Is there any comparisons in quality from the different AVC codecs (MainConcept , Lead Technologies , Elecard , VSofts, x264). I saw the one with Ateme and x264 at doom9.org but it seemed really biased towards x264 and I think it only had those two in it.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
-
I wouldn't call it biased. Last comparison Ateme won and x264 wasn't included due to usability issues.
If you check the earlier rounds you will see that Videosoft's AVC encoder, Apples QuickTime 7 and Elecard's AVC encoder were included.
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-quali-105-1.htm
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-main-105-1.htm
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm
That said there are other comparrisons to be found if you search or you could perform your own. -
And a slight nitpicking on the term... AVC is considered a codec (H.264, DIVX, etc.) and thus those are different implementations of the same codec, so to speak.
-
AVC is a standard. The implimentations could be considered codecs if they can decode and encode the standard. For instance x264 is not a codec since it is only an encoder.
I fail to see your point anyway. You mean that there is no point in comparing them because they all follow the same standard? -
I'm merely nitpicking on the TERMINOLOGY. The whole codec is then H.264, correct? But different people will implement it differently, resulting in somewhat different output, yes? But they still decode / encode the same things, no?
Maybe I'm just splitting hair. -
Well all decoders should output exactly the same quality. The only difference between implimentations is speed. Also I guess what profiles they support. For instance Quicktime is slow and supports main profile only (not even fully either I don't think). CoreAVC on the other hand is much faster and supports all main profile and most high profile features.
On the encoder side there is a lot more scope. They just need to output a compliant bitstream. There can be huge differences between speed and quality. Once again different implimentations support different profiles/features.
So yes, there is a lot of point in comparing them. Although not decoders if you are only interested in quality. -
I guessed we should have asked the original poster what he meant by quality... decoding or encoding.
-
Actually they've done a new run-off between Ateme, X.264, DivX, and XviD. X.264 won, followed by Ateme, XviD, and DivX in last. Search the site, as I don't have the link handy. I ran into it last week.
Remember that the Ateme and X.264 are not another rehash of the H.263 codec line (DivX / XviD), or the H.262 line (MPEG-2). They are more advanced and capable of more once everyone gets up to speed and properly tweaks them to their limits.
As it stands, they should come out ahead if implemented properly. I don't think of it as bias..I call is progressImpossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything... -
yea, from what i've seen of x.264 and used myself, it is actually very good...the only thing that kills me, is that depending on how much you mess with the settings you can end up with an output that requires a LOT of processing power to decode.....
-
I noticed that as well. It's also odd not working with an AVI container. I've gotten so used to it that I'm finding alot of my favorite tools no longer work. It will be an adjustment, but I definately like what I see.
Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
Similar Threads
-
Alternatives to YouTube - new site offering direct comparisons
By Karel Bata in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 18Last Post: 3rd Feb 2010, 13:57 -
Video Clip Comparisons...my turn!
By ministry88 in forum RestorationReplies: 5Last Post: 26th Jun 2009, 18:50 -
New site with codec comparisons going back to 2001
By Tab in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 4Last Post: 1st Nov 2008, 10:32 -
denoisers comparisons
By cd090580 in forum RestorationReplies: 17Last Post: 12th Mar 2008, 13:14 -
AVCHD to MPEG2 Encoding Visual Comparisons
By Soopafresh in forum Video ConversionReplies: 7Last Post: 18th Jul 2007, 03:15