Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subcool
Simply because MP4 has hardware support and some other nice features... and oh yea did i mention its supported by H.264 hardware players?  |
So he says. Okay, let's hear it. Which hardware players on the market support your encodes?
Quote:
|
btw, saying MKV is superior to MP4 is bs :P
|
We had that before. MKV has actual tool support which MP4 is lacking. Where MP4 could _theoretically_ support many things, it simply doesn't most of them. Even basic encoding concepts like true variable framerate encodes are out of current MP4's scope. MKV delivers what MP4 only promises to do one day - if ever.
Quote:
Putting more bits into Ginban is useless, it won't improve the video quality at all... just add useless bits to the image.
The raws aren't exactly superb :P
|
Blanket comments like these are almost always wrong. Almost certainly the video quality will be improved. Why can't you just say that the quality gain is too small in your opinion to justify it?
Quote:
|
I'd only use 170 MB on a H.264 encode if the difference between 140 and 170 is clearly seen. But even Pretty Cure DVD's are fine at 140 MB too, using 170 MB would not improve quality on those either
|
The old "improve quality on same filesize or same quality on smaller filesize" question. Fair enough if you settle on the first option.