ATEME's MPEG-4 AVC HP HW encoder coming soon [Archive]

View Full Version : ATEME's MPEG-4 AVC HP HW encoder coming soon

leowai

21st April 2006, 18:12

ATEME will demonstrate its MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 real-time High Definition High Profile hardware encoder at the National Association of Broadcasters show (NAB), April 24-27, 2006 in Las Vegas....

The source also mentioned about the encoding chips is upgradeable at last paragraph. Interesting...

Source:
[_www.cdrinfo.com_]
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=16873

sasam

21st April 2006, 18:51

Good news...

...so that must be why their software encoder beta test is lasting for almost a year and still no news :cool:

When they finish this HW encoder hopefully they will finish SW encoder ;)

HOLiC

22nd April 2006, 00:00

Hmmm... good news indeed..

...But i wonder how much it will cost..

IgorC

22nd April 2006, 00:18

not news really. Visit of. site.

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 00:36

Yes I definetly want the software encoder to come out. After all, I get the best results from Nero Digital, which is main profile, and once high profile comes out I'll get even better results!

IgorC

22nd April 2006, 00:37

aha..

ChronoCross

22nd April 2006, 00:43

I thin he might be disillusioned. ND asp tie with xvid? hardly lol. x264 stomps ND.

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 02:28

Yea well my tests show otherwise. (ND AVC im talking about) Nero Digital AVC has by far given me the best results out of any codec. I can't get the MSU quality analyzer to work though so its putting my codec test on hold.

And Xvid doesn't have a distinct advantage over Nero Digital ASP so I have to put it as a tie.

You're the one disillusioned.

Golgot13

22nd April 2006, 11:53

This Ateme card is only for broacast use. It's not for local application (encode a file).
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

22nd April 2006, 13:09

Yea well my tests show otherwise. (ND AVC im talking about) Nero Digital AVC has by far given me the best results out of any codec. I can't get the MSU quality analyzer to work though so its putting my codec test on hold.
How about putting online a source clip (encoded with a very high bitrate or losslessly) and your best encode from that source. Then users of other codecs could show their results.

lexor

22nd April 2006, 13:42

How about putting online a source clip (encoded with a very high bitrate or losslessly) and your best encode from that source. Then users of other codecs could show their results.
that's only if he wanted YOU to believe as he believes. why would he try to convice you? he doesn't even know you. he's not a review magazine or anything, he tried and found what works best for him, what does it matter if you disagree? why should he put extra effort for you?

22nd April 2006, 13:50

I didn't imply that I would agree or disagree with him. Perhaps you got that impression from the context, but that was not my intention. I just suggested a test method since it seemed that he was looking for a way to convince others. See his signature.

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 14:10

I want to put extra effort to prove that Nero Digital is better than x264.

"How about putting online a source clip (encoded with a very high bitrate or losslessly) and your best encode from that source. Then users of other codecs could show their results."

I'll do that but I'm getting DSL in a week or two so then I'll do that.

Lil' Jer

22nd April 2006, 15:51

that's only if he wanted YOU to believe as he believes. why would he try to convice you? he doesn't even know you. he's not a review magazine or anything, he tried and found what works best for him, what does it matter if you disagree? why should he put extra effort for you?

But he does, did you miss his signature?

I'm working on a codec comparison to prove the above.

Why else would he be making a codec comparison if not to convince others of what he believes?

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 17:56

Lil' Jer I just affirmed that in the above post.

Btw I getting a working quality measurement tool to use for the quality measurements. I was originally going to do pictures like Doom9's, but then I saw Saggitaire's codec comparison and thought that was more efficient. Additionally, the codec comparison was 8 MB!!!. And that was only with pics from 3 codecs. If I wanted to give it to dialup users I would have to make a mad compressed PDF file, and if I did that the pictures' quality would go down, so the differences in quality would not be as noticeable. Now that I don't have to go through the tedious process of screenshots (that took maddd long) I expect to publish the results within a week. I expect ND AVC on top, Xvid and/or x264 in 2nd, and everything else out of the question.

22nd April 2006, 18:39

It would be nice to see sample clips in addition to metric comparison, once you get your DSL connection. You can also expect people to remain quite skeptical unless you provide the source too ;)

Mug Funky

24th April 2006, 09:26

This Ateme card is only for broacast use. It's not for local application (encode a file).

yay! i think it might be a good time to convince the big boss here to move into HD... but i doubt that's likely to happen any time soon (unless HD-DVD/bluray pull their respective fingers out and the market looks likely to adopt one of the formats).