No H.264 in AVI sticky

LinkinBallZ · Post by **LinkinBallZ** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:45 am

Cornwiggle wrote:If you put make your quality look as best as you can, that's what should matter.

Period.

the best you can? wouldn't that imply learning how to encode properly?

Cornwiggle · Post by **Cornwiggle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:45 am

JaddziaDax wrote:which is the reason for a stickie

If that person can make their video look decent by putting H.264 in an AVI container, like Otohiko apparently said one of his came out good, then let them.

Putting a sticky would just be telling people that "it's bad to do that" and if it works for them...let them. Let people do what they want.

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:48 am

h264 is a pain in avi for me... mostly because i have avi set to play in wmp, and h264 wont play in wmp :/ so it becomes a circle of which player to use...

mp4 is set to automatically play in VLC...

either way whats wrong with writing a stickie that says "we recommend you put h264/x264 in a mp4 container"? it doesnt say that you HAVE TO just that its recommended you do.

Cornwiggle · Post by **Cornwiggle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 am

JaddziaDax wrote:h264 is a pain in avi for me... mostly because i have avi set to play in wmp, and h264 wont play in wmp :/ so it becomes a circle of which player to use...

mp4 is set to automatically play in VLC...

either way whats wrong with writing a stickie that says "we recommend you put h264/x264 in a mp4 container"? it doesnt say that you HAVE TO just that its recommended you do.

It seems fine I guess. Just helping people out. Not like everyone reads the stickies or guides anyway...so people who that dead set to do what they want won't be influenced by it anyway. So, you make a good point.

[MOD17: Off-topic part edited.]

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:06 pm

Cornwiggle wrote:It seems fine I guess. Just helping people out. Not like everyone reads the stickies or guides anyway...so people who that dead set to do what they want won't be influenced by it anyway. So, you make a good point.

then why were you fighting the stickie?

Cornwiggle · Post by **Cornwiggle** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:08 pm

JaddziaDax wrote:
Cornwiggle wrote:It seems fine I guess. Just helping people out. Not like everyone reads the stickies or guides anyway...so people who that dead set to do what they want won't be influenced by it anyway. So, you make a good point.
then why were you fighting the stickie?

It didn't look like a "recommendation" when I first saw it.

"Very bad idea."

It's not a complete taboo way of encoding...

Esrhan · Post by **Esrhan** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:42 pm

[MOD17: Off-topic part edited.]

Right... and Cornwiggle isn't going off-topic?

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:47 pm

Bah, the thread got unlocked and modified while I was starting a new thread.

I'd edit my first post here and include what I posted in the other if I could.

dj_ultima_the_great · Post by **dj_ultima_the_great** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:27 pm

Y'know, Corn, I've been meaning to say this to you for some time now - and this is as good a time as any, I suppose.

You say that all these new, high-quality encodes aren't that important, and that people should care more about the video they edited than the container they put it in. Okay, well I can see that the video is definitely priority number one. I agree with that - but don't you owe it to yourself (and notice I said "yourself," not "other people") to make the video you worked so hard on look great? Why should you put your all into the editing and then only do a half-assed encode when all it takes is a little bit of time to learn something better? Doesn't that fall more in line with not caring about your video? It's like buying fine china and then scratching it all to hell the first time you wash it. You're not taking care of something that should be special to you.

And please... don't try to tell me that h.264 isn't better. It is. You may think that XviD is just as good, but how often do you get the chance to compare the same video, at the same resolution, with the two different encodes? Not very often. If there is a choice, the editor usually downsizes the XviD resolution to make it look nicer - and that's not a fair comparison, then.

I watch .wmv's. I support people who use Windows Movie Maker. I'm not ashamed of my WMM .wmv videos from years ago. You know that, so don't think for a moment that I'm some elitist. A lesser encode doesn't bother me, but everyone can learn better ways. In a few years, as everyone begins upgrading their systems, h.264 will slowly become the new standard encode. It's not going away, so it's not worth your energy to fight it.

Believe me, I understand your irritation. Six months ago, my computer couldn't handle .mp4's. I got frustrated at the editors who used it, and had to constantly request an XviD instead. However, I found that if I politely asked, they were usually only too happy to help. They were just glad that I wanted to see their video that much to request such a thing. But that's the key, Corn - asking nicely. Half of the time (note: I said "half," not "all"), you bitch at the person for using the encode, and then say you won't watch the video without an XviD version. That just sounds like threatening, and it won't get you anywhere. Next time, say something like, "My computer has trouble with this encode - do you happen to have an XviD, or would you be willing to make one?", and maybe you won't get such harsh reactions.

In short, older encodes are fine, yes, but trying to thwart all attempts at refining the new ones doesn't help anyone.

To the original poster: this definitely isn't quite sticky material, but if you make a note to Zarxrax and give him a rundown of the info, he may be willing to insert it into the AV Tech beta guide. After all, I have no idea why h.264 and .avi don't mix, so someone like me would find that information useful, I think.

NeoQuixotic · Post by **NeoQuixotic** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:52 pm

H.264 in AVI is a bad idea because it is a major hack that ends up screwing up with many decoders. Anytime I even click on a AVI file with H.264 in it, explorer.exe instantly crashes. If I make sure I select it within WMP sometimes it will play, but even when it does its jerky or messed up. (I'm using the CCCP.) And VLC doesn't generally help me out much either. Works for some, doesn't work for others. Makes since to use something that generally works eh?

The major problem is that H.264 was never intended to be used in an AVI container because it shouldn't even work. Decoders barf on this because it isn't even remotely a standard specification. There is no real way of doing this so thats why it shouldn't be done. Don't give me this, oh I like AVI and I don't want to leave it. Yes encoding in Vdub is nice and easy, but a command line isn't that hard. Plus we have MeGUI and Zarx264gui that make it extremely easy. And god help you if you intend to put H.264 in AVI to edit with!

H.264 in AVI can work, but it is very unreliable and not a supported standard. Kinda like shoving a square peg in a round hole. You can do it, but by breaking something in the process.

Here is a post from Zero1 on the subject:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.ph ... stcount=13