The problem is that h.264 requires QT7 and a fast machine, decoding
is processor intensive using current technology. I can't afford to
loose a large part of my audience, so I use 3ivx to make Quicktime
movies as the best compromise between file size/modern technology and
viewer
Thanks for your testing, Im glad Im not the only one here being vocal
about the visual difference between 3ivx and h264 being significant. I
havent been able to post video of h264 3ivx comparisons because Im
not allowed to publish 3ivx videos unless I buy 3ivx, and I wont buy
it unless they fix
I thought it was free. What bitrate bug. Link? Or please explain in
depth. I just downloaded it for my next post. It 'doesn't work with
10.4.2 and QT 7? Are you serious? Since when do we have to buy it?
--
Taylor Barcroft
New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist
Santa Cruz CA, Beach of
The bitrate bug has been discussed a few times since you discovered
this group, I believe. It seems that under certain conditions 3ivx
does not honour the number that you put in the bitrate box. It seems
to manifest when using QT7, and 3ivx in dual-pass mode. Symptoms are
that bitrate (and thus
as steve mentioned this has been discussed many times
please take a few moments to research your questions in the archives
http://www.google.com/search?q=+site%3Ayahoo.com+videoblogging+group+3ivx
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/messagesearch?query=bitrate%20bug
Kunga wrote:
I
around the 2/9/05 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
h.264 (again) that:
Point is: Dont forget the high bandwidth users either. This advise
isnt relevant for everyone nor every type of videoblog. Its just me
saying that there will be people out there who want to see nice things
