Talk:YULS

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Broadcast engineering and technology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

YULS and MSU relations[edit]

As I would conclude, YULS is developed by the same people who developed MSU Lossless Video Codec. I suspect that MSU codec should be considered as a renamed version of MSU codec, but I can't find any information on this topic. If found, it should be added to the article. Furthermore, the comparison in the article is conducted by the authors of these codecs, so it might have biases towards them. Actually, I suspect that both codecs mentioned above were developed to score in this comparison. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the author of MSU, and it appears that MSU and YULS are developed as a part of a competition of a kind. They are created by different people, though there is a common person, whose input in both cases was limited to discussing the underlying ideas. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

best compression ratio?[edit]

Did a quick and dirty benchmark by comparing YULS with FFV1, HuffYUV and Lagarith. Since YULS has a resolution limit of 1024x768 (outdated much?), I'm working with a resolution of 1024x432 (resized and cropped) for all codecs and the raw (including avi container overhead). The source is the raw trailer for Sintel:

Codec	RGB	YUV12
RAW	1623926 KiB (100%)	811982 KiB (100%)
YULS	193404 KiB (11.910%)	85558 KiB (10.537%)
FFV1	233498 KiB (14.379%)	106252 KiB (13.086%)
HuffYUV	Incompatible	168184 KiB (20.713%)
Lagarith	272551 KiB (16.783%)	124240 KiB (15.301%)

So in this case, it does provide the best compression. Story might be different with more stationary pictures (eg desktop screen capture) and real world recordings. My conclusion: I don't see the point in using it. It provides only marginal improvement over size, but is unsuited for video editing as it is very slow in comparison (around 1/80 the speed of multithreaded(4x) Lagarith) and its resolution limitations (multiple of 16, max. 1024x768) make it only usable in few environments.Oehr (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have softened this claim. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]