--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brad Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's comparable to MP4 flavors Xvid and Dvix, no?
I don't entirely know, Brad. The name certainly makes you think of
DivX and Xvid, but whether there's any similarity in the technology,
I've no idea.
Harold
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brad Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Vloggers.
I've been on the list a while, so I'd like to present my
vlog, http://HomerCafe.com
I'll definitely be checking your vlog out, Brad. I spent a month in
Alaska about ten years ago -- a weekend of it in
We use 3ivx on Rocketboom for our main .mov Quicktime distribution
file. I've used this for about 2 years and I'm glad to see that the
update is finally here (when Apple came out with the Intel
processors, creating 3ivx was not possible (though playing was) and
so we have remained on an
Yes, these are all mpeg4 encoders, and mpeg4 should generally use less
cpu work on a wider range of devices than h264. But this becomes
much less of an issue as the years go by, and 320x240 h264 should play
on a wide range of computers. It was mostly at higher resolutions that
h264 struggled to
Cool, makes sense. Just remembered another reason people offered mpeg4
instead of h264 - you need quicktime 7 for h264, and back in the day
there were some people who didnt want to move from qt6.
Mpeg4 should be quicker to encode than h264 as well, again depending
on what settings are used,
I would suggest that h264 is not nearly as pervasive of an option to consider
yet do to the large number of machines out there that can not process the codec
fast or smooth enough.
Also, while H264 looks nice at the highest of settings, I have grown weary of
the artifacts that appear with
Well Im quite prepared to yield to the majority view on this, just
going by the discussion here over the years I had come to assume it
was much less of an isue now. Like what spec are all the machines that
cant play baseline h264 at 320x240 or similar resolutions? These days
Im assuming that the
OK Im just looking at the HD version of Rocktboom's Friday episode.
Its an interlacing problem, and its bad. Its nothing to do with H264,
its to do with what resolutuon you've used.
2 solutions:
Deinterlace within your editing app (if available options exist) or
using an external app like JES
Thanks for the note, we have a new editor who didn't deinterlace that
file, a new one is uploading now. A non-issue.
If you have a look at this recent file for example, it looks good for
a 60meg file:
http://www.rocketboom.net/video/hd/rb_07_may_29_hd.mov
It has a couple of deinterlacing
I'm absurdly obsessive about image quality, and ALL of the current options
make me wince (except when their artifacts and problems are part of the
aesthetic of a piece), but I have to say h.264, for me, was a gigantic step
up from 3ivx (which had been my pick for best quality), which in turn did
Thanks for your thoughts, interesting. Id guess the only way 3ivx or
other mpeg4 could be better than h264 in terms of quality, is if you
enable options that go way beyond simple profile mpeg4, and so break
quicktime ipod etc compatibility. Ive just had a brief go with 3ivx
5 and have encountered
http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/538323076/
here you can see some of the nutty Youtubers who showed up to
Pixelodeon saturday.
after their screening, they were talking of getting several million
viewers for their videos.
it's nuts.
Jay
--
Here I am
http://jaydedman.com
Check out
Awesome, I'm glad YouTubers made it to Pixelodeon. There is some
really rich interaction and media making on YouTube.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/538323076/
here you can see some of the nutty Youtubers
I'm looking to get a phone I can watch video on. I'm on t-mobile. Any
recommendations?
http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/42/love-warriors
15 matches
Mail list logo
