Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #1678

Re: [videoblogging] qt or divx to reach ppl

By Daniell Krawczyk | Daniell Krawczyk <dkrawc@...> | daniellkrawczyk
November 8, 2004 | Post #1678 | Topic #1658

> horses for courses. some use MPEG4 which is out of box in QT 6.x and an > open standard (as opposed to open access). others might use Sorenson > but unless you buy the pro codec I'd use MPEG, and probably the 3ivx > codec which conforms to the MPEG4 spec. I'd agree about 3ivx because it seems to be the most flexible choice. Unlike DivX it'll play in QT6 without the need for additional codecs and it's in the same quality range (which is way above Apple's own implementation of MPEG4.) It's also a free download, but... it is a commercial format as well, and I'm still slightly uncomfortable with that. That's why XviD (which is open source) is so attractive, but for me it hasn't been as simple or reliable as 3ivx.You can export using QT Pro, or I believe their own $20 encoder, and it can be pacakged as either a .mov or a .mp4 (which seems to be openable in both QT and Windows Media, from what I've read). Personally, I have high hopes for H.264 which will be included in QuickTime 7 and is basically the core of what Sorenson's been selling us for years at high, high, prices. That being said, I was one of the rube's who had been excitedly waiting for a good looking, full-screen MP4 from Apple in the first place. Daniell