From Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:34:47 -0500
Simon <simon.xhz at gmail.com> wrote:
This is something to be looked into. My first FFMPEG project was to
first render specific movies in POV-Ray: movies that would try to
produce artefacts in different codecs and compare the decoded frame
with the original, thus finding the best codec for this kind of
movie. Kinds of movies are what you see all the time on the web,
colors slowly fading to another color, but the artifact doesn’t show
the fade and just abruptly changes, squares artifacts, etc…
Well, I do a lot of video encoding and from my experience I can tell
that choosing a codec for a specific task is generally easy: if you
want quick encoding times, don’t care too much about tight compression
and want small details kept, use ffmpeg’s MPEG2 encoder. If you need much
better compression rates at the cost of some small details being lost,
use XviD which is IMHO better than all other MPEG4 clones out there
(including the one included in ffmpeg). And, finally, if you need very
tight compression and don’t care about compression times, use x264,
which is ~2-3 times slower than XviD, but gives better results,
especially on low bitrates. In this scheme Theora is somewhere around
the middle, e.g. comparable to XviD, although I haven’t used it a lot.
Also keep in mind that MPEG2, MPEG4 and h264 are covered by various
patents, so be careful if you do esp. commercial applications.
Obviously, my aim was to make a benchmark of this as well and then
provide the results showing overall, in any kind of video situation,
which is the best codec… (h264, yea maybe, i wanna make sure!)
There’s no ‘best’ codec, you must know what you’re using it for. If you
have 8 megabits of bandwidth, MPEG2 will give the best results, and if
you compress your video stream into 300 kilobits (at dvd resolution),
h264 will give you best results.–
Andrew