DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, I don't think it's quite obsolete yet?

So I probably should have put this in my original comment as I've gotten a few replies in the same vein. What I mean by MPEG-2 being obsolete is that whilst DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, and DVDs do make use of MPEG-2, we have superior video compression formats available that are mostly, patent encumbered, but also technically superior to MPEG-2 in just about every way other than availability, and now, the lack of patent encumbrance (outside the Philippines and Malaysia at least).

Or put another way, it isn't yet commercially obsolete, but it is technically obsolete.

And likely never will be.

Newer codecs basically exist because video resolutions outpace storage space (for questionable benefits).

MPEG2, much like MP3, are "good enough" for most common usage.

And people completely gloss over the "good enough" part, and head straight to arguing bitrates and resolutions.

Pop quiz hotshots, why did the CD become a big hit, but the DVD-A died a quiet death?

Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading!

The CD was a massive improvement of convenience over the cassette tape or LP record. Now you could instantly find the one song you wanted, and skip between them with the push of a button.

Similarly there is no convenience upgrade to go from MP3 to FLAC or some other audio format.

And the same pattern plays out with video.

DVD video was a smash hit because no more having to rewind that VHS, and they took up a whole lot less space on the shelf (buying a TV series season on VHS was downright crazy for the physical space it would require).

BR and similar is simply not enough of a convenience upgrade.

> Answer, because there was no convenience to be had with upgrading!

If anything, DVD-A was a convenience _downgrade_. People already had CD players (and upgrading to DVD-A would provide little-to-no audible upgrade anyway), plus you have copy-protection controlling acceptable output formats and preventing ripping.

A megabyte saved is still a megabyte saved. An mp3 sourced from a FLAC at 320kbps is ususally indistinguishable from 128kbps Opus to me, but I can often tell the difference between that and a 128kbps mp3. I encode all my music in 128kbps Opus on my storage constrained devices for that reason.

The value of that MP3 vs FLAC is like 90% less than it was 20 years ago.

MPEG2 good enough? It's horrible! Anything from before H.264 is potato quality.

Streaming 4K videos (or fitting them onto a 50GB physical disc) requires better video codecs. MPEG2 wouldn't be enough.

Personally, I see the benefit in 4K having a setup to take advantage of it.

Most of MPEG2 was focused on interlaced formats. MPEG1 can already handle 4k by 4k video. MPEG1 and 2 can already handle HD on bluray media. Even at the max bitrate (100Mbps), a bluray can store 1.4Hrs of video.

One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases.

> One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases.

Well people did exactly that - and they named it:

  - MPEG-4 Part 2 (also known under names like DivX, Xvid, ...)
  - MPEG-4 Part 11 (also known as AVC, H.264, ...)
  - VP8
  - VP9
  - AV1
  - MPEG-H Part 2 (also known as HEVC, H.265)

Those are all codecs that build on and extend what MPEG-2 is.

Bandwidth and storage have been slowing down and stagnating for some time now. My internet isn't much faster than 10 years ago. The difference between video codecs makes a huge difference in the quality of video I get to see.

My internet is way faster compared to 2008. Probably had something like 10Mbps back then, paying less for 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home now.

You're lucky. I have 100mbps Spectrum, but I've visited a number of slightly more rural areas and been shocked by how truly horrible the network was. 5-6 mbps.

Yeah, I get about 7Mb/s with a downhill moon, a following slope, and a full wind. About 100m away the street-side box is emblazoned with a declaration that "super-fast broadband is here", by which they mean ADSL2+, which is 24Mb/s (again, with a following moon, full slope, and downhill wind). But it somehow hasn't made it to this house.

Most digital TV broadcasts use MPEG-2, don't they?

DVB-T2 can use a variety of codecs.

From 2022 some European countries (Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovakia) will pass their broadcasting system to DVB-T2 with H.265. Since January 2017 new TVs must support HEVC decoding.

Sadly, no AV1...

we will see how good DVB-T2 will be... I don't think it will get critical mass and it will end up being used for LTE/next gen. I mean it's mostly a paid service, at least in germany and it will not have any benefits over next gen mobile network. at some point it's easier to merge terrestial over IP, especially if you can have IPv6 only networks, which makes some stuff simpler (multicast + mcast routing).

Also LTE next can already do everything DVB-T2 is capable of, so I doubt that without any full free plans that DVB-T2 will gain traction.

There is also a standard for mobile television called MBMS which will probably kill of any dvb-t stuff in the long term.

Edit: since we talked about a codedc. most of these services currently use H.264 and I do not think that they will migrate to H.265. Guess as soon as mobile devices ship with hardware AV1, there will be Mobile TV with AV1.

And some other countries (e.g. Slovenia, Sweden, UK) use H.264 as well.

Do wonder how many will be left hanging high and dry with that transition.

In the US transition to digital transmission, nobody was left high and dry. Perhaps mildly confused or inconvenienced by the need to get and setup a government subsidized converter box. Doubtful this would go any different for the above.

Hopefully they'll do something similar to what the US did during the analog->digital switch: provide external tuner hardware to people who can or won't upgrade their televisions either free or subsidized.

Yes, ATSC in North America generally uses MPEG-2 video, in an MPEG-2 transport stream (often with AC-3 as the audio codec).

There are provisions to use h.264 within that transport stream, but I'm not sure if any stations actually broadcast with that.

Some cable systems (Comcast has been migrating I believe) do use H.264, but I don’t know of any OTA usage. There is “Mobile DTV” AKA ATSC-M/H which uses H264 and is designed for mobile reception, but stations are rare and commercial adoption is nonexistent.

I posted a longer reply to someone else, but to clarify, when I say obsolete, I mean technically obsolete rather than commercially obsolete.

MPEG-2 TS as a container, something more modern for the video/audio codecs.

Still used in the audio world to this day, because it has a short coding delay. This patent expiry will be good news to many.

My understanding from a long time ago was that the formats were actually competitive if you consider computation requirements. Size of the data was larger, but not by so much that it was scary.

There a good modern comparison of the formats?

This isn't far off especially if you count on-CPU decoding. MPEG2 is sensible for the time, but can't scale to larger pixel resolutions or lower bitrates well.

The generation after MPEG2 (VP7, MPEG4 ASP, Theora) though, pretty much sucked universally and there was no good reason for it… second-system effect?

This makes me realize how behind I am. The generation you mention as being bad is what I think of as latest generation. :)