aber wie ich feststelle haben da die User in Übersee ganz andere Vorstellungen von MPEG-4-AVC.
Es ging in diesem engl.Forum http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-we….html#post40673
um die Frage...
x264vfw oder......
Ich schrieb dann
statt mpeg-4 ASP sei es besser in mpeg-4 AVC
Die Antwort,im Beitrag 9 von sanlyn haut mich aber aus den Socken.
Yes, as you mention, x264 is an h.264 encoding engine. It appears to be favored by those who don't care for the noisy h.264 encoding by scaled-down, inferior copies of MainConcept used in many NLE's. If the O.P. can afford a genuine, unaltered MainConcept professional edition, well and good.
The difference between the containers for DVD/BluRay/AVCHD, and the mp4 container, is that mp4 has no encoding or file structure standards. People throw any piece of garbage into an mp4 container and wonder why it plays like silly jelly on some players, or will not play at all. mp4 is for "low standards" or "no standard", both of which are very popular today and which have always been the typical consumer's quality a/v measurement standard since the earliest days of CRT TV. There are millions of examples of how MP4 can "accept" encoding of such poor quality that the results look worse than VHS.
On the other hand, encoding for DVD or BluRay or AVCHD specs helps to ensure widespread compatibility and at least a nominal gesture in favor of some level of quality that is at least better than VHS. The Three formats are playable anywhere today, where MP4 is not universal. The idea that MP4 is more convenient for PC playback is nonsense, as other formats are just as convenient on a PC.
If the owner wants an encoded format for their iPhone, iPad, or other toy, it would be waste of data bits and encoding time to encode to a single high-bitrate format for those toys, a 23-inch PC monitor, a 60-inch plasma, and archival quality at the same time. MP4 is a good idea for well-filtered, very low bitrate (below 1500 kbps), small frame size, 250-frame GOPs that defy clean edits, and use more destructive deinterlace methods. Then there is the question of audio, in which most encoders force AAC high compression into MP4 encodes. The first thing typical users do is encode at the lowest audio bitrate possible, firmly in the belief that "AAC" automatically means "better" quality at lower bitrates than AC3, DTS, or PCM (further proof that the average user is no audiophile).
Finally there are two myths that are very popular today but have no merit in actual use: the first myth is that h.264 is "better" than MPEG, the second myth being that MP4 is somehow "better" than anything else for no other reason than MP4 is MP4.
In this case I don't think the differences seriously matter to ozshots. Perhaps he just wants something that will play and make sounds. It's previously been alluded that the smallest file size is a main priority, which automatically precludes high quality bitrates and short GOPs to handle jittery home video camera motion (but, then, he also complained that the results were less than wonderful).
On the other hand, ozshots might be interested in something a little better that his previous results, so some suggestions have been offered in that regard. He will have to decide what he wants to aim for. The owner also hinted earlier that MP4 was an additional encoding choice for use on portable devices, which in that case would be a requirement. But encoding for portable gadgets and encoding for archival quality or big-screen viewing are two different requirements.
Frage,besteht da noch Hoffnung 