The final resume: divx5.0.2 which features are good, which aren't?

[ChAoS Overlord]

OK, we've had quite some consternation about the divx5.0.2 features...

Doom9 still states never to use Psychovisuals, QPel or preprocessing.

Now, some people think otherwise.

I would like to create a thread here so that we can bundle all discussion about the features in here, plus post test results here with samples of various nature, with all possible combinations. I'm not up to doing these tests, so I'm gonna ask if some of you want to test thoroughly. Also I would like test results to be clear, so it would be nice if not everybody started throwing in test results but first announce you want to test something, then post your results here (one person at a time please).

If you guys don't like the initiative, that's ok, I just liked the idea of one nice thread in an organised way... :(

Also I will put a poll up for the people who do want to "go wild" with there test results: just vote on the poll :D

[ChAoS Overlord]

Psychovisuals seem to be getting quite some support.

I'm also hoping for a new doom9 guide which will point out some stuff with examples (we love those guides, doom9!)

Another hint that I have is to split the guides in maybe two or three parts, because right now everything is based on filmed material in those guides, but there are also cartoons of course, and more notably anime, the encoding proces for your standard cartoon, to have nice quality probably isn't quite the same (I haven't encoded any yet, so I'm quite curious about it).

[TheXung]

I dear lord, psychovisuals still produce garbage artifacts. At least when you set it on strong.

[ChAoS Overlord]

Originally posted by TheXung
At least when you set it on strong.

That's why we want a nice new codec comparison from our dear master himself, doom9 :D

[Acaila]

I don't think "our dear master" (:)) will do another comparison until there is something new that really contributes compared to the previous guides. It's quite a lot of work to thoroughly test and compare various codecs, and he has other stuff on his mind too.

Maybe when XviD has B-frame support, or maybe when Real9 is getting enough support...

About your poll, personally I wouldn't use GMC, or Preprocessing nor Psycovisuals at strong. I don't think anything is truly safe, but the codec has surely made a lot of progress since it first came out.

[PeterTheMaster]

Originally posted by TheXung
psychovisuals still produce garbage artifacts. At least when you set it on strong

how come they never do when i use em?

[llemor]

me, too. i haven't experienced any artifacts problem using psychovisuals (in any setting - light, normal, strong).

am i lucky enough? :)

[evilhomer]

According to Gej you an now safely use psychovisuals with no artifacts at any settings. I've had much success with light, but strong did seem to introduce some moving blocks.

[yingx2]

Yes! moving blocks:( I hate them as well as my great sight.

But once you have enough bitrate, those moving blocks introduced by PE may be eliminated. Anyway, I will never use PE for my 900-1000kbps encodes.

[JimmyBarnes]

Originally posted by ChAoS Overlord
OK, we've had quite some consternation about the divx5.0.2 features... Doom9 still states never to use Psychovisuals, QPel or preprocessing.

I'm using GMC B-frames and PV (normal) mainly on the basis of what Gej says. Have only done two movies (multiple trials) using DivX5.0.2 tho.

I use PV at normal because I use max quant 8, not 12. Preprocessing seems to be mostly useful if you have a noisy source (usually not DVD).

QPel - hmm never really tried tho have read some recent (extravagant) claims in this forum. Have read enough about its negative effects to stay away for the present (also I try to do only 1 CD rips where QPel's use seems inappropriate). Doubt I'm at that level of tweaking where I could be confident it was doing any good.

Am surprised Acaila doesn't use GMC - why I wonder?

JB

[Awatef]

A word about GMC: I think it's bad too, since today :D
See the following picture, especially the eyes (the bitrate was high enough: 1360kbps)

[ChAoS Overlord]

Originally posted by Awatef
A word about GMC: I think it's bad too, since today :D
See the following picture, especially the eyes (the bitrate was high enough: 1360kbps)

a) Is this a dvd rip?
b) Is it 2-pass?
c) Do you have a comparison WITHOUT GMC?

[PeterTheMaster]

d) did you watch it with ffdshow and realize its only a playback fault, not a fault in the encoded file?

[Awatef]

a) yes, it's a dvd rip
b) yes, 2-pass
c) without GMC, eyes are correct (what do you think why I said it is because of GMC?! :angry: )
d) I don't use ffdshow and it can't be a playback fault, even with all advanced playback options off, film effect off and cpu quality on 0, I got the same thing. And it is 5.02 content played with 5.02 codec.

It is DEFINETELY because of GMC!

[JimmyBarnes]

Originally posted by Awatef
a) yes, it's a dvd rip
b) yes, 2-pass
c) without GMC, eyes are correct (what do you think why I said it is because of GMC?! :angry: )
d) I don't use ffdshow and it can't be a playback fault, even with all advanced playback options off, film effect off and cpu quality on 0, I got the same thing. And it is 5.02 content played with 5.02 codec.

It is DEFINETELY because of GMC!

Looks like you've covered all the bases.

Both Doom9 and Gej endorse the use of GMC.

That's what bugs me about authority ;)

As I have a fetish for doing 1 CD rips, what really interests me is compressibity with quality (perfect quality doesn't exist). As GMC does little to enhance compressibility (unlike B-frames) I will try omitting it in future to see what happens.

In the end, everything in DVD ripping is a compromise at present (even 1-pass 100 % quality) and crazies like us who spend hours/days/weeks(?) getting rips right will only be satisfied with verbatim DVD rips (and we can all think of bad DVD masters...) on DVD discs.

JB

[PeterTheMaster]

try it with ffdshow please. this artifact somehow doesnt look like its in the source. i have seen artifacts which were gone with another filter, so i didnt have to worry about the file.

[JimmyBarnes]

Originally posted by Awatef
c) without GMC, eyes are correct (what do you think why I said it is because of GMC?! :angry: )


One thing you could do is to post the "without GMC" image. That way we can all see for ourselves how much of a difference GMC makes.

JB

[domingol]

Did you read this post (it's here, at the first page yet)?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26033

And it's been discussed at divx.com forum:

http://forums.divx.com/viewtopic.php?topic=35211&forum=13

Seems to be a decoder fault, if GMC was enabled at encoding ;)

[Apfelstruhdl]

i just expirienced that prob eith gmc in one rip( o brother where are thou) all other rips worked fine. gmc has something to do with the moving of macroblocks, i think. maybe the gmc info is nort read properly by the divx decoder but by ffdshow.... maybe the divx guys will release a new decoder with the next version and then it will be able to decode there own stuff;)

but it is good news... my encoded movies are correct... it is just the decoder and for that i think gmc is pretty good.

[Awatef]

@ Peter
I don't use ffdshow and I won't use it, even *if* it's a decoder problem, the original problem remains GMC!
I won't advise everyone I lend my rips: hey! use ffdshow not DivX -.-

@ Jimmy
here your comparison image without GMC

[JimmyBarnes]

Originally posted by Awatef

@ Jimmy
here your comparison image without GMC

Hmmm artifacts in the eyes are gone but now there's bad blocking in the pink/purple background. Can't win...

JB

[PeterTheMaster]

i didnt want you to advise anybody to use ffdshow but to live with these artifacts since theyre not in the source and when there will be a new divx5 decoder it will be fine.
its the same with ogg. i keep using it although the glitches it causes since they are not in the file and its good quality.

[kilg0r3]

@ Awatef

Is the use or non-use of GMC the only difference between the two screen shots. For, if this is so, GMC would be responsible for a huge quality increase, despite the artifacts in the eye.

[Awatef]

The artifacting is because I havn't used Smart Smoother in the comparison encode, that's all -.-
The first encode was done with a high Smart Smoother setting to get rid of block artifacts, that are ALREADY ON THE DVD!

[DosR]

With B-Frames, GMC and bitrates between 650 and 850 I'm getting nearly perfect encodes for 80' CD.

In fact, I think that for somebody new in this "bussines" will be hard to said what is the original and what is the rip.

I'm a obedient trainee, so I have never touch the "psychodelic" button.

Bye

[mustaneekeri]

Well I also had artifacts using GMC, did couple of rips with it when DivX5 was released (because doom9 encouraged it's use), untill i had artifacts in one film (Abyss), haven't used it since.

[N_F]

I only use B-frames. In my experiments I haven't been able to see any increase in quality using GMC or any of the other options so I see no reason to use them, especially since they slow down the encoding.

[PeteSapai]

GMC bad? take a look at these 2 samples (intro from Blood: the last Vampire): this (ftp://doom9:blood@131.211.235.250:1234/blood-gmc.avi) sample (114kB) is with GMC. looks ok. Now take a look at the no_gmc (ftp://doom9:blood@131.211.235.250:1234/blood-no_gmc.avi) sample. kinda f*cked up. artifacts dont come more anoying and obvious than that. using ffdshow does remove the artifacts, but the image still is darker (with gmc is the same as the original). I had (have) some more problems with encoding in this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35468) thread.

To Awatef: you say 'especially the eyes', but I think you should say 'only the eyes'. cuz besides that part, the gmc-image is better. just look at the air or Babidi's tongue; there's a lot less noise and blocks (though still too much, maybe you should increase the bitrate) in the gmc-pic...

[BluDChyLD]

Originally posted by TheXung
I dear lord, psychovisuals still produce garbage artifacts. At least when you set it on strong.

I've been using it on strong in all my rips recently and haven't noticed strange, what sort of artifacts have you had?

[DJ Bobo]

@ PeteSapai
I think you overlooked something above. Awatef wrote that the first encode was smoothed with SmartSmoother, the second was just done rapidly without filtering to show that the eyes are correct without GMC.