41–43 of 43 posts
x264 is awesome. super awesome, even.
Let them put up a long, complex video -- an action movie, for example -- using H.264, and their own method, for side-by-side comparison, both with regard to quality and file size. Let them offer something better than hand-waving press releases. I say this because claims like this tend to be very source-dependent. Change the source, change the claim.
They appear to be using modern x264. This does outperform most (all?) commercial H.264 encoders to the degree they claim, so their claims can have merit. However, this also means that if you want better encoding, you can just grab x264 and do it yourself.
Yes, but it also means they're not entitled to call it a "patent pending" method.
From beamrvideo.com, Clip1_mini.mov contains: videomini ver. 90.15 options: cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=umh subme=8 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=1 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 in…
> (without credit) Just to note, no credit is necessarily required. x264 is now dual-licensed under GPL2 + commercial license. If they bought a commercial license, there's nothing illegal or wrong in what they do.