Frank, Thanks for taking the time to make those wmv files. On Oct 24, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Frank Carver wrote:
> To that end I have re-encoded your source AVI at 256kbps and 384kbps > (more common WMV bitrates) for comparison. To me there seems little by > way of difference in quality between these and your much larger files, > but I'm certainly not a video quality expert. > > http://www.makevideo.org.uk/direct/source-256.wmv (552KB) > http://www.makevideo.org.uk/direct/source-384.wmv (775KB) > <URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/256_H264.mov > (481KB) <URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/256_3ivx.mov > (561KB) <URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/384_H264.mov > (725KB) <URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/384_3ivx.mov > (729KB) The point of this discussion, for me, was to point out what I feel is an often repeated and unfair criticism of QuickTime, by Windows users. Namely, "you can't make QuickTime clips as small as Windows Media." As you can see from these comparison clips, you certainly can. Now, what about the quality. Well, I think the H.264 clips are slightly better and the 3ivx and WMV are pretty darn close. Again, I think most casual observers won't even be able to tell the difference at all. That's really no surprise as they're all a version of mpeg4 compression. -- Verdi <URL: http://michaelverdi.com/ > <URL: http://freevlog.org/ > <URL: http://node101.org/ > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
