From: Christopher Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Media vs. Real Media
Although my tests weren't perfect, I too found that MS codec wasn't as good
as quality as Real's. I too seen the blocky square images that reminded me
of a slow teleconferencing video image.
At 11:22 AM 9/15/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "LiFe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Windows Media vs. Real Media
>
>Another post to ask for comments....
>
>I was recently comparing Windows media (Windows Media Audio Codec V2 and MS
>MEPG-4 Codec V3) with the latest Real Producer G2 Beta in real situation
>tests. There are obvious benifits in using both programs but I found a
>massive difference in video quality at low bandwidths. Despite all of MS's
>hype that it creates CD quality at the lowest file sizes to date, and the
>fact that almost all Warez movies come in .ASF CONGRATULATIONS is due to
>REAL.
>
>The Real codec seemed to produce, time after time, better visual results
>than MS (At low bandwidths such as 28.8 and 56). The MS codec usually had a
>higher FPS during massive sceen movement, but the picture was consitently
>semi-pixilated - with large square blotches noticeable at all times (even at
>much higher bandwidths). Real frequently dropped many more frames, making
>high movement squences more of a slide show, but in general the output was a
>noticeably smoother and sharper image (without the telltale square blotches
>of MS).
>
>Unfortunatly the results of the 'experimentation' cannot be made publically
>avaliable due to lack of HDD space : )
>
>Comments and info are highly desired (esp any info about independent testing
>of the codecs). This post was simply made to inform and to congratulate
>Real - Keep up the good work... We're counting on you to stay 1 step ahead
>of MS!
>
>A Squarish Blotch of Regards....
>LiFe.
>
>P.S. - Can all those DVD rippers out there start using Real products now?
>*smiles*
>P.P.S. - Does anyone know why they use .ASF? Is there are particular reason
>for the choice?
