A bit of thread stomping going on here? Show me a better codec in image quality for the resulting file size that is free open source and I will eat those words. Otherwise keep your mouths to yourselves you childish turds.
x264. It's free. It's open source. It has better image quality
and a smaller file size, because it's smarter, newer, H.264, better compression, etc., etc., etc.
Anyone that knows anything at all about offering videos for net download understands file size is important too. Look at ALL the major download sites for TV shows, movies, etc, and you will find they're offered primarily in two types of codecs, X264 and Xvid. X264, while being slightly better in image quality results in WAY bigger file sizes and is WAY less stable to use.
I'm not trying to insult you here, but it really sounds like you haven't done any research or homework. x264 produces better image quality at smaller filesizes. YouTube actually uses x264 to encode their videos. NoobFlicks does, as well.
Now why would YouTube, the largest online video site, use x264 to encode their videos if the filesizes were so much larger? How would that help dealing with the massive amounts of traffic and streaming they have to do?
I don't see the two of you proving to be aficionados of videos for the smart ass remarks you make. Where are your offerings wannabes? If you could manage anything better they'd probably be larger files than anyone would want to bother with.
I'm not much of a video
maker, but I do a lot with the technical side of encodings. I consistently do testing, work with the developers, comparisons, etc. I make available lossless videos online that can be used to test. I also experiment with many different encoding options that affect quality.
Most into video making know full well x264 is the best codec for final compression as far as image quality goes, but primarily used for HD video, not net downloads where file size is critical.
Disagree. x264 produces
smaller sizes than XviD while providing
better image quality. It's not just good for HD, it's good for SD, HD, and whatever you want to throw at it.
Obviously one of the primary functions of a codec is to compress to a smaller file size. In that respect they are not unlike file compression tools like WinRar, 7zip, etc. Thus their image quality for the given file size should be a main factor in judging their overall quality. Xvid still holds the crown for small file size. If you tried making an x264 vid of equal size it would look quite bad.
Entirely false. x264 will not only be a smaller filesize, but the resulting quality will be incredibly better. Using your archive compression comparison. Think of XviD as the old zip format. It has poor compression. Now think of x264 as lzma (what 7z uses). It has much better compression, while still retaining the same contents. So if you targeted a specific quality between XviD and x264, x264 will be the clear winner in filesize and quality.
X264 is also fairly complex and unstable to work with. You so much as even use an avi container and you can wind up with problems. Having to perform simple tasks like resizing via AviSynth isn't exactly the pinnacle of user friendliness either.
Again, this sounds like you've never personally messed with x264. It is
completely stable to use. It's also no more or less complex than XviD. Both utilities have command line versions that you can pass arguments to, and both have plenty of interfaces that you can use to set your options.
AVI? Seriously? AVI is one of
the worst containers available to date. MP4 and MKV are both superior in features, compatibility, formats supported, etc. No b-frame support, no streaming, etc., etc., etc.
Using AviSynth is amazing. You don't have to use it. There are plenty of ways to resize without using AviSynth. It's just that using AviSynth makes everything
far easier. Want to downscale a video? LanczosResize(640, 480). Now you just open the .avs file in any video player you want and you can see it downsized without even encoding it. There is so much you can do with AviSynth. It's probably one of the most powerful video utilities around. However, AviSynth, again, is not required to do any of that. It's just an easier way.
It wasn't long ago many, even the tech oriented, thought wmv was the best codec for small file sizes, some preferring DivX. Then Xvid started being widely used and wmv and DivX got left in the dust. Along came HD video and suddenly all those obsessing over cataloging their Blu-ray movies wanted something better, enter x264, the open source alternative to the very finicky H.264.
H.264 is a solid standard. The standard specifies both encoding and decoding. It's a newer and better standard than what XviD uses. XviD is old technology.
I mean just Google for Fraps to x264 encoding and you will get half a dozen opinions on how best to do that with several accessory tools listed to assist the process.
How is this a problem? The last time I checked, choices were a good thing. Sure, there are plenty of ways. There are plenty of utilities, tools, etc. to accomplish this. Use what you want.
Thus the primary use for x264 became and still is HD video archiving, an elitist crowd that is often seen even using such monikers for their websites. To each their own. Personally, I don't bother cataloging HD movies. Heck, I don't even rent them yet.
People think this way because whenever anyone tries to explain why x264 is better, it gets shot down by elitist XviD users who won't let go of the past. x264 is, and always will be, better at encoding anything over XviD.
For the record I am going to try some x264 compressions, despite having a pretty good idea of the tradeoffs. I don't particularly like overly complex, bulky, finicky codecs, but I am a stickler for comparisons.
This is what I do. I do comparisons. I talk with the developers daily. I provide test cases. I work with the technical side of all of these codecs. I can already tell you x264 is better in every way.
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
