TorrentFreak

47 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

26 Apr 30, 2008 at 17:21 by Anonymous

[quote]Again, I really am shocked at your lack of understanding, it really does amaze me.[/quote]

That was the stupidest post I have viewed in a long time. Sorry, but it’s true. You understand little, and even worse is that you act like you don’t.

[quote]*Future reference, please people do ur research, its idiots like no. 12 that can cause new and improved technology to fail due to their ignorance.[/quote]

Thank you for explaining it, I did not have the time to explain it myself. I cannot believe the idiocy here.

[quote]@16: Learn to spell. Respect the community and YOU do the research. H.264 is a proprietarytechnology developed by ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). They are NOT open source and not free as in “libre”. As you probably don’t know, MPEG is one of the most famous of propriety copyright holders, which is why you have to download gstreamer-fluendo or gstreamer-ffmepg when installing linux and gstreamer to play mp3 files. I mean, have you ever used linux?[/quote]

ASP is the video format that xvid encodes to. Of course, it is made by MPEG, too.

And no, this does not fall under copyrights. It falls under patents, I believe.

[quote]Finally, H.264 was released in 2003 and has changed very little, where as the latest version of Xvid (1.1.3) was released in 2007.[/quote]

H.264 is a format, not an encoder. x264 is an encoder for H.264, which I assure you has been updated since 2003 (was it even around then?).

[quote]The only benefit of H.264 is it requires little processing power to decode as it is very sparsely encoded, so can be used to display HD media well. But so can Xvid, and with dual and quad core support coming soon it will become viable.
[/quote]

Xvid (well, the asp video format, but you don’t understand that anyway) makes files that are much less CPU intensive to decode, because it is far simpler.

27 Apr 30, 2008 at 17:59 by Crandom

Lol, Americans. Lololololololololololololololololol. Of course I know H.264 is better. I just like flame wars ;)

Didn’t you see how it was all made up? “double layer tri-fixed point deblocking” lol

28 Apr 30, 2008 at 18:10 by Anonymous

You freakin idiots. Why must you post your garbage here? Go find a chat room full of 14 year olds to fight with. Support the p2p world rather than drag it down with your stupidity. People rely on discussion and comments to help make decent decisions. Your mom never should have bought you that ‘puter for christmas…losers.

29 Apr 30, 2008 at 18:19 by Anonymous

[quote]Lol, Americans. Lololololololololololololololololol. Of course I know H.264 is better. I just like flame wars ;)
[/quote]

I’m #26.

But no, I’m not American - proudly :)

[quote]Didn’t you see how it was all made up? “double layer tri-fixed point deblocking” lol[/quote]

I didn’t even see that, but looking back, that does seem odd :P

30 Apr 30, 2008 at 18:25 by Anonymous

just another internet troll…

31 Apr 30, 2008 at 20:02 by boot2ben

::Xvid it is then.H264 might have to rise up just a bit….
Bank Job was good here and there.Cloverfield reminds me off Sir David Attenborough’s documentary’s..

They just movies

32 Apr 30, 2008 at 20:54 by Anonymous

[quote]::Xvid it is then.H264 might have to rise up just a bit….[/quote]

how would h.264 have to rise up to beat xvid? ones a format, the others an encoder - still, videos encoded to h.264 are usually much better than videos encoded by xvid.

33 Apr 30, 2008 at 21:38 by Concerned

Straight xvid/divx playback is becoming a standard feature on more and more standalone DVD players. I don’t see that happening with h264. So there are a whole lot of variables in ply for anyone to simple say one is better than the other. Everyone has preferences and like opinions, but can’t be wrong - it’s what they believe.

34 May 01, 2008 at 03:16 by gg

cloverfield was great

35 May 01, 2008 at 03:34 by ace hall

hope xvid will stay for a while longer…my routine = download > usb drive > dvd player.

delete. repeat.

36 May 01, 2008 at 04:29 by -.-

@ Concerned

iPods, PS3s, Xboxs, and other media player have all accepted .mp4 x264 encoded formats. I’m pretty sure there are loads of DVD players out there that play H.264 format movies, and I’m pretty sure it will become much more popular by the end of the year.

@ Ace Hall

I had the same thoughts but I guess nothing stays round for long, not even dvd players. Change is inevitable.

@ Crandon (no.21)

People over here are trying hard to convince people to check out superior technology before it turns into another betamax, so we’d really appreciate it if you took you’re amazing hilarious and marvelous sense of humor somewhere else, maybe somewhere people may find it funny, like a stoners forum. Seriously, if you enjoy creating flaming fights online you desperately need a life.

37 May 01, 2008 at 14:41 by Crandom

I can’t believ you actually argued against me. I feel sorry for the people who have to fight against worthless shits lke me.

And who says im not 14 years old? The demographics of this site is that most people ARE teenagers.

38 May 01, 2008 at 20:14 by ghost

[quote comment="363948"]The Bank Job was not all that good
Untraceable was decent, bu[quote comment="363948"]The Bank Job was not all that good
Untraceable was decent, but unrealistic.
Horton Hears a Who! was quite funny
Cloverfield really sucked if you asked me.[/quote]
t unrealistic.
Horton Hears a Who! was quite funny
Cloverfield really sucked if you asked me.[/quote]

you don’t know what u talking about , with normal bitrates Xvid gives better quality than x264.

39 May 03, 2008 at 23:42 by MPAA

is it just me or are “horton hears a who” and “untraceable” still just r5dvdrips ?

40 May 03, 2008 at 23:49 by MPAA

[quote comment="364974"][quote]::Xvid it is then.H264 might have to rise up just a bit….[/quote]

how would h.264 have to rise up to beat xvid? ones a format, the others an encoder - still, videos encoded to h.264 are usually much better than videos encoded by xvid.[/quote]
pretty obvious where the post was going with this, xvid encodes in a format too. ignoring the obvious is pretty stupid.

xvid uses an implementation of mpeg-4 part2 with some bastardization for being in AVI
H.264 is obviously mpeg-4 part10 (otherwise known as AVC)

the comparison would obviously be between those two “formats”, though of course even if a format is technically superior it does no good if the implementation of it (the encoder) is inferior.

x264 > xvid

41 May 04, 2008 at 09:52 by GK

Like someone said, it doesn’t matter right now if H.264 is better. Xvid is better supported and more wide-spread. Just like mp3 is actually inferior to several other audio formats, but it enjoys better support, and therefore, is more popular.

42 May 04, 2008 at 15:04 by Kenny Kenny

Reminds me of the people arguing for Telesyncs to be in xvid rather than svcd’s and getting shouted down because of compatibilty issues, or even the shock of the use of SVCD’s rather than VCD’s by TS groups, (and I can’t even remember that famous release groups name who started releasing three svcd movies and were shouted down by people who said it was a waste of bandwidth) . A 2 x 700mb AC3 film is usually pretty fine as it is. Bandwidth is less of an issue anyway nowadays. If you are really quality mad and using a computer to watch you might as well go down the HD H.264 route on a DVDR rather than faffing about with some 800mb standard res stuff. Personally, I seem to be mainly watching silent films nowadays, they at least new how to act back in 1920 whatever and can tell a story a million times better than some CGI’d tosh.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Add your response