For Programmers: Free Programming Magazines  


Home > Archive > Compression > February 2007 > About speed versus quality video codec's









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author About speed versus quality video codec's
Sportman

2007-02-18, 6:55 pm

In the new version of Joost http://www.slevi.net/2007/02/18/a-m...the-08-release/
and http://www.joost.com (before The Venice Project) use CoreCodec
CoreAVC High Definition H.264 video codec http://www.coreavc.com what
is based on the MPEG-4 Part 10 standard. In my tests it use less CPU
and the quality looks maybe even better then the old codec Joost used.

I was wondering are there benchmarks/websites where video codec's are
compared for example top xx codec's encoding/decoding speed quality
high, top xx quality medium, top xx quality low in most common monitor
screen resolutions?

Is CoreAVC really the fastest H.264 codec? Are there no other codec's
who support a different standard but same quality and faster?

In an interview http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie149/artikel2.html
Joost manger Dirk-Willem van Gulik say they need 10-12 hours to
compress one hour video, which sounds not fast to me.

Sponsored Links







Also available: Server administration forum archive | Web Design forum archive | Software forum archive | Hardware reviews archive

Copyright 2008 codecomments.com