http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/ Engadget HD Comments for WMV-HD vs DivX-HD http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/Jul 7th 2006 10:56AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/
I'd really love to see some chinese company offering this option on a DVD recorder. ]]>Jul 7th 2006 11:54AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/
That's not the correct use of Dots Per Inch. I'm really surprised given this an HD blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi
]]>Jul 7th 2006 12:06PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/
Regarding the codecs, I personally re-encode everything with XviD, and am prepping my process for AVC. So while I suppose WMV-HD vs. Divx was a good comparison, I think a more relevant comparison would be WMV-HD vs. an AVC codec (H264, x264).]]>Jul 7th 2006 12:21PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/Jul 7th 2006 1:01PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/Jul 7th 2006 2:41PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/Jul 7th 2006 3:24PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/http://hd.engadget.com/2006/07/07/wmv-hd-vs-divx-hd/At these settings I get best results with the same bitrate of all mentioned. Try it out and see.]]>Jul 27th 2006 5:46AM