Is DivX limited to 4:2:0?

[Leica]

Is there anyway to encode/decode in 4:2:2 or 4:4:4?

MPEG-2 supports 4:2:2 while MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) supports 4:4:4 too.

Thanks.

[jggimi]

DivX is an MPEG-4 ASP codec, and IIRC encodes in YV12.

[SeeMoreDigital]

MPEG-2 also supports 4:4:4

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/166/compchart2fana8.png

[Leica]

Thanks for the info guys. Personally I hate 4:2:0 and don't know how people can put up with it. Ever seen titles in Red? You will see massive blocks.

I can see the shortcomings of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 for that matter ALL the time. It is easy to spot when you know what to look for. Moreover it also makes the whole image blurry. The same picture in 4:4:4 is way more sharper and detailed.

In this day and age of super high res and computing power it is sad that we are limited to 4:2:0 for the foreable future (both BluRay and HD-DVD are 4:2:0 only right?).

4:2:2 is miles better and really 4:4:4 should be standard. Oh well... :mad:

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yeah, chroma subsampling sucks, no doubt about it. But is not THAT bad (especially 4:2:2), and it was necessary for digital video to even be practical in the old days.

The way I see it, a consumer digital format with temporal compression and chroma subsampling (DVD) is a lot better than what came before it in the analog world (VHS / LaserDisc). It's a step forward.

Eventually we will kick chroma subsampling to the curb I'm sure, but for now, it remains an effective compression method. Let's murder interlacing first!!!

~MiSfit

[HeadBangeR77]

Eventually we will kick chroma subsampling to the curb I'm sure, but for now, it remains an effective compression method. Let's murder interlacing first!!!
I agree! Interlacing is much worse pain in the ass than chroma sub-sampling, especially when the second beast can be up-sampled during playback without much higher CPU usage. I usually force YUY2, if I can't choose RGB24/32 from some reasons.

As to compression: Anyone has ever saved the same JPEG picture with and without chroma sub-sampling? The latter could be even almost double the size of the first; nevertheless I sometimes disable chroma sub-sampling, if the difference is easily noticeable (red blocks, colour bleeding, stair-stepping, dull green colours etc.). Those are just digital photos or scanned negatives - in case of video the compression gain is much more important imho.

cheers,
HDBR77

[shae]

Ever seen titles in Red? You will see massive blocks.
Not if chroma is upsampled with something more fancy than pixel doubling.

[akupenguin]

Eventually we will kick chroma subsampling to the curb I'm sure, but for now, it remains an effective compression method.

I'm not so sure. If your limiting factor is the physical resolution of your display device, then yes eliminating chroma subsampling would improve quality. But if the limiting factor is bitrate or cpu speed, then I think subsampling is good: If you have the resources to double the number of samples, would you rather switch to 4:4:4, or would you rather use 4:2:0 at twice the resolution?

[shae]

If you have the resources to double the number of samples, would you rather switch to 4:4:4, or would you rather use 4:2:0 at twice the resolution?At DVD resolutions it might be better increasing the resolution first, but at HD? How about a compromise, first 4:2:2 and a bit higher resolution, then, on the subsequent generation, 4:4:4. :)

But actually, I don't want 4:4:4. I want 36-bit/pixel lossless at 3840x2400. Umm... 2013?