2 ms·
It's not the actual codec that matters. It's that if you have one given codec end-to-end throughout your entire workflow and it lets you drive everything from b
by bonaldi 16y ago
It's not the actual codec that matters. It's that if you have one given codec end-to-end throughout your entire workflow and it lets you drive everything from broadcast to mobile phone, why would you then support an oddball outlier without any proven technical advantage and with no new audience?
Of course you can plug in another transcoder on the end of the output chain, but why not just serve the h264 holdouts yet more Flash and keep your existing archive and workflow untouched?
- prodigal_erik 16y agoI wouldn't spend real effort keeping transcoding out of a pipeline. One codec end-to-end for all audiences is not the normal state of affairs but a convenient aberration. Sooner or later (I doubt it'll be more than a couple of years) somebody's going to achieve 95% of the quality with 50% of the power budget, or fully capitalize on the redundancy of 3D footage, or something like that.