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 bigest compatibility issue is people who dont have quicktime or an alternative player/browser plugin installed at all, which makes mpeg4 just as inappropriate for them as h264, and is an issue largely overcome by the use of flash format.
I am very interested in the artifacts problem you highlight, I would like to work out what this is. Got any example footage? Does it happen even at 320x240? Its nothing to do with interlacing is it? The other factor that made me assume this is less of an issue is the number of people using Apple's ipod presets, thus using h264. But yeah, 3ivx & similar are certainly capable of getting a lot of quality out of the mpeg4 format. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "andrew michael baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 intricate motion. > > If you want to appeal to 9 to 5ers around the US, most don't have fast machines at work and in lesser dev parts of the world, its even less likely they will be able to view H264. > > So, I conclude from daily experince of rendering both, that 3ivx is better looking, smaller in file 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 > > > 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 play smoothly on some machines, eg the apple HD > samples. > > This, coupled with the fact thing like the ipod, apple tv, psp, > xbox360, can handle h264, along with many people making flash versions > of their stuff available for widest computer compatibility, means > there are less reasons to stick with mpeg4 rather than h264, than > there were when h264 was first added to quicktime a couple of years ago. > > But for those that do want to stick with mpeg4 for whatever reason, > these alternatives are usually better than quicktimes own mpeg4 > encoding. If you pick the right settings when encoding, you can make > standard mpeg4 files which will playback on a computer without that > person having to install 3ivx etc. Alternatively you can go for higher > quality, at the expense of some compatibility (eg some 3ivx settings > will require the viewer to have 3ivx decoder installed to watch). Its > all this 'profile' stuff which defines which features a decoder can > handle, same as there are different h264 profiles, with baseline being > the simplest, taking less cpu to decode, and working with the ipod > etc. Most vloggers are interested in compatibility more than pure > quality, wheras quite a bit of 3ivx, xvid & divx's market is people > who are ripping DVDs etc to smaller files but that are high quality, > where they may never be sharing the files, and so compatibility is > less of an issue, so long as it works for them. > > Further complications surrounding these alternative mpeg4 encoders, > are what file wrapper format is used (eg .mp4 or .avi), and what audio > format is used. For example DivX uses its own file warpper which is a > modified avi renamed to divx, and I think they use mp3 audio rather > than AAC. This is fine for playback on DivX ertified hardware, or > computers with DivX installed, or in the browser with the DivX browser > plugin, but makes DivX a less than ideal choice for people looking to > create ipod compatible files. But as I have mostly been focussing on > h264 myself, I could be wrong with some of these details. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Harold" <harold.johnson@> wrote: > > > > --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Brad Hood" <anunnaki@> 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 > > >
