DivX3.11 looks incredible at max bitrate!

[soujir0u]

Wow, I didn't realise that DivX3.11 looks so good when you use the maximum quality (DRF 2 for all frames). It's even better than DivX5.02 and XviD at max quality (Quant 2), and at a slightly smaller filesize I might add. Too bad it's still too large for practical use.

[Teegedeck]

*cough* It's nothing new that DivX3.11 lends itself well to some movies but it certainly isn't a universally true statement that DivX3.11 looks better at quantizer/DRF=2 than newer codecs. It's a matter of taste, anyway. Personally I think that MPEG-quantizer is preferable for high bitrates as the resulting look is closer to that of the original DVD in most cases.

Try some other sources and you'll see that DivX3.11 handles certain structures (walls, sky) pretty badly. Worse than other codecs at high bitrates, anyway.

[gldblade]

On a side note: Mpeg2 beats the heck out of Mpeg4 at extremely high bitrates.

[Teegedeck]

Well, theoretically not. ;) How did you test it?

[gldblade]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that Mpeg4 generally maxes out way below 6000 kbps. Mpeg2 can exceed this bitrate cap very easily. Way beyond 6000 kbps.

Actually, I originally heard it on this forum and people generally agreed with the statement. Maybe I should do some testing, but I'm afraid I'd run out of HD space at such a high bitrate.

[Teegedeck]

I only asked because I think it's quite hard to test. You need a HQ-source and have to make a choice among various MPEG2 and MPEG4-implementations.

[gldblade]

>I only asked because I think it's quite hard to test. You need a HQ-source and have to make a choice among various MPEG2 and MPEG4-implementations.

You'd also need good eyes to see the differences between the two. At such high bitrates, you probably wouldn't care which you use anyway.

[soujir0u]

Yea, I tried some other clips and XviD looks better. I guess it all depends on the clip. But I have noticed that DivX3.11 looks sharper than XviD's MPEG quantizers.

I thought DivX5 and XviD have max bitrate of 10Mbps? I would say that XviD with quantizer 1 is better than MPEG-2, but that's just my opinion.

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by soujir0u
Yea, I tried some other clips and XviD looks better. I guess it all depends on the clip. But I have noticed that DivX3.11 looks sharper than XviD's MPEG quantizers.

I thought DivX5 and XviD have max bitrate of 10Mbps? I would say that XviD with quantizer 1 is better than MPEG-2, but that's just my opinion.

AFAIK there is no such thing as hardcoded limited bitrates in MPEG4-codecs. If you set max. quantizers to '2' you simply specify the best possible quality and don't have to worry about a bitrate. (Quantizer '1' is a waste - you could as well use uncompressed RGB - well, almost ;))

In Nandub it was quite a different story because not all features and behaviour of DivX3.11/M$MPEG4 were entirely understood /controllable and could only be influenced by giving more bits to the codec.

[Acaila]

Teegedeck wrote:
AFAIK there is no such thing as hardcoded limited bitrates in MPEG4-codecs.
For VBR 2-pass encoding the codec needs an upper limit bitrate. Otherwise it would never encode a frame with less bits because the limit (bitrate pool) would never be reached. I believe the upper limit of the bitrate pool is being derived from the bitrate you set. When you use constant quantizer mode the codec won't use a bitrate pool.

[HomR]

Originally posted by Teegedeck
I only asked because I think it's quite hard to test. You need a HQ-source and have to make a choice among various MPEG2 and MPEG4-implementations.

Perhaps a 3d render or such? This would be an interesting article. ;)

[grug2k]

What about DVHS? :p

[Slogra]

Play a dvhs tape a thousand times and then compare again ;)

[ktx2000]

IMHO i think divx3.11 is the best. I encode all my DVD's with 3.11 and the quality is that of the DVD. 1 CD for all movies up to 2 hrs.
Where I see the biggest difference is in recording. I have a TV tuner videocard. When recording a low quality source, such as television or VCR, divx3.11 does a commendable job. Using AVI_IO to do the recording and divx3.11 set to low motion with a quality of 100% and a bitrate of 4018, to my eyes it is far better than divx4.12 or 5. These settings require about 10mb per minute of video (with sound). Divx4.12 doesn't compare. When the video is played back at 100% the size it was recorded at, the difference isn't so noticable. But when played back at full screen the winner is 3.11.
Anyone with a tuner card.. try it. These settings require about 10mb/min for divx3.11. For divx4.12 adjust the settings to aquire the same 10mb/min size. The picture is rock steady with divx3.11. I don't think you will say the same for divx4.12.
I only refer to divx3.11 and 4.12 because I refuse to us version 5. It is only a newer version of version 4 and I don't really see any advantage to using it. The free version is a 'lite' version. The other versions are ad supported (no thanks). Or you can purchase the full version... this coming from the people that origionaly ripped off microsoft.