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