[MPlayer-DOCS] suggestions for main/docs/xml/en/encoding-guide.xml

[Jeff Clagg]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:27:52AM -0500, compn wrote:
> >   <footnote id='fn-menc-feat-dvd-mpeg4-codec-cpu'>
> >   <para>Be careful, however: Decoding DVD-resolution MPEG-4 AVC videos
> >   requires a fast machine (i.e. a Pentium 4 over 1.5Ghz or a Pentium M
> >   over 1Ghz).
> >   </para></footnote>
> >   when choosing MPEG-4 AVC codecs like
> >   <systemitem class="library">x264</systemitem> instead of MPEG-4 ASP codecs
> >   such as <systemitem class="library">libavcodec</systemitem> MPEG-4 or
> >   <systemitem class="library">XviD</systemitem>.
> >   (To get a better grasp of what the fundamental differences between
> >   MPEG-4 ASP and MPEG-4 AVC are, you would be well advised to read the entry
> >   "<ulink url="http://guru.multimedia.cx/?p=10">15 reasons why MPEG4 sucks</ulink>"
> >   from Michael Niedermayer's blog.)
> 
> imo, that blog post is horribly inefficient at telling the average user
> the differences between mp4 asp and mp4 avc... the user does not care about the
> framework of the codec. either a guide showing the difference should be
> linked to or this part removed. or maybe 'advanced codec developers maybe
> interested in reading michael ni's opinion on why mpeg4 asp codecs suck'

I just want to underscore compn's point here. Let's make a list of the
stupid things about H.264 - I'm sure some of them would be funnier than
Michael's list of MPEG-4 Part 2 follies. I also bet more of them would
be relevant to USERS of the codec. Offering that blog post as a reason
to use H.264 is pure FUD IMO.

As far as I can see, there are only three criteria that ordinary end
users should be considering as a reason for using or not using a codec:
- speed (decoding and encoding)
- achievable level of quality (this may need to be considered in light
  of speed differences as well, which currently means ASP codecs have a
  huge advantage if your requirements call for certain speed ranges)
- software support and interoperability