That's my guess atleast.My guess (I don't have any way to substantiate this) is that MP42 is not using the image prefilter that MP43 does by default - but that still doesn't explain why the encoding times are identical (MP43 *should* be slower if this is the case). If they only spent a bit more money on their monitor they'd might be able to see it. They spend 1000s on a PC then get a crappy monitor, and I look like a fool telling them that there's a difference. I think it's the monitors people use really. I've always been saying Mpeg4v2 is worlds better than DivX until Nandub came around. It's nice to hear from someone who agreed that Mpeg4v2 is different than Mpeg4v3 visually. I've used DivX 3.11 for a couple of years and quickly adopted Nandub and Gordian Knot when they burst onto the scene, so if anything, it almost hurts to see what Xvid's MPEG4 technology is capable of doing. The same attributes I described are present in both keyframes and deltaframes.For what it's worth, if I've given the impression that I'm blowing smoke because I have some sort of vested interest or ties to Xvid, let me assure you there is none. If anything, I'd expect that my Xvid attempt isn't representative of the best it can be given my relative inexperience with it specifically (although many of the same fundamentals apply, including treatment of the stats files with Gordian Knot).With regard to keyframes, I'm not sure what you mean. I've been using Nandub since its first public beta and am reasonably confident I have a good working knowledge of it strengths and weaknesses. The encoding processes were as similar as they could be within the constraints of working with different codecs. ![]() Morello, I'm a little surprised to see such a flippant response from you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |