Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
But then, since h.264 is a much better codec, why don't you use it to make the "smaller filesize" version even smaller?
|
Most people see H264 as meaning way better quality. So why aim for something smaller but is only slightly better in quality then the XviD release?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
Obviously, you are releasing an XviD version for the late adopters. This leaves the h.264 version for the people who are up-to-date with their technology. So, why the discrepancy in quality? It would seem to me that you would make a release of a suitable quality and make two versions of it, one for late adopters and the other for everyone else. If an extra high quality release is desired, you can release a third version in h.264. If people want quality, they will obviously pay for it (in terms of technology).
|
Release a third version eh? Well this is answered simply with it's not my job. Encoders do this as a free service. I have other projects as well and no reason to spend days encoding tons of different versions to satisfy a few leechers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
The asymmetry just doesn't make sense to me. Again, if you want to release a smaller file size version, you can make it even smaller by using h.264...
|
XviD is more for those who fear change or can't play H264. I aim for same size that they are used to with XviD (175MB). With H264 most downloading it are looking for the best quality so I aim for best quality with it. I have no care about what size I output to by doing so. (Unless it gets into insane sizes like 500MB for a 23 minute episode)