Talk:H.264/MPEG-4 AVC products and implementations

Software encoder feature comparison

I think that the section H.264/MPEG-4 AVC#Software encoder feature comparison should probably also be moved into this article. --Ozhiker 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it because someone said on the main page they would like to keep it. It is kind of nice to have it on the main page, but don't mind if it is moved. Daniel.Cardenas 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseline profile @ x264

Was this omitted for a special reason? Because I'm pretty sure baseline profile is supported by x264enc. If you agree and know 100% sure, delete this and add it to the article :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.147.223 (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility

Feature support is one thing, but what happens when a feature isn't supported? does the movie fail to play, or be recognized? QuickTime seems to only want to play h.264 media encoded by QuickTime Pro, and Nero appears to similarly only play h.264 media encoded by itself [1]. If we're listing decoders, how about including some compatibility notes? -- Adam Katz Δ talk 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a compatibility matrix would be an ever changing target. Content here is supposed to be timeless. But I'm not disagreeing with your overall point: if there are notable incompatibilities, feel free to find a source for that statement and add it to the article!—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most incompatibility issues arise from differences outside of the video bitstream itself, such as what kind of file format or system multiplex is being used to store the video data. Also, clearly there are differences in regard to which profiles of the standard are implemented in which products and applications. —Pawnbroker (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon's IC

In the Hardware Encoding section, the description of Horizon's product ends with this sentence: "Horizon's ICs are designed in accordance with world-leading secure processor architectures, enabling complete content protection in compliance with numerous Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management schemes.". I think this is written like an advertising, and, furthermore, there's no citation. Besides that, all that stuff about CA/DRM is mainly marketing. I propose to add a link to http://www.horizonsemi.com/4120.html or something like that, and restricting that sentence to something along the lines of "Horizon's ICs integrate support for multiple Digital rights management schemes.". That way there's no buzzwords painting DRM as something good, and neither is it trashed... -- nachokb -- 08:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.211.17 (talk)

Ordering

Something tells me that companies are editing this article so that they are the first in the list (Magnum Semiconductor). Should the list just be ordered alphebetically, or is there some underlying reason for the way the companies are ordered that I am missing? I don't think it should be based on the more prominent companies, since that could be a source of significant bias. Sebastian341 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on H.264/MPEG-4 AVC products and implementations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]