great posts, mr elbows. i agree about naming files .mp4 rather than mov or m4v.
yeah, i was very happy with 3ivx so it took me a while to get excited about h264 for videoblogging. Looking back at my posts from 2005 recently, I saw that I seemed to get insanely low file sizes with 3ivx. admittedly they were 320x240 but there wasn't much noticeable pixellation or loss of detail. and looking at my workingformydad.com wmv files that i made with my webcam back in 2003, they were mostly 200-800kb for 30 seconds to 1 minute. not much different in quality to my nokia mp4 files, really, but about 10 times smaller. wmv ftw. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 31-Mar-09, at 1:24 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Its both, the codec and the encoder and settings. > > h264 isnt perfect, but a better h264 encoder could give a better > result for your scenario. > > Likewise when Apple first started promoting h264, some people who > had ben using older mpeg4 were not blown away, because they had been > using a really good mpeg4 encoder alled 3ivx which was pretty good > quality, so it seemed like there was less of a leap between mpeg4 > and h264 for them, than those who had only been using lesser mpeg4 > encoders like the default quicktime one. > > If your videos are for viewing in browser and not for download, I > cant think of many disadvantages to using .flv if it gives results > you are happy with. h264 scores more points when device > compatibility is factored in. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "quietleader" <war...@...> > wrote: > >> > > So is it better to say that video quality depends on how your > encoding application handles content, rather than on the codec used? > > > > - Warren Schirtzinger > > http://www.vespadiaries.com/ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
