4 ms·
One of the weird parts of this is just how damn good x264 is. I have a bunch of videos on my website, and because I'm some kind of basement-dwelling cretin, I m
by klodolph 6y ago
One of the weird parts of this is just how damn good x264 is. I have a bunch of videos on my website, and because I'm some kind of basement-dwelling cretin, I manually encode them with FFmpeg to MPEG-4 and WebM.
Encoding to MPEG-4: Easy, fast, high-quality.
Encoding to WebM: Much slower to encode, requires tweaking the parameters, video usually looks noticeably worse at similar bit rates.
I don't know how much of this is caused by the encoder, how much is caused by the codec, and how much is caused by poor selection of parameters on my part. I use "recommended settings" that I find online and H.254/HiP.
- WindyLakeReturn 6y agoIf the cost is great enough, why hasn't a new standard been adopted? Is it that there aren't better options, or is it the challenge in getting enough buy in onto one specific option for it to be of use and capable of being seen as a new standard? The article mentions some newer options that are better but cost more, but where is the OSS version? Surely major websites have the incentive to create one that they can then use for free.
- prvc 6y agox264 does indeed punch above its weight. Which has been, counterintuitively, a boon for codec freedom.
- samoa42 6y agoprobably because h264 en-/decoding is supported in hardware even on dated platforms
- nayuki 6y agoMPEG-4 is not a codec - you probably mean AVC. WebM is not a codec - you probably mean VP9.
- klodolph 6y agoChrist, what pedantry. Yes, I mentioned the container formats rather than the codecs.
- ksec 6y agoDark Shikari on x264 was like Mike Pall in LuaJIT.