h264

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:15 am

Ahead Software (Nero Burning Rom) also had an h.264 encoder, I'm not sure how popular it is however.

Zero1 · Post by **Zero1** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:23 am

x264 is the only H.264 encoder worth bothering with right now, and in the last subjective quality tests at doom9, it beat the ateme/Nero encoder, making it the best lossy encoder at that time (and I'm sure it still is).

As for H.264 encoders, there are a number. In no particular order, we have:
- x264
- Nero Digital (in Nero Recode 2)
- JM (the excruciatingly slow reference software)
- Videosoft VSS (An evil VfW encoder/decoder)
- Mainconcept
- Apple (Quicktime)

Stuff like Apple and Nero is likely to be popular with newbies starting out encoding, or Joe Average who knows jack all about encoding, but wants to compress his home movies or stuff (and so these offer a user friendly UI)

In fact Nero was so user friendly I was lost when I tried to use it. I guess I was looking for things that weren't there. I couldn't find where to enter my bitrate, I was only give a choice of "Make it this big in MB"

BTW trythil, is the GTK interface/encoder only available in Linux?

Qyot27 · Post by **Qyot27** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:07 pm

I found this as far as the x264-gtk encoder was concerned:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=109135

I've not tested it (partly because I haven't had/used MinGW in ages, and I already encode through MeGUI as it is). It's good to know that on Linux there's an alternative to mencoder, though.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:31 pm

Zero1 wrote:BTW trythil, is the GTK interface/encoder only available in Linux?

Nope, it'll build on any platform that has a GTK+ port (so Windows, OS X, and GNU/Linux are all set). The screenshot above was done from Mac OS X.

Zarxrax has asked me to do a wxWidgets x264 GUI so that users can have native look-and-feel, but so far I've been kinda lax on that project :(

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:33 pm

shiro_clanclan wrote:

That's what I mean. One simple config, already done and ready for you to mess with outta the EXE.

What's the difference from what I posted?

shiro_clanclan · Post by **shiro_clanclan** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:16 pm

The fact that you were compiling and accessing it from the Terminal? o.o;

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:22 am

shiro_clanclan wrote:The fact that you were compiling and accessing it from the Terminal? o.o;

After the program is compiled, it can be packaged for distribution, and accessing it from the terminal is just one method of launching. (One could also, say, package the GUI into an application bundle, distribute that, and have it act like any other OS X application.)

shiro_clanclan · Post by **shiro_clanclan** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:20 pm

And thus, my lack of knowledge about OSX comes forth. My bad.