| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 97019 | 2009-02-01 05:37:00 | best video codec | tweak'e (69) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 743843 | 2009-02-01 05:37:00 | hi just doing a bit of video recoding (from lossless format) at the moment. just wondering what the current best quality to file size codec is at the moment. trying to get a 3min 640x480 clip down to a usable size to upload. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 743844 | 2009-02-01 06:23:00 | I personally use Xvid for everything...I use AutoGK | Blam (54) | ||
| 743845 | 2009-02-01 06:34:00 | What do you consider a "usable size to upload"? I uploaded a 6 minute clip last night, it was 76mb, I was happy with that. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 743846 | 2009-02-01 07:03:00 | usable....under 10meg. original file is 220meg. | tweak'e (69) | ||
| 743847 | 2009-02-01 07:31:00 | h.264 for sure! If you can, try and use the x264 encoder, definitely the best! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 743848 | 2009-02-01 21:37:00 | h.264 for sure! If you can, try and use the x264 encoder, definitely the best! x2 Download Handbrake, and give that a go (props to Chill for putting me onto that!) :thumbs: |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 743849 | 2009-02-01 22:08:00 | unfortunatly handbrake doesn't reconise the file. i had problems with virtualdub working with the file to. been useing 'super' which is doing a fairly good job. just lots of playing around to see what settings produce what. btw a neat little screen capturing program and codec is CamStudio. good old open source to the rescue ;) |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 743850 | 2009-02-02 00:01:00 | h.264. It has the highest quality to size ratio so far. But it needs a lot of processing power to decode. | utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 743851 | 2009-02-02 02:05:00 | h . 264 . It has the highest quality to size ratio so far . But it needs a lot of processing power to decode . A lot to encode too :p I encoded an 8Gb . iso to an h . 264 . mkv file (1500 fps) on my old P4 3 . 0Ghz, and it took about 11 hours!!! :rolleyes: Would love a Core i7 . . . . . . . |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 743852 | 2009-02-02 02:12:00 | 1500fps? You mean thats the video bitrate, not fps? Because you would encode the video so it plays at around 29.97fps, but it would be doing the encoding potentially a lot slower on that system of yours. That itself seems horribly slow, on a 2Ghz system I can do a 2-pass encode in a couple of hours tops? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||