Why not Xvid? [was codec optimization]

[José Antonio]

On 3/1/07, Zvi Devir <zdevir at technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for jumping ahead, but this something I really don't understand.
> Let's assume that there are currently a few valid US patents on JPEG,
> MJPEG (There are probably more) as well as for MPEG4.2 (xvid divx wmv1
> and many more are MPEG4 part 2 implementations). My question is, so
> what? A patent is a territorial legal being -- it is valid only where it
> was granted. Even if JPEG is covered by hundreds of active US patents,
> and some unenforceable EU patents, it has nothing to do with countries
> in which the OLPCs will be distributed, since those patents are invalid
> there.
>
> salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
> > On Tue, February 27, 2007 19:46, José Antonio wrote:
> >> What about Xvid? It is open source and is the better codec in CPU
> >> resources
> >> use and quality...
> >
> > Well, if you are going to use patented codecs, why not just use x264.
> It's
> > better quality than xvid.
> x264 requires more computation power for decoding compared to xvid.


Yes, Xvid requires half computation than any other codec, in my experiences.

(using Windows XP, ffdshow+Xvid, Sempron 2800+, mostly to record TV in real
time).

With any other codec I reach 100% of frame grab, 640x480, 29,97 fps, RGB,
deinterlacing, with 60% of CPU time.

Benjamin Franklin was right: patents sux!

-- 
nome: "José Antonio Meira da Rocha"  tratamento: "Prof. MS."
atividade: "Pesquisa e aprendizado em mídias digitais"
googletalk: email: MSN: joseantoniorocha at gmail.com
ICQ: 658222 Skype: "meiradarocha_jor"
veículos: [ http://meiradarocha.jor.br http://olpcitizen.blogspot.com ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070301/de52f48b/attachment.html>