Coming soon: the x264 website (looking for a graphic designer)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7341/new1hl2.th.png (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=new1hl2.png)

Home sections contains News and Download section. Help section should have all necessary information how to encode (+detailed information about encoder's switches) and decode.

"List of programs where x264 is used" - You forgot Avidemux and MEncoder :p

[Atak_Snajpera]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2850/new1zn1.th.png (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=new1zn1.png)
This is just suggestion. That text was simply copied from wikipedia. I need somebody to write nice professional introduction to h.264/x264 world :)

About the logo: could you try with a smaller x...It's too big imo.
Old logo also has to "big" X :) Smaller looks too boring for logo

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

Yeah the size is fine, but it does look too square in my opinion.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Yeah the size is fine, but it does look too square in my opinion.
I was inspired by multiplication symbol and old logo. As you know add and multiplication are VERY often used in algorithms(encoders) and so on.

"List of programs where x264 is used" - You forgot Avidemux and MEncoder
Sorry for that.

[mozzle]

You think the shadow makes it look too busy? I think at the best it's a small enhancement and at worst I don't notice it when I look at the page.

If you don't notice, then why have it there? Not to mention that a logo really needs to stand on its own and a reflection might it look a little funky.

Just tossin' in two cents, here.

[Biggiesized]

This logo:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4898/x264logort6.png

and the original orange website (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/x264/web/) are the best proposals thus far.

Why?

Clean. Simple. Efficient. Design.

However, the body of the news portion needs better text spacing. Keep it inline with the News header.

[DarkZell666]

This logo:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4898/x264logort6.png

and the original orange website (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/x264/web/) are the best proposals thus far.

Why?

Clean. Simple. Efficient. Design.

However, the body of the news portion needs better text spacing. Keep it inline with the News header.

There is no best :D
We all have our own tastes and preferences, and what is best for you isn't best for someone else ... same old story really ;)

A poll is a good idea here, though the x264 dev's will certainly have the last word : it's the website for their project after all :)

[G_M_C]

or "Open Source" souds better to me tha "Free"

Hmm, I agree. Too many people confuse "free as in beer" with "free as in speech", so "free" is not necessarily the best way to go.

Still i agree with the said above; Free doesn't sound quite right to me. It's Open Source, not free (it's under the GNU OS licencing afaik, wich isn't equal to free).

[nm]

Still i agree with the said above; Free doesn't sound quite right to me. It's Open Source, not free (it's under the GNU OS licencing afaik, wich isn't equal to free).
RMS would probably punch you for that ;)
For example, Wikipedia introduces the GNU GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) with these words:
The GNU General Public Licence (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is a widely used free software licence, originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU project. [...]
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html (Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”)

... Though I do agree that "Open Source" is probably better for the logo.

[G_M_C]

RMS would probably punch you for that ;)
For example, Wikipedia introduces the GNU GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) with these words:

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html (Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”)

... Though I do agree that "Open Source" is probably better for the logo.

Well yes, free as in the sence that you dont have to pay money to buy the licence to use it. But it is not free in the sence that you can use the software in any way you like or can think of; There are conditions and terms attached to the license, more in the direction of copyright for writers. And in that context i'm more for the term "Open Source" (especially in the logo).

[burfadel]

A clean sleak website is good as its easier to navigate and looks professional which aids confidence of the products offered for the visitors to the site. However, making it too simple can have the opposite affect especially for a site offering an modern IT type product. To me the orange website looks a bit archaic, the logo shown would much better suit standalone devices (I know thats not going to happen, just an example). I have no idea myself on a design, although Bobor's main x264 logo is on the right track - its a good logo! a half way point between that and the other logo would be good. The frame was kind of a bit small, it looked out of place when the whole screen is not utilised.;

[nm]

<offtopic>
Well yes, free as in the sence that you dont have to pay money to buy the licence to use it.
No, in the other sense. GPLed software generally is software libre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre#Free_as_in_free_beer) (free as in freedom), but not necessarily gratis (free of cost / free as in free beer / freeware). x264 is practically both, but third parties are free to package and sell it as long as they notify the receiver of the license and provide the code when asked for it.

But it is not free in the sence that you can use the software in any way you like or can think of; There are conditions and terms attached to the license, more in the direction of copyright for writers.
GPL is a copyleft license that relaxes the copyright of the authors. The terms are there to ensure that the code remains libre. You can use compiled binaries in pretty much any way you want and even sell the software (hence the libre/gratis distinction), only the code is protected so that modifications must be made available to users and receivers of the software. Because of this, it can be argued that GPL makes the software more libre than less restrictive licenses, such as BSD. Of course, you are free to disagree, but then RMS will punch you again ;)


Oh well, you pretty much proved Dark Shikari's point:
Hmm, I agree. Too many people confuse "free as in beer" with "free as in speech", so "free" is not necessarily the best way to go.


We can continue this discussion privately, if you wish.
</offtopic>

[bob0r]

There is no best :D...

One exception on this rule:

http://www.lahiguera.net/cinemania/actores/steven_seagal/fotos/1913/steven_seagal.jpg

[Atak_Snajpera]

A poll is a good idea here, though the x264 dev's will certainly have the last word : it's the website for their project after all
Dark_Shikari where are you? :)

One exception on this rule:
No no no amigo :)
http://www.chuck-norris.fr/chuck-norris.jpg

[DarkZell666]

ROFL, you guys never cease to amaze me :rolleyes:
You almost had me fall off my chair ! :eek: (no fake as we say ... :o)

[Dark Shikari]

Well yes, free as in the sence that you dont have to pay money to buy the licence to use it. But it is not free in the sence that you can use the software in any way you like or can think of; There are conditions and terms attached to the license, more in the direction of copyright for writers. And in that context i'm more for the term "Open Source" (especially in the logo).The GPL puts no restrictions whatsoever on the use of x264. It puts restrictions on distribution.

Please don't spread FUD, or at least read the license before doing so.

[Ralle321]

Here is a logo i made:

http://s4.directupload.net/images/080914/lpcsppgf.png


Maybe it has too much detail in it and should look more clean
and less complex but i like the result of my first attempt creating a logo.

[Quark.Fusion]

Is picture blocky? Did it means that x264 produces blocky results? :)

[Atak_Snajpera]

New website test
http://atak-snajpera.cba.pl/index.htm

NOTE: Ads has been added by web hosting service (free account with ads)

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

New website test
http://atak-snajpera.cba.pl/index.htm

NOTE: Ads has been added by web hosting service (free account with ads)

I like the color scheme. Hmmm... it'd nice if it was horizontally scalable since maximizing the window on a high res widescreen monitor leaves a lot of gray space. On the other hand, there would be a lot of 1-liners which were supposed to be short paragraphs :D.

I guess you should leave the body at a fixed horizontal size, but something needs to be done to the gray space... it's a lot lighter than the black main body of the site, and can take up a lot of space. The gray space horizontally covers more than the body's width on my monitor, so it stands out a lot.

Maybe set it to solid black.. or black with a subtle texture? (like how the background text colors are)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

New website test
http://atak-snajpera.cba.pl/index.htm

NOTE: Ads has been added by web hosting service (free account with ads)

Looks pretty cool to me :cool:

[Logical10]

New website test
http://atak-snajpera.cba.pl/index.htm

NOTE: Ads has been added by web hosting service (free account with ads)

Very nice work, although i would like to see CCCP added to playback :p

[Atak_Snajpera]

Very nice work, although i would like to see CCCP added to playback
CCCP = ffdshow + haali media splitter + MPC-HC + something ...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Very nice work, although i would like to see CCCP added to playback :pCCCP = ffdshow + haali media splitter + MPC-HC + something ...

I don't think this is needed. Actually it's ffdshow itself that enabled H.264 playback in DirectShow-based players, not CCCP.
There are dozens of "Codec Packages" that bundle ffdshow with additional software. Not all of them can/should be listed on the x264 homepage.
And many of them are crap anyway...

Also MPC-HC ships with built-in MP4 and Matroska splitters as well as a built-in H.264 decoder now. The latter even with DXVA support.
Hence people that use MPC-HC neither need Haali nor ffdshow, making the CCCP pack superfluous (more or less).

[Atak_Snajpera]

I don't think this is needed. Actually it's ffdshow itself that enabled H.264 playback in DirectShow-based players, not CCCP.
I agree with you in 100%. CCCP go to hell :) (I don't like that name either)

[bob0r]

New website test
http://atak-snajpera.cba.pl/index.htm

NOTE: Ads has been added by web hosting service (free account with ads)

If you need a free host to test/develope the new website, i can set you up on a mirror. (Drop me a PM if you do)

[Atak_Snajpera]

it's a lot lighter than the black main body of the site, and can take up a lot of space. The gray space horizontally covers more than the body's width on my monitor, so it stands out a lot.

Maybe set it to solid black.. or black with a subtle texture? (like how the background text colors are)
What would you say about this?
http://mirror05.x264.nl/Atak_Snajpera/

[bob0r]

Wow, like the shadow drop at the bottom :)

Could you make a version with the x264.nl logo on your website?
Without the text "open source ...", just the orange X + orange "lines" around 264, just to see how it looks (maybe with some fading or thinning of the lines around 264, just try some)

The current logo is nice, but by accident i created a recognizable logo on x264.nl, maybe someone with skills like you can make something off it, else we need something new, but recognizable!

[Atak_Snajpera]

Could you make a version with the x264.nl logo on your website?
are you thinking about this logo or something similar ?http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4898/x264logort6.png

[bob0r]

are you thinking about this logo or something similar ?http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4898/x264logort6.png

Yes, but then in your style and without text.

[Atak_Snajpera]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1314/new1qm9.th.png (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=new1qm9.png)
Frankly I'm not convinced ...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Noooo, not again :D

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4382/x264fish2ni3.png

[kemuri-_9]

I don't really think there will be anything that will completely satisfy the entire planet, so just pick what satisfies the majority (or better - all) of the important people (x264 devs and graphic designers)

kind of why i've been generally keeping my nose out of the opinions.

[nautilus7]

I have a little question to make: What is the exact name of the H.264 standard? I believe it's MPEG-4 AVC or MPEG-4 part10 or just H.264. And not H.264/AVC that's on the logo.

So i propose changing the logo to this:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/6613/x264ph1.th.png (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x264ph1.png)

Despite the name thing, i like it more that way because the "open source H.264 encoder" phrase and the x264 above it end at the same point, without having any of them protruding.

[Atak_Snajpera]

H.264/AVC is just a shorten version of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. When we talk about AAC audio we often omit MPEG-4 part. for example AAC-HE instead of MPEG-4 AAC-SSR

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I have a little question to make: What is the exact name of the H.264 standard? I believe it's MPEG-4 AVC or MPEG-4 part10 or just H.264. And not H.264/AVC that's on the logo.

H.264/AVC was developed by the Joint Video Team (JVT), which consists of the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).

* The official ITU-T standard is "H.264"
* The official MPEG standard is "ISO/IEC 14496-10" aka "MPEG-4 Part 10" aka "MPEG-4 AVC" (for Advanced Video Coding)

[Snowknight26]

What would you say about this?
http://mirror05.x264.nl/Atak_Snajpera/


Looks brilliant!

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

What would you say about this?
http://mirror05.x264.nl/Atak_Snajpera/

Wow, looks very nice! :D. The background looks much less bland without going overboard, and it didn't even have to be mostly black like I suggested.

With some polish (not talking about the shiny bottom surface, that looks like it was polished enough :p), it'll certaintly look very appealing in my opinion. Now we desparately need the opinions from those who matter (DS, Pengvado, etc.).

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1314/new1qm9.th.png (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=new1qm9.png)
Frankly I'm not convinced ...

There are a few things that are quite different. I think the really thick rectangular box around the "264" threw off some of the appeal of the "original" (the one you're trying to replicate). It should be considerably thinner than the thickness of the X. Another thing about the original is that the "feet" of the X are horizontally flat at the tips... so they line up with the box perfectly.

Also, the crosses of the X aren't perpendicular in the original. That's probably the least significant... as the X on the x264.nl logo is actually wide instead of narrow, and still looks good. To be honest, I think this (jarod's design) is the most recognizable x264 logo I've seen, so I can easily imagine it being the "official" logo.

I don't really think there will be anything that will completely satisfy the entire planet, so just pick what satisfies the majority (or better - all) of the important people (x264 devs and graphic designers)

kind of why i've been generally keeping my nose out of the opinions.

I agree with you, the final decision ultimately belongs to the developers, imo. However, I still like to share my opinions with constructive criticism though. As long as not too many people disagree with what I think, I hope my opinions can help contribute to this project.

[bob0r]

I agree, the logo is ugly now :)
Use your free mind and try to come up with a great design, smaller lines around the 264, maybe some different font or text alignment, much to do :)

But like many say, its mostly up to the x264 developers, so let's see what they want!

pengvado?
dark shikari?
gabriel?
others?

[Daiz]

don't think this is needed. Actually it's ffdshow itself that enabled H.264 playback in DirectShow-based players, not CCCP.

CCCP however still is the suggested playback solution for Matroska files on the Matroska homepage, and since H.264 video is quite often found inside Matroska files, I'd say adding CCCP wouldn't hurt.

[DarkZell666]

CCCP however still is the suggested playback solution for Matroska files on the Matroska homepage, and since H.264 video is quite often found inside Matroska files, I'd say adding CCCP wouldn't hurt.

I believe you're refering to this page (http://www.matroska.org/technical/guides/playback/windows/index.html) ?

In that case, they mention it as being one of the available solutions, but I don't see any explicit recommendation of CCCP.
IMVHO they put it in first, next to the keywords "Windows Media Player" and "Winamp" so average joe doesn't have too much reading to do :p

This is a thread about the website design anyway. There are some good ideas regarding the actual content, but I believe this debate should come last :)

[Atak_Snajpera]

CCCP however still is the suggested playback solution for Matroska files on the Matroska homepage, and since H.264 video is quite often found inside Matroska files, I'd say adding CCCP wouldn't hurt.

CCCP = ffdshow + haali media splitter + MPC-HC + something ...
.....

[Daiz]

I believe you're refering to this page (http://www.matroska.org/technical/guides/playback/windows/index.html) ?

In that case, they mention it as being one of the available solutions, but I don't see any explicit recommendation of CCCP.
IMVHO they put it in first, next to the keywords "Windows Media Player" and "Winamp" so average joe doesn't have too much reading to do :p

This is a thread about the website design anyway. There are some good ideas regarding the actual content, but I believe this debate should come last :)

Well, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Community_Codec_Pack) says: "As of 2006, the CCCP is now the official Matroska playback solution on Windows, having superseded the Matroska Playback Pack."

And the CCCP FAQ (http://www.cccp-project.net/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ#Endorsements) says under Endorsements: "We are officially endorsed by the Matroska Project, the individuals who designed the MKV format. They originally provided their own codec pack, but dropped it in favour of ours as it was of a higher quality and better maintained."

Atak_Snajpera, I'd say CCCP is more than just the sum of its components, mainly due to the provided settings program, settins preconfigured for component compatibility, the CCCP Insurgent and a good documentation.

In any case, DarkZell666 is correct, this thread is about the design of the website, we can argue about the actual content later :p

[smok3]

imho the two-column layout is very plain (blogish) but still better than the even more boring three-column layout.

The solution is to use for example three columns but with non-everyday widths like http://www.kiberpipa.org/ (the same can be found for 2-column way) or use the more unusual # of columns (see my pdf example from few posts back).

[Atak_Snajpera]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1160900#post1160900
This will be a professional-looking site, but yes, it will be relatively minimal; I'm not going to shove icons everywhere on it because that would look silly. Any good website needs to not only look appealing but also get straight to the point--an overcomplicated website turns off users.

no comment

[smok3]

was that for me?

[Quark.Fusion]

Also, the crosses of the X aren't perpendicular in the original. That's probably the least significant... as the X on the x264.nl logo is actually wide instead of narrow, and still looks good. To be honest, I think this (jarod's design) is the most recognizable x264 logo I've seen, so I can easily imagine it being the "official" logo.
X is perpendicular as in ×264, right? :)

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

X is perpendicular as in ×264, right? :)

Yeah... I expressed an opinion about it looking too "square" in another post, but it's supposed to represent the multiplication sign. I think as long as it's styled to be similar to x264.nl's logo, it'll still look good without any angle changes.

imho the two-column layout is very plain (blogish) but still better than the even more boring three-column layout.

The solution is to use for example three columns but with non-everyday widths like http://www.kiberpipa.org/ (the same can be found for 2-column way) or use the more unusual # of columns (see my pdf example from few posts back).

I think it uses too much of the negative space... there isn't much in there except for the lower-left area and the abormally thick bottom area. So the overall composition of the site seems packed or cluttered and unbalanced. Maximizing that page looks strange, as I anticipated in another post from yesterday. I like horizontally-scalable pages (like this forum), but a major drawback is that relatively long chunks of text turn into huge 1-liners when fullly maximized on a fairly high resolution monitor (1920x1200 here).

My suggestion to Atak_Snajpera was to do something to the large negative space so it wouldn't look too plain, and it looks really nice now. The composition remained the same, and the negative space isn't as overwhelming and is balanced on both sides of the page.

Anyhow, DS prefers minimalistic, so I think he'd lean more towards the "very plain" look (though it has nice subtle touches that makes it looks nice).

[Kurtnoise]

so...any news on the official website ?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

so...any news on the official website ?

Sorry for digging out this old thread, but are there any news now?

Will the x264 web-site ever go online after all those announcements and all the proposed designs or was that project dropped finally :confused: