Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 510887
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-12-30
You do know, of course, that every damned H.264 encoder has many, many options that allow one to produce videos which can or can not be computing-intensive.
That's pure bull, and you know it.
Are you frakkin' kidding me!? The eye-cancer-inducing XviD at 1080p? You have to be a masochist to watch XviD-encoded 1080p.
And your logic has gone bye-bye by this point. It's totally in reverse, actually. Because disk space is cheap we should accept a vastly inferior codec? What the hell are you smoking? As novel as the concept may be to you: smaller file size actually often enough means better quality. Why do you think x264 has introduced 10-bit encoding? Because it improves the quality. And said quality improvement -- meaning better compressibility -- brings down the file size.
What the HELL are you talking about? First, x264 is an ENCODER, not a CODEC. Second, H.264 IS SUPPORTED. Every damned multimedia playback device -- like the Western Digital TV Live -- can play back H.264. Open Source be thanked.