What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
26 Comments
- ASDFCommander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21. The shootout isn't finished yet.
2. QT7 was eliminated in the qualification round. You can read why here:
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-quali-105-1.htm
Short version: QT7 only works for a small range of encoding scenarios (it's not very good anyway - don't believe the hype). - djnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i like how all the apple sackriders are complaining why qt7 wasnt included. seems everyone on digg thinks anything apple touches is golden. well not so much. when ipods support divx or xvid i will support apple. otherwise there products are a pos
- EncoderGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AutoGK is not updated any more though. You should try StaxRip and AVI.net. They support alternate audio tracks and subtitles for the DivX media format, and Dr DivX 2 Open-Source has been released also at drdivx.com. divxlabs.com always has good stuff too. Most set-top players already support DivX media format subtitles.
- waiwai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doom9 mentioned in the forums:
>And in my book, QT7 rates all the way down in that list..
>you've seen it.. usability nightmare, slow and subpar quality.
I haven't looked at QT in a long time mysqlf. There was one release where they didn't even have multi-pass working and claimed they'd support it later. Multi-pass is flat out required for high quality bit distribution, so I never took them seriously again after that.
I do hear they aren't making use of many advanced features in AVC and that you can't feed vobs into QT Pro, though. Doom9 is largely about DVD ripping, remember, so that probably weighs very heavily against it there. - Drood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WMV is ***** *****. It's a terrible format, it's hard to convert, and it's garbage. I've been buggering around with video codecs for years. Used to be a DIVX disciple, but saw the XVID light.. I loathe people who use WMV. Firstly for buying into the stupid Microsoft dead end in the first place, and secondly for using a codec that for anything other than low bitrate is bloody awful in my experience.
XVID rocks. I use it for everything I do with video. I've yet to see any real benefit of using H264, unless I want LESS people to be able to watch the videos I create. - Naruto28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, HDX4 is fast, looks like he got 119fps in the test, second only to NeroDigital. Quality is another story apparently.
- timewarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How is the HDX4 codec, fast?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Much better than that -other- video codec posting...
digg++ - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ugh. This reveals how utterly ***** video is likely to look from here on out."
What are you talking about? these codecs do a great job. I agree that bandwidth needs will be increasing as hd video becomes more common, but bandwidth for the average person will also be increasing with time.
Many codecs also improve with time, and as higher resolution videos become more common I would imagine they will further be tweaked accordingly. My current connection is an ordinary cable internet connection, and it can reach ~3000 kbps. That would be enough to stream a hd source compressed adequately. - lofidan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CinePak all the way!
- timewarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Better than the other one
- NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's is really cool. You can zoom in on the high quality pngs, switch simultaneously between the different codecs to see the difference really easily. Overall, I think Xvid AVC looks the absolute best, and it's not lacking anything except in one test it got 21 fps (which was because TURBO was off at the time, right?) and that can be fixed by viewing it with VLC Media Player which is 10 times better than mplayer for playback. Dugg! :-)
- c0nsumer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, I'm really surprised at the lack of QT7's H.264 implementation. Maybe it wasn't reviewed because that codec is properly licensed and costs a few dollars?
- ichthus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Way to go Xvid! The FREE codec. I use it with AutoGK to recode my DVDs to play on Pocket PC. Full-length movies look great in 200 Megs.
- EncoderGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here are some comments from the developers (Ateme, DivX, Microsoft):
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=104699&page=1&pp=20 - EncoderGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you want ultra-high encoding rates try DivX 6.1 in High Performance mode. It was released last week and it encodes faster than ND with better quality too. DivX was only used in Balanced/Better modes in the comparison also, but you can set it all the way up to "Insane Quality" mode yourself.
- kokobaroko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ipods DO support xvid
- waiwai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice thing about rmvb and wmv is the variable frame rate support. Makes these great for anime particularly.
- romman00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ipods DON'T support xvid
- Naruto28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The final round is now up after the field was narrowed down to 4 codecs - Ateme High Profile Encoder, core 1.4.0.3, DivX 6.1, x264 revision 387, XviD 1.1 CVS build dated December 19th.
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm - c0linfang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its heart warming to see xvid, a free codec, doing so well.
wmv isn't just about mediocre quality, its also about difficulty to decode! (if your not running windows its more of a job and the legality is questionable) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I still prefer WMV. It comes with windows, and it works great
- KAMiKAZOW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No QuickTime AVC? Instead they included strange, rarely used codecs like HDX4? How lame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0AHah that's cool!
Kiltak
Merry Christmas from http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yeah Good one!
Merry Christmas from http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is