"Safe" AVC?

[aabxx]

I've been thinking about trying out AVC, but haven't because when I've encoded something, I want it to be "safe".

Xvid 1.1 is extremely tried and tested and reliable by this point.

But when I look at say x264... which build are you to trust? It seems to be changing so fast... I don't have time to look at what I've encoded... I test and choose some good settings, and then encode and expect it to be good and compatible whenever I wish to view it (can be years later). I put that sort of trust in xvid 1.1...

Is there any AVC-encoder I could "trust"? What build etc....

[bratao]

You can trust X264.
It in heavy development phase, but the bitstrem will not change, so , after years, sure you can all all your files

[Dark Eiri]

I trust x264 more than XviD, actually.
You can trust it, it is real "safe".

AVC encoded videos will last for a long long time. ASP is "so last week" :D

x264 is the most confiable AVC codec. It's free, everybody knows it, a lot of people tested it...
There are PAID alternatives, that can actually not be that good.

Ateme on Nero Recode is good too... but I actually think x264 is better, since it's free and you can tweak every little option ^^

[Hellworm]

You can trust x264 more than xvid.
Xvid doesnt't create videos that comply to any (official) standart (you know the hack of bframes ... in avi ... dirty ... ;)

However avc is well documented, a known standart which will be decodable in generations and soon get widespread hardware decoding.

[Caroliano]

But at any build can be a bug. The last one was the bug producing crap in lossless mode, because the adaptative quantization path. And this one lasted quite a bit before get identified.

[DarkZell666]

Not to worry about x264, it follows a defined standard (just like XviD btw ..., dunno who started this "XviD doesn't produce standard output ...", it's wrong from A to Z).

The bitstream has a defined structure, and x264 respects it.

But, if you want to play files encoded by x264 on a future standalone player, you'll have to be careful when you choose the options you use, because standalone players won't support all the AVC standard's options.

Just like XviD, once again. Some standalone players don't like GMC and more than 1-bframe. For AVC it will be the same problem : maybe they won't like more than 4 reference frames and won't even support High Profile (including the 8x8 transform).

Someone once stated that SAPlayers will only support AVC level 4.1. I can't confirm :search:

[Sharktooth]

But at any build can be a bug. The last one was the bug producing crap in lossless mode, because the adaptative quantization path. And this one lasted quite a bit before get identified.
AQ was not in the SVN coz AQ was an experimental patch.
The code in the SVN is quite stable.

[Manao]

dunno who started this "XviD doesn't produce standard output ...", it's wrong from A to ZActually, it was partly true until the Doom9's test of this year. The following trolling between ffmpeg developpers ended up unexpectedly by Michael Nidermayer finding two bugs in XviD. The output of the encoder was standard, but there was a mismatch between XviD decoder and the standard. That mismatch was also present in the encoder ( yet the output was standard, just not what it should have been if there had been no bug )

[DarkZell666]

@Manao : up to which version ? Was this still true in the "late" stable versions ? (/me still wondering which files he'll have to re-encode xD)

Bugs ought to happen though, but the difference between a "bug" and this : Xvid doesnt't create videos that comply to any (official) standart ... is rather amazing :p

@aabxx : convinced ? ;)

[Jay Bee]

I've been thinking about trying out AVC, but haven't because when I've encoded something, I want it to be "safe".

Xvid 1.1 is extremely tried and tested and reliable by this point.

But when I look at say x264... which build are you to trust? It seems to be changing so fast... I don't have time to look at what I've encoded... I test and choose some good settings, and then encode and expect it to be good and compatible whenever I wish to view it (can be years later). I put that sort of trust in xvid 1.1...

Is there any AVC-encoder I could "trust"? What build etc....

If you're talking about set-top boxes there isn't really an answer to that yet because there aren't many AVC set-top boxes out yet. And if set-top playback is what you're looking for then XviD isn't a very good choice either. By far the highest compatability will be achieved by using MPEG-2 with DVD compliant settings for obvious reasons. Using Divx with a Divx certified player would be another option.

If PC software playback is enough then I think XviD and x264 both have a good chance of being playable for years to come.

[akupenguin]

Someone once stated that SAPlayers will only support AVC level 4.1.
Of course any device with limited memory and limited cpu speed will only support some maximum level. Just so you know, level 4.1 (if that's a guarantee rather than a best case) is enough for 50Mbit 1080p.

The limitations to complain about are the senseless ones like in Quicktime's AVC decoder.

[Hellworm]

With "no (official) standart" i meant the bframe hack. Of course you can go the way over xvid_encraw and mux the result into mp4 or use no bframes. But the default usage is normally bframes + avi. Which btw may be well playable in years, since there is no reason to drop support.

Of course the same reason goes to avc in avi, but luckily this is not the default usage.