The above terms may not mean much to you, but they are both ways of compressing a video file to make them more manageable in size. For many years, I have been using h.264 which is now considered quite an old method of compression. A more efficient method is its successor h.265 which enables videos to be created with lower bit rates (this is mainly what determines the size) without noticeable loss of quality.
I invite you to download the following two excerpts from Rachel's most recent video (Car Thief) and compare. It will also be useful to find out how many people have trouble playing the h.265 version. PCs running older versions of WMV will almost certainly run into trouble, but they can always use VLC as an alternative.
https://www.beauties-in-bondage.com/mov ... l_h264.mp4
35.4 MB
https://www.beauties-in-bondage.com/mov ... l_h265.mp4
23.7 MB
The objective is to save on server space. Let me know what you think.
Codec h.265 vs h.264
Forum rules
No attacking other users; no advertising products. Be kind. Don't make me beat you.
Because of spammers getting in, all new users have to be approved by admin before their account will be activated. To request activation, please contact Dave at davidnorth@bound2burst.com and provide your board username. Thanks.
No attacking other users; no advertising products. Be kind. Don't make me beat you.
Because of spammers getting in, all new users have to be approved by admin before their account will be activated. To request activation, please contact Dave at davidnorth@bound2burst.com and provide your board username. Thanks.
Re: Codec h.265 vs h.264
I had the issue you predicted. VLC did play the video. The quality was good.