[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Sorenson 3 Versus H.264

Subject: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264
From: harry <email@hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 10:11:40 -0400
Delivered-to: email@hidden
Delivered-to: email@hidden

Hi Folks

Been doing some simple tests on QT7/H.264 in comparison to QT7/ Sorenson 3. No I haven't spent hours tweaking anything. In one test - the QT7/H.264 comes in at 1.82 MB/118kbits/sec - while the QT/Sorenson 3 is 8.68 MB/564 kbits/sec. The QT7/H.264 took about 4 times longer than the QT/Sorenson 3 to encode [on my old, old, old Apple computer ;) ]

Quality wise - the Sorenson video looks as if I am watching with my glasses off - in comparison to the QT7/H.264 video.

I used FinalCutPro to do the encoding - for some reason iMovie keeps crashing [being a good boy I did send a "telegram" to Apple;)]

Question: I am shooting time lapse (every 30 sec for 2 sec) - in progressive scan. Does progressive scan make any sense in this time lapse (interval) case - if the video is for H.264/internet playback?

- Harry Pasternak

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
QuickTime-Users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quicktime-users/email@hidden

This email sent to email@hidden

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264
  - From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>

Prev by Date: H.264 Streaming
Next by Date: Naming Songs on a Playlist using QuickTime Broadcaster
Previous by thread: Re: Changing track name in QuickTime Player
Next by thread: Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Home