The HD codec battle begins, which one is the real deal? I've personally tested them all, and have found Divx HD to be the most economical. Playing T2 HD 1080p Trailer on WMV HD took up around 60-70% CPU with on ATI Vid Card. Playing DaVinci Code HD trailer at 1080p on H264 codec took up 80-100 % CPU with ATI Hardware Assist. Literally unable to do anything with the PC when this running or it'll suffer frame skips. Playing Jarhead HD 1080i on Divx HD took up ONLY 40-50 % CPU with ATI Hardware Assist. My personal opinion judging from the three, it looks divx wil once again rape Hollywood on the bootleg market, the codec is almost magical. The same visual quality at almost half the system resource and half the file size. No flaming lets keep this subtle, anyone who's used any of the three formats please let us know what you think.
1080i is different from 1080p though... 1080p is a lot better quality and therefore i wouldn't be surprised if it uses less cpu load. file size wont matter lol with blue ray reaching 50 gig on dual layer and HD DVD reaching 25-30gig (i think) this wont be a problem. The system resources problem ... 2 things - 1 why would you be using your computer anyway when your watching a film...and 2 by the time it is in the mainstream of computers.. computers will easily be able to cope with it... hey look at futuremark they have a test to see if your computer is powerfull enough to play dvds lol that was 4/5 (maybe 6) years ago but iv never seen a computer struggle in that way. Its hard to compare any format that concerns 1080p as it is so darn rare. What spec computer are you running it on?
most stuff is in xvid i've found best way to test would probably be to download something in 1080p mpeg and encode it with different codecs
yeah i gotta agree with Bindi on that one, x264 is lovely. anyone know of any encoders that can encode vid using the x264 codec?
It's not easy, but it can be done. Ive never actually done it myself but ive read into it and it's a task n a half to get it right by the looks. h264 is exclusive to apples quicktime, and quicktime 7 can encode in h264 but obviously that costs money and is pretty limited, just like the ipod encoder.
Oh I ran some of these tests on a AMD FX Core, ATI X1800. 1gig Ram Surprisingly even on a rig of such caliber H264 becomes quite the beast, eating away 80 and above CPU at 1080p. Out of the three I have noticed That Divx HD looks the weakest, with WMV HD looking slightly better and H264 looking the sharpest but then again they all look ultra kick ass and plus each had different content so it was really hard to compare. But with H264 on You can't do anything because any movement on the PC's part will result in frame drop it essentially looms on 80% CPU the whole way. If the fastes PC now can hardly do H264 then either they really gotta do something about that codec or we'll soon be seeing some crazy hardware, ATI X2K anyone. Oh I tried H264 with a different codec recently it took down the CPU to about 70% but still it's pretty rediculous. Oh I just read that Divx HD will allow you to rip a 30 gig HD movie as Divx 1080p avi in about 4 gigs so you can fit it on a regular DVD and play it on a special Divx 6 Capatible player. I feel sorry for Hollywood they're getting raped again.
you can't compare 1080p to 1080i like that 1080i only has half the resolution of 1080p that's why it was easier for the computer to decode and why the file size was smaller
who cares if you can do anything while its playing. youre supposed to be watching the video. if youre not watching it then its pointless having it in 1080p.
I do it all the time. x264 is by far the best. Especially when you make it 4.1 compliant so you can hardware accelerate with a supported video card. I can play 1080p 40mbit h264 with about 3% cpu usage. Edit: Just incase anyone who may not understand the difference between x264 and H264, let me explain. H264 is a standard that is supported by many. x264 is simply an encoder that makes H264 compliant encodes.
Your GPU won't hardware accelerate H264 atall, Playing HD H264 with a software decoder is very intensive. You should try using CoreAVC.
