more people should use H.264

Discuss technical and geeky things here.
Post Reply

Do you agree?

Yes
17
81%
No
4
19%
 
Total votes: 21

kaleb0
Fansubber
Fansubber
Posts: 36
Joined: Jul 5th, '10, 03:54

more people should use H.264

Post by kaleb0 » May 1st, '11, 16:37

I don't know that this thread will get much notice, but I wanted to throw a request / Idea out there for all torrent creators...
With most ISPs in Canada and AT&T in the US now following a growing list of other ISPs who are imposing bandwidth caps and usage-based-billing on internet customers, many people are starting to feel the squeeze and as such bandwidth conservation is becoming a reality. As such, I'd like to recommend that when possible, use a more efficient codec such as h.264 + AAC as you can get the same picture quality in a smaller filesize than DivX/XVID encoders will give you. h.264 is arguably the most efficient video codec around and achieves fantastic compression and quality.
Doing so may shave off megabytes, so we all have more bandwidth to spare, share, and contribute back to the community via seeding etc.
Just my two yen..

iLLusiOnEr
Posts: 204
Joined: May 29th, '06, 16:59
Location: Bocholt, Germany
Contact:

Post by iLLusiOnEr » May 1st, '11, 16:50

as long as the resolution does not exceed what my video card can handle, i'm fine with it.

furransu
Posts: 2290
Joined: Mar 12th, '04, 15:51

Post by furransu » May 2nd, '11, 08:49

Ive started doing this since last season :)

My internet has limited quota and only 100kbs upload so h264 is most ideal.

saigo_x
Posts: 883
Joined: Nov 4th, '05, 18:14

Post by saigo_x » May 2nd, '11, 17:40

Hmm, actually I now think we are reaching the tipping point when it comes to video encoding formats. We've had this debate on and off for the last several years but even a year ago the majority of people I dealt with were still limited to the XviD standard by their hardware. The quick evolution to multicore processors and the new media players seems to be the driving force IMHO. Also the smaller size of newer codecs was not fully utilized by many groups who preferred instead to release large full HD quality encodes. I'm curious about the results of this poll although something with more detailed choices would have been great.

kaleb0
Fansubber
Fansubber
Posts: 36
Joined: Jul 5th, '10, 03:54

Post by kaleb0 » May 2nd, '11, 19:39

saigo_x wrote:Hmm, actually I now think we are reaching the tipping point when it comes to video encoding formats. We've had this debate on and off for the last several years but even a year ago the majority of people I dealt with were still limited to the XviD standard by their hardware. The quick evolution to multicore processors and the new media players seems to be the driving force IMHO. Also the smaller size of newer codecs was not fully utilized by many groups who preferred instead to release large full HD quality encodes. I'm curious about the results of this poll although something with more detailed choices would have been great.
I think you may be right, I also would like to point out that these newer codecs don't necessarily have to have lower quality to achieve their efficiencies. I am all for people releasing full HD quality encodes, but they could achieve the same high picture quality in a smaller file footprint by using these newer codecs. It is definitely true that these newer codecs are much more compute-heavy to achieve their great compression ratios, but when even my netbook can play a 720p h264 video (though thats probably close to the limit of its capabilities), these codecs are the natural choice.

I'm happy that so many people agree with the poll aswell.

@furransu - your efforts to spread this trend are definitely appreciated!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests