Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists
Image of Mac OS face in stamp
 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264

 Roger Howard wrote:



Oh, I totally agree the difference is there and obvious... I was just pointing out it's hard to make a real comparison when you encode to radically different bitrates. I always target the same bitrate for all clips in a test, so that the only variable is quality - otherwise if both quality and bitrate are variable it's pretty arbitrary.

Of course, if your H264 had both lower bitrate AND higher quality then it's obviously superior... you just don't know by how much.



Roger

I was just too excited - seriously - so I just let FCPro do its job. And you thought that because I have always complained about how crappy Quicktime streaming quality was (yah yah I know QT is just a container) - that I was doing a hatchet job on Apple ;)

It was only afterwards - did I see - the "twice" the quality at 1/5 the "price" - different bitrates chosen by FCPro (I think). I'll do some "serious" testing before I put up some video for a new web site (on bus parking -- yawn).

Hopefully QT 7's implementation is corrected for WIndows in the next week or so ;)

- 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
References: 
 >Sorenson 3 Versus H.264 (From: harry <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264 (From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264 (From: harry <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sorenson 3 Versus H.264 (From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>)



Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.