Why is most AVI encoding software not maintained anymore?

[Wasted_Coder]

Hi Guys,

According to my knowledge AVI delivers small files that looks excelent in quality. And in these days it is compatible with almost all DVD players, Mobile Phones (not just iPhone and Android), heck even LCD/LED TVs come with USB plugs for AVI playback from USB sticks!

Is there any other reason that the obvious Full HD limits of AVI, why people will move to other formats?

[CWR03]

According to my knowledge AVI delivers small files that looks excelent in quality.
That has nothing to do with the AVI part.

Is there any other reason that the obvious Full HD limits of AVI, why people will move to other formats?
Are you saying that AVI doesn't support "Full HD"? If so, where do you find that? For that matter, where do you even get that most AVI encoding software is not maintained anymore?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_(digital)

AVI is just a container. There are many container formats, like MPEG-PS, MPEG-TS, AVI, MOV/MP4, MXF, MKV etc... All of these container formats can store a wide variety of video. In some cases, a certain type of video is commonly associated with a certain container. For example, based on your post, I'd guess you're most familiar with pirated content, which is typically in the form of SD (or less than SD) MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid) video, which just so happens to be packaged into an AVI container.

AVI can contain a great many types of video, and can certainly contain "Full HD" video in any number of formats (MPEG-4 ASP, H.264, or CineForm to name just a few). That being said, AVI has fallen out of favor for many uses because of its technical limitations. In the open source encoding world, MKV is the current darling. In the professional world, containers like MOV / MP4, MXF, MPEG-PS, and MPEG-TS are much more common, for a wide variety of reasons, depending on the application. MPEG-2, DV, and ProRes are by far the most common video formats you'll see in these containers.

TL;DR: AVI is just a container format. Sometimes you can infer the type of video stored by looking at the container, but not always, and never with perfect accuracy.

Derek

[hello_hello]

I think you'll find these days when it comes to newer devices capable of playing video, even TVs with built in media players, h264 in an MKV or MP4 container is actually just as well, if not better supported than Xvid encoded AVIs. The only players which aren't likely to play MKV or MP4 files are old AVI capable DVD players. Try playing an MKV or MP4 file on a USB stick with your TV's media player. Even my Android smartphone will play 1080p MKV/MP4s, as can all three generations of the ipad.

No doubt some software mainly used for DVD to AVI encoding has long been abandoned (although probably works just as well as it did 5 years ago), but there's plenty of current software which will encode using both the x264 and Xvid encoders.

The x264 encoder (which is the encoder commonly used when converting to MKV or MP4) is capable of better quality than the Xvid encoder while often in a smaller file size. Personally I think the old Xvid/AVI method of conversion has had it's day.

[Wasted_Coder]

That has nothing to do with the AVI part.

Ok my apologies for this, if you exchange "AVI" with "Xvid/DivX" in my post it will make a lot more sense! Then also I meant the "AS @ L5" profile of Xvid does not allow Full HD.

In some cases, a certain type of video is commonly associated with a certain container. For example, based on your post, I'd guess you're most familiar with pirated content, which is typically in the form of SD (or less than SD) MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid) video, which just so happens to be packaged into an AVI container.

This was my mistake assuming AVI = Xvid/DivX. But actually I assumed this because a few years back when I started figuring out video encoding all the guides then said: Xvid/DivX + AVI = success! Not actually from pirated content ;)

No doubt some software mainly used for DVD to AVI encoding has long been abandoned (although probably works just as well as it did 5 years ago), but there's plenty of current software which will encode using both the x264 and Xvid encoders.

Ah, hello_hello hit the spot of my mis-phrased question! This is actually what I'm concerned about.

I used to use DGIndex to framserve the VOB and demux the audio, that I converted using BeSweet into MP3, and then feed the video to an AVS script, that did most of my processing and resizing. And finally into VirtualDub that used Xvid to compress the video, and multiplexed that with the audio again.

Then I heard about Gordian Knot (and AutoGK) that made this process a bit less hard work.

But today most of these tools are "not maintained" anymore.

The x264 encoder (which is the encoder commonly used when converting to MKV or MP4) is capable of better quality than the Xvid encoder while often in a smaller file size. Personally I think the old Xvid/AVI method of conversion has had it's day.

This answers the next BIG question: If Xvid and AVI is out, what is in? So it's x264 and MKV you say!

Now what about the tools? Don't we still need to "frameserve" the VOB (ok, technically "index" the VOB) and process with AVScript and "mux" and compress using VirtualDub?

What replaces these tools? If we still need to do this, why did they abandon Gordian Knot that automated these steps?

I must say I ask this in the forum because the AVI/DivX related guides and utilities sites just stopped! Almost like the authors disappeared from the face of the earth! I was expecting at least a note on the pages saying, "We stopped developing this tool because MKV/x264 is taking over and we need time to work on a new tool" or "We stopped... because you don't need this type of tool anymore. MKV/x264 encoders handle all this work automagically!"

Like hello_hello says, they still work as good as five years back, but since we're on Windows 7 know VirtualDub seems to have a problem with previewing the video.

[hello_hello]

As far as I know VirtualDub is still being developed (VirtualDubMod is not). As I'm still using XP I'm not familiar with any Windows 7 related problems but if you're having issues is might pay to ask about them in the VirtualDub thread.

The various Xvid profiles don't enforce any particular resolution when encoding although older playback equipment obviously does (they're more suggestions or guidelines, but you're free to ignore them). For one reason or another I occasionally encode 720p video using AutoGK, which supports resolutions up to 1080p. Obviously it won't play on a DVD player but none of the Bluray players in this house have a problem playing it. I've even managed to come up with a couple of workarounds so I can use AutoGK to re-encode MP4s and MKVs.

As you're obviously experienced in converting I'd suggest you give MeGUI a spin. Like most current encoder GUIs it'll convert using Xvid or x264, it uses either DGIndex or ffmsindex to index files (depending on the file type) and it's fairly easy to modify the avs scripts it creates manually if you so desire (and you can set up script templates etc). No current encoder GUIs I know of use VirtualDub for encoding, they frameserve using AviSynth and mux using other tools. MeGUI should work fine on Windows 7 and you shouldn't have any problem previewing the video. MeGUI lets you either use it's "one click" encoder or you can set up an encode manually. You'll probably want to do the latter as I do. Other programs off the top of my head.... HDConvertToX, Ripbot264, ffcoder, AutoMKV, Handbrake (Vidcoder), Staxrip.....

But yeah, Xvid/AVI is out and x264/MKV is in. If you run a comparison encode using each encoder you'll work out why fairly quickly. Even the "scene" encoders are switching to x264/MP4. For me, x264 encoding is also sometimes faster, because it does single pass quality based encoding, so if you're not concerned about file size (file sized based encoding is also going the way of the Dodo) there's no need to run compression tests and 2 passes.
HD formats pretty much use square pixels, but when it comes to DVDs, anamorphic encoding (using non-square pixels as DVDs do) is more of an option using x264/MKV than when encoding to traditional Xvid/AVIs. I say it's more of an option because it's more likely to be supported by playback devices, although it's not universal. My Sony Bluray player supports anamorphic MKV/MP4 whereas the media player in the TV assumes square pixels. Because you're not resizing when using anamorphic encoding though, there's no quality hit just from resizing a DVD down to square pixels as there is with standard 480p Xvid/AVIs, and of course the x264 encoder is better at retaining detail. If you do want to encode using square pixels though, as x264 is more efficient, resizing DVDs up when encoding rather than resizing down is more of an option (854x480 vs 720x400 etc) and there's no real mod16 constraints.

Some of the authors of older AVI conversion programs do seem to have just faded away, while some made the end of development official. I guess they gave enough time to maintaining their software and they're now off doing other things, but fortunately there's people stepping in with newer software creations to take their place.

[olyteddy]

AVI DeMux is still going pretty strong as are the underlying libraries such as ffmpeg.

[smok3]

gordian knot was a lot to do with hitting specific size (which is not that important nowadays, since everybody seems to be using quality based encoding of some sort), virtualdub is still in active development today and the last time i tried beta versions were capable of piping into command-based encoders like x264 (according to sourceforge, virtualdub got 165.000 downloads this week). But yes - AVC slapped away with xvid and friends, more or less (just my observation). Then there was Ithing revolution which was (i guess) another reason for people going AVC/mp4. Before that adobe flash happened and now AVC goes fine online, now (2011 i think) chrome is happening with its byte-range access, so i can now stream AVC stuff from my old (or new) vanilla apache install into html5 player, and i could go on and on basically.... :P

p.s. x264 got 4:2:2, 10 bit support which plays in flash as well.
p.s.2. I heard win7 has an AVC playback out of the box as well.
p.s.3. hardware accelerated GPU-s (my small gnu atom/nvidia can play HD AVC)

This is just a video persons perspective and its more about usability and quality than anything else (that is: Encoder is a black-box)

[Wasted_Coder]

As far as I know VirtualDub is still being developed (VirtualDubMod is not). As I'm still using XP I'm not familiar with any Windows 7 related problems but if you're having issues is might pay to ask about them in the VirtualDub thread.

Your right, I was actually referring to VirtualDubMod, but Yesterday I downloaded the newest version, and could successfully preview my avs script in it. The awesome thing, I was able to install and setup a complete 64bit setup in Win 7 of VirtualDub x64, AviSynth x64, DGindex x64 and Xvid x64 and do a fine video encode.

As you're obviously experienced in converting I'd suggest you give MeGUI a spin. Like most current encoder GUIs it'll convert using Xvid or x264...

I will definitely try MeGUI, because as you explain it uses the same application chain that I'm used to using. But I've also thought of using my current x64 setup to try and encode to x264 first, then when I'm comfortable with the workings, I can use MeGUI to do the heavy lifting. I like the AVS templates idea, as Gordian Knot left a few commands in the AVS that wasn't needed (like cropping the source to it's original size) and that just slowed down the script by ~30%.

If you run a comparison encode using each encoder you'll work out why fairly quickly.

Actually a month ago I was in a hurry to encode a 5min video (My Wedding DVD Preview) and downloaded HandBrake and since it did MP4 I just went with the default settings, but reduced the file size tremendously down to 27Mb for 5min. Yesterday after encoding my Xvid version of the Full DVD, I was not impressed at how it looked at the file size I was pushing it into, and no matter what setting combination I used, it still looked bad (some scenes with high detail look compressed to much). I guess this is one of that "difficult to compress" videos that everyone always reminds you of.

Then I looked at that preview I did with MP4/x264 again, and damn, that look so good in comparison, the preview is so close to the source DVD that you hardly with think it is compressed down so much.

So I've given it thought, since I'm really only interested in playing the "portable" version of my DVD on mostly computers, and also I use MediaPortal for my TV, I don't really have to worry about hardware compatibility. Thought it never hurts to be HW compatible as well, but at the current quality loss, I don't believe it is worth it.

Some of the authors of older AVI conversion programs do seem to have just faded away...

It's sad for me because a lot of these people are roll models to me, masters of video compression, they really did a good job in "enabling" the world to experience "mobile" video. And since this is a difficult subject, I spent a lot of time learning "their ways" and wisdom. And to have them just drop us in the dark is sad. I would have expected them to guide us with: "Hey my little sheep, come this way if you want to learn more and continue growing...". But rather I get a "This page cannot be displayed." error page when accessing their site (hint hint Gordian Knot). Or a forum division who's post are so old, it only now consist of outdated "sticky's". (hint hint, most of Doom9 forum divisions about VirtualDub (not just VDubMod) and other).

AVI DeMux is still going pretty strong as are the underlying libraries such as ffmpeg.

If I don't get the success with MeGUI I'm hoping, I will look into AVI DeMux.

gordian knot was a lot to do with hitting specific size (which is not that important nowadays, since everybody seems to be using quality based encoding of some sort),...

I'm still interested in hitting a specific size, bits to video is like money to people, the more you get the more you use, so I love the way 2 pass encoding works by taking the bits you have to offer it and spreading it over the video offering more to the sections that need it. It's like the best budget plan I ever had!

If I really want good quality, I will watch the original DVD/BluRay.

But yes - AVC slapped away with xvid and friends, more or less (just my observation). Then there was Ithing revolution which was (i guess) another reason for people going AVC/mp4. Before that adobe flash happened and now AVC goes fine online, now (2011 i think) chrome is happening with its byte-range access, so i can now stream AVC stuff from my old (or new) vanilla apache install into html5 player, and i could go on and on basically.... :P

p.s. x264 got 4:2:2, 10 bit support which plays in flash as well.
p.s.2. I heard win7 has an AVC playback out of the box as well.
p.s.3. hardware accelerated GPU-s (my small gnu atom/nvidia can play HD AVC)

Thanks for clearing out the real world value of x264, I couldn't fine this hype in any of the x264 sites I looked. All explain their features in a technical way that don't really mean a lot to an average user/beginner. Without this first step there's no reason for me to delve into the technical details about it.

Thanks guys you've been a lot of help!

[smok3]

I love the way 2 pass encoding works by taking the bits you have to offer it and spreading it over the video offering more to the sections that need it. It's like the best budget plan I ever had!

Actually what i meant with specific size is fitting on specific medium, like CD or DVD, nowadays the storage is usually an usb disk and in that case makes sense to use crf-XX, so that bits are spread not only inside a single video, but all over the collection (More demanding movie will be 2.4 GB, while less demanding or lower-res movie will be 230 MB for example).

[hello_hello]

I'm still interested in hitting a specific size, bits to video is like money to people, the more you get the more you use, so I love the way 2 pass encoding works by taking the bits you have to offer it and spreading it over the video offering more to the sections that need it. It's like the best budget plan I ever had!

I agree with smok3. File size based encoding seems fairly pointless with x264. If you take 2 DVDs and encode them using the same CRF value, when encoding one the final file size may be 1GB, while for the second the final file size may be 2GB. Or you can encode them both using a 1.5GB target file size but doing it that way wastes bits on the first video, reduces the quality of the second, and it takes much longer. It only takes a few CRF encodes to settle on a CRF value which will give you a quality you're happy with at an "average" file size you're also happy with.

Even though I use 2 pass encoding with Xvid I've always worked on the same principle too, but it takes more time to get it right. When I encode using AutoGK I'll pick a resolution and start the encode, then if the compression test isn't around the quality I'm after I adjust the file size and start again. Or if I'm encoding episodic DVDs and feeling lazy, sometimes I just run a single pass encode on the whole lot and then use the final file sizes for 2 pass encodes. The number of 350MB AVIs I've seen where episode one looks pristine, episode 2 is okay, episode 3 is blocky as hell, episode 4 looks really good... etc. etc. Mine all look the same, they're just different sizes......

[kalehrl]

I recently tried to encode a fifty-minute documentary using h264 and CRF 22 and the file size was around 340MB with AAC 64kbit sound.
The resolution was 704x400 and no heavy filtering, just Undot.
Prior to that, the same file was encoded to an xvid avi with autogk, 624x352, mp3 sound and the comptest was 59% - 350MB.
For me, that is the sweet spot, best trade-off between quality and file size.
340MB for h264 was unacceptable for me because h264 was supposed to give better quality at a significantly smaller size than xvid.
Then I used 2-pass encoding with h264 and set the file size to 233MB.
The final encode looked fine to me.

[hello_hello]

I recently tried to encode a fifty-minute documentary using h264 and CRF 22 and the file size was around 340MB with AAC 64kbit sound.
The resolution was 704x400 and no heavy filtering, just Undot.

So it was already giving you a slighter smaller file size at a higher resolution than you achieved with Xvid.

[kalehrl]

Yes, but it was not small enough for me.
Now I know the formula which works best for me.
autogk xvid avi comp test ~60% = h264, full source resolution at 66% of the avi size.

[Ghitulescu]

But today most of these tools are "not maintained" anymore.

This answers the next BIG question: If Xvid and AVI is out, what is in? So it's x264 and MKV you say!

What replaces these tools? If we still need to do this, why did they abandon Gordian Knot that automated these steps?

I must say I ask this in the forum because the AVI/DivX related guides and utilities sites just stopped! Almost like the authors disappeared from the face of the earth! I was expecting at least a note on the pages saying, "We stopped developing this tool because MKV/x264 is taking over and we need time to work on a new tool" or "We stopped... because you don't need this type of tool anymore. MKV/x264 encoders handle all this work automagically!"

Why are the VCD-related tools not maintained anymore? Or the SVCD? Or the ASF? The same answer. They do not fit into the new world. Better containers, better codecs and new tools appeared and the rest of them simply went into oblivion. However, like they worked 5 or 10 years ago, they'll work also now. If you're happy with AVI and DivX 3.0, nobody, and I repeat this, nobody forced you to upgrade your windows to se7en, or your hardware. If you did it though, that means you're not happy with them, and this is the price (a part thereof) you have to pay for progress. If you like cassettes, don't buy a new car then complain its player does not play cassettes. Because it seems that's exactly what you do now.