HD:MPEG2 vs. DIVX-HD vs. XVID-HD vs. WMV-HD vs. H264!!!

[fenomeno83]

In this topic compare the different encoder for High Definition films:MPEG2,DIVX-HD,XVID-HD,WMV-HD(VC1) and H264(the best).For example,in a source 1920x1080 MPEG2 movie of 10GB(about 1 hour),which will be the final size using each encoder to get a same(o more similar)quality?(as in a DVD MPEG2 720x576 movie of 5/6GB to get a similar quality with XVID encoding will need about 2cd=1400MB!).Give information about bitrate used in each encoder!THANKS

[R3Z]

Are you asking a question or making a statement ?

Saying h264 is the best is only partially true for a certain number of situations and will get you in trouble for using the B word in this forum.

[thuongshoo]

I only say about MPEG-2 vs H264. This is my experience:
- at low bitrate, H264 is made because people want to kill MPEG-2 :D
- if you convert from MPEG-2 into H264 and you want to keep quality, my recomend: filesize 2:1 , 10MB MPEG-2 --> 5MB H264
Bye!

[fenomeno83]

Thanks!any compared with others encoders?

[thuongshoo]

I have just use WVC1. This is a "newest toy" come from Microsoft. Speed of converting isnot faster than x264 ---> I use x264
DIVX and XVID is codec which implemented MPEG-4 part2.
H264/AVC is MPEG-4 part 10. MPEG-4 part 10 is made to have a hafl or lower bitate comparing to MPEG-4 part 2 but quality is equality

[fenomeno83]

I have just use WVC1. This is a "newest toy" come from Microsoft. Speed of converting isnot faster than x264 ---> I use x264
DIVX and XVID is codec which implemented MPEG-4 part2.
H264/AVC is MPEG-4 part 10. MPEG-4 part 10 is made to have a hafl or lower bitate comparing to MPEG-4 part 2 but quality is equality

bitrate comparing?

[foxyshadis]

Bitrate differences between good AVC and VC1 encodings only matter at very low qualities, where AVC is a little better. Normally there's almost equivalent. That's also where AVC beats ASP greatly, at higher quality it isn't a big difference, and some people prefer a slightly rougher asp over a smoother avc.

Haven't seen any Divx vs Xvid HD comparisons, but I imagine they're not that far apart, especially given how many new Divx releases this year has seen.

[Tagert]

Well I can't sum it up better than the people above :)

I like H264 very much myself, but sometimes I use XviD instead since it uses less cpu resources and since everyone doesn't have that powerful one that's needed for 768P :o

[mahsah]

Well I can't sum it up better than the people above :)

I like H264 very much myself, but sometimes I use XviD instead since it uses less cpu resources and since everyone doesn't have that powerful one that's needed for 768P :o

Yep, plus xvid is MUCH faster encoding.

[Sagittaire]

Bitrate differences between good AVC and VC1 encodings only matter at very low qualities, where AVC is a little better. Normally there's almost equivalent. That's also where AVC beats ASP greatly, at higher quality it isn't a big difference, and some people prefer a slightly rougher asp over a smoother avc.

Haven't seen any Divx vs Xvid HD comparisons, but I imagine they're not that far apart, especially given how many new Divx releases this year has seen.

Well be carefull with HDDVD encoding, high or low average bitrate doesn't mean anything with vbv restriction. vbv restriction mean very high quantizer variability and very high quantizer in difficult part. In these hard part the advantage for the best efficiency codec will be always very high.

At this time it's very difficult to make HDDVD with MPEG2. HDDVD can use 29.4 Mbps for "max bitrate" but it's a too low "max bitrate" for MPEG2 MP@HL.

[IgorC]

Yep, plus xvid is MUCH faster encoding.
We all are tired here to say to new members that H.264 can encode at the same speed as Xvid. The difference will be less but H.264 will be still better. Try any good encoder like x264 with balanced settings ref 2,3 subme 5 etc...