 |
| | < x264VfW H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder 20.1195bm : Reviews |
Rating: 5.0 | | |
 x264VfW H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder 17.1145bm
Date: 16 May 2009 | Rating: 5 | Written by: Mike |
3. |
Thanks for keeping the vfw version alive and up to date!
I still don't see a reason for me to drop VD(M), so I'm very happy to get a new x264vfw once in a while!
Tnx for that!
|
x264VfW H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder 17.1145bm
Date: 7 May 2009 | Rating: 5 | Written by: djb |
2. |
This is a great codec, and it's amazing. Made a great difference in my videos.
|
x264VfW H.264/MPEG-4 AVC encoder 14.259bm
Date: 2 Aug 2008 | Rating: 5 | Written by: k4hd9RT1 |
1. |
Some says that VFW is dead.
But I dare to say it is not for VirtualDub users.
In fact, VFW encoders could give more accessability in various video editing applications.
I'd like to thank the devs for giving us that accessabilty again.
The old x264VFW didn't support decompression, so FFVFW or AVISynth was needed for VFW editor.
Not any more.
Now x264VFW support decompression as well as compression.
The same quality of x264-encoded-file with much less bitrate than Divx or XviD is possible.
Personally I haven't noticed such a drastic improvement with WVC1.
Unfortunately x264 is very slow in compression and somewhat slow in decompression.
And I'm not sure the 'deblocking filter' really increases quality. It demands more CPU load in decoding level. So what is the difference with postprocessing? Postprocessing can't make quality increases, right?
I know it's my ignorance... but I normally turn off 'deblocking filter' in x264 encoding. Only when the source file is really blocky, I turn it on.
|
|
|
|
|
