i didn't give bad advice i made a factual statement with nuance which seems to be something small brained people like you cannot comprehend.

i never said: use h264 because it's good at editing. i didn't even say use it because it's ok. i never said to use anything actually.

my comment was disputing the word "bad". h264 is not bad. it is ok. the reason it is OK is because it still fucking works. it does its job. you can edit video, add effects, and the editor will playback the video. that meets the standard of OK for editing. doesn't mean i recommend it and it doesn't mean i use it. i don't use it and i don't recommend it.

the whole point of my comment is to tell the truth which is h264 is still OK and anyone saying it's "bad" is exaggerating. and the only reason you're doing this is because you're scared people reading are too retarded to understand the difference and don't want them editing on h264 or for them to think it's ok to edit on h264. you want them editing on prores or something similar. so like a bad parent, you just want to label h264 bad and not explain anything and that's it. h264 is just bad because it's worse than prores and h265 is also just "bad" too.

that's not the truth though. h264 is significantly better than h265 because it does have hardware support and you can edit video, add effects, and everything is WORKABLE. it all works. h265 doesn't work at all and prores works even better. so i am advocating for the usage of the word "OK" for h264 and "bad" for h265. you want to label everything not prores bad? that's just not true relative to what you can actually accomplish while editing. it's an exaggeration intended to influence people to not use h264.