VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Belgium
    Search Comp PM
    On the vcdhelp.com site they are talking about x264 rev 406 (jan 18 2006)
    (https://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=x264_VFW_Codec)

    In the same article there is a link to the main tool site where they talk about rev 408
    (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89979)

    On de mirror site, they are talking about the rev 439
    (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/x264_Video_Codec.htm)

    What's the difference ?
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    http://developers.videolan.org/x264.html is the "main" site. I will fix,update the tools page more frequently when they have released a stable version.

    I would only use x264 for testing for now...new releases every other day...
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Each rev means that something was submitted to the svn. Check the log to see exactly what files were updated and why.

    Not all changes have a real effect though, like it could be something for OSX or in one case it was a change to the AUTHORS file. Also if you are talking about VfW, then not all features are available, so it could be something that has no effect.

    Oh yeah and once again I would suggest not using the VfW encoder.

    Current revision is still 439 as of now.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Belgium
    Search Comp PM
    Why not to use the VfW encoder ?
    I've used virtualdub to encode with very very good result (better than XVID which was until X264 the best codec for me)
    I also used SUPER , but the video file made with this is twice as big as with virtualdub and quality is the same !
    So why advise not to use VfW ?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    1) It doesn't have all the options.
    2) VfW wasn't designed to handle advanced stuff like AVC. It is a simple one frame in one frame out model which doesn't suit bframes, etc.
    3) AVI isn't really designed for advanced stuff like AVC either and unlike with XviD there is no hardware compatibility to be gained by using it. So better to store natively in mp4 or mkv.
    4) I stopped compiling VfW builds.

    If you need more reasons, then I am sure I could come up with some, but surely the missing frames should be enough?

    Size is simply bitrate * time. Twice the size, means twice the bitrate. Super is a mencoder, etc. frontend right? If so then it is using x264 same as the VfW front end.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!