|
|
Posted by Specs on 09/28/23 11:41
"Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media]" <neil@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dthm025ml8cp6hcj8a2c40e9lr12ed9p76@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 14:05:45 -0000, "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HangingJester" <hangingjester@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:t5nOf.366$ld2.288@fed1read11...
> >> Ty Ford wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:09:06 -0500, Ritz wrote
> >> > (in article <k04Of.177$EK1.0@fe10.lga>):
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ><SNIP>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks! I did check and they said an .avi would do instead of a .wmv.
Is
> >> > there much difference?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, an .avi codec file can be played on more computers. .wmv & .wma
> >> are both Microsoft Media codec's. Created, because Microsoft doesn't
> >> like to "play well' with others. DivX is based on a 'hacking' of the
> >> codec. Not all .wmv files are the same, and this is why a particular
> >> media player may not be able to play newer WMV10 files.
> >>
> >> ~ Jester
> >
> >This is utter nonsense.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >AVI is not a codec it is a wrapper format in much the same way as MOV is.
> >Many different codecs can be embedded in the .avi format for use in many
> >different situations a la MOV.
>
> Continue to agree.
>
> >Divx is not a hack, Divx4 is none other than MPEG4 aka H.264.
>
> To clarify I guess the user was working on the impression that DivX
> was created from hacked MPEG4 source, rather than it is a hack now.
>
> I use hack in the most positive sense above, of "polishing a turd" ;-)
>
> Disagree on last point. H264 is *not* equivalent (aka) H264 : read
> more here http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059
>
> Cheers - Neil
Damn you! :-)
Yes you are right and being a pedant myself I have no option other than to
agree.
I have become used to using h.264 interchangeably with MPEG4 completely
oblivious to the fact that MPEG4 is a collection of standards. Thanks for
pointing that out and a good article to boot.
Cheers
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|