confirm yet? h.264 vs xvid

[anonymous7]

where topic about video go to? here?

is it confirm yet about which is officially better picture-quality? h.264 or xvid?

[RobRich]

Better for what content, resolution, color depth, bitrate, etc.? If bitrate is not a big concern, "picture quality" can be practically the same between many modern mainstream lossy video formats - H.264, VC-1, VP8, XviD, etc. - assuming you throw enough data (encode) and processing power (decode) at the video stream.

Anyway, H.264 is typically superior to XviD for absolute compression efficiency, oftentimes by a considerable margin depending upon content complexity and target bitrate. The trade-off is typically increased encoding time compared to XviD due the the greater encoding complexity of H.264 video.

[anonymous7]

pretend
- 16000 bitrate
- 1280x1024 resolution

which is better picture quality?
and better playback? like smoothness....

[RobRich]

A 16000kbps bitrate is more than enough for encoding the desired resolution in either format.

You can do decent 1080p in XviD with well under 10000kbps assuming low to moderate content complexity. Even less at around 6000-8000kbps for H.264 encoding similar content.

Note the keyword is "decent." What I might find acceptable, you might find deplorable. Just tossing out some generic numbers for a generic question. YMMV.

[RobRich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous7

and better playback? like smoothness....

Your source should determine your desired frame rate.

As to playback performance, it can vary highly depending upon the format, decoding engine, post processing options, and available hardware resources.

From a generic standpoint, XviD tends to fair better for processor utilization assuming there is no GPU (video card) offload option available for H.264 decoding - check your media player software options and video card features. Again, H.264 is the more complex format, so it tends to require more processing power for playback.