2009-03-15, 07:55 PM
Deusxmachina Wrote:If it's being transcoded for short-term use like that, by all means I'd use xvid. It may be 25% or so bigger than h.264, but it's much faster, and still much smaller than 3.4gb. I'd also use Constant Quality mode, (note: not constant bitrate), and not two-pass. Two-pass is usually a waste of time.
If it's a keeper show, I'd do it right the first time with h.264, but then I'd be editing out the commercials first, too.
I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but if you're not, you write it very well. Since this is an international forum, I thought I'd toss this out -- that "loose" and "loosing" are the opposites of "tight." The correct words are "lose" and "losing."
Normally, I wouldn't say anything, but I see so many native English speakers using "loose" and "loosing" nowadays, and I think it's the power of the internet causing it. One person misspells it on a popular website, and it spreads from there, and then multilingual speakers pick it up from them.
Reminds me of a Japanese, Japanese-language teacher I had. One time the American students corrected her on some English, and she said, "Oh, ok," as if they had it right. But she had it right, and the five of them had it wrong. It's years later now, and sometimes I wonder if she believed them and has been doing it wrong ever since due to them.
Agreed, mostly
My reasons for using h264 is that my cpu has the capacity to do it, and since I record both wathc-and-throw shows and documentarys that I might want to keep, it would be a pity if the transcodong was poor and the original file gone...No my native language is Norwegian, I'v had english as my working language for many years so I think I speak it quite understandabe, but written english has always been my weak side :o. I stand corrected...
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"
