| Author |
Message |
Alex T.
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss |
|
|
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:<10o6v59e1o0l011@corp.supernews.com>...
| Quote: | It seems remarkable that you have already decided on DIVIX, but
"don't want to tolerate any visible quality loss" as they seem to be
diametrically opposed.
|
I don't want to start flamebeit, but you just did not read my post.
I didn't say that I decided to use DIVX, I said that I tried it and
I'm looking for an alternatives. You also did not read the word
"visible" - good lossy video compression can produce video with no
visible quality loss.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss |
|
|
"andre" wrote ...
| Quote: | How do you define loss? If you can't see it it doesn't matter now does it?
DV format is about 18GB/hour
|
Just a fact-check. DV is a little over 13GB/hour. At least here
in NTSC-land. There, I just saved you 5GB/hour! :-)
| Quote: | while you can get 700MB/h or less on XviD. If I can't still see the
difference on my computer screen i call this an excellent trade-off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the dog from that film yo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss |
|
|
"Alex T." <alex_s_42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:25184c1e.0411010002.3fe7a26a@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | i think they are all beta at the moment - supposedly more efficient than
even wmv9
Hmm... and BTW, what about WMV9 ? I'm not a big M$ fan, but I heard
some good comments on this codec. How it compares with XviD ?
|
it gives better results - more efficient at compression so assuming you dont
screw something up, a wmv9 and divx of equal size, the wmv should look
better - assuming the source is good of course.
i encode interlaced PAL to 50 frames per second progressive scan wmv9 and
the file takes up no more space than a 25fps divx or xvid.
--
Gareth.
Quote of the day.
You're disgusting! you say he is sex lupines and sweep him away.
A chinese actress suffers the indignity of bad subtitles in the film 'red to
kill' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss |
|
|
OK great information about codecs.
But just a hint. To compress with DivX you must deinterlace your
source, sure your DV video is interlaced.
Any other codec will improve as well at low-medium bitrates with a non
interlaced source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Kent
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Encoding home video (DV) with no quality loss |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2004 00:11:01 -0800, jon wrote:
| Quote: | OK great information about codecs.
But just a hint. To compress with DivX you must deinterlace your
source
|
You don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in