bmnot
31st August 2007, 01:32
I found an [link deleted].
According to the numeric video quality numbers, the encoded video resulting from both codecs are extremely similar. Visually inspection of the stills confirms both codecs ability to render a great picture compared to the original source. The H264 codec seems to slightly reduce some noise making the picture look smoother at the cost of some detail. Inspection of the motion video shows extreme similarities between the two codecs reaffirming what was found by the quality measurements and still frame comparisons.
I’d like to make two side notes – diverging from the purpose of this test:
(1) For the purpose of comparing MPEG-4 AVC technology (H.264) to MPEG-4 ASP (DivX, XviD) and to MPEG-2 (DVDs), MPEG-4 AVC does shine through all the comparisons – no argument there. MPEG-4 AVC is truly more advance and a better solution for hard media encoding.
(2) For the purpose of online streaming content, the MPEG-4 AVC H.264 is indeed superior to MPEG-1 and FLASH FLV VP6/VP7 codecs yielding a better quality for the same bitrate or a lower filesize for the same quality as the other codecs. In late 2007 H.264 support will be added to the Flash player and all of us can enjoy higher quality streaming content.
In conclusion, for the purposes of full HD 1080p encoding, we find no quality or filesize improvement by choosing either one of the codecs. From a practical point of view, VC-1 has an edge over H.264 due to (1) the ability to play VC-1 content on any standard Windows computer with Windows Media player without the necessity to install codecs or new software (unlike H.264) and (2) the lower processing power required to display the VC-1 content at a full 29.97fps.
[link deleted]
[WARNING: The videos and frames have R-18+ rated content]
According to the numeric video quality numbers, the encoded video resulting from both codecs are extremely similar. Visually inspection of the stills confirms both codecs ability to render a great picture compared to the original source. The H264 codec seems to slightly reduce some noise making the picture look smoother at the cost of some detail. Inspection of the motion video shows extreme similarities between the two codecs reaffirming what was found by the quality measurements and still frame comparisons.
I’d like to make two side notes – diverging from the purpose of this test:
(1) For the purpose of comparing MPEG-4 AVC technology (H.264) to MPEG-4 ASP (DivX, XviD) and to MPEG-2 (DVDs), MPEG-4 AVC does shine through all the comparisons – no argument there. MPEG-4 AVC is truly more advance and a better solution for hard media encoding.
(2) For the purpose of online streaming content, the MPEG-4 AVC H.264 is indeed superior to MPEG-1 and FLASH FLV VP6/VP7 codecs yielding a better quality for the same bitrate or a lower filesize for the same quality as the other codecs. In late 2007 H.264 support will be added to the Flash player and all of us can enjoy higher quality streaming content.
In conclusion, for the purposes of full HD 1080p encoding, we find no quality or filesize improvement by choosing either one of the codecs. From a practical point of view, VC-1 has an edge over H.264 due to (1) the ability to play VC-1 content on any standard Windows computer with Windows Media player without the necessity to install codecs or new software (unlike H.264) and (2) the lower processing power required to display the VC-1 content at a full 29.97fps.
[link deleted]
[WARNING: The videos and frames have R-18+ rated content]