Newsmeldung von slashCAM:Hier geht es zur Newsmeldung: Five H.264 compression tools in Comparison
Antwort von Axel:
Has anyone SOUND?
So either I am missing the player plug-in to see the result of - as I sometimes accept - see "Test Winner" with sound, or it throws a dubious light on the competence of the testers. If yes wie'n dermatologist with pimples.
EDIT: Ähhm, sorry to see have that the headphones were tuned ....
Antwort von Jörg:
The limitations in the control of the AME are
some experienced users regrets.
If I, however, the confusion of the default user in the forums in choosing the appropriate "means" see, this choice may not be bad.
But the choice of the "real" profile is probably only people like WoWu
not difficult ....;-))
Antwort von motiongroup:
very nice only when Resolutiondes Videos loses something of the contribution and the professionalism of the AME based on MC in spite of slower rendering times in Comparison to MS Expression Encoder gets a very good and the MS only makes the herb really GOOD FAT
Antwort von NEEL:
Judging from the tests to come but really only Sqeeze and Adobe in question. I understand why not the final recommendation ...
Antwort von Jott:
As someone Encoder test and get its online video baked herself only in a bad picture-and sound quality? How sick is that?
Antwort von tommyb:
And x264 as the encoder is not tested? Well then ...
Antwort von WoWu:
X.264 because only eight months, a commercially available product and is on the "old" MPEG4 ASP, so Part2 based, not contained in the various tools of H.264 are the words not been developed. Added to this is that you incur fees for commercial use as well as for H.264 (s.10.000 $ 10k for implementations. TMPGEnc has acquired such a license).
http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/te4xp.html
However, many companies prefer to engage with a standard reference implementation. This is not the case at x.264.
It exists, therefore, with few exceptions do not even commercially.
