Here's an example of an M2V clip converted to H.264.

I must say that preliminary tests are very impressive!

Unfortunately, I can only show you a still from each clip (You must have QuickTime 6.6 to play the clip), but here's a comparison in file size for the same clip (Total length: 51 seconds):

M2V: 118.3 MB - 2.3 MB/sec
H.264: 38.4 MB - 765 K bytes/sec

Here's where you can view a frame from each clip:

http://www.lumierehd.com/h.264/

Now this is only a preview release, not optimized at all, but I am VERY impressed with the quality! Keep in mind folks, that you can play this codec realtime on a DVD in full HD resolution.

it works but h.264 is designed for low bandwith, videoconference or small size video. Using it for high def is not the best use.
there are good sample at videosoft web site
http://www.videosoftinc.com/
The codec to play is free and the codec to encode is very cheap and works well and you do not need quicktime....

<<<-- Originally posted by Giroud Francois : it works but h.264 is designed for low bandwith, videoconference or small size video. Using it for high def is not the best use.
there are good sample at videosoft web site
http://www.videosoftinc.com/
The codec to play is free and the codec to encode is very cheap and works well and you do not need quicktime.... -->>>

Full HD Video (1920 X 1080) at 7 - 9 Mbps.

Francois, you are mistaken. H.264 isn't designed just for "small size video" it will be one of the next HD standard for DVD.

Take a look at these links:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/h264.html
http://www.pixeltools.com/h264_paper.html

As with most of codecs , you can encode anything you like at size and quality you like but definitely as mentioned in one of your links:
The value of H.264 is most obvious at low bit rates.

nobody will cares about highly compressing a video to work on it.
the size factor is not a dominant one, especially if to do this you need tremendous computer ressources to compress and decompress.
The H.264 is marvellous for diffusion, not for recording or editing.
So you will probably see it into small or light video (TV on ADSL?)
but it is probably not the best choice whre high quality is the subject.
Since many years we see a decrease in quality of of media we see and hear but the industry is always convincing us that it is better. You just have to look on most of the cheap video channel to see what i mean. (fortunately in europe we dot not have so much of them , except on satellite).

H.264 is a delivery codec. It's part of the HD DVD standard, for delivery of HD content to people via DVD.

Frederic is not proposing to edit with it, but to use it to deliver movies shot on HDV to people, over the web, or perhaps via HD DVD in the future.

The Apple Demos of H.264 at NAB were very, very impressive, perhaps more so than the Microsoft WM9 codec.

H.264 was designed to be scalable to deliver video over a very wide range of devices, from cell phones to full HD.

Graeme

Got this off Pluginz.com news.

"Sorenson Squeeze 4 Compression Suite is the first full-featured compression application to incorporate High Definition (HD) encoding for a variety of video formats including MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, QuickTime, and RealMedia. Additionally, the Windows version of the Suite includes HD encoding options for Windows Media 9. The new Sorenson AVC Pro codec (also known as H.264) included in the Sorenson Squeeze 4 Compression Suite and Sorenson Squeeze 4 for MPEG-4 creates high-quality video at roughly 70 percent the data rate of MPEG-4. The result is smaller video files with increased clarity for low-bandwidth distribution."

So the H.264 is PC and Mac?
How does it compare to WM9 at HD levels?

I do not say h264 is not good, but as any other codecs we get recently (from mp3 to wmv) they just try squeeze more data into less bandwith because money.
And do not think these marvellous demo in hi-def will go into your home. As usually , the industry use hi-technology tools to deliver the same usual content , and if they can make it cheaper even if it means a little decrease in quality they will.
that is why we go from Hi-8 4:2:2 to DV 4:2:0 (but fortnuately it looks even better in this case due to the increased resolution).
Same for CD 44Khz 20Khz bandwith going now to MP3 (any bandwith you use it will be clipped at 13Khz).
Same for TV, now they are all digital , you got awful picture and digital filter (just try to compare with a good old analog TV) but who cares ?
same with DVD : Have you seen recently a good DVD that use the 8mbps bandwith (oh yes, some superbit stuff that are sold 30% more that the regular ones).
And Hollywood going to HI-DEF video camera ? is it better than the good old 70mm or even 35mm ?
I mean this is the problem with all technology that use tools allowing variable compression ratio. The demo is done with low compression hi-quality and the final product with high compression low quality.
Some times it is good , when it brings a new technology to everyone, some times it is bad.

i read today in the newspaper that at the white house, some Grand Chef tried to demonstrate to some foreign others, that hamburger is great. So they made some small one, with best meat you can find in the usa, and special bread cooked for the occasion , plus nice sauces made by hi-professional cooker.
It seems that it tasted good. Ok, I doubt it is the kind of food you will find at mcdonald ?

First, if you think Hi8 was 4:2:2, you're grossly mistaken. DV as a new format is much better than which it replaced, ie Hi8, S-VHS, and later we found out it's actually better than BetaSP in many, many ways. So yes, I do believe that video quality standards have dropped since the introduction of Quad, only rising again with the advent of the digital formats.

But all compressions are not made equal. The compression of Mpeg2 is not equal bit for bit with DV, HDV, DigiBeta etc. etc.

Yes, we don't use the whole DVD bandwidth anymore, but really, picture quality on DVD has improved since day one because MPEG2 compression has improved.

H.264 is an improvement over MPEG4, which is an improvement over MPEG2, so no wonder you can get great pictures at lower bit rates.

And yes, people can abuse compression - witness the rubbish that is digital TV. I was watching some "hi def" Olympics in the TV store and it was digital artifact city any time the camera moved - ouch!! I've seen a better picture on VHS... until you get a still shot, then wow - loadsa detail. I'd trade some of that detail for a more consistently better picture though.

Graeme

Francois,

You're all over the place...I'm just responding to:

"h.264 is designed for low bandwith, videoconference or small size video."

Sorry but H.264 wasn't designed for "small size video", it was designed to get better quality at lower bandwith (similar bandwith as MPEG2 DVD video by the way) and is a great solution for HD delivery (not editing).

Frederic

Hmmm, interesting post Frederic. I compared the two stills you posted, side by side, and am seeing some loss in detail in the blacks with the H.264 codec. Did th H.264 encoder mess with the contrast like that without any input from you? Is this encoder available under Quicktime now?

Paul

Paul,

I think the contrast change might have something to do with having to go to another intermediate file (video) before encoding to H.264

It is only available in the preview version of QuickTime 6.6

Finally, I think the encoder isn't optimized yet but I find the results in full motion very promissing.

Frederic

Yes, they do look good, I look forward to playing with the codec, especially as it creates so much smaller files.

Thanks

Paul

Hi8 can never be 4:2:2 since it's an analog format.

yes you are right but since the frequency of color signal reflect the same kind of ration you can say it is equivalent.
Actually the luma bandwith for DV (6.3) is better than hi8(5) so that is why the picture of DV has a better resolution.
What DV is able to do is to encode differently LUMA than CHROMA.
I do not think that with Hi8 there is anything like this.
So you get (except the loss due to have all colors merged into a composite signal) almost the same chroma definition.
Actually you can try by yourself. If you take the composite signal out of a tape (not directly from the camera) from a DV and Hi8 and digitize on a 4:2:2 capture card, you will see that the chroma signal from the Hi8 is a lot better than the DV one.

Hi8 chroma bandwidth is actually severly limited... To actually around the same amount as VHS (Hi8 and SVHS have improved Luma bandwisth, but not much better on the chroma). DV probably has more than twice the chroma bandwidth of Hi8! So hi8 chroma definition is significantly poorer than DV, BetaSP or any other pro format.

So Hi8 isn't 4:2:2, nor 4:1:1, but probably about 3:0.5:0.5 if such a thing could exist in the digital world. Copying a Hi8 tape to DV is totally transparent, as far as I can see, introducing no new artfiacts.

Graeme

Actually I'm going to have a hard time trying that since I haven't even seen a Hi8 recorder over here in europe for well over ten years. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for one. Perhaps a technical museum somewhere. And I guess back when it was used most of us did things on S-VHS instead since the PAL signal on analog equipment was so much better. I would have loved a better success story for DigitalS/D9 (close to uncompressed 4:2:2 on VHS tapes).

Of course DV won the battle because it had the small size advantage, firewire integration (SMPTE timecode) and since it's digital it's much easier to lock into a higher quality post production process than any analog format. You can predict artifacts in a compression algorithm but you can't predict noise in analog material.