Best file format to use for amvs?

Kevmaster · Post by **Kevmaster** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:52 pm

Wheee_It's_Me! wrote:
Narutobattousai wrote: well...we are talking about the org, most people on the org don't really rely on you-tube for their fansubs =/ therefore have the codecs =/
But we're not JUST talking about the org. I mean if you make an AMV you want to show it to as many people as possible, right? Now the .org certainly doesn't come anywhere even REMOTELY close to encompassing the vast majority of the net.populous which is why you wouldn't want to use any sort of codec like Xvid or Divx...unless you wanted to exclude a good 95% of the entire Internet from ever seeing it.

Further, even *IF* Bumbles up there is right about VP6/7 as far as compression (really it's largely subjective anyway since it's dependant on source, settings and other factors) it doesn't change the fact that THIS:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_v ... r_amv.html
is THE most cross compatible solution for delivering video...PERIOD. There is NOTHING more cross compatible than that (outside of maybe MPEG-1).

But its fuzy in sum places =\

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:59 pm

Kevmasterflashdeluxe wrote: But its fuzy in sum places =\

Well part of that was from the original source...which I actually think got reencoded twice over, once to MPEG-2 and then again to VP6.

...actually, I might be wrong about that clip, it might be encoded in Sorenson not VP6, but regardless, the point is the distribution. You CANNOT distribute video like that with Xvid or Divx.

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:03 pm

Scintilla wrote: It was in the main round, but <a href="http://www.doom9.org/codecs-main-105-3.htm">it didn't make it</a> to the final round.

I noticed this:
VP7: 2 pass good mode, encode speed 1, sharpness 0, maximal keyframe interval 9999

I thought you said Doom9 was impartial? Why didn't they use best mode and why did they up the encode speed? Yeah it'll be FASTER like that but it won't produce as good an output.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:08 pm

It may be that using the slower-but-better settings would have pushed the encoding speed below the 10.0 FPS mark; the tester said he'd disqualify any codec that couldn't meet that minimum speed. Even with the given settings, VP7 was the slowest of the 10 codecs in the main round, so it seems plausible.

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:21 pm

Scintilla wrote:It may be that using the slower-but-better settings would have pushed the encoding speed below the 10.0 FPS mark; the tester said he'd disqualify any codec that couldn't meet that minimum speed. Even with the given settings, VP7 was the slowest of the 10 codecs in the main round, so it seems plausible.

...but then what are they grading on? My point was that VP7 could achieve the highest level of compression while retaining the maximum level of quality...you guys are claiming I'm wrong and you're using this comparison done on Doom9...but if Doom9 wasn't testing for that...why are you trying to use that as the basis of your argument? I never claimed it could encode FASTER than Xvid, Divx, etc I claimed it could achieve BETTER COMPRESSION.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:32 pm

Wheee_It's_Me! wrote:
Scintilla wrote: It was in the main round, but <a href="http://www.doom9.org/codecs-main-105-3.htm">it didn't make it</a> to the final round.
I noticed this:
VP7: 2 pass good mode, encode speed 1, sharpness 0, maximal keyframe interval 9999

I thought you said Doom9 was impartial? Why didn't they use best mode and why did they up the encode speed? Yeah it'll be FASTER like that but it won't produce as good an output.

Doom9 wrote:All codecs were tested in a 2 pass setup using the settings suggested by the developers.

-GfN- · Post by **-GfN-** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:32 pm

h264 encoded mp4's... upgrade or gtfo |:

~Jannis

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:02 pm

Zarxrax wrote:
Doom9 wrote:All codecs were tested in a 2 pass setup using the settings suggested by the developers.

Yes but the developers are basing the settings on an all around average of encoding speed, quality, compression. Furthermore, I wonder how many of those developers would suggest OTHER settings if they knew they were being used in such a comparison. Again though, the point I made was about compression/quality capability where as that Doom9 comparison is an "all around" comparison and largely subjective (ie based on his personal observations rather than using software to grade the differences between frames). Further, the sources they used were already compressed into MPEG-2 which would have a significant factor on many of those codecs when it comes to yet a THIRD encoding. The best means of testing quality and capability would be to create CLEAN rendered animation sequences of various complexity, outputting in uncompressed RGB. And then rather than rely on human visual testing use a program to actually compare the differences on the pixel level and give a TRULY accurate representation of the differences.

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:04 pm

-Good for Nothing- wrote:h264 encoded mp4's... upgrade or gtfo |:

~Jannis

Sorry, but those of us clockin in the 21st century have moved beyond you:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_v ... r_amv.html

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:13 pm

Wheee_It's_Me! wrote:Further, the sources they used were already compressed into MPEG-2 which would have a significant factor on many of those codecs when it comes to yet a THIRD encoding.

Well, sure. If we're looking for highest-quality footage for AMVs, then where else are we going to get it besides MPEG-2-encoded DVDs (until the next-generation formats become more prevalent)? The anime companies would never give us uncompressed video, so we have to start with MPEG-2 or worse.