Why is Billy's comment low ranked, people? He is completely correct; h.264 (and its friendly open source counterpart, x.264) is superior to XviD in every way at equivalent bitrates. With growing h.264 support, either higher quality/resolution video can be had at the same filesize as XviD, or the same quality can be had at significantly lower sizes.
This is why both next-gen DVD formats use a derivation of the h.264 codec for their compression (yes, Blu-ray and HDDVD are both compressed).
My guess is that people voted this down because XviD is a widespread format & they had not heard of h.264. XviD's ubiquity in no way make it the "best" codec.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why is Billy's comment low ranked, people? He is completely correct; h.264 (and its friendly open source counterpart, x.264) is superior to XviD in every way at equivalent bitrates. With growing h.264 support, either higher quality/resolution video can be had at the same filesize as XviD, or the same quality can be had at significantly lower sizes.
This is why both next-gen DVD formats use a derivation of the h.264 codec for their compression (yes, Blu-ray and HDDVD are both compressed).
My guess is that people voted this down because XviD is a widespread format & they had not heard of h.264. XviD's ubiquity in no way make it the "best" codec.