The current rating system definitely has its advantages, and with the new additions that keep coming it only gets better and better. I think the discussion we've been having over the last few pages is more whether or not the rating system is going in the wrong direction - that is, trying to solve inaccuracy by consistently making things more and more complex. If we need to rate based on (say) creativity, why can't we rate the skills displayed, which - for certain genres - is in fact the bearing element in making a movie successful? If rating is based on various perimeters then those perimeters need to be relevant and sufficient in all cases, and seeing that that's almost an impossible task, we're back to square one, which is a single bar called "RATING".
If my 'guide' came across as being biased for h.264 then I'll need to edit that right away, cause that would be embarrassing. With that said I like to think I've seen a fair few movies, and if there's one universal encoding that always seems to work, and work well (that is, zero artifacts, in-game clarity at 1680x1050 resolution), it's the h.264 or the x264 (are those the same? I honestly don't know). If you have examples of other encodings that deliver same quality as the linked video references I'll be more than happy to add them to the list.
Martin from CPH, out.
