a short while ago, 720p hdtv were released in xvid at a filesize of 1.36gb. is
the same quality achieved with an albeit more efficient codec x264 at a lower
file size of 1.07gb? anyone know why it changed? it seems that xvid is a much
more familiar codec.
[#12234]
Written by: davidoff86 [17/01/2007, 02:16]
h.264 is the codec used in hd-dvd's.
its more efficient and produces better quality, altho more cpu hungry
[#12238]
Written by: frog1234 [17/01/2007, 02:30]
davidoff86, while you are right to say that it is higher quality than xvid,
there are however tradeoffs and some scenes will look better with xvid as it has
smaller blocks.
it's better overall, not always in all situations though.
[#12263]
Written by: davidoff86 [17/01/2007, 05:32]
o yer u can play 264 on lower spec machines sure, just uses a bit more power than xvid thats all.
[#12283]
Written by: maccool111 [17/01/2007, 09:27]
personally i'm not bothered so much about the extra processing power what i
don't like are the mkv format files.
i like to keep certain tv episodes by converting to mpeg2 and authoring a dvd
but what an absolute pain that is with the mkv format.
i may be behind the times but i like xvid.
| 1 of 1 |
