What Format do most of you use ?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Fri May 30, 2003 3:51 pm

lmao, oh god, here we go again
its like hatter wannabe night in amv

First off, iser, I wanted to comment that your argument about being anal on video quality is just plain stupid. Of course digital video will never be perfect, but that dosent mean you wouldnt want it to look as good as possible.. christ, if that was the case why use dvds or anything? Just scan in the cels yourself at infinite x infinite resolution and infinite fps and there you go! perfect video! no :P

As far as compatibility goes... if you're using the right settings and at the very least an ISO decoder you shouldnt see any difference at all between xvid, divx, 3ivx, dicas, anything iso compatible. Like zarx said just because fansubbers don't know how to encode dosent say anything about the integrity of the codec.

As far as mpeg 4 encoders go it is EXACTLY the same as mpeg 1. Hello? DivX vs XviD vs 3ivX is the exact same thing as saying TMPGenc vs panasonic mpeg1 encoder vs ffmpeg vs bbmpeg vs any friggin mpeg 1 encoder you want. The only difference is that most mpeg 1 encoders are not designed for VFW and are nice enough to act as mpeg system streams muxxers as well.
For the record, mpeg 7 and 21 aren't compression standards. They rely on mpeg 1 - 4 to do actual data compression, they are merely new framework formats and data archival methods. Mpeg 12 dosent even exist :\

now, black monarch, you sir are a moron. Not only does DivX use less advanced gmc, less compliant Q-pel, have less integrity in their products (helloo 5.01,.02,.03,.04,.05, bug fixes? Major releases (5.0) aren't supposed to need those, which is why the Xvid team has stayed away from 1.0 for a long time), no integrity anyway for being a commercial business built off an opensource project, but to cap it all off the quality is worse than XviD when you actually know what you're doing. Yet again, you can't blame XviD for you not knowing how to use it. DivX 3.11 by itself sucked, then SBC and nandub came along and it owned. Who's fault was it back then if you didn't know how to make a good encode? Hmm

I agree with what you said about the mpeg 2 thing though.

Once again, I am such an asshole
Oh yeah, I've heard that when hatter started bitching about video some ppl were happy that he was taking a stand against some of the troll4r know it all flamers in this forum. This is probably me
I'm sorry :*|
I dont flame :\ blach monarch is just an idiot, AD and I have dealt with him before.
Anyway
whatever
that was probably nickdwolfwood that they were happy about getting flamed. but just in case
DISCLAIMER® tab can be an asshole when you say something stupid about video and act like you know what you're talking about

el fin

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 9:41 pm

Tab. wrote: Not only does DivX use less advanced gmc

GMC makes the best pickup trucks and SUVs.

Tab. wrote:less compliant Q-pel

That sounds like an episode of Star Trek TNG.

Tab. wrote:have less integrity in their products (helloo 5.01,.02,.03,.04,.05, bug fixes? Major releases (5.0) aren't supposed to need those, which is why the Xvid team has stayed away from 1.0 for a long time)

5.05 and the like weren't made because of bugs that needed fixing, they were made because DivX Networks is always trying to add new features to the codec. XviD, on the other hand, DOES still have bugs that need to be fixed.

Tab. wrote:no integrity anyway for being a commercial business built off an opensource project

As if I could give a flying fuck about who makes the codec...

Tab. wrote:but to cap it all off the quality is worse than XviD when you actually know what you're doing. Yet again, you can't blame XviD for you not knowing how to use it. DivX 3.11 by itself sucked, then SBC and nandub came along and it owned. Who's fault was it back then if you didn't know how to make a good encode? Hmm

If a codec can't look good without relying on unrelated third-party software, then I don't consider it a good codec. A good codec should be able to encode well on its own. A codec that normally looks like crap, but works well with such-and-such other programs using such-and-such settings, is a codec that looks like crap. You're free to disagree since this is a matter of opinion, but I will always judge a codec based on its own merits and not on how well other programs use it.

Tab. wrote:I agree with what you said about the mpeg 2 thing though.

See? Maybe there's some sense in you yet.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 9:42 pm

Hey, didn't Doom9 bitch about XviD's Q-pel? Compliant, my ass...

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:37 pm

Actually black monarch, you're quite wrong. Divx versions past 5 haven't really added anything new, they've just fixed things. I don't really know how divx 5 stacks up now, but on the original divx 5, q-pel was broke, gmc was broke, b-frames looked horrible, and psychovisual stuff didn't really work. They fixed that stuff in the next few versions I suppose. Then they finally added multi-pass support because their curve scaling process wasn't able to produce an accurate output size and a good curve scaling within only 2 passes, unlike xvid.

Also, I'd be willing to make a comparison between the 2 codecs to show you if you'd be willing to look at it, and perhaps help you find out why your xvid encodes arent coming out good if you want. Xvid plays and looks perfectly fine in whatever media player, it requires nothing special.

And regarding doom9's comment's about xvid's q-pel... I just searched through his entire codec comparason and only found one comment about it, stating that the qpel caused some minor artifacts in this one scene. Artifacts do not mean not compliant.
And besides, it's not even in a stable release of xvid yet, there's no reason to expect something currently in a developement branch to perform perfectly. The reason its still in the developement branch is because it does have known issues which are being worked on.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:48 pm

Zarxrax wrote: I don't really know how divx 5 stacks up now, but on the original divx 5, q-pel was broke, gmc was broke, b-frames looked horrible, and psychovisual stuff didn't really work.

And I never used any of that crap.

The new DivX versions HAVE added new features. There's a bunch of new VBR methods, an adjustable maximum bitrate for those methods, the ability to set Bitrate Modulation depending on how much motion is in your video, etc. And in my experience, 5.05 works a lot better with cel animation than 5.02 did.

And you can now go to 16 mbits/sec instead of just 10. I find that cool if not very useful.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 11:54 pm

Zarxrax wrote:Also, I'd be willing to make a comparison between the 2 codecs to show you if you'd be willing to look at it, and perhaps help you find out why your xvid encodes arent coming out good if you want.

That sounds good to me. I will accept on the condition that you look at my comparisons of the two codecs. I have exported the following video clips in both codecs:

The "Sonic the Hedgehog" cartoon series intro
The "War Planets" Intro
The part in EOE where Asuka fights the Eva Series
My Aliens/Alien3 music video
My The Matrix music video

All of them at 2048 kbits/sec, all of them better-looking in DivX than in XviD.

Don't ask about 2-pass encodes with XviD. They crashed every computer I've tried to use them on.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:14 am

It's funny how it crashes for you, but on my PC, it works like a charm, even with the latest unstable version from Koepi

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:32 am

Lucky bastard.

While we're on the subject, can someone tell me what the hell GMC and Q-tip are? I can't find any mention of them in ErMaC's guide.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:42 am

GMC is global motion estimation, I can't really explain exactly what it does as I will probably spout out something incorrect, but it is not really usefull and generally not recommended.
Q-pel allows for motion search by a quarter pixel rather than by a half pixel. This allows for sharper, and smoother motion, I think.

And are you saying that you have only done 1 pass xvid encodes? That would be your problem right there. The moreso than any other feature, 2 pass encoding is where the quality comes from.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:44 am

Er, make that Global Motion COMPENSATION.