HDRip codecs!

[CLS]

Hi, I don't know if I choose the title right, but hope so! :)

Why I made this threat, well because I care fully read the new test of codecs! *btw, you're great, thanks doom9.org for making this comparisons between these codecs!* and didn't found in FAQ as I scrolled trought.

So i wonder what if the world will be all HD! I mean now days there are allready HDTV rips, i mean ofcourse those who are above 720p, or the new HDDVD-s or even Blueray-s will obviously have more that 720p. Have this any affect on the codecs performance?

I make 720p rips with around 2000kbps with 2 AC3 audio streams, usually for 3CDs with DivX. So this comparison test was about how to manage a dvd on one dics, but what about if the codec has plenty of space, how do then performe, or it's also the same as?! :stupid:

Thanks.....

[ammck55]

You might receive more qualified input in the "New and alternative video codecs" forum. Moving....

[Xayd]

personally i don't consider 2000 enough for 720p. i try to keep them above 5000 if possible, and don't think anything less than 3500 is acceptable, at least for xvid/divx.

if a video is longer than ~2 hours 20 minutes (at 23.976 fps) then i'll use an alternative codec for fitting 720p on one DVD. above 4500 or so i don't think there's much difference between mpeg-4 codecs.

[Sharktooth]

Well, if the encoding time is not a problem h.264 is very efficient for HD encodes.
In particular, x264 and the new Ateme (soon to be included in nero recode) encoders reach a near perfect qualitity using bitrates around 1500 (sometimes lower) for 720p.
1080p requires more bitrate though and a quite powerfull CPU for playback. However both nvidia and ati will support h.264 decoding in hardware so to alleviate the CPU workload (ati catalyst 5.13 already adds h.264 HW decoding support for x1000 serie cards).

[IvS]

A powerful CPU? I don't know a CPU that can play videos encoded with h.264 with CABAC, and various nice quality options, at HD resolution except maybe with help from ATi's hardware acceleration if you use their software with a quite strong video card. Heck, I encoded some clips at 640x480 30fps with x264 recently and they take more than 40% CPU time on avarage, often reaching above 50%.
On the other hand, MPEG-4 ASP is decoded just fine by libavcodec even at 1080p on my 3200+.

[CruNcher]

@ High Bitrates also XviD can still after 1 year AVC development keep up with it :p and needs less CPU resources just watch my recent The Island Trailer compare. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756989#post756989

[CLS]

Wow...this theat is no longer in newbie, how great! :)

personally i don't consider 2000 enough for 720p. i try to keep them above 5000 if possible, and don't think anything less than 3500 is acceptable, at least for xvid/divx.

if a video is longer than ~2 hours 20 minutes (at 23.976 fps) then i'll use an alternative codec for fitting 720p on one DVD. above 4500 or so i don't think there's much difference between mpeg-4 codecs.

Wow...I don't know how you do that?! Ok, ofcourse the AC3 audio streams take almost 1CD out of the 3, then I have 2CD space for the video stream, and I my chase it's only enought for 2000kbps-s in DivX and aswell in Xvid. Well until now I used DivX6, but as I saw the new comparison between the codecs, I consider to go with XviD 1.1, but it's not available for public, or? Anyway bac to tha topic, so let me guess, you change the profile of your DivX and Xvid codec?! Or how do you make the bitrate so high? You make a rip in DVD5 size?! But what about those dvd-s where the original movie is almost a DVD5 sized or +1gb then you compress it with a divx or xvid? oh, right you didn't sad with which codec you are making those high bitrated rips.

Well, if the encoding time is not a problem h.264 is very efficient for HD encodes.
In particular, x264 and the new Ateme (soon to be included in nero recode) encoders reach a near perfect qualitity using bitrates around 1500 (sometimes lower) for 720p.
1080p requires more bitrate though and a quite powerfull CPU for playback. However both nvidia and ati will support h.264 decoding in hardware so to alleviate the CPU workload (ati catalyst 5.13 already adds h.264 HW decoding support for x1000 serie cards).

Encoding time....for me it's not a problem, but for my CPU yes, Athlon XP 2500+, sadly only with SSE1, so it's takes me ~4hourse the rip a 100min video material. HW acceleration...I think it would make much sense to wait for Ati or nvidia latest cards released for AGP, but if they maybe release with this CPU it would not make much difference! *I guess...or?*

As i saw the performance of x264 and Ateme, i was impressed by them...

A powerful CPU? I don't know a CPU that can play videos encoded with h.264 with CABAC, and various nice quality options, at HD resolution except maybe with help from ATi's hardware acceleration if you use their software with a quite strong video card. Heck, I encoded some clips at 640x480 30fps with x264 recently and they take more than 40% CPU time on avarage, often reaching above 50%.
On the other hand, MPEG-4 ASP is decoded just fine by libavcodec even at 1080p on my 3200+.

Have admit that one too, my Barton 2600+ @ 2,4GHz almost died as I played in Nero Showtime a BBC.mp4, it bounced between 100%-95%, but rather 100% usage.

@ High Bitrates also XviD can still after 1 year AVC development keep up with it :p and needs less CPU resources just watch my recent The Island Trailer compare. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756989#post756989

I'm looking at your post, but could only download until yet one mp4, but I will look at them all. I have just one question, with XviD you mean the Xvid AVC codec with changed profiles, right? which was in the comparison too! or? because in your signiture there was such one!

*THX everybody... :)* :thanks:

[IvS]

No, he means "good old" XviD :)

[CLS]

No, he means "good old" XviD :)

Ohh...I got it! It's based on XviD 1.0... :thanks: :D

[Caroliano]

Ohh...I got it! It's based on XviD 1.0...
Or maybe the 1.1 version. Xvid and Xvid AVC are totaly diferent codecs.

PS: see how people are confuse? This name was a bad idea IMHO...

[CLS]

Or maybe the 1.1 version. Xvid and Xvid AVC are totaly diferent codecs.

PS: see how people are confuse? This name was a bad idea IMHO...

I'm newbie, but as I read the comparison it was obvious that they are different. Btw where can I get XviD 1.1 or the AVC?

[CLS]

I have to correct my self...now that i'm reading carefully and from the begining the "Sample HD MPEG-1 Clip..." thread, I slowly get to know all these stuff. So correct myself I sad I encode in 720p, which is wrong, becuase I encode DVD materials, that means 720*400, or something like that, I thought it's the same as 720p! No it's 1280*something, right?!
:stupid:

[Xayd]

Wow...I don't know how you do that?! Ok, ofcourse the AC3 audio streams take almost 1CD out of the 3, then I have 2CD space for the video stream, and I my chase it's only enought for 2000kbps-s in DivX and aswell in Xvid. Well until now I used DivX6, but as I saw the new comparison between the codecs, I consider to go with XviD 1.1, but it's not available for public, or? Anyway bac to tha topic, so let me guess, you change the profile of your DivX and Xvid codec?! Or how do you make the bitrate so high? You make a rip in DVD5 size?! But what about those dvd-s where the original movie is almost a DVD5 sized or +1gb then you compress it with a divx or xvid? oh, right you didn't sad with which codec you are making those high bitrated rips.



yeah, i aim for DVD5 sized files. why not? ;) blank DVDs are cheap, and a DVD5 720p xvid taken from a HD source is in every way better than a mpeg2 DVD9.

i switched from xvid 1.0.3 to a 1.1 beta2 build about 2 weeks ago, haven't noticed any problems.

i have used wmv9 for a few encodes just to play with the codec too, but didn't really see any advantage unless you must go very low on the bitrate, and in some cases disadvantage depending on how sharp the source is. if you push it too low it seems softened more than xvid to me, so i still kind of question its usefulness, since xvid is much faster.

yes, i just use unrestricted profiles so it will do whatever you tell it to. i'm only working with HDTV, i don't bother with DVDs anymore.

PCs of course have no problems with this, and the new Sigma players like the Snazio Net-DVD and IOData Avel Linkplayer2 can also play back HD resolution/bitrates just fine. i got my parents one of those players for christmas (the IOData one) and it's great, plays everything, HD res xvid/divx/wmv9, even 720p/1080i HD un-altered mpeg2 streams over a network from a PC (and has a linux streaming software available, too :D). for mine, i still use a old P4 2ghz machine for playback, with the TV hooked up via VGA to an old Geforce FX card.

edit: yes, your last post is correct, we're comparing apples to oranges.

i was referring to HDTV.
you're referring to DVD.

720p = 1280x720
DVD = 480p = 720x480

@ High Bitrates also XviD can still after 1 year AVC development keep up with it :p and needs less CPU resources just watch my recent The Island Trailer compare. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756989#post756989

i agree and was pleasantly surprised when i found out. when i started messing with HDTV recordings i was expecting to have to struggle to compress and not lose quality, but when given a high quality source xvid preserves it very well at DVD bitrates. as i mentioned in another thread, at high bitrates it's even arguable that xvid can be better than the source depending on how bad your playback devices are ;).

1) software decoding, deinterlacing, and resizing of 1080i is poor, there aren't alot of playback options out there, and...

2) rather than resizing on the fly, encoding with xvid to your display's native resolution can actually be better, imo, and at least equal. if nothing else equal while saving you hardware money, hehe. my old P4 2ghz TV computer can't play 1080i without dropped frames, but it can play 720p xvid at 5000-6000 kbps flawlessly. and since i have a plasma display it's not like i miss those extra pixels, they weren't being played to begin with.

[Revgen]

Anybody who has a slow comp should try using VLC Player instead for playing x264. It's much faster than ffdshow.

[CLS]

yeah, i aim for DVD5 sized files. why not? ;) blank DVDs are cheap, and a DVD5 720p xvid taken from a HD source is in every way better than a mpeg2 DVD9.

I totaly agree...

Ofcourse as I started this threat I mean how to rip HD resolutioned motion pictures, shall it be HDTV or something else HD in the future whic his at hand, or let's say almost when everything goues after plan. :p But now i'm still ripping those old 480p-s, and there for it's unless to make them to DVD5 for me, because the source is almost that big in mpeg2. that's why I was surprised why you are making them to DVD5...but now I understand. :stupid:

i switched from xvid 1.0.3 to a 1.1 beta2 build about 2 weeks ago, haven't noticed any problems.

i have used wmv9 for a few encodes just to play with the codec too, but didn't really see any advantage unless you must go very low on the bitrate, and in some cases disadvantage depending on how sharp the source is. if you push it too low it seems softened more than xvid to me, so i still kind of question its usefulness, since xvid is much faster.


Lol...I also have just the beta2 one, but for tesing I ripped some trailers in 480p with this cvid and with divx6.03 and I thought divx makes to job better. almsot the same speed, so I rip since a while with this divx. bwt. I guess then 2000kbps is enougt for 480p? :p

yes, i just use unrestricted profiles so it will do whatever you tell it to. i'm only working with HDTV, i don't bother with DVDs anymore.

PCs of course have no problems with this, and the new Sigma players like the Snazio Net-DVD and IOData Avel Linkplayer2 can also play back HD resolution/bitrates just fine. i got my parents one of those players for christmas (the IOData one) and it's great, plays everything, HD res xvid/divx/wmv9, even 720p/1080i HD un-altered mpeg2 streams over a network from a PC (and has a linux streaming software available, too :D). for mine, i still use a old P4 2ghz machine for playback, with the TV hooked up via VGA to an old Geforce FX card.


edit: yes, your last post is correct, we're comparing apples to oranges.

i was referring to HDTV.
you're referring to DVD.

720p = 1280x720
DVD = 480p = 720x480



i agree and was pleasantly surprised when i found out. when i started messing with HDTV recordings i was expecting to have to struggle to compress and not lose quality, but when given a high quality source xvid preserves it very well at DVD bitrates. as i mentioned in another thread, at high bitrates it's even arguable that xvid can be better than the source depending on how bad your playback devices are ;).

1) software decoding, deinterlacing, and resizing of 1080i is poor, there aren't alot of playback options out there, and...

2) rather than resizing on the fly, encoding with xvid to your display's native resolution can actually be better, imo, and at least equal. if nothing else equal while saving you hardware money, hehe. my old P4 2ghz TV computer can't play 1080i without dropped frames, but it can play 720p xvid at 5000-6000 kbps flawlessly. and since i have a plasma display it's not like i miss those extra pixels, they weren't being played to begin with.

Thanks for these hints! :thanks: I'm working with aswell old Barton XP 2500+ with geforce4. ;) But I started to read the "Sample....." threat as downloaded some big resolutioned 1080i trailers encoded with xvid and they played well with VLC. Did you try VLC on your P4? Because i think it should play for you 1080i too.

One question: :stupid: Let's say I have a 1080i uncompressed HD source, if I wanted to rip it, what would be better, ofcourse now i'm a bit heaten by that codec comparison that doom9 made! *thanks doom9* Continoued, with a nowdays effordable pc. Let's say Athlon 64 FX/X with ~2GHz and we have one of those X1000/GFX cards.

xvid 1.1
ateme (nero)
x264
divx (just to be presented.. :D )


I guess the first question would be ASP or (is it even possible with H.264) AVC? which codec could save more of the original quality? Let's say space doesn't matter, but if yes then let's say DVD5. As XadY sad he can rip with p4@2Ghz 780p resolution with xvid. *or is this a :stupid: question? :confused: *


:thanks:

[IvS]

Anybody who has a slow comp should try using VLC Player instead for playing x264. It's much faster than ffdshow.
If you're relying on the task manager or similar for viewing its CPU usage, don't, it's broken. The task manager doesn't always report the correct CPU usage. An even better example is the TCPMP win32 build, try it :).

[Xayd]

yes it will play 1080i but playing back in software even with a 3ghz P4 is a bit choppy for 1080i mpeg2. i can play 1920x1080 mpeg2 on my 3ghz P4 encoding machine, but it still drops a few frames in software decoding. using the nvidia purevideo mpeg2 decoder (which uses video card mpeg2 decoding) works, but it still struggles with deinterlacing and real-time resizing.

those video cards will help with playback to make x264 or other AVC codec possible (probably), but it's still slow to encode with. even with xvid, which is very fast to encode with, on my 3ghz P4 machine that I use to encode with, i get 8-9 fps encoding for 1280x720, ~3 fps for 1920x1080.

wmv9 is about 2 fps (one over from "highest" quality setting) at 1280x720. wmv9 at the highest quality setting just isn't feasible, it's 1 fps or less at 720p and way less than 1 fps at 1920x1080, it would take a week to encode one movie at its highest quality settings.

playback of mpeg4 at HD resolution is fine with xvid, divx, and wmv9 (video cards that can decode wmv9 in hardware help with 1080), but encoding is still VERY slow.

that's why i think xvid will still be used for people encoding their HDTV recordings in the future, especially now that there are multithreaded builds coming out to help encoding speed even more if you have dual cpus. it's the only one that's reasonably fast to encode with.

[CLS]

yes it will play 1080i but playing back in software even with a 3ghz P4 is a bit choppy for 1080i mpeg2. i can play 1920x1080 mpeg2 on my 3ghz P4 encoding machine, but it still drops a few frames in software decoding. using the nvidia purevideo mpeg2 decoder (which uses video card mpeg2 decoding) works, but it still struggles with deinterlacing and real-time resizing.

those video cards will help with playback to make x264 or other AVC codec possible (probably), but it's still slow to encode with. even with xvid, which is very fast to encode with, on my 3ghz P4 machine that I use to encode with, i get 8-9 fps encoding for 1280x720, ~3 fps for 1920x1080.

wmv9 is about 2 fps (one over from "highest" quality setting) at 1280x720. wmv9 at the highest quality setting just isn't feasible, it's 1 fps or less at 720p and way less than 1 fps at 1920x1080, it would take a week to encode one movie at its highest quality settings.

playback of mpeg4 at HD resolution is fine with xvid, divx, and wmv9 (video cards that can decode wmv9 in hardware help with 1080), but encoding is still VERY slow.

that's why i think xvid will still be used for people encoding their HDTV recordings in the future, especially now that there are multithreaded builds coming out to help encoding speed even more if you have dual cpus. it's the only one that's reasonably fast to encode with.

Thanks, wow know I got a picture of what are the current speeds of encoding with such high res sources. Maybe will try myself also to rip with x264, just to see how AVC works on my Barton 2500+. But now it's holiday time, so maybe next year, so I hope you enjoys these days. :)

I wish everyone a happy new year! *THX doom9 for such great website*

[Sagittaire]

wmv9 is about 2 fps (one over from "highest" quality setting) at 1280x720. wmv9 at the highest quality setting just isn't feasible, it's 1 fps or less at 720p and way less than 1 fps at 1920x1080, it would take a week to encode one movie at its highest quality settings.

Then why use highest quality? use simply another quality mode! With highest quality I can encode at 0.001 fps with libavcodec ASP (diamond size at 6, qns max, last pred max, RDO with SADT, qpel ...).

Everyone say "H264 is slow". But H264 is slow only with the best possible setting. In fact with the same speed AVC is better than ASP for quality (metric quality here). Use the best setting is not an obligation ... :rolleyes:

[CLS]

Then why use highest quality? use simply another quality mode! With highest quality I can encode at 0.001 fps with libavcodec ASP (diamond size at 6, qns max, last pred max, RDO with SADT, qpel ...).

Everyone say "H264 is slow". But H264 is slow only with the best possible setting. In fact with the same speed AVC is better than ASP for quality (metric quality here). Use the best setting is not an obligation ... :rolleyes:

:eek: Obviously, if you set for higher quality you will get slower fps-s! Since you are testeur, or something like that is french, ;) could you tell me some good settings for H264 codecs, let's say x264 which is as good as xvid and almost the same speed?! or maybe a profile of x264 which is as fast and as good!

ThX

[Xayd]

Then why use highest quality? use simply another quality mode! With highest quality I can encode at 0.001 fps with libavcodec ASP (diamond size at 6, qns max, last pred max, RDO with SADT, qpel ...).

Everyone say "H264 is slow". But H264 is slow only with the best possible setting. In fact with the same speed AVC is better than ASP for quality (metric quality here). Use the best setting is not an obligation ... :rolleyes:

because if we're to assume that the "quality" setting actually affects output quality, higher is preferable?

if i have to raise the bitrate to achieve quality then i can just as well keep using xvid at higher bitrates.

[Sagittaire]

because if we're to assume that the "quality" setting actually affects output quality, higher is preferable?

if i have to raise the bitrate to achieve quality then i can just as well keep using xvid at higher bitrates.

With same speed x264 is always better than XviD
With same quality x264 is always faster than XviD

[CLS]

With same speed x264 is always better than XviD
With same quality x264 is always faster than XviD

ThX for your wise words! I'm not used x264 before, propably I should check out the x264 threat, but could you please tell me applications which i can use to rip with x264. StaxRip, is good for it right? or what apps do you use if you test x264?!

:thanks:

*HAPPY NEW YEAR...*

[stax76]

StaxRip, is good for it right? or what apps do you use if you test x264?!

Here is a list of available GUI's: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=89979&highlight=x264+daily

[CLS]

Here is a list of available GUI's: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=89979&highlight=x264+daily

ThX...how funny...I'm honored to get a reply by you stax! ;) :D :thanks:

[IvS]

With same speed x264 is always better than XviD
With same quality x264 is always faster than XviD
This is simply not true. What is the "same quality" and "better"? If you mean visual quality, that's definitely not always the case. Even with CABAC, deblocking filter and hexagonal search (hence very slow settings) x264 is not always better looking than XviD from my own testing.

[Didée]

@ IvS
When Saggittaire states "X is better than Y" or "worse than Z", then he's usually speaking about metrics tests, i.e. about black letters on white paper, obtained by mechanical evaluation.

(I'll believe in inter-codec metrics tests as soon as a PC will have enough AI to not only reckognize that it's a joke I'm actually typing, but even will start laughing.)
(For sure not as long as those godly metrics are build only from spatial correlations, and temporal relations are completely disregarded.)

[Sagittaire]

My eyes work very well too (like doom9 eyes). H264 is always better IMO and particulary in hardest situations (very high quant encoding)

1) first example in HD
XviD ~q8 encoding
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/XviD_IceAge_720p_1250.avi

H264 with same bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/NDAVCHP_IceAge_720p_1250.mp4

2) second example in SD
XviD ~q8 encoding
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/XviD_KingKong_400p_700.avi

H264 with same bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/x264HP_KingKong_400p_700.mp4


In these hardest condition MPEG4 ASP is unable to fight with MPEG4 AVC.

I'll believe in inter-codec metrics tests as soon as a PC will have enough AI to not only reckognize that it's a joke I'm actually typing, but even will start laughing.

yes it's true ... metric are not completely HVS and metric are particulary unable to test dynamic particularity in video sequence (like for example block flicking for H264). If codec X is better than codec Y with 0.1 dB it's IMO not possible to say codec X is better than codec Y. But If codec X is better than codec Y with 1.0 dB it's IMO possible to say codec X is better than codec Y with a good confidence.

In my test H264 is always better than MPEG4 ASP:

- [+1.5dB ; +2.0dB] in q8 - q4 interval
- [+1.0dB ; +1,5dB] in q4 - q2 interval

For SSIM (good HVS metric) difference are more important ...


For Very High bitrate MPEG4 AVC like MPEG4 ASP are not necessary. MPEG2 work very well too ...
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/MPEG2-HQ5.m2v


And Finaly Doom9 eyes say : best codec are
1) x264
2) Ateme
3) XviD 1.1
4) DivX 6.1
Ateme really close to x264
DivX really close to XviD
AVC better and by far than ASP

My next metric test will say : best codec are
1) x264
2) Ateme
3) XviD 1.1
4) DivX 6.1
Ateme really close to x264
DivX really close to XviD
AVC better and by far than ASP

But it's certainely a coïncidence ... :D

[Xayd]

but then our argument comes full circle.

1) takes too long to encode full length 720p movie with
2) takes too much hardware for playback (with ffdshow even your 720p 1250 kbps sample is slow on a 3ghz p4, with no audio)
3) 1920x1080 playback with audio isn't even possible with my hardware

i don't dispute that H264 is the future and can achieve better compression, but like i said speed both for encoding and playback makes using it not realistic, for now.

[Selur]

@Xayd: try CoreAVC as decoder

[CLS]

Here is a list of available GUI's: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=89979&highlight=x264+daily

I wonder if you have a guide? or something how to set up things with x264 with your app, or did I miss something, because i searched the threat for StaxRip.

:thanks:

[Doom9]

My next metric test will say : best codec are Interesting.. have they changed something in metrics so that they finally do say something about percieved quality?

[stax76]

I wonder if you have a guide? or something how to set up things with x264 with your app, or did I miss something, because i searched the threat for StaxRip.

There is only some help documents.

[CLS]

There is only some help documents.

You mean the attached document, right?! I read those, but it's not really what I'm searching for. Rather for something like Doom9's guides for GK or even more specific.

@Doom9: is there any chance that you gonna make a guide for stax's 'little' application? or is this totaly not arrangable?! I'm thinking of making one, if I have time for it, because i think it would take me ages, becuase my knowledge is tiny, really tiny...compared to your's guys, but I would help a lot to get a guide line for this app. As I browsed throught the site, quiet a lot of people is using this app. Well, we will see..

:thanks:

[Teegedeck]

Heeeeee... I just read that "better quality at same speed" statement and have to violently disagree. :) I've been testing XviD vs. x264 regularly for the last few months and though x264 keeps on improving it still doesn't quite make it to transparency (for DVD-reencoding, see below). In fact, I would now draw the line somewhere below XviD with the SixOfNine CQM at quant=4. Below that quality x264 gets better than XviD and increasingly so. Above XviD simply copes better with preserving MPEG-2 with all its artifacts and noise... But only below XviD H.263 quant=4 I'd say x264's edge over XviD gets obvious. Just IMHO, of course.

Just a reminder, SixOfNine quant=4 about equals MPEG quant=2,5 -- so I understand how one could come to the conclusion that x264 is better than XviD.

[Doom9]

@Doom9: is there any chance that you gonna make a guide for stax's 'little' application?Considering I have my own 'little' application that is still lacking a guide, I'd say the outlook is rather grim ;)

And I can't help but put a little PR here: MeGUI has tooltip help for all the x264 options... they not only mention what an option does, but recommends possible use as well.

[Sagittaire]

Heeeeee... I just read that "better quality at same speed" statement and have to violently disagree. :) I've been testing XviD vs. x264 regularly for the last few months and though x264 keeps on improving it still doesn't quite make it to transparency (for DVD-reencoding, see below). In fact, I would now draw the line somewhere below XviD with the SixOfNine CQM at quant=4. Below that quality x264 gets better than XviD and increasingly so. Above XviD simply copes better with preserving MPEG-2 with all its artifacts and noise... But only below XviD H.263 quant=4 I'd say x264's edge over XviD gets obvious. Just IMHO, of course.

Just a reminder, SixOfNine quant=4 about equals MPEG quant=2,5 -- so I understand how one could come to the conclusion that x264 is better than XviD.

1) All codec are good for High bitrate situation (~q2 H263 or ~q4 6O9). MPEG2 Unrestricted (libavcodec) is better than MPEG4 ASP Unrestricted for very high bitrate ... !!!
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/MPEG2-HQ5.m2v

IMO it's useless to compare codecs in this situation. IMO it's useless to use MPEG4 (AVC or ASP) in this situation.


2) In hard situation x264 is better than xvid for metric and by far ... and for eyes too as you can see

first example in HD
XviD ~q8 encoding
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Downloa..._720p_1250.avi

H264 with same bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Downloa..._720p_1250.mp4

second example in SD
XviD ~q8 encoding
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Downloa...g_400p_700.avi

H264 with same bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Downloa...g_400p_700.mp4

No possible comparison and x264 "fast setting" will be always really better than XviD "slow setting" for quality and speed too ...

[Teegedeck]

[...] But only below XviD H.263 quant=4 I'd say x264's edge over XviD gets obvious. [...]2) In hard situation x264 is better than xvid for metric and by far
... and for eyes too as you can see
XviD ~q8 encoding
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Downloa..._720p_1250.avi
Ummm, I don't see any disagreement here.

1) All codec are good for High bitrate situation (~q2 H264 or ~q4 6O9). MPEG2 Unrestricted (libavcodec) is better than MPEG4 ASP Unrestricted for very high bitrate ... !!!
[...]
IMO it's useless to compare codecs in this situation. IMO it's useless to use MPEG4 (AVC or ASP) in this situation.
That could be (I cannot say otherwise because I personally haven't reencoded HDTV material to MPEG-2); it would be very funy though. Because it would mean that all the gifted people that have been working on the development of more modern codecs than MPEG-2 would have utterly failed. :rolleyes:

[Sagittaire]

That could be (I cannot say otherwise because I personally haven't reencoded HDTV material to MPEG-2); it would be very funy though. Because it would mean that all the gifted people that have been working on the development of more modern codecs than MPEG-2 would have utterly failed.

Well it's a very big surprised for me too but MPEG2 is very good for very high bitrate (low quant). Perhaps that high efficiency MPEG4's fonctions become useless in these particulars situations.

64 Kbps HE-AAC audio is certainely very better than 64 Kbps MP3 but it's not the same situation for 128 Kbps encoding ... !!!

[Didée]

1) All codec are good for High bitrate situation (~q2 H263 or ~q4 6O9). MPEG2 Unrestricted (libavcodec) is better than MPEG4 ASP Unrestricted for very high bitrate ...
[...]
IMO it's useless to compare codecs in this situation. IMO it's useless to use MPEG4 (AVC or ASP) in this situation.
True. Only thing is that Teegedeck's scenario is not at all "very high bitrate". His mentioned settings are, very roughly over the thumb for a SD widescreen movie, around the 2000kbps range.
Now I'm pretty confident that in this range, ASP aka XviD performs better than any tweak of MPEG-2, no matter if by eyes or metrics. :)

But I agree: AVC definetly looks better than ASP ... in those bitrate ranges I won't use for backups. :)