[x264-devel] Re: JM 9.6 vs. x264 rev 228: results

[Dario Andrade]

Neither does my IE show it.

Is there any way you could provide a .bmp ? IE is dumb enough to not let me
save the copy. (and wget will not help me much since I would like to see it
in the HTML to make comparisons).

 

Thanks,

Dario Andrade

Executive Director

DATSCOM

Mobile +55.21.9453.5005

Office +55.21.2141.9525

 

-----Original Message-----
From: x264-devel-bounce at videolan.org [mailto:x264-devel-bounce at videolan.org]
On Behalf Of Hemantha Kodikara Arachchi
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:27 PM
To: x264-devel at videolan.org
Subject: [x264-devel] Re: JM 9.6 vs. x264 rev 228: results

 

Hi,
Interesting work... but I have a problem in viewing the web page. Either
MSIE or Firefox does not render EPS images. Do I need to use any plug-in
which works on Win2000 based PC?
Sorry for the out-of-subject question...
Hemantha

On 5/18/05, Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat at ee.oulu.fi> wrote:

http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~tuukkat/mplayer/tests/x264test3/readme.html
(warning: embedded eps images)

At better video quality levels (above 36 dB) and with only one reference 
frame, x264 increases bit rate only 3% compared to JM 9.6. At lower image
quality, JM has slightly greater advantage, but not much. With two
reference frames, the difference unfortunately increases, giving x264
bitrate 5% higher.

--
This is the x264-devel mailing-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://developers.videolan.org/lists.html




-- 
H. Kodikara Arachchi (PhD, MIEEE, MIEE)
Research Fellow
School of Engineering and Design
Brunel University
Kingston Lane
Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH
UK

TP: +44  1 895 266777 (Office), +44 1 895 420669 (Home), +44 78 16688087
(Mobile) 
Email: hemantha at ieee.org, hemantha.kodikara-arachchi at brunel.ac.uk
Fax: +44 1 895 258728 (Office), +1 978 383 3070 (Home) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/attachments/20050518/1dc219dc/attachment.htm