f0xh0und
10-26-2006, 05:00 AM
Okay, okay. So, my Athlon 1.0GHz Thunderbird IS probably too slow; but my Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton core) (http://revision3.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1499&postcount=12) shouldn't be! I can BARELY play h.264 in standard definition, and I CAN'T play h.264 in 720p. However, I can play .wmv in 720p @ 35mbps while using LESS system resources than h.264 uses in standard defintion!
So, I have to say, WTF!?
Why is everybody absolutely RAVING about h.264 when you need a $2000 PC to play it!? Sure, it looks better than other compression technologies, such as divx or xvid; although, the jury's still out on whether it looks better than .wmv. Personally, I think it looks a little bit choppy and pixelated when encoded improperly--which, being a new compression technology, it will be. Divx and xvid have finally gotten to the point that they probably won't get any better. h.264, however, is still VERY new, and, like divx and xvid, can only get better as people learn how to use it better. Just recently, I backed up my copy of the movie "Click." I was amazed at how much better it looked than my other backed up copies of movies encoded with xvid--same 700MB file size and all. It's like switching from standard definition to high definition--which, to me, isn't THAT big of a difference as some people make it out to be; however, switching from divx or xvid to h.264 is!
While h.264 may look better than divx and xvid and, to some, maybe even .wmv, it'll probably never be anymore resource-friendly--which means I'll be viewing my high definition content encoded in either good ol' mpeg2--which, for some odd reason or another, my computer can play sometimes--depending on the movie--or .wmv. I'd like to say that I'll be viewing it in divx or xvid; but it's unlikely that high definition will take off with those compression technologies--at least not commercially.
So, I have to say, WTF!?
Why is everybody absolutely RAVING about h.264 when you need a $2000 PC to play it!? Sure, it looks better than other compression technologies, such as divx or xvid; although, the jury's still out on whether it looks better than .wmv. Personally, I think it looks a little bit choppy and pixelated when encoded improperly--which, being a new compression technology, it will be. Divx and xvid have finally gotten to the point that they probably won't get any better. h.264, however, is still VERY new, and, like divx and xvid, can only get better as people learn how to use it better. Just recently, I backed up my copy of the movie "Click." I was amazed at how much better it looked than my other backed up copies of movies encoded with xvid--same 700MB file size and all. It's like switching from standard definition to high definition--which, to me, isn't THAT big of a difference as some people make it out to be; however, switching from divx or xvid to h.264 is!
While h.264 may look better than divx and xvid and, to some, maybe even .wmv, it'll probably never be anymore resource-friendly--which means I'll be viewing my high definition content encoded in either good ol' mpeg2--which, for some odd reason or another, my computer can play sometimes--depending on the movie--or .wmv. I'd like to say that I'll be viewing it in divx or xvid; but it's unlikely that high definition will take off with those compression technologies--at least not commercially.