ExtremeTech Compares Video Codecs

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=121163,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=121163,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>Videophiles, pay close attention. If you're curious to know how all the competing video codecs stack up, ExtremeTech has compiled an exhausting review covering all the major contenders including Windows Media Video 9, DivX 5.1.1, QuickTime 6.5/Sorenson3, and QuickTime 6.5/MPEG-4. <br /><br />So which codec came out on top? I refuse to spoil the surprise, but you may be shocked to find out who comes out on the bottom. 8O<br /><br />Based on my own personal experience, I'm quite fond of WMV 9. Video quality is stellar, and it performs far better than any other format at video streaming over the web.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I prefer divx from my personal experience. Faster encoding, and feels faster when seeking.

heh, I'm not surprised to see what's at the bottom of the list.

[James Fee]

I like quicktime, but I don't really distribute the format beyond my own computers. I can't argue with the results because IMO Divx seems to be the cleanest looking at this point. I will agree that Apple has really dropped the ball with MPEG-4 which I was hoping to use with all my video (but to this date I dont').

[entropy1980]

Apple should be updating quicktime soon ( I have heard as early as in the next 2 months) to Version 7 and should hopefully bring it up to par with the others.....

[Gary Sheynkman]

hmm i did not expect quicktime to be so low, but I can definatly say that WMV9 is great to stream and pretty good quality...props to the Empire