HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
What Video Codec Do you like best?
IceDigger - Sep 8, 2004
  IceDigger Sep 8, 2004
What Video Codec Do you like best?

 Alexvrb Sep 8, 2004
Divx Pro. You don't have to worry about finding a good build or anything, and it provides superior compression. It has two disadvantages: It isn't free, and it isn't always fast (although much of the latter depends on the other software you're using). But it is still the best, and I like it the most. Xvid is usually pretty good too, if you've got a reliable build (and not one of the ones that produces artifacts that make me feel ill). I'd probably use Xvid over the standard (free) Divx.

WM9 has actually seen some work recently, if you check out the WMP10 site. They've got a couple of new specific-purpose video and audio codec, including a WMA meant for speech with some music at very low bitrates, a lossless WMA, and various WMV, like the image-panning one. It's fairly easy to work with, too. But when it comes down to it, xvid and divx both beat WMV9 codec on the full frame video front, and you can always use WMA, Ogg Vorbis, MP3, AAC, whatever alongside the Divx/xvid video stream.

 Cloud121 Sep 8, 2004
I'd vote DivX, but the Apple fanboy in me made me vote QT.

Also, whoever created the WMV codec NEEDS to be SHOT!

 ExCyber Sep 8, 2004
What, no Theora...? The bitstream format is frozen now, you know.

 IceDigger Sep 8, 2004
Isnt theora just a container like ogm and mkv?

 it290 Sep 8, 2004
Quicktime isn't a codec, any more than AVI is.

 Alexvrb Sep 8, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by IceMan2k@Sep 8, 2004 @ 10:57 PM



 Isnt theora just a container like ogm and mkv?


No. As it290 mentioned, quicktime is a file container, just a really proprietary one. Theora is part of the Ogg project. Ogg is the file container (.ogm for mixed and .ogg for audio-only files AFAIK). The Ogg Vorbis codec is the audio codec, and Ogg Theora is a modified version of VP3. Usually those are understood to be under the Ogg umbrella, so they just call them Vorbis and Theora, respectively. When you say "Ogg", it usually is supposed to mean the containers or project as a whole, but most people associate it with Vorbis alone, because that is how they started.

Anyway, despite Cloud's expected fanboyism, WM9 actually has some good aspects. I'm sure he knows jack about it, but that never stops anyone from bashing something. It's not my favorite, as I explained before, and I'd rather use Divx or Xvid. But MS actually does have some interesting codecs, and you can rip to WMA or MP3 without restrictions very easily with WMP10, as well as burn data/audio discs and transfer to portables. I'd sure as hell take it over any Apple solution, which are usually a PITA to work with and extra proprietary. They're worse than MS now. Did you hear about how they got all pissy when Real broke their FairPlay protection so users could transfer files they bought from other sources to iPod? Ironic that Apple would name it "FairPlay" when they don't want anyone else to touch it.

 ExCyber Sep 9, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			.ogm for mixed and .ogg for audio-only files AFAIK


A true Ogg file should be .ogg regardless of what media it contains. The .ogm format is a hack/fork of Ogg invented to use the Ogg container format with proprietary codecs, something not supported by the Ogg project AFAIK.

edit: further info here....

 Alexvrb Sep 10, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by ExCyber@Sep 9, 2004 @ 05:10 AM



 A true Ogg file should be .ogg regardless of what media it contains. The .ogm format is a hack/fork of Ogg invented to use the Ogg container format with proprietary codecs, something not supported by the Ogg project AFAIK.



edit: further info here....


Ah. Well props to whoever pieced together .ogm then. There's no reason that the ogg container shouldn't be used for other stuff. Besides, it's always nice to be able to distinguish audio from video just by the extension. Although Matroska (.mkv) has it beat on features anyway, and is probably the most advanced file container I've dealt with.

 ExCyber Sep 10, 2004

  
	
	

		
		

			There's no reason that the ogg container shouldn't be used for other stuff.


Sure, and it seems that the Ogg guys mostly agree in principle, they just don't want to get saddled with supporting a bunch of stuff that's outside the scope of the project, and don't want to see the Ogg name associated with non-free codecs:


  
	
	

		
		

			The biggest problem is that people are using OGM primarily to encode DVD's with DivX video and Vorbis audio. I fear that people might be using OGM, and convince themselves that they're using completely free software, when they're not. After all, 'Ogg' is from Xiph, and Xiph only produces free stuff. DivX and XviD are MPEG-4 variants, and subject to any holds that the MPEG patents have on those technologies.



Again; Nothing wrong with DivX or XviD, they're just not completely open standards. Patents apply. It doesn't mean they're not useful, it just means that you might be getting more than you bargained for on the legal side of things.