| QUOTE | | I don't know man, you apparently don't have big luck with h.264 codecs, because IMO at least ateme is already better, and even x264 is not that bad either at low bitrates (i know you have different opinion, this is just mine ). |
i linked this
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29845
in this thread already; please review 'hand' clips.
is nero better?
hand clips are lo-bitrate clips.
what do you mean that i don't have luck with h.264?
i ditched nero because it's too slow and audio encoder was broken. if this was not so, i would use it. it's excellent codec. i'm not interested in 400kbit/s lores encodings (where wmv9 is better) anyway.
also, i have said wmv9 has aretfacts i hate, so i don't use that slow crap either.
as for x264
http://students.washington.edu/lorenm/src/x264/todo.txt
"1-pass VBR ratecontrol, using the same RCEQ as 2-pass but with predicted complexities."
that's my area of interest, and i just contacted akupenguin and offered him my help with testing better 1pass vbr methods once he gets to trying it.
i'm not surprised if a codec that aims for almost perfect cbr doesn't yield a nice quality.
(consider the difference bettween divx3 and x264 bitrate flow;
http://bbsrv.imp.leidenuniv.nl/~i4004/0/index.php?d=x264%20vs%20divx3%201pass&s=&r=
offcourse divx3 looks better. i noticed x264 can apply different quants per-macroblock; i like that. so far i only saw that on tmpgenc's mpeg1 encoder. nero probably has it too, but it's already ditched as far as i'm concerned.)
first thing i would suggest to him (in case his idea wouldn't work) would be to inspect ffmpeg code . 1pass vbr (abr) of ffvfw working just fine.
| QUOTE | | Seriously, i don't see why the big fascination for wmv9, it's good at low bitrates (but just there), |
where did i said it was good for anything else?
| QUOTE | | but it blurs too much detail away, the ateme codec (and x264 too, but it has a few issues) is much sharper. |
on higher bitrates, offcourse. but on bitrates where wmv9 still looks good, avc is either blocking or smothing too much.
| QUOTE | | Not to mention, wmv9 is slower than either of them. |
nero recode was slower than wmv9-vcm in my test.
if you (or anybody) can prove any h.264 codec is better than wmv9 on lower bitrates (up to 400kbit/s), i would like to see actual clips.
i see people saying this (that h.264 is better than wmv9), but nobody is providing the actual clips. nobody except for me, that is, and in my case, wvm9 won on particular (low) bitrate test.
while at it, you can stack snow against wmv9 too. 
again; i don't like wmv9 and i don't use it to store video (i would use it to transfer video over the web though), but it's better (on lower bitrates) than any h.264 codec i tried so far. being good at low bitrates doesn't mean much to us, but it may mean something to people that stream video.
dmitriy
| QUOTE | | Ok! Just for your fun! |
so..who exactly won on your test?
what are you talking about?
you did psnr test, and ateme codec won.
or?
| QUOTE | | Realistic forecast: that implementations of h.264 will seriously increase amximmum results on past 2-3 years (with compatible format!). |
the stuff about h.264 improvement possibilites is partially true; looking at nero recode encoder, it seems plenty of advanced options are already applied.
that's probably the reason why ateme is winning at codec comparisons.
| QUOTE | | For MS with incompatible format it's easy, of course, increase characteristics, but such incompartibility decrease format mass popularity (especially on home hardware). |
that's true. no doubts about it.
i just said that for lo-bitrates (streaming) wmv9 still seems the best (on natural content). |
)
).