faber3 opened this issue on Sep 17, 2004 ยท 10 posts
faber3 posted Fri, 17 September 2004 at 11:52 AM
I'm looking for the best video compressor cause I need a light file to insert it in a website. Thanks for reading my message. Bye!
Lawndart posted Fri, 17 September 2004 at 2:11 PM
DivX... Go to www.DivX.com and download the free installer. Once you have installed it, it will show up as a codec. Cheers, Joe
Little_Dragon posted Fri, 17 September 2004 at 6:29 PM
The MPEG-1 format is a good choice for web video, also. You can convert AVI files to MPEG with TMPGEnc.
svdl posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 1:24 AM
I prefer the MS MPEG4-v3 codec. Much better quality than DivX at the same bitrate. And if it really has to be light and compact, I convert it to .wmv using Media Encoder, gives you also the possibility to stream from your site. WMV is not very good at higher bitrates, but it's unbeatable at low bitrates. Unfortunately it can only be played with Windows Media player, Mac or Linux users are out of luck. If you also want to have those files accessible for Mac or Linux users, go for Quicktime. Do not use DivX. The free encoder shows a DivX watermark in your movie, you'll have to pay $20 to render movies without watermark that are still inferior to the free MPEG emcoders by Microsoft.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Little_Dragon posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 8:05 PM
svdl, the "watermark" logo is built into the decoder itself, not on the video. You can disable it from the DivX codec's configuration panel.
svdl posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 8:35 PM
Strange. I can play DivX movies without the logo, no problem. But when I encode using the free DivX package, it's there. Only when I used the paid version, the logo did not appear. The main reason I ditched DivX a year ago is video quality. MPEG4-v3 is better, especially with motion artefacts. When I encode at 768 Kbs, DivX results in ugly blocky outlines around the moving figures, especially noticeable against solid backgrounds, MPEG4v3 looks a lot better. And I have been twiddling a lot with the settings in both codecs. I'm a bit pissed about the $20 I wasted.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Little_Dragon posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 9:14 PM
The quality may have improved since; the codec has undergone several revisions and bugfixes since last year. You should be able to upgrade to the latest version of Pro, since you've already paid for it. Do you still have your serial?
Have you tried XviD?
svdl posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 9:20 PM
I have tried Xvid. No improvemend over MPEGv-3. I have a serial, but "it's no longer valid". They have this stupid validation scheme (a bit like MS with their activation code, but even less intelligent). So when I replaced my harddisk, the serial was no longer valid. I got a new serial, but when I upgraded from 2000 to XP, it was no longer valid (clean install). I'm fed up with DivX and will never use it again. MS may have its faults, but they're not THIS stupid.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
svdl posted Sat, 18 September 2004 at 9:27 PM
Another thing to think about: EVERYONE running Windows has the MS codecs. No need to hunt down exotic codecs in hidden places on the Net (agreed, DivX is easy to find, but Xvid was not, and 3ivx is pretty well hidden), the video plays immediately. Combined with the fact that the MS codec still is better than DivX 5.10 (latest version I tried), there is absolutely no reason not to use it.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Little_Dragon posted Sun, 19 September 2004 at 4:09 AM
True. That's one of the reasons I prefer MPEG-1. Lowest-common denominator, across all platforms.