|
Well there seems to be many answers to this and yet "some" of us are getting on to comparing h264 and why the files using that codec are so big...[darkfire]'s post being meaningful but what was the point? It didn't answer anything or ask or discuss the sole topic. And technically there really "ISN't" an answer to this question because:
----: 1. Different encoders may have different styles and choices
----: 2. Why not they be big?
----: 3. A satisfying file size varies upon different people (and i mean everyone outside of encoders)
----: 4. If the job is done correctly at that so point, say 233mb, then why ask if it's good.
----: 5. I suppose that since high-filesize does job why take chances on multiple encodes by trying to go lower ( way lower )
----: 6. H.264 as explained I believe in this thread has some reason to be placed at high file sizes:
----: 7. More widespread? Because the filesize does "somewhat" decide quality (but i won't go further into that)
----: 8. I assume h264 files at that size are pleasing to you, no? So then why ask?
----: 9. Did I mention why not?
----: 10. Average Analysis: h264 on avg has about a third greater bitrate at 170mb then XVID...so why not push the limits further?
|