Talk:Moving Picture Experts Group

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer graphics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moving or Motion?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One edit changed "moving" to "motion". The next cited a google search as authoritative (it's NOT!) and changed the name to motion/moving. So that everyone can trust i'm right, i'm going to cite two sources:

Both of them refer to the "Moving Pictures Experts Group" and are not ambiguous or unclear about it. I hope this clears things up. – Fudoreaper 04:28:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Actually, those links refer to the "Moving Picture Experts Group" ("picture" is not plural). --Pangolin 17:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

And don't i feel like a fool now. Man. Thanks Pangolin, you're correct. – Fudoreaper 21:02:14, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Fudoreaper, I know the discussion above is ancient, but I had the same doubt just now and found this discussion while searching for relevant info. You see, I too distinctly remember the "M" in MPEG being expanded as "Motion" instead of "Moving", at least back in the day. See for example this page on the ISO site (July 2004) that states, "The ISO/IEC 14496 (MPEG-4) series has been developed by MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group) and defines the set of technologies for compression, encoding and delivery of complex audio-visual scenes composed of different media objects", or indeed this RFC page on the IETF site (Sept. 2003) where the title itself states, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG)". I wonder if it is possible that "Motion" and "Moving" were used somewhat interchangeably back in the day? Perhaps the latter was changed to or standardized upon at some point in time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4013:b07b:cd5:4452:f227:6bbb (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Request for addition of information to "How MPEG works" section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the use of the terms "frame", "granule" and "samples" be added to this section? This request arises from content of Scfsi and content of a glossary at http://www.guerillasoft.co.uk/encspot/glossary.html. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Request for license information.

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As far as I know you need a license to legally encode (record/create) MP3 (and probably other codecs as well). On the other hand a license is not necessary to decode (play) MP3 files. It would be great if someone could put some informaton about licensing regarding these encodings. Jarl Friis 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone, I know a guy that did some early work with MPEG-1, but need to cite the work. Can anyone help? I'm sure he would oblige in expanding on "How MPEG works" in relation to the Video side of things, and I think audio too. Please see my userpage on the subject and the article I have in progress about the guy, and leave a message in my userspace. Ta T.--T3Smile 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC) * T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Opening Graphic

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The opening graphic gives an overly simplistic and misleading impression of the use and evolution of MPEG. As one example, MPEG-4 was used on the internet and BD before it appeared on satellite. It is suggested that a replacement graphic should be more generic and application-agnostic.algocu (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removed section "Tools"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed a new section "Tools" added by user PaulBreadly, because it was not appropriate. This article is about Moving Picture Experts Group and not about video or audio converters or editors. There are other appropriate articles on Wikipedia about audio and video software - e.g. List of video editing software, Comparison of video editing software, Comparison of video encoders. The MPEG developed many audio and video standards and there are hundreds of various software applications that use them. User PaulBreadly added to his section "Tools" some shareware software and this contribution looks like an advertising.--89.173.65.226 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Moving Picture Experts Group. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

WG split

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WG was just split into a bunch of WGs: https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=21261045&objAction=Open&viewType=1

I think this means that MPEG would now be described as a "collection of WGs and AGs". It's not simply SC 29 as that would also encompass JPEG. TD-Linux (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add Criticism section

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greatder (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moving photo

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

<?php { eco "Hello,World!"; } ?> 2409:40F4:1113:E87E:C983:5C5:1C4D:BDB8 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic