What codec are you using (to _store_ caps)

[dilly]

I'm interested in what codec (and any other encoding details; bitrate, etc) people are using to store their captures. I mean after capturing, processing and the such, when the final result is archived/distributed or whatever. I know there's the debate over "which codec is the best" and I don't want to sound like I'm asking which is superior, because I know each codec has their adv. and disadv. I'm asking this from an analogue-capture perspective because most people's opinion on codecs are based on what DVDs look like.

What I would like to know is:

what do you use, and why you use it.

Is it for high quality?
or for disk space?
How big are your captures?
What is it you're capping? (describe source)

That kinda stuff.

Hope some people reply.

[dilly]

I may as well start it off.

I'm using XviD - 2 pass - 512x384 - the filesizes are around 250-300MB for a 30min show (adverts cut) and 500-600MB for a 60min show. (adverts cut)

I'm doing it strictly for the quality. With CDs so cheap, and myself lacking a DVD player (ruling out a benefit of (S)VCD), its what works for me.

what works for you?

[Ookami]

> analogue-capture perspective because most people's opinion on codecs are based on what DVDs look like.

There is not much difference really... You can use anything you want, and it depends on your needs/taste just like with any other source (digital or analog).

I mostly encode my analogue captures to DVD (MPEG2 VBR at 720x576), before that I've used pretty much everything, from Real to Xvid.

I don't see any difference in choosing the codec if you capture from VHS or reencode from DVD. Of course, the codec will behave differently because of more noise (and on top of that analogue is not equal analogue) compared to a transcode from a very good digital source, but the choice still depends more where you want to watch (and with what quality) your encoded capture than on the source material.

A few examples:

SBC 4 x 45 min. episodes per CD (at 512x384)
Real 8.5 at 320x240 at 512 (2 pass)
DVD MPEG2 4 x Futurama episodes per DVD-5
etc.

For instance you would maybe call your 512x384 LQ, someone else would call it HQ.

Do your own testing, everything else is ,more or less, er, you know :) .

Cheers,

Mijo.

[Swan]

I capture in 720 x 576 DV avi format and use Mpeg-2 as my final destination format. I am not interested in low quality formats at all. That's because my intention for the final video is always playback on a TV. I think DivX and Xvid is mainly useful on film material (DVD backups for example) and if one has a good TV-Out.
My hobby is capturing from TV, not DVD backups and I don't capture a lot of film material either, and only Mpeg-2 is as versatile as I need a codec to be. Right now I am making a lot of SVCDs. It has the benefit of being played in standalone players, supports interlace, gives acceptable image and audio quality and so on. It's also easy to share an SVCD with a friend.

For stuff I want to save, to watch again, but that isn't anything extra ordinary, I use SVCD and TMPGENc for the encoding.
I set a limit at about 40-45 minutes for 1 CD, and use VBR if the material has a lot of action. If the material is longer than 45 minutes, I go for two CDs. I consider SVCD to be a replacement for VHS. I think it looks better than VHS.

I never use VCD because I want to keep the video material interlaced and think VCD looks poor overall.

For top quality material, stuff I cherish and really want to see in all its glory later on, I go for DVD compliant Mpeg-2.
I don't have a DVD writer yet, but I still encode material to Mpeg-2 with TMPGEnc, CBR or VBR varies, but I set the various parameters that influence quality so it takes twice as long as normal. :-)
I save the Mpeg-2 files on the hard drive and on CD-R, until I have one.
I have used TMPGENc's wizard to calculate bitrate and tweaked the settings to increase quality.

For material that is priceless, I save the source DV files on CD-R.
I will probably stop that when I have a DVD writer and verify that my (hopefully) Mpeg-2 DVD-compliant encodes play on the standalone DVD player. :)

/Maria

[Neo Neko]

@Swan
I have to question you pigeon holeing MPEG4 as a low quality codec. Have you taken a look at the current batch of MPEG4? There is no question that for the moment that MPEG2 is more compatable with standalones if that is your goal. But 90% of what I do is video capture for playback on PC and TV. And for that current MPEG4 works great; better even IMO. They provide interlaced encoding features now for Divx and Xvid. But keeping interlace is not really nescessary. It is possible to IVTC or deinterlace the content with little or no visible quality loss. Even when played back on TV.

I would agree with you if you said this in refference to the MSMPEG4 varriants. But Xvid and Divx perform at very respectable levels offering you generally more quality at any given bitrate than MPEG2.

To each their own though.

[Swan]

@Neo Neko
I have to question you pigeon holeing MPEG4 as a low quality codec. Have you taken a look at the current batch of MPEG4?
I have only come in contact with Mpeg-4 as Xvid, which I understand is not (not all builds and releases) 100% compliant with the Mpeg-4 specification. And the most common use for Xvid is what I consider low quality, putting a backup of a DVD on 1 or 2 CDs for safekeeping or playback on the laptop, while on a long and boring flight.
I am interested in getting top quality first, then aim for the smallest file size. I don't sacrifice quality to achieve a small file size. I am also aiming for compatibility and being able to share files with friends and family.

The orginal DVD always looks a whole lot better than a backup. A current 1 or 2 CD Xvid backup of a DVD can never replace a DVD. I am sure Mpeg-4 is the codec for the future and will be used in DVB, for example, as it gets more efficient in its coding technique. When there are better tools to encode, only then will Xvid take off.

But as for now, I regard Xvid as in a beta stage and not something I care to store precious recordings in. I'd rather use a standardized, 100% compliant and finished format, such as Mpeg-2.
Also, as I stated previously, my main target is playback on a TV set, preferably via a DVD player and also, keeping interlaced material interlaced is important to me. Yes, Xvid preserves interlace, but it does not play on a standalone. Nor can one be certain that no matter what build I use today will be bug free and not cause me grief a few years from now when I want to watch it in a standalone Mpeg-4 player and discover that it refuses to play or plays badly because of something in the build of Xvid I used to encode it caused the file to be non-Mpeg-4 compliant. I want to stress that I do not have anything against Xvid, but it is today mainly used to backup DVD material, and perhaps TV rips at lower than 720 x 576 resolutions, something I have very little interest in. I also want to be able to share my files with friends. I use SVCD as a replacement for VHS. If someone missed an episode of a show, and I have it as an SVCD, it's far more convenient for them to play it, than if I send an Xvid file.

Also, a interlaced Xvid-encoded file cannot be deinterlaced "on the fly" during playback, as far as I know. So it will have mice teeth all over when played on a computer monitor.
This is another thing I like about Mpeg-2. It's flexible. If I for example have a Mpeg-2 SVCD with video on it that was captured interlaced and kept interlaced during the Mpeg-2 encoding, I can watch it on the TV via the DVD player and it will look great because of the preserved interlaced nature of the video. If I want to view it in the computer on the monitor, I use WinDVD and it deinterlaces "on demand", which looks better on a monitor, since it is progressive. I can have the best of both worlds that way.

But keeping interlace is not really nescessary. It is possible to IVTC or deinterlace the content with little or no visible quality loss
Let's separate IVTC and deinterlacing. I don't perform IVTC because the telecine technique used to transfer from film to NTSC (2-3 pulldown) is not used here in Europe. When film material is transferred to PAL, for DVD or broadcast, a different technique is used which maintains the progressive features of film. In a PAL DVD or a properly transferred film broadcast on TV, a frame contains two fields, created from 1 film frame. Both fields are identical.
And deinterlacing interlaced (video camera filmed) material? Don't get me started on that one. :) It's highly destructive.

Yes, to each its own. I am interested in hearing what others do.
What works for them. Just like the original poster. :)

/Maria

[John2002]

I capture less important daily shows to Divx and stuff that I might want to save to Pic-mjpeg and then reencode to Divx. I fit an hour show on a CD with a 2-pass file at 1500kbps with 192kbps mp3 audio. Recently, I bumped the Divx bitrate up to 2000kbps to fit 2 hour shows on 3 CDs.

Capturing straight to mpeg2 gives the best video quality but I don't for convenience. The file sizes are a bit big for CD and I don't know of anything that can slice 'n dice mpeg2 files as easily as VirtualDub can with avi (suggestions?).

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Swan
I have only come in contact with Mpeg-4 as Xvid, which I understand is not (not all builds and releases) 100% compliant with the Mpeg-4 specification.

Even the current development version seems to be fine with MPEG4 specification. I have been able to play videos encoded with it in standard non Xvid related decoders. There is always the disclaimer that things "could" not be 100% compliant. But I have found it has been quite a while since that happened.

Originally posted by Swan
And the most common use for Xvid is what I consider low quality, putting a backup of a DVD on 1 or 2 CDs for safekeeping or playback on the laptop, while on a long and boring flight.

And the most common home use I have seen for MPEG2 are crappy SVCD with a hyper bloated file size. But I don't considder MPEG2 a crappy codec. No matter what peoples common use of it is. It can be used in many different ways on many different source just as Xvid or MPEG4 in general can. I guess that is the discrepency that I am getting caught up on here.

Originally posted by Swan
I am interested in getting top quality first, then aim for the smallest file size. I don't sacrifice quality to achieve a small file size.

Then there is no reason with those conditions that MPEG4 could not be a candidate.

Originally posted by Swan
I am also aiming for compatibility and being able to share files with friends and family.

Originally posted by Swan
The orginal DVD always looks a whole lot better than a backup. A current 1 or 2 CD Xvid backup of a DVD can never replace a DVD.

I am not sure how that got in there. But an MPEG2 re-ecode of a DVD will tend to be no better or worse.

Originally posted by Swan
I am sure Mpeg-4 is the codec for the future and will be used in DVB, for example, as it gets more efficient in its coding technique. When there are better tools to encode, only then will Xvid take off.

Well I suppose it is a matter of perception. But to me codecs like Xvid seem far more superior and efficient now. H264 stands to be even more efficien yet! As far as "better" encoding tools I have not tried every MPEG2 encoding tool out there. But I have tried quite a few. And though some of the tools and methods I use are a bit complex I have not found tools that are the equivalent for MPEG2. I suppose I could filter the raw video in Virtualdub and then use Tsunami to compress to MPEG2 but that makes the process even more complex.

Originally posted by Swan
But as for now, I regard Xvid as in a beta stage and not something I care to store precious recordings in. I'd rather use a standardized, 100% compliant and finished format, such as Mpeg-2.

If you are gonna wait for the completion of an MPEG4 codec that encompases the entire specification that is likely to be almost another decade or more away. There are profiles of MPEG4 that have been completely implemented in Divx, Xvid, and 3vix that as a rule provide much improved quality and much smaller size over MPEG2. And they are not unstable or beta in nature.

Originally posted by Swan
Also, as I stated previously, my main target is playback on a TV set, preferably via a DVD player and also, keeping interlaced material interlaced is important to me.

I understand your desire there. And I will say that at the moment MPEG2 is the most compatable with that at the moment. So I do understand your choice.

Originally posted by Swan
Yes, Xvid preserves interlace, but it does not play on a standalone.

Well you got caught on a technicality. There are standalone simple profile MPEG4 decoders. They are not common yet. But they are there. :)

Originally posted by Swan
Nor can one be certain that no matter what build I use today will be bug free and not cause me grief a few years from now when I want to watch it in a standalone Mpeg-4 player and discover that it refuses to play or plays badly because of something in the build of Xvid I used to encode it caused the file to be non-Mpeg-4 compliant.

Actually that is not quite true. If you use the developer builds then that is a slight possibility. But for instance if you use Koepi's compile of the last Xvid stable code. You hav zero compatability issues to worry about video wise. It has been quite thurroughly tested. The worst thing you might have to do is use a program to remove the video and audio streams from the AVI and wrap them in MP4 when it is ready. Granted that is a slight bit more work than using MPEG2. But it would not involve transcoding so there would be zero quality loss and even for long films it can be completed in a minute or two. CD-R are cheap and it could simply be reburnt. It is a slight bit more work but you would have better quality for it. At least IMO. ;)

Originally posted by Swan
I want to stress that I do not have anything against Xvid, but it is today mainly used to backup DVD material, and perhaps TV rips at lower than 720 x 576 resolutions, something I have very little interest in.

That is what alot of people use it for to be sure. Why is that an aversion to you? You can use it however you like and do not have to do things the way everyone else does them. MPEG4 supports 720x576 and above. And as a general rule 720x576 is overkill for television broadcasts. That is for PAL and I have NTSC here. But capturing above 640x480 does not result in better quality on my captures. With a chunk of the signal reserved for closed captioning the video never takes up the full NTSC resolution. In fact I am often lucky if it is close to using 640 columns and 480 rows of pixel information. Many use less. And I do alot of video capture. The video capture and encoding I have done outnumbers the DVD encodes I have done nearly 40:1! :D

Originally posted by Swan
I also want to be able to share my files with friends. I use SVCD as a replacement for VHS. If someone missed an episode of a show, and I have it as an SVCD, it's far more convenient for them to play it, than if I send an Xvid file.

Well if your are implying that they have SVCD capable standalones I totally see where you are comming from and agree. But if you are talking about transferring the file over a network or for play on a PC then I can't see why Xvid would be a bad chouce. I think you were implying the former though.

Originally posted by Swan
Also, a interlaced Xvid-encoded file cannot be deinterlaced "on the fly" during playback, as far as I know. So it will have mice teeth all over when played on a computer monitor.

Ffdshow does that and more for you on the fly.

Originally posted by Swan
This is another thing I like about Mpeg-2. It's flexible. If I for example have a Mpeg-2 SVCD with video on it that was captured interlaced and kept interlaced during the Mpeg-2 encoding, I can watch it on the TV via the DVD player and it will look great because of the preserved interlaced nature of the video. If I want to view it in the computer on the monitor, I use WinDVD and it deinterlaces "on demand", which looks better on a monitor, since it is progressive. I can have the best of both worlds that way.

Here's the kicker with MPEG4. It was designed by the MPEG consortium to replace MPEG2 so it has to be as flexible or more flexible. You can do most of that with MPEG4 now. Though the standalones are still lacking in that arena. But it is most possible.

Originally posted by Swan
And deinterlacing interlaced (video camera filmed) material? Don't get me started on that one. :) It's highly destructive.

I find that highly debatable. DV footage is often but not always recorded at 60 2:1 fields per second NTSC or 50 2:1 fields per second PAL. Much over 24 to 30fps you are not able to really percieve the change. At best you might notice a slight difference but could not conciously percieve what the difference is. There is a difference but unless you step through frame by frame you are not likely to pick up on it. Granted in that instance for the best quality keeping the interlace is the best option. But "deinterlace" especially the good ones do not "destroy" the video. Perhaps that is just my perception. But that is the risk we take. ;)

[cjv]

You both make excellent points, and I must say this is quite an intelligent discussion!

@Neo:
I know that using a compile from the stable branch of XviD has been proven to make a 100% compliant encode (verified with msfdam, etc.), and even today you can use the MP4 container, but there is one thing that concerns me, and that is resolution. We all know that SVCD is limited to 480x480, and DVD is 352,704,720, etc. Essentially, they all have pre-determined resolutions. Do you think that most future standalones will 1) support square pixels, and 2) play most of the different resolutions that are being used right now. Thus, even though you have a proper, 100% compliant MP4 file, if the resolution used was, say, 704x304, 352x240, 448x336, or even 720x480 without the proper aspect ratio, would it really work on a standalone? Of course this is all speculation, but it's something I've thought about in the past, and I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts.

To keep this OT, I use XviD, MPEG1, and MPEG2 to store captures...whatever tool suits the job.

cjv

[Swan]

I wasn't going to add anything more here, but since at least one person (thanks cjv!) thinks the discussion is interesting, I'll add some more of my thoughts.

@ Neo Neko

And the most common home use I have seen for MPEG2 are crappy SVCD with a hyper bloated file size. But I don't considder MPEG2 a crappy codec And I have never said I thought Xvid was crappy either. I am just not using it because it does not fit my needs for a codec right now.
Why don't you tell us why you have chosen to use Xvid?
This is what the thread is about; what we use and why.
I'd like to know what it is about Xvid that makes you use it and feel it is better than Mpeg-2 (or DivX or whatever) for your purposes and needs.
Again, I don't have any aversion against Xvid. This thread is about "what do *you* use and why?". Not "what don't you use and why do you have an aversion towards other methods".;)

When it's common with standalone players, available on the consumer market, that supports Mpeg-4, I will look into Xvid. Or perhaps some other form of Mpeg-4.
By that time, I'm sure there'll be lots of commercial encoding and decoding tools to play with too, just like today with Mpeg-2.
I am not against the technology of Mpeg-4 or Xvid.
But I don't feel confident that the things I encode with Xvid today, will work tomorrow, on a standalone player.
Even when Mpeg-4 standalone players are available, they're likely to be backwards compatible and play Mpeg-1 and Mpeg-2. With Xvid, there is no guarantee it will work in the future. I don't want be sitting there in 2006, say, being stuck with playing my Xvid-encoded files via the TV-out only. So I'm sticking with Mpeg-2, until it is 100% certain that Xvid-files will play in a standalone.

It can't help but feel that it seems treacherous to use Xvid to store precious things on. I mean, there isn't even any recording formats defined for storing Mpeg-4 video, is there? With Mpeg-2 you have SVCD and DVD, the file format, everything is defined and ready to use.
Who knows what the future authoring programs will demand an Mpeg-4 file to look like?
I just care a whole lot about the recordings I make from TV. I want them to look the very best, last as long as possible, be easy to play for everyone I know that wants a copy, now, and years from now. I want my friends to be able to play the files as easy as a VHS tape, whether they're computer illiterate or belong in the advanced category. Yes, they all have SVCD-capable DVD players.

With SVCD, I can send my best friend -who's a computer illiterate- a CD and she just puts it in her DVD player in the computer or the standalone and watches it. She doesn't have to know anything about it; that it's an SVCD, etc. She just plays it, can pause it, etc, via the remote. If I were to ask her to install Xvid and FFDshow, instruct her to turn Deinterlacing on when watching on the computer monitor and off on the TV-Out, it would mean she would have to go through a lot of stuff to watch the video. And what for?
Most of the "regular" people I know don't have a proper TV-out. They have it, but don't know they do, or don't have it connected to the TV. Those who do, play the file as they like, via the TV-out or put it on a CD-R. I guess I can say that I am encoding things because I like to share with friends. I am not just sitting here encoding stuff for my own enjoyment.

I normally put 35-45 minutes worth on an SVCD. I use 700 Mb/80 min CD-R/RW and the resulting Mpeg-2 file is about 800 Mb.
The quality is better than VHS in my view. Sure, there is occasional blocking on high-motion scenes, on transitions between scenes, etc, but nothing major.
My source is DVB and I capture in DV format, 720 x 576, via a Canopus ADVC-100.
The final SVCD is enjoyable to watch.
What would Xvid offer me that I don't get with SVCD?
At the same resolution (480 x 576), how many minutes of Xvid-encoded video should one aim for on a 700 MB CR-R to make it look as enjoyable as an SVCD at SVCD's highest allowed bitrate? Would it really look that much better than Mpeg-2 at the bitrates I use, which are near the max for SVCD?

Also, one thing I'd like to add is that it takes a great deal of effort to use Xvid to its full potential. Getting info about Mpeg-2 is easy and many of the tools, have good documentation and a strong "following" on on-line forums.
There are brilliant books on the subject, of which I have bought a few.
Plus, there are many web sites with tips and tricks.

To learn Xvid, one has to lurk the Xvid forum here for a long time and read many, many old posts. Because asking about something that has been covered, no matter how deep it is buried in the forum, generates many angry replies about "use the search engine".
It's a highly technical forum, loaded with information, and the sheer number of posts makes it very difficult to follow and get a grip on things beyond the basics.
I am not dumb, but Xvid is not as easy to use, not as well and easy documented as Mpeg-2.

I didn't know FFDshow could deinterlace on the fly. That's good, if the feature can be turned on and off.

Regarding Deinterlacing: If the material is video footage, shot with a video camera (not film!) which takes 29.97 images a second/60 fields/second for NTSC or 25 images/second/50 fields per second for PAL, the two fields that make up 1 frame are not identical. They were taken at slightly different points in time. Combining these two fields into one frame, by interpolation, blending, whatever, is a destructive process. I'm not talking about progressive film or video cameras that record progressive video. Yes, I know those exist. :-)
When I say interlaced video, I mean footage taken with a camera that records the video interlaced. Many people in the TV industry are aware of the problems with interlace and slowly, the world of TV is moving towards progressive video, with HDTV in the US as one example. But still, as the world looks today, the majority of people have interlaced monitors (TV sets) and a lot of material being broadcast is being produced with cameras that produce interlaced video.

I won't go into more detail, but when people suggest deinterlacing is not destructive, I have to assume we're either not talking about the same type of source (film or interlaced video) or that they don't understand how interlaced video works.
Because when one grasps the concept of interlaced video, one has no problem understanding that the consequence of using the most common techniques for deinterlacing (decomb, smoothdeinterlace for VirtualDub etc) is destructive on *interlaced video material*.
I have read that the pro's have access to intricate methods for converting interlaced video to progressive, using advanced techniques in Mpeg-2, like Motion-compensated Deinterlacing, but the means available to us regular users are not satisfying.
Interlaced video should stay interlaced for the highest quality when played back on a interlaced monitor, like a TV.

@John2002
Capturing straight to mpeg2 gives the best video quality but I don't for convenience. The file sizes are a bit big for CD and I don't know of anything that can slice 'n dice mpeg2 files as easily as VirtualDub can with avi (suggestions?).
It will never be as easy to edit an Mpeg-2 file as an avi, because of the way Mpeg-2 compression works. You can only cut on I-frames. But there are several tools that let you cut, join and edit Mpeg-2 files, like TMPGEnc, M2-Edit Pro, Vitec Video Clip Mpeg-2 Pro, Womble Mpeg-2 VCR.

/Maria

[cjv]

Originally posted by Swan
Most of the "regular" people I know don't have a proper TV-out. They have it, but don't know they do...
So true.
My parents have this outrageously expensive laptop which they don't need and is loaded with features (including Radeon TV-out)...but they use maybe 1% of them. I mean, they bought XP, but are scared to load it on...to replace their existing WinME :(

I can send my dad (occasional) VCD's through the mail for use in his DVD player, and all is ok, but I dread sending an MPEG4 file. Ha, they will use it as an excuse to bother me on the phone more!

cjv

[Swan]

Originally posted by cjv
So true.
My parents have this outrageously expensive laptop which they don't need and is loaded with features (including Radeon TV-out)...but they use maybe 1% of them.

Sometimes I wonder who all this new technology is for.
Is it just the elite who use it properly?
The elite who requests new features and who are the ones who pushes the development of new techniques foward?

How many percent of people actually use all the features on the electronics they buy? How many use the features, but in the wrong way?
Many!

A good example is widescreen (16:9) TV sets.
The majority of the TV sets on sale at all of the big electronics chains in Sweden are widescreen TVs.
I'd say 95% of the people who buy a 16:9 TV set, shouldn't buy one because they have no use for it and also don't know how to use it. They use it wrong because they watch TV with a completely messed up AR.

Most TV broadcasts are still in 4:3 format but people with widescreen TV sets watch 4:3 in 16:9. Imagine how that looks! :O
They keep the TV in 16:9 mode always! Either they don't set the TV to 4:3 mode when watching 4:3, out of ignorance or often because they think the 4:3 picture "gets too small" when the black borders are added on the sides to create a 4:3 picture on a 16:9 TV. Yes, but that is the whole idea of 16:9. It is optimized for 16:9. 4:3 on a 28 inch 16:9 TV is going to be a small square of picture in the middle. That's why those who watch regular TV broadcasts more than they watch DVDs shouldn't buy one! :D

But the TV manufacturers wants to sell 16:9 TV sets. Why else is the market flooded with them? And technolology-clueless people listen to the salespeople who don't know anything about anything telling them "this 16:9 TV is a great buy".
So, people buy them and sit there in the couch, night after night, watching 4:3 stretched to 16:9 and many don't even notice something's wrong with the AR.
Sad, but true.

/Maria

[bb]

Haha, Swan,

I know what you mean. In fact I believe that many people were born without brains (how can they survive?)...

By the way (and to be on-topic again): For archiving purposes I use mainly DivX and MPEG-2 (currently in SVCD format, but sooner or later I'll switch to DVD).

bb

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by cjv
You both make excellent points, and I must say this is quite an intelligent discussion!

@Neo:
I know that using a compile from the stable branch of XviD has been proven to make a 100% compliant encode (verified with msfdam, etc.), and even today you can use the MP4 container, but there is one thing that concerns me, and that is resolution. We all know that SVCD is limited to 480x480, and DVD is 352,704,720, etc. Essentially, they all have pre-determined resolutions. Do you think that most future standalones will 1) support square pixels, and 2) play most of the different resolutions that are being used right now. Thus, even though you have a proper, 100% compliant MP4 file, if the resolution used was, say, 704x304, 352x240, 448x336, or even 720x480 without the proper aspect ratio, would it really work on a standalone? Of course this is all speculation, but it's something I've thought about in the past, and I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts.


I am sure there will be "official" aspect profiles set for MPEG4 content. But and this is a big but CPU power has gotten so cheap and many current generation players are being built around such cores using Linux kernels etc. Not to mention the already insane popularity of MPEG4 and the myriad of resolutions it is used at. I think that in order for a future standalone to be sucessful it will have to support them.

So while we will have official profiles they will be used mainly for MPEG4 commercial ventures/standards/content. Home content of a freeform nature will be supported. The current batch of standalones support all sorts of resolutions so there is no reason to think that will change.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Swan
And I have never said I thought Xvid was crappy either. I am just not using it because it does not fit my needs for a codec right now.

Crappy; low quality there is verry little separation between the two. But I think we have established that you do not really think it is "crap/low quality" but rather still developing and not 100% clear.

Originally posted by Swan
Why don't you tell us why you have chosen to use Xvid? This is what the thread is about; what we use and why. I'd like to know what it is about Xvid that makes you use it and feel it is better than Mpeg-2 (or DivX or whatever) for your purposes and needs.

Fair enough. I use it because I can fit an hour of video on a standard CD at better than SVCD resolution and better than SVCD quality. Whether it is interlaced or progressive. There are still currently benefits of SVCD like wider standalone playback. But with my sources in MPEG4 I can easily reduce the size and burn to SVCD with excelent quality as needed. I also make some of my TV captures avalible to friends and downloading them in MPEG4 takes alot less time/bandwidth/storrage.

Originally posted by Swan
[B]I am not against the technology of Mpeg-4 or Xvid. But I don't feel confident that the things I encode with Xvid today, will work tomorrow, on a standalone player.

It works today and though stranger things have happened I have no doubt that it will continue to work in the future. Things encoded with Xvid stable today comply to the standards that are used to make the standalones of today and will be used in the ones of tomorrow.

Originally posted by Swan
Even when Mpeg-4 standalone players are available, they're likely to be backwards compatible and play Mpeg-1 and Mpeg-2.

They are here and they are backwards compatable.

Originally posted by Swan
With Xvid, there is no guarantee it will work in the future. I don't want be sitting there in 2006, say, being stuck with playing my Xvid-encoded files via the TV-out only.

If you encode your videos with Xvid stable H263 or MPEG quants with MP3 audio the worst possible scenario in the future would be re-encapsulating the video in an MP4 file. A process that in 2006 will take about 10 minutes total including the time to write to a DVD-R. ;)

Originally posted by Swan
It can't help but feel that it seems treacherous to use Xvid to store precious things on. I mean, there isn't even any recording formats defined for storing Mpeg-4 video, is there?

AFAIK there is not ATM. But also their importance will be less in the future.

Originally posted by Swan
If I were to ask her to install Xvid and FFDshow, instruct her to turn Deinterlacing on when watching on the computer monitor and off on the TV-Out, it would mean she would have to go through a lot of stuff to watch the video. And what for?

Google Movix. You can make self booting movies for the PC that are completely self contained! It will automatically use the TV out if it is there so all they have to do is have it hooked up. ;) But still I understand your concerns.

Originally posted by Swan
What would Xvid offer me that I don't get with SVCD?

Better resolution on the same size file. Less blocking. More time on the same CD.

Originally posted by Swan
At the same resolution (480 x 576), how many minutes of Xvid-encoded video should one aim for on a 700 MB CR-R to make it look as enjoyable as an SVCD at SVCD's highest allowed bitrate?

If you use 480x576(480x480 for us NTSCers) and the maximum SVCD bitrate of 2520Kbps(correct me if I am wrong) you will be able to fit the exact same amount of video as SVCD in general. You will have less macroblocking though. And you could drop the bitrate or increase the resolution and still have better quality. MPEG4 simple profile alone is that much more efficient.

Originally posted by Swan
Would it really look that much better than Mpeg-2 at the bitrates I use, which are near the max for SVCD?

Depending on the material most definatly. There are some videos which are simply not a challenge to encode and that SVCD can handle ok. But MPEG4 can really handle a wider array of material more efficiently.

Originally posted by Swan
Also, one thing I'd like to add is that it takes a great deal of effort to use Xvid to its full potential.

In general for Xvid set processing or motion search accuracy to 6 or highest. H263 quantization should generally be perfect. Make sure if you can to set the RC averaging period or the bitrate averaging reaction period to 10000 or higher even. Outside of that the only real guesswork is the bitrate to use. And there is no end of bitrate calcs for that.

Originally posted by Swan
To learn Xvid, one has to lurk the Xvid forum here for a long time and read many, many old posts. Because asking about something that has been covered, no matter how deep it is buried in the forum, generates many angry replies about "use the search engine".

Perhaps it is time to come up with a condensed version of a guide. Though searching will get you everything you need. Though spread out over several threads.

Originally posted by Swan
I didn't know FFDshow could deinterlace on the fly. That's good, if the feature can be turned on and off.

Yes it can. And there is alot more. It is truly impressive. It will even handle MPEG1 and 2 soon. ;)

In terms of deinterlacing I already understand everything you have layed out. What I was trying to express was that visually deinterlacing is not that destructive when it comes to human perception. In refference to HDTV it is a step in the right direction. But they still have interlaced modes. They should have discarded it completely for best results. Oh and the home user can do motion adapting or compensated deinterlace. It has not been compared to the pro stuff. But we have a fellow member Tbarry to thank for it IIRC.

[Swan]

Originally posted by Neo Neko

Fair enough. I use it because I can fit an hour of video on a standard CD at better than SVCD resolution and better than SVCD
A whole hour of video? On 1 700 Mb/80 mins. CD-R? At 480 x 480 (480 x 576 would be the resoluton for me, as I have PAL as my source)? Or even a higher resolution? And it looks better than SVCD in terms of picture quality?
This sounds unbelievable to me.

When I last tested Xvid, I encoded a 30 minute talkshow (interlaced material) at 480 x 576 SVCD resolution and I had to encode at a bitrate so high it filled a 800 MB CD for it to look really good. So putting one hour's worth of interlaced video at 480 x 576 and making it look really good sounds incredible. It doesn't seem plausible. But I never say never. I must this for myself.:)

I will do a SVCD and a Xvid file, same resolution, same final file size (must fit on 1 80 min CD-R or the final files must be equally sized in terms of Mb) and compare.
I will use an interlaced source file.
It will probably use a video that is shorter than 1 hour, as I don't think a one hour SVCD looks good. I will use a file that has a length in minutes that allows me to use a bitrate value for the video which is close to the highest permittable for SVCD.

What do I need?
I have Koepi's XviD-04102002-1.exe (411kb) which is a stable build.
Avisynth for resizing..
I also have VirtualDub for the encoding
Do I need a bitrate calculator?
As I recall, one fills in the desired final file size in the first dialog box that appears when opening the properties for the Xvid filter in VirtualDub? What bitrate calculator do you recommend?

Can you give me details on your procedure, please?
Are there any special tricks I need to use?
Do you use 1-pass, 2-pass?

Originally posted by Neo Neko

Make sure if you can to set the RC averaging period or the bitrate averaging reaction period to 10000 or higher even.
What is the RC averaging period?

Originally posted by Neo Neko

It works today and though stranger things have happened I have no doubt that it will continue to work in the future. Things encoded


On what standalone devices have you tested your files?
The only player I know of that can handle Mpeg-4 is the Kiss DP-450.
From their advertisments:
Q: What codecs are supported by KiSS DP-450 ?
A: All codecs that comply with the specifications of ISO-MPEG4 – Advanced, Simple Profile, are supported by the DP-450. DivX 4.x and 5.x comply with this standard, exept DivX 5.02 features- GMC (Global Motion Compensation) and QP (Quarter Pexel) which are Advanced, Advanced Profile features.
Xvid 2.10 and Realmagic’s RPM4 also complies with the supported standard.


Originally posted by Neo Neko

AFAIK there is not ATM. But also their importance will be less in the future.
Well, if one wants features like menus, chapters, selectable subtitles, several audio tracks, all the things we take for granted on a DVD, then a file format for storing Mpeg-4 video must be invented and specified. I doubt a standardized file format on the future Mpeg-4 video storage media will be of little importance in the future.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Google Movix. You can make self booting movies for the PC that are completely self contained! It will automatically use the TV out if it

Ok, I'm going to be grumpy now. :)
But A: most regular people don't use their TV-out.
And B: First I have struggled hard to teach them to never click on an attachment, never load a file or install from a floppy or a CD without virus-checking it first and then I expect them to use self-booting CDs and make them understand when it is safe to just load and run something on a disc, and when not to.. :D


Originally posted by Neo Neko
Perhaps it is time to come up with a condensed version of a guide. Though searching will get you everything you need. Though spread out over several threads.
Doom9s guides are excellent, but targeted at DVD backups, not captures from TV. So that would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Neo Neko

In terms of deinterlacing I already understand everything you have layed out. What I was trying to express was that visually deinterlacing is not that destructive when it comes to human perception.

I disgaree. I know deinterlacing increases compressibility, but I refuse to deinterlace interlaced source material.
I see when an interlaced video has been deinterlaced using the methods we have discussed here, I assure you. ;)
It it especially destructive on movement, everything that moves, moves unnaturally.
As long as my source is interlaced video and the monitor I intend to watch the material on is interlaced (TV set), I will not deinterlace and will never advice anyone who cares about quality when they play their files to a TV to deinterlace either.

/Maria

[fingernailX]

I know everyone hates Microsoft and I don't want to get into a WMV9, Real 9, Xvid, Divx 5.03 pissing contest BUT the new MovieMaker 2 encodes and writes to cd in the HighMat format. Panasonic showed 5 dvd models at the January CES that will support this format. The low end single disc player is the S-55. I know little else except its supposed to be for sale before 3rd qtr 2003. APEX is listed as a partner on www.highmat.com but has no mention of highmat in its lastest product announcements ( but dvd recorders and hdtvs). SWAN - bottomline is an idiot, using a simple wizard in Moviemaker 2, will be able to create a very watchable 1 hr cd playable in a new settop from Panasonic that was captured in type 1 dv and converted to wmv9 all behind the scenes. Yes, doing everything by hand such as gordian knot divx 3.X or 9 pass vbr CCE will look better but most average Joes aren't going to care.

BTW - I capture from a BT878 cable tv through IUVCR to the directshow dv codec to type1 dv avi. It gives me a better capture than any vfw dv codec including main concept, panasonic or canopus. I use tmpgenc to save the wav out of the type 1 dv.avi and open in virtualdub to 2 pass vbr to Divx 5.03 using wav audio as virtualdub can't open the audio portion of the type 1 dv.avi

[Mac Sidewinder]

SWAN - bottomline is an idiot

fingernailx - this was a very interesting thread UNTIL you decided to take potshots. Lets keep this on a lower level and keep it from becoming a flame war about who does it best.

Remember forum rule 4!

Mac

[fingernailX]

I'm sorry if I offended because someone misunderstood. I wasn't calling Swan or anyone else names only saying even an idiot (i.e. an inexperienced pc user) could use movie maker 2 to create highmat cds by following the wizard with very acceptable quality. It doesn't get any lower level than that.

[Mac Sidewinder]

Fingernailx - that was my fault, I guess I read it too fast, I understand what you were trying to say now. About you capture procedure.... Why don't you simply convert the capped file to a type 2 file and feed it directly into vdub instead of leaving it as a type 1 and extracting the audio? Just wondering.

Mac

[droolian01]

What a cool debate!

I store all my caps in xvid and i guess that agree more with Neo Meko than with Swan. But svcd's are not always compatible with all standalone so vcd is surely a better format to distribute in (and clearly inferior to most xvids encodes at similar filesizes).Swan makes some good pragmatic points still.

I recon it should be easy to make an xvid that will beat the pants off a svcd with equal filesize and res. The artifacts you see in my attachment were there in the source (dvb-t) and this 48 min episode was encoded to 600mb with (i think!)160bps mp3audio - this is in the ball-park of a one hour perdisk target.

droolian

[jggimi]

Droolian, your clip.zip file was empty, otherwise I'd have validated it so others could see it.

[dilly]

Wow, nice to see so many replies!

It's good to see MPEG-4 implementations are catching on, and I wholeheartedly understand the standalone compatibility issue.

Although a little off-topic, an intriguing part of the conversation was the interlacing issue. I do understand how interlacing works, and the idea of preserving the interlace as not to be destructive makes sense. However; one poster brought up a good point. With the ffdshow / Koepi's build of XviD "de-interlace on the fly" feature, how are you going to direct whether or not your video is interlaced when you want to play it on the television, or if you want to play it on your monitor. Of course it's just a simple check-box, but that's only how it is now. Only certain builds of XviD have this feature, and IMO preserving interlace while keeping quality, kills distribution- since the majority of the masses playing these encodes don't have the fondest idea how to change codec settings, never mind checking it on and off for each video they swap.

Just to explain a little, similar to one of the previous posters, I too also play all my encodes on TV through tv-out, yet I've been deinterlacing, yet I don't know with what method - its a DirectShow filter that shipped with my card (YUY2 deinterlace). So, the idea of retaining the interlace seems reasonable, and I'm going to try that. I assume I have to encode differently with XviD, and I will read up on that.

As I just said, I've never dealt with encoding interlaced video, so I don't know if this is true or not - but I wonder if there will ever be a way for the codec (the decoder) to detect if video is interlaced and appropriately deinterlace on the fly, if you specify such a setting (deinterlace all video if detected). I'm sure it can be recompiled to do so, the beauty of open source, but I don't have the skills.

I'll check this thread a little later and post more of my thoughts.