e.g. jerkiness) from the reference video, extract the same value from the degraded video and then compare these two somehow averaged values. In this case no imagewise comparison would happen at all. I am still thinking about a good text to correct this. If somebody has a good idea how to phrase it, go ahead... Grizzly007 15:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to rephrase this. Soulhack (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Opticom
I deleted the 'further reading' link to the Opticom home page this morning, assuming it was advertising spam. As it has been re-added, I assume there is a good reason for linking directly to it. Maybe it would be a good idea to explain that reason, before I re-delete it? GyroMagician (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Would not recommend linking to proprietary implementations when a standard is available. Soulhack (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of LIVE-related topics
Someone added a very biased section on LIVE databases and no-reference models developed by researchers at the LIVE group. These models were included in an existing well-known and accepted classification of models, making it appear like they formed a completely new set of models, which is not true, since they are also simply pixel-based. They should be included as examples only, in the section below, and should be phrased less promotional. – Soulhack (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Video quality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070613082813/http://www.genista.com:80/management.htm to http://www.genista.com/management.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100531073341/http://broadcastengineering.com:80/test_measurement/quality-control-0210/index2.html to http://broadcastengineering.com/test_measurement/quality-control-0210/index2.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215014910/http://www.atis.org:80/iif/ to http://www.atis.org/iif/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Subjective video quality
The contents of Subjective video quality can be merged into without causing an WP:UNDUE issue. There is significant overlap in the articles so the merge would benefit readers and editors maintaining the material. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * One is defnitely a more specialized topic, and you could imagine having dedicated pages for objective/instrumental and subjective video quality, but sure, it could be nested under the main video quality article without causing any confusion. I don't oppose. Slhck (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the pages are in appropriate WP:SUMMARY form, and I feel that the current structure works for readers. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)