HD without the overheads
-
lister007
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:50 pm
- Location: Great Britain, um the country with the best flag;)
HD without the overheads
What is the best codec for hd at the mo? Alot of them have really high overheads, some of the amvs come out jerky you know, what do you think of the new divx hd codec? The jerkyness only happens with some amvs I've seen, not so much with the apple trailers though? any thoughts?
Spatchcock..........A dressed and split chicken for roasting or grilling on a spit.
Bring it
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
Bring it
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
-
Minion
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:16 pm
- Location: orlando
- Contact:
-
Zarxrax
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:37 pm
- Contact:
Resolution is probably the single biggest factor that affects playback speed. HD resolutions simply require much more processing power to play smoothly than standard definition videos do. Also HD videos contain much more data than a standard resolution video, so you want to compress it more efficiently. H.264 is currently the most efficient encoding format, but also one of the hardest to play back. Fortunately, it is very configurable, so various settings can be tweaked to make a compromise between compression efficiency and processing power required.
Apple uses H.264 for their videos, but their encoder does not contain many advanced options so it can't compress as well as an H.264 encoder like x264 can. As a result, it can also play back on system with slower cpus.
The x264 encoder that everyone uses provides much better compression techniques than apples encoder, and so it requires a stronger cpu to play back using these features. However, x264 is a very configurable codec, and can be set to encode in much the same way as Apple's encoder does.
So in the end it's a tradeoff--do you want a smaller, more efficiently compressed video, or do you want a video that will play on slower cpus? According to your needs, you can configure the settings in x264 how you want them.
Apple uses H.264 for their videos, but their encoder does not contain many advanced options so it can't compress as well as an H.264 encoder like x264 can. As a result, it can also play back on system with slower cpus.
The x264 encoder that everyone uses provides much better compression techniques than apples encoder, and so it requires a stronger cpu to play back using these features. However, x264 is a very configurable codec, and can be set to encode in much the same way as Apple's encoder does.
So in the end it's a tradeoff--do you want a smaller, more efficiently compressed video, or do you want a video that will play on slower cpus? According to your needs, you can configure the settings in x264 how you want them.