Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to Goober
Re: How about X264/MKV?
said by Goober  :You're right. DivX and Xvid is getting long in the tooth. X264 is where it's at. For the future, I agree, but at the present, HW for H264 is MUCH more expensive. XVID can throw onto most medium to high end existant HW without problem with only SW upgrades, but H264 requires new HW. That's a pretty big difference. It extends to newly designed and bought purpose-built HW too: cheap HW can do XVID these days pretty readily, but HW for H264 isn't as cheap AFAIK.
Comcast is planning to buy MPEG2-and-lower-only capable converter boxes en masse in the *future*; I am advocating *those* cheapies are done XVID-*minimum*, since it would allow them to move their entire channel line to a much better position than depending on MPEG2 crap. I admit their MPEG2 is getting much better, though, with a lot of great improvements in the line, but MPEG2 is longer in the tooth than XVID. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | reply to jaminus
You're right. DivX and Xvid is getting long in the tooth. X264 is where it's at. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Give me Xbox 360 support for X264 in Matroska container, 1080p and DD+. Then I'll be in heaven.
Ah, "transformers.2007.1080p.hddvd.x264-hv" Such a bad movie, but so amazing looking in Full HD. |
|
