republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4

reply to jaminus

Re: How about X264/MKV?

You're right. DivX and Xvid is getting long in the tooth. X264 is where it's at.

Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

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.

Monday, 28-May 22:19:04 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics