--- 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
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,
size, and more compatible, without question.
Also, I would suggest that
Sent via CrackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:16:37
To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: 3ivx v5 is out for mac win linux
-Original Message-
From: Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:16:37
To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: 3ivx v5 is out for mac win linux
Yes, these are all mpeg4 encoders, and mpeg4 should generally use less
cpu work on a wider range
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
It's comparable to MP4 flavors Xvid and Dvix, no?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Harold Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't 3ivx also better to use if you want your videos to be playable
on older computers, since H264 takes a bit more processing power? (An
analogy could be
11 matches
Mail list logo
