H.264 vs. WMV HD

[rbV5]

If anything, the DivX6 HD profile is a joke. It's not even a true 720p resolution.

I have some Divx HD files that are 720p, what do you mean they're not true 720p resolution? It appears that mine are true 720p.

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: rbV5

If anything, the DivX6 HD profile is a joke. It's not even a true 720p resolution.

I have some Divx HD files that are 720p, what do you mean they're not true 720p resolution? It appears that mine are true 720p.

In DivX6, when you attempt to create HD content with the default HD profile, it's only 480p. And there is no options to use a custom profile either.

DivX and XVid were great a few years ago, but h.264 will replace them in the low end and high end for video encoding. Low end for video streaming where you get similar sized files but in 4x the video resolution in a 640x480 window. And in the high end STB with HW h.264 encoder chips at 1080p 10+ Mbps.

 

[rbV5]

In DivX6, when you attempt to create HD content with the default HD profile, it's only 480p. And there is no options to use a custom profile either.

I use Divx6, and I know thats simply not true. First of all, the Divx6 profiles are certified profiles to ensure that the encoded files will playback in certified Divx players. Also note that there is an "unconstrained" profile which allows you to encode a non-certified file. Now take a look at the "video" tab of the encoder, and you'll see configurations for video resolutions including custom resize, and the resize algorithm you want to use. There are a number of other configuration options as well. Are you using HD source video?

IMO, Divx HD is very good and highly underrated. It is very optimized and can playback HD resolutions on less powerful rigs, and looks great. Check out some of the Divx HD dtrailers at Divx.com and you'll see what I mean.

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: rbV5
Also note that there is an "unconstrained" profile which allows you to encode a non-certified file. Now take a look at the "video" tab of the encoder, and you'll see configurations for video resolutions including custom resize, and the resize algorithm you want to use. There are a number of other configuration options as well.

I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up. Either way, h.264 is still far superior. I used DivX6 for a few hours, and still perfer QT7 hands down.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: rbV5
Also note that there is an "unconstrained" profile which allows you to encode a non-certified file. Now take a look at the "video" tab of the encoder, and you'll see configurations for video resolutions including custom resize, and the resize algorithm you want to use. There are a number of other configuration options as well.

I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up. Either way, h.264 is still far superior. I used DivX6 for a few hours, and still perfer QT7 hands down.

I'm not a fan of the quicktime container unless you're on a Mac and that I couldn't comment on.

I've tried x264, moonlight and Nero H264 encoders, and I like the Nero encoder using the MP4 container the best at this point.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Stangs55
There is hardware acceleration for WMV-HD. While h.264 is purely software, at least for now.

Yes, there has been hardware acceleration for WMV-HD for two generations (if you count R520 as this generation). The patch exposed it in Windows Media Player. R520 and 7800GTX (possibly others) will accelerate H.264.

My experiences with H.264:
MainConcept produced vomit and the interface was awful.
Moonlight was little better.
X264 produced a lot better, but still not that great.
Haven't tried Nero/Ateme yet, but I hear it's the best.

At low bit rates, XviD@300K looks so much better to me than H.264@300K. The H.264 file was bigger as well. The situation for H.264 needs to be improved. Windows Media Encoder is easy to use, and it produces good results. Where's the H.264 equivalent? I realize this isn't MPEG's fault, but developers need to get going. Do you think I, let alone the average user, knows whether to enable "4x4 Intra Search" or not? Temporal or spatial? Hexagonal search? Uneven multi-hexagon? Come on, I don't study this codec inside out every day. It's nice to have the extra options, but I don't feel like experimenting with it all day trying to find the best option.

Right now HDTV is delivered with an MPEG-2 TS@19.9Mbps. When you insert H.264 in that equation, the quality will be twice as good.

 

[rbV5]

Where's the H.264 equivalent? I realize this isn't MPEG's fault, but developers need to get going. Do you think I, let alone the average user, knows whether to enable "4x4 Intra Search" or not? Temporal or spatial? Hexagonal search? Uneven multi-hexagon? Come on, I don't study this codec inside out every day. It's nice to have the extra options, but I don't feel like experimenting with it all day trying to find the best option.

Both Nero Recode and Moonlight 1click compressor offer transparent H264 encoding to the user, more so than WME's GUI front end in fact. You don't need too know anything about H264 with either solution.

x264 also offers a fairly simple encoding configuration....pretty straight forward bitrate slider configuration, however the advanced configuration options do have somewhat more advanced configuration options (like they should be to be honest) None are daunting to users with some xVid or Divx encoding experience.

 

[xtknight]

OK point taken...but WME is freeware. Is there an explanation or best settings guide for the options (X264)? I know the basics like the I,P,B frames, but the rest is beyond me.

 

[Auric]

FYI, the recent QuickTime HD 7.02 for Windows works well, unlike the initial performance sucking beta. QuickTime Alternative 1.61 includes it for bloat-free use with your favourite player (Media Player Classic, &c.). Tested with Cornell-Macaulay & BBC 1080p clips.

 

[Goi]

I saw some clips of LOTR, Star Wars and Gladiator in TS and while they look good, they completely kill my A64 running at 2.5GHz with a Gig of RAM and a 6800GT AGP. I can't get smooth playback at all under Zoom Player or MPC.

 

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: HDTVMan

TS is current king with the highest distribution. Thats because the earliest methods of recording HD was through the firewire ports on HD receivers and still is probably the best today. I suspect when Direct TV moves to MPEG 4 this will die off except among the Dish Network setups.

As a footnote and verification... I have to use HDTVtoMPEG to strip the transport stream header from those files so that I can edit them... My editor does native packetized streams.

Edit - which is what Pinnacle Studio 10 should be able to do.

Yes thats a good tip to point out. HDTVtoMPEG is a program must have program.

 

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: rbV5

H264 is still a joke. Just like everyone is stating in here. Its a CPU hog. Its gaining in popularity but hard to tell where it is going if anywhere.

AVC is no joke, and it will be the transmission format for European Satallite HD broadcasts. It offers superior compression over MPEG-2 transport streams. It was written by the Video Coding Experts Group and Moving Picture Experts Group and is technically identical to MPEG-4 part 10. You might remember them as they also wrote H.262 otherwise known as MPEG-2, which fared pretty well.

Good info which helps explain why its gaining in popularity. Thanks.
Its still a little low on the foodchain currently. But if what you are saying is correct then it should become pretty popular.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan

Originally posted by: Pabster
H.264
DiVX HD
WMV HD

In that order.

NOT!

TS is current king with the highest distribution. Thats because the earliest methods of recording HD was through the firewire ports on HD receivers and still is probably the best today. I suspect when Direct TV moves to MPEG 4 this will die off except among the Dish Network setups.

WMV9 and HD-MPEG are second mainly because of computer video cards recording in HD-MPEG2. WMV9 because some are converting TS and HD-MPEG2 to WMV9 because of its shrink ability.

HD-DIVX I believe it too sadly overlooked because most see the tech as cruddy because of those who dont tune the compression properly.

H264 is still a joke. Just like everyone is stating in here. Its a CPU hog. Its gaining in popularity but hard to tell where it is going if anywhere. Its a good combination of quality and compression and its not too late like OGG trying to compete with MP3. Time will tell but the others have bigger backers and have a major lead.

Dude you must be smoking some good ******. Unlike you said before h.264 can fit a whole HD movie on a DVD and it uses so much computing power because it it so complex. THat complexity makes the file sizes smaller

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: HDTVMan

Originally posted by: Pabster
H.264
DiVX HD
WMV HD

In that order.

NOT!

TS is current king with the highest distribution. Thats because the earliest methods of recording HD was through the firewire ports on HD receivers and still is probably the best today. I suspect when Direct TV moves to MPEG 4 this will die off except among the Dish Network setups.

WMV9 and HD-MPEG are second mainly because of computer video cards recording in HD-MPEG2. WMV9 because some are converting TS and HD-MPEG2 to WMV9 because of its shrink ability.

HD-DIVX I believe it too sadly overlooked because most see the tech as cruddy because of those who dont tune the compression properly.

H264 is still a joke. Just like everyone is stating in here. Its a CPU hog. Its gaining in popularity but hard to tell where it is going if anywhere. Its a good combination of quality and compression and its not too late like OGG trying to compete with MP3. Time will tell but the others have bigger backers and have a major lead.

Dude you must be smoking some good ******. Unlike you said before h.264 can fit a whole HD movie on a DVD and it uses so much computing power because it it so complex. THat complexity makes the file sizes smaller

Obviously, whatever stash you have is better. You do know that they are already shipping 720p WMV-HD movies and have been for at least 2 years, right? I was given a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" more than two years ago and "T2" shipped more than 2 years ago. I have "Step into Liquid" on my desk. All of commercially pressed DVD. And WMV-HD decompresses without as heavy a requirement.

 

[rbV5]

Obviously, whatever stash you have is better. You do know that they are already shipping 720p WMV-HD movies and have been for at least 2 years, right? I was given a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" more than two years ago and "T2" shipped more than 2 years ago. I have "Step into Liquid" on my desk. All of commercially pressed DVD. And WMV-HD decompresses without as heavy a requirement.

Bummer is, it seems like WMV-HD is more the prefered format for IMAX distribution movies rather than studio motion pictures. 2+ years later and the pickin's are still pretty slim

Hopefully with Microsoft and Intel behind HD-DVD and H264, we'll see major motion picture studio releases and STB hardware which will be needed for widespread adoption. WMV HD has been a big disappointment for me from a user and consumer standpoint unfortunately.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: Stangs55

Originally posted by: Ig
There is hardware acceleration for WMV-HD. While h.264 is purely software, at least for now. The 1080p files are still available. Just view page source, search for "1080" and grab the links. Then download however you want.

Damn....nice call! Thank you

If you find any of these H.264 1080p direct links feel free to post them :thumbsup:
The only two I have seen previously are the Serenity trailer and BBC Motion Gallery.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Obviously, whatever stash you have is better. You do know that they are already shipping 720p WMV-HD movies and have been for at least 2 years, right? I was given a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" more than two years ago and "T2" shipped more than 2 years ago. I have "Step into Liquid" on my desk. All of commercially pressed DVD. And WMV-HD decompresses without as heavy a requirement.

Bummer is, it seems like WMV-HD is more the prefered format for IMAX distribution movies rather than studio motion pictures. 2+ years later and the pickin's are still pretty slim

Hopefully with Microsoft and Intel behind HD-DVD and H264, we'll see major motion picture studio releases and STB hardware which will be needed for widespread adoption. WMV HD has been a big disappointment for me from a user and consumer standpoint unfortunately.

I have a theory... Who are the only people that can watch HD movies in mass? PC owners. Who does Hollywood think is enemy number 1? PC owners (because PC owners only use computers to steal music and video - you know that, right?) Hollywood thinks theatres are where it is at and anyone with a DVD drive in a PC is a thief. Idiots. Well, at least, that is my theory.

 

[bjc112]

Tons of 1080p for Apple now..

1080

King Kong looks awesome..

Dual Core really helps on the H.264 playback!

 

[Goi]

As noted in another thread, there're lotsa banding action going on with all of the HD trailers on apple's site. Also, they're not really playable on 90% of all systems. Even on my A64 2.5GHz it stutters.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Goi
As noted in another thread, there're lotsa banding action going on with all of the HD trailers on apple's site. Also, they're not really playable on 90% of all systems. Even on my A64 2.5GHz it stutters.

Single core?

It seems all of the 1080 H.264 use @ least 55% CPU usage which turns out to be about 110% on a Single core.. So I can easily see some stuttering on SC systems.. Even my Venice @ 2.8ghz choked on H.264

I am @ 2x 2.6ghz

 

[Goi]

Yes single core. I believe over 90% of consumer systems today are single core, and I would like to think that I have an above average system. I guess h.264 is a niche market right now, but in any case I wasn't very impressed with the banding I saw.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Goi
Yes single core. I believe over 90% of consumer systems today are single core, and I would like to think that I have an above average system. I guess h.264 is a niche market right now, but in any case I wasn't very impressed with the banding I saw.

Apple's new tool for selling dual G5s

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: rbV5

Obviously, whatever stash you have is better. You do know that they are already shipping 720p WMV-HD movies and have been for at least 2 years, right? I was given a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" more than two years ago and "T2" shipped more than 2 years ago. I have "Step into Liquid" on my desk. All of commercially pressed DVD. And WMV-HD decompresses without as heavy a requirement.

Bummer is, it seems like WMV-HD is more the prefered format for IMAX distribution movies rather than studio motion pictures. 2+ years later and the pickin's are still pretty slim

Hopefully with Microsoft and Intel behind HD-DVD and H264, we'll see major motion picture studio releases and STB hardware which will be needed for widespread adoption. WMV HD has been a big disappointment for me from a user and consumer standpoint unfortunately.

I have a theory... Who are the only people that can watch HD movies in mass? PC owners. Who does Hollywood think is enemy number 1? PC owners (because PC owners only use computers to steal music and video - you know that, right?) Hollywood thinks theatres are where it is at and anyone with a DVD drive in a PC is a thief. Idiots. Well, at least, that is my theory.

No kidding, and now with microsoft with VC1, and blue-ray vs HD-DVD, h264 vs VC1 vs Divx HD vs WMV HD vs h262, HDMI vs DVI and HDCP vs 720p vs 1080i vs 1080p....I can't even keep the acronyms straight

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: rbV5

Obviously, whatever stash you have is better. You do know that they are already shipping 720p WMV-HD movies and have been for at least 2 years, right? I was given a copy of "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" more than two years ago and "T2" shipped more than 2 years ago. I have "Step into Liquid" on my desk. All of commercially pressed DVD. And WMV-HD decompresses without as heavy a requirement.

Bummer is, it seems like WMV-HD is more the prefered format for IMAX distribution movies rather than studio motion pictures. 2+ years later and the pickin's are still pretty slim

Hopefully with Microsoft and Intel behind HD-DVD and H264, we'll see major motion picture studio releases and STB hardware which will be needed for widespread adoption. WMV HD has been a big disappointment for me from a user and consumer standpoint unfortunately.

I have a theory... Who are the only people that can watch HD movies in mass? PC owners. Who does Hollywood think is enemy number 1? PC owners (because PC owners only use computers to steal music and video - you know that, right?) Hollywood thinks theatres are where it is at and anyone with a DVD drive in a PC is a thief. Idiots. Well, at least, that is my theory.

No kidding, and now with microsoft with VC1, and blue-ray vs HD-DVD, h264 vs VC1 vs Divx HD vs WMV HD vs h262, HDMI vs DVI and HDCP vs 720p vs 1080i vs 1080p....I can't even keep the acronyms straight

You know all those acronyms are really secret computer user codes that we use to fool Hollywood, right? Those are secret codes for where we keep the stolen videoes. :evil:

 

[Vernor]

Because as the Microsoft dude on Avsforum says, their codecs are simply more efficient on PCs.