What Format do most of you use ?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 1:03 am

The thing is, I've done 1-pass DivX encodes too, and they still looked better than the 1-pass XviD encodes at the same bitrate.

My preference may be influenced by the fact that DivX's two-pass encodes work on my computers while XviD's two-pass encodes don't. But that's a pretty valid reason for me using DivX, no?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:59 am

uhh.. third party software? pickup trucks? what? I'm surprised you're even arguing with me when you don't even understand the subject matter.
Anyway, DivX 5.0x were bug fixes, whether or not they included different "features". "features" being different two pass methods and thats about it.. Notice that psychovisuals didnt work for crap in the original release. Notice that mp4 creation never worked. Notice that nothing encoded with 5.0(n + 1) is compliant with a 5.0n decoder. I don't need to point out all the other problems/fixes because they're right there in the changelogs for you to see yourself. XivD has bugs but if you're not a bumbling idiot you'll never see them and the features that are stable do it quite nicely.
As if I could give a flying fuck if I can use advanced features without installing gain...

Now, what are you going on about third party software? I don't need anything but virtualdub to make xvid look good. Sure, if you're cool you can do the linear scaling for the second pass in statsviewer, and the alt curve calculation in perfectxvid, but you could also do it internally or yourself. And your idea that if a codec is crap standalone but can look awesome tweaked makes a crappy codec, then go ahead and tell me that all those divx 3.11 videos you have suck.
Some sense in me? because I actually know how to use my codecs?

k.. whatever you say |:

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 1:22 pm

Tab. wrote: Anyway, DivX 5.0x were bug fixes, whether or not they included different "features".

I never heard of any specific bugs in DivX 5.

Tab. wrote:"features" being different two pass methods and thats about it.

No, there was other stuff too.

Tab. wrote:Notice that psychovisuals didnt work for crap in the original release.

I never used them anyway, and they're not available at all in XviD.

Tab. wrote:Notice that mp4 creation never worked.

Notice that no one ever gave a shit since everyone was making AVIs.

Tab. wrote:Notice that nothing encoded with 5.0(n + 1) is compliant with a 5.0n decoder.

I pity da foo who only gets a decoder and not the full codec.

Tab. wrote: XivD has bugs but if you're not a bumbling idiot you'll never see them and the features that are stable do it quite nicely.

On every computer that I've put XviD on (which is quite a few), "features that are stable" was restricted to the 1-pass encodes. If I changed to a two-pass mode, even without clicking on the "advanced features" button, XviD would crap and refuse to wipe. If I changed to a two-pass method and set everythign exactly the way ErMaC does it in his guides, XviD would again crap and refuse to wipe. So unless you're willing to call XviD's own creators and ErMaC both bumbling idiots, don't make comments like that.

Tab. wrote: I don't need anything but virtualdub to make xvid look good.

And I don't need anything at all to make DivX look good.

Tab. wrote:And your idea that if a codec is crap standalone but can look awesome tweaked makes a crappy codec, then go ahead and tell me that all those divx 3.11 videos you have suck

Actually, most of them are...[/i]

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat May 31, 2003 1:53 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:
Tab. wrote:Notice that psychovisuals didnt work for crap in the original release.
I never used them anyway, and they're not available at all in XviD.

That's incorrect. It's called Lumi Masking in xvid.

the Black Monarch wrote:
Tab. wrote:Notice that nothing encoded with 5.0(n + 1) is compliant with a 5.0n decoder.
I pity da foo who only gets a decoder and not the full codec.

Um, I think he's saying that if you installed divx 5.0, you are unable to play back encodes made in later versions.

the Black Monarch wrote:
Tab. wrote: I don't need anything but virtualdub to make xvid look good.
And I don't need anything at all to make DivX look good.

Well you have to use SOMETHING to encode it with...

My comparison is alsmost done. I'm currently doing a 5-pass divx, then ill be finished.

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Sat May 31, 2003 2:20 pm

okay, we'll go the mad hatter quoting route

I never heard of any specific bugs in DivX 5.

try psychovisuals, mp4 creation, qpel, gmc, bframes, oh, I already mentioned these didn't I?

No, there was other stuff too.

no, there wasnt. No features were added to the codec, merely revisions and bug fixing.

Notice that no one ever gave a shit since everyone was making AVIs

Notice that people who arent fools and like to comply to real standards did.

I pity da foo who only gets a decoder and not the full codec.

I pity da foo who failed to realize that the standalone decoder isn't even available from divx networks

On every computer that I've put XviD on (which is quite a few), "features that are stable" was restricted to the 1-pass encodes. If I changed to a two-pass mode, even without clicking on the "advanced features" button, XviD would crap and refuse to wipe. If I changed to a two-pass method and set everythign exactly the way ErMaC does it in his guides, XviD would again crap and refuse to wipe. So unless you're willing to call XviD's own creators and ErMaC both bumbling idiots, don't make comments like that.

By unstable features I was talking more about gmc and other stuff that MAY break iso compliancy. Two pass is just different bit allocation and has nothing to do with that... but considering the fact that you're one out of a whole hell of a lot of people who can't do two pass in xvid I highly doubt this is a bug in the codec.

And I don't need anything at all to make DivX look good.

lol.. so you can encode without an encoder?

Actually, most of them are...[/i]

most of them are suck!?!
Well sir I can say you get your divx 3 content from the wrong places then.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 4:55 pm

Black Monarch's XviD Horror Story of the Day:

Today I experimented with VirtualDub, its noise reduction filters, and its treatment of DivX and XviD. I tried two video clips for this test: The War Planets season 1 intro and the Transformers season 1 intro. I tried each one with various combinations of filters and bitrates, making sure that for every DivX file with a certain bitrate and combination of filters, there was an XviD file with the same, and vice versa. Both clips had the following attributes in common when exported:

DivX has a slightly greater tendency to macroblock

XviD makes a hell of a lot more noise

Vdub's filters seemed to alter the source material prior to re-encoding, not afterward, making them powerless against XviD's ungodly noise.

Vdub's spatial noise reduction filters are designed to erase noise without smearing edges, not without smearing detail. Guess where most noise is found? Near edges. When previewing the effects of filters, I was shocked to find that the filters were better at reducing detail than they were at reducing noise! A 2-pixel-radius Gaussian Blur actually produced better results than the standard smoothing filter at any setting.

Vdub's temporal noise reduction produced heavy artificing when set too high. Sorry, I like to be aggressive with my noise reduction... hehe...

Vdub's sharpening filter managed to sharpen remaining noise without making the image look less blurry. Go figure.

XviD STILL refused to use any kind of two-pass encoding.

The ability to export audio in MP3 format is pretty neat. Unfortunately, individual settings cannot be modified; you have to choose a predetermined combination of settings from a list of combinations. What the hell?

I'm really getting sick of this bullshit. I am completely willing to accept that I am doing something horribly wrong, but not until someone can tell me WHAT I'm doing wrong.

Venomi · Post by **Venomi** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:04 pm

Mpeg-1, Mpeg-2, Divx5... Almost every video has atleast Mpeg-1 and divx version available to satisfy the need's of everyone... 8)

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 5:14 pm

Tab. wrote:try psychovisuals, mp4 creation, qpel, gmc, bframes, oh, I already mentioned these didn't I?

There's a difference between a real "bug" and a "feature that doesn't work quite the way you want it to." I don't call something a bug unless it inverts the colors on the screen, crashes, reformats my hard drive, etc. etc.

no, there wasnt. No features were added to the codec, merely revisions and bug fixing.

New multi-pass methods
Adjustable maximum bitrate
Bitrate modulation for high-motion or low-motion video

Those are new features in my book.

Notice that people who arent fools and like to comply to real standards did.

So anyone who makes their video in AVI format is a fool? That's an AWFUL lot of highly respected AMV creators who you're insulting!

I pity da foo who failed to realize that the standalone decoder isn't even available from divx networks

So? They offer stuff that's even better. Like a no-cost, adware-free CODEC, not merely decoder. And you can get the Pro version with no cost and no adware if you're clever enough to actually, like, find the adware and delete it. Who the hell needs just the decoder?

By unstable features I was talking more about gmc and other stuff that MAY break iso compliancy. Two pass is just different bit allocation and has nothing to do with that... but considering the fact that you're one out of a whole hell of a lot of people who can't do two pass in xvid I highly doubt this is a bug in the codec.

First of all, I don't think you meant to say that there were "a whole hell of a lot of people who can't do two pass in xvid." Secondly, this problem has occurred on every computer I've tried, including two that I don't own, so it's certainly not a problem solely with my computer.

lol.. so you can encode without an encoder?

I mean I don't need anything other than my editing software.

most of them are suck!?!
Well sir I can say you get your divx 3 content from the wrong places then.

Yeah, Kazaa isn't the kind of community that encourages high-quality vids at the expense of filesize... that kind of thing is usually reserved for the Org, and all the good-looking DivX encodes I've seen here were version 5, I think.

Zarx, I want to thank you for informing me that Lumi Masking and Psych were the same thing. I thought Psych did something completely different.