Do people relize the importance of a Codec?

[Voices_Of_Ryan]

I really don't understand why more people don't use mpeg, you can make a damn beautiful mpeg with very little effort and a slightly bigger filesize.

But the thing is, everyone can play it.

I'm on a 450mhz pc, and it just can't handle xvid's or straight avi's and having to uncode a video, then recode it sucks like hell, and it really restricts what amv's I can and can't download.

I'm not complaining lots of people have fast computers and I'm glad that kicks ass, but I don't and I know atleast a few people on here that don't.

I just figure it sucks alot that we're limited to what we can watch because xvid has about a 5mb file size diffrence.

/End rant.

[Beowulf]

Get better eyes.

[Corran]

And get that computer you were telling me about a few months ago built.

[Moonlight Soldier]

I really don't understand why more people don't use mpeg, you can make a damn beautiful mpeg with very little effort and a slightly bigger filesize.

But the thing is, everyone can play it.

I just figure it sucks alot that we're limited to what we can watch because xvid has about a 5mb file size diffrence.

/End rant.

Not to mention Mpegs don't skip. I have many good quality amvs that I get sick of watching because they skip

[doughboy]

Not to mention Mpegs don't skip. I have many good quality amvs that I get sick of watching because they skip

I actually had that problem a while ago. A whole episode of something would play just dandy, but AMVs got super jerky for no damn reason.

In my case it was the soundcard. Just needed a stern lecture, some Colt 45, and a chicken taco... or just updated drivers, I forget.

[Zarxrax]

I really don't understand why more people don't use mpeg, you can make a damn beautiful mpeg with very little effort and a slightly bigger filesize.

But the thing is, everyone can play it.

I just figure it sucks alot that we're limited to what we can watch because xvid has about a 5mb file size diffrence.

/End rant.

Not to mention Mpegs don't skip. I have many good quality amvs that I get sick of watching because they skip

As I was telling Voices_Of_Ryan on AIM just a bit ago, mpgs use just as much or possibly even more cpu to decode than xvids, at similar quality. Mpegs you download play fine for you on your old system because the mpgs are low quality. I have sitting before me a 320x240 mpg that uses about 30% more of my cpu to playback than my 640x480 AMV Hell video, which Ryan was arguing about. Of course, that MPG is about 130mb large for about 3 minutes of video. If it were 640x480, it would take at least 200mb or maybe even 300mb to attain the same level of quality, and I doubt my 2.26ghz system would even play the file smoothly then.

So basically to put it all out on the table, yess, if you have an xvid and an mpeg at the same bitrate, the xvid will take more cpu to play back. However if you have an xvid and an mpeg at the same high quality, the mpeg will have a MUCH higher bitrate than the xvid, and will thus take more cpu to play back. The reason for this is that mpg scales to high quality files like CRAP, while xvid has no trouble at all with outputting high quality files at a moderate bitrate.

While I have done no official tests and obtained hard results for this, I have viewed the cpu usage for many high quality mpeg files that I have, and compared to similar xvid files, and this is what I have observed.

So basically, you don't need an mpeg file. You just need a shittier quality xvid, and you'll be fine.

[Voices_Of_Ryan]

And get that computer you were telling me about a few months ago built.

Can't, newegg sent me a defective processor, it fried the motherboard along with the videocard (the ram is ok though =\).

And it says in their contracts if anythings fried weather or not it was a defective part's falt, it's not their problem.

So I'm fucked.

[Voices_Of_Ryan]

So basically, you don't need an mpeg file. You just need a shittier quality xvid, and you'll be fine.

And this basicly ends the need for an xvid in the first place =\.

I have dsl, size isnt a big deal.

[Brsrk]

I'm on a 450mhz pc, and it just can't handle xvid's or straight avi's and having to uncode a video, then recode it sucks like hell, and it really restricts what amv's I can and can't download.

I'm not complaining lots of people have fast computers and I'm glad that kicks ass, but I don't and I know atleast a few people on here that don't.

/End rant.

I have a p2 333 that can play any video I get (XviD, DivX, MPEG, AVI) flawlessly. Anything that takes more CPU power or RAM lags to hell (OGM, MKV, MPEG-2).

I'm getting my nice 3 Ghz laptop in about 2 weeks anyways, so I won't need to worry about that anymore, plus I can resume editing AMVs.

Intel P4 2.8 Ghz w/HT Tech
512 RAM (1 gig is too much money)
80 gig HDD
128 mb Mobility Radeon 9700 gfx card
I'm assuming the mobo has onboard audio and LAN (it's Dell, so it probably does)
XP Pro
8x DVD/CD-burner (DVD+r/+rw) with dual-layer write capability

That's everything I was able to change on the Dell website when I customized it...

[Zarxrax]

So basically, you don't need an mpeg file. You just need a shittier quality xvid, and you'll be fine.

And this basicly ends the need for an xvid in the first place =\.

I have dsl, size isnt a big deal.

Not so, as the shittier quality xvid in referrence would be quite small in filesize... compared to a similar mpeg which would have about twice the filesize... and they would both use about the same cpu power to playback I believe.

I think I will perform some real tests on this sometime, and see what comes up.