Suggestions for next codec comparison and article feedback threads.

[Angrychair]

These are suggestions I have come up with that I think should be considered.

First off, turning off post processing during screen comparisons would be a great idea, since the article (at least, I think) is a comparison of ENCODING quality. If any codecs can't disable encoding quality, it should be made clear that they were compared with post processing enabled, or seperated from the other screenshots (possibly to be compared with a few post processed shots from the others).

Also, I think it would be an excellent idea to start a new forum just for official article feedback where offcial threads can be maintained and linked to from the article's conclusion. It will help to have them all in one place instead of splintered throughout the seperate forums.

Also, a sort of moderation of the moderators would be a great idea, the most helpful would be the ones (guys like trbarry) that get the ability to strike board browsers, etc with the board members (possibly with a minimum duration of having an account, or minimum count post) having the ability to rate them. That way the moderators that offer very little to the board except for striking users and giving out suspensions can be weeded out for those that contribute more to the life of that boards.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to leave suggestions, but the forum is labeled "Site Suggestions" so it seems like the most fitting place.

[Nic]

This is the right place....but....

1) Maybe you should be around the forum a little longer and contribute a little more before telling Doom9 how to do a codec comparison. I know your only trying to help, but you could try to understand the reasons why he does the comparison as he does, before saying how he should do it.

2) Almost not a bad idea, but article discussions can be found with the search button pretty easy.

3) The moderators are moderated by each other and more importantly by the admins: Doom9 & Swede (& Chris Gratwick)
In general its considered we should strike and suspend more than we do to keep the level of the forum higher. And weed out the users that dont contribute anything to the forum and just cause hassle.

-Nic

edit: id mis-spelt Chris's surname

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by Angrychair

First off, turning off post processing during screen comparisons would be a great idea, since the article (at least, I think) is a comparison of ENCODING quality. If any codecs can't disable encoding quality, it should be made clear that they were compared with post processing enabled, or seperated from the other screenshots (possibly to be compared with a few post processed shots from the others).

Wrong it is a comparison of CODEC quality.

The whole PP vs not PP comparison was discussed and if you want a comparison without PP go do one.

@Doom9
Just while im thinking about it would it be possible in the next comparison to have a version of the comparison with no images please, as the pictures (especially as they now often look very similar) are not really representative of the video quality. Possibly just links so i can open the ones which sound intresting.

On the other hand people are asking for lossless versions of the images as jpeg compression makes it very hard to tell the difference between such similar images. Have you thought about setting up a bittorrent server so people could download these?

Also, I think it would be an excellent idea to start a new forum just for official article feedback where offcial threads can be maintained and linked to from the article's conclusion. It will help to have them all in one place instead of splintered throughout the seperate forums.

Could have a point. Things like if we should use PP should not have been discussed in the xvid forum. I guess here or general discussion would be the best forums. Its just a matter of people starting the threads in the correct forum.

Also, a sort of moderation of the moderators would be a great idea, the most helpful would be the ones (guys like trbarry) that get the ability to strike board browsers, etc with the board members (possibly with a minimum duration of having an account, or minimum count post) having the ability to rate them. That way the moderators that offer very little to the board except for striking users and giving out suspensions can be weeded out for those that contribute more to the life of that boards.

Well as Nic said thats the job of the forum admins. Seeing as im the one who banned you im guessing this is about me, just one thing to point out is that instead of "offer very little to the board except for striking users and giving out suspensions" yours was the first strike ive made since i started in January. Oh and if you don't agree with a strike just contact doom9 and he will take a look.

DaveEL

[Doom9]

aren't you the one who wrote using post filtering on an encoding quality comparison is at best questionable, and more likely foolish and short sighted.
and too bad everyone doesn't follow my lead, the mpeg4 encoding world would be better off that way. and then Any way, feel free to ban me for 30 days, or whatever makes you feel like a Big Man™, you can silence me, but you can't change my opinion through such a vulgar abuse of moderation powers..

So, seeing that you got striked for your previous comments on the postprocessing issue, you are well advised to not bring up the subject again.

I'll think about feedback threads, but especially when it comes to codec comparisons (which I think is your primary motivation) I can do without the "you should've done this and that" feedback since most of it isn't well founded or just plain insulting (there is some useful and interesting feedback in between those posts though).

Last but not least, the moderator power issue has also been discussed before. I strongly believe that the control mechanisms we have are sufficient, and there are regular members that are not afraid to voice their concerns via private means (pm to myself). If you give people a public way, it's going to be abused for personal revenge.. all the people who got a strike they didn't agree with (but didn't use the appeal way which means you forfeit your rights to complain, public complaints almost always lead to another strike and most of the time to suspension) would use this as an opportunity to leash out at moderators they don't like, and the whole pm complaint system is designed to take that heat away and let somebody uninvolved supervise.

@daveel: the plans were to only show the shot from the uncompressed movie, and allow people to load additional screenshots if they want to see them. Hopefully, next time I can do just that, it will limit traffic and loading times.
As for bittorrent, in a previous discussion on the subject I offered to make the originals available to an individual who would be feeding those to a distribution network, but nobody took that offer. I don't know enough about bittorrent to do that myself and I don't feel like investing time there since I don't think screenshots are very useful for a comparison in the first place. But I'll always keep the originals so if somebody wants to go ahead, I'd make those files available within 24h.

[Angrychair]

You know what, I'm not going to be dragged into a flamewar by the site's own MODERATORS. Sheesh.

[Angrychair]

Just one thing.

and you're an ungrateful bast*** who just got two very well deserved strikes.

Please tell me what 'bast***' means, because I can only come up with one meaning that fits your sentence. I never called you anything, but this is how you answered.

[The Link]

What´s the point of this thread?

First off, turning off post processing during screen comparisons would be a great idea, since the article (at least, I think) is a comparison of ENCODING quality. If any codecs can't disable encoding quality, it should be made clear that they were compared with post processing enabled, or seperated from the other screenshots (possibly to be compared with a few post processed shots from the others).
This was already discussed (with a statement of doom9 himself)

Also, I think it would be an excellent idea to start a new forum just for official article feedback where offcial threads can be maintained and linked to from the article's conclusion. It will help to have them all in one place instead of splintered throughout the seperate forums.
There are several forums where different aspects of those articles are discussed. I wouldn´t want to have one big thread without a clear structure and where everybody just says what he thinks IMHO.

Also, a sort of moderation of the moderators would be a great idea, the most helpful would be the ones (guys like trbarry) that get the ability to strike board browsers, etc with the board members (possibly with a minimum duration of having an account, or minimum count post) having the ability to rate them.
Yeah...and do you want to know what I fear? Doom9 couldn´t get "reelected" as site admin because his codec comparison provided him some bad ratings! :p

Sorry for the nonsense above! :)

Regards,

The Link

[bartnl]

First I must say that I have not posted here frequently but have used various video codecs over the last couple of years. I am posting this post because I really do not understand why the codec comparison you did was done the way it was done. What I do not understand about your codec comparison is why you choose to setup the codecs such that the encoding speeds are totally different.

To me it seems logical that XVid (or any other codec) would outperform similar codecs when given twice the encoding time. And this is exactly what you do. Finally your conclusion is based on quality alone with no mention of the difference in speed. This seems strange to me especially when it is so obvious that the codec that is setup with all options enabled is both the slowest and produces best quality.

Second thing that I do not understand is how a single frame can be used to compare video quality. A codec that uses more p- and b-frames will have more bits available for i-frames. An single i-frame will then look better. I use this example because I think (I am not sure) that every frame shown is an i-frame. If it were possible that you show p- or b-frames the difference could even be that for one codec you are looking at an i-frame and for the other codec you are looking at the final b-frame that will be worse quality by definition. I see no mention of this in your codec comparison.

To me this codec comparison in it current state gives me the impression that the writer wanted Xvid to outperform the other codecs. I hope this is not what you set out to do because I really want to know how various codecs compare in quality.

I hope that my post is not to critical and actually helps you to improve your future codecs comparisons ;)

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by bartnl
What I do not understand about your codec comparison is why you choose to setup the codecs such that the encoding speeds are totally different.

The comparison is done from the point of view that encoding time does not matter, after all you only encode once so its really not that important if you going to watch the file many times you want the best possible quality regardless of how long it takes.


Second thing that I do not understand is how a single frame can be used to compare video quality. A codec that uses more p- and b-frames will have more bits available for i-frames. An single i-frame will then look better. I use this example because I think (I am not sure) that every frame shown is an i-frame. If it were possible that you show p- or b-frames the difference could even be that for one codec you are looking at an i-frame and for the other codec you are looking at the final b-frame that will be worse quality by definition. I see no mention of this in your codec comparison.

Doom9 bases the comparison on watching the video not on any single frames. Images are only for so you can try to spot the difference between them :) . Also i doubt the frames are I-frames as the same frame is taken from every video clip and each codec could put the I-frames in different places.

DaveEL

[bartnl]

Originally posted by DaveEL
The comparison is done from the point of view that encoding time does not matter, after all you only encode once so its really not that important if you going to watch the file many times you want the best possible quality regardless of how long it takes.

in the comparison this seems only true for the Xvid setup. For Divx the 'home theatre' profile is chosen which limits maximum bitrate and disables GMC. Also everyone who uses divx knows that that enabling psy improves perceived visual quality.

I only know that I might use your xvid settings to actually encode a movie and I would never use your divx settings because just of the reason that you give. I want maximum quality and not speed nor 'home theatre' compatibility ;)


Doom9 bases the comparison on watching the video not on any single frames. Images are only for so you can try to spot the difference between them :) . Also i doubt the frames are I-frames as the same frame is taken from every video clip and each codec could put the I-frames in different places.

my thought so showing the pictures is useless even more so because jpg is introducing artefacts as well. Maybe the remarks next to the pictures shouldn't be discussing the actual pictures but just show one picture per scene from the dvd and then discuss the various codecs.

[Swede]

@Angrychair: For a guy just coming out of a suspension-period you don't seem to have learned one single bit. Your pityful accusations on the moderation-team and your insults directed (straight or indirect) at doom9 are just too much.

Constructive critisim is alway welcome but since your posts are not even near constructive...

Remember that out of +32.000 members there are less than 10 that gets suspended so if you don't like OUR way, YOU are in the wrong forum!

[DaveEL]

Originally posted by bartnl
in the comparison this seems only true for the Xvid setup. For Divx the 'home theatre' profile is chosen which limits maximum bitrate and disables GMC. Also everyone who uses divx knows that that enabling psy improves perceived visual quality.

I only know that I might use your xvid settings to actually encode a movie and I would never use your divx settings because just of the reason that you give. I want maximum quality and not speed nor 'home theatre' compatibility ;)


my thought so showing the pictures is useless even more so because jpg is introducing artefacts as well. Maybe the remarks next to the pictures shouldn't be discussing the actual pictures but just show one picture per scene from the dvd and then discuss the various codecs.

Doom9 used the settings the codec makers recommended.

DaveEL

[Angrychair]

Originally posted by Swede
@Angrychair: For a guy just coming out of a suspension-period you don't seem to have learned one single bit. Your pityful accusations on the moderation-team and your insults directed (straight or indirect) at doom9 are just too much.

Constructive critisim is alway welcome but since your posts are not even near constructive...

Remember that out of +32.000 members there are less than 10 that gets suspended so if you don't like OUR way, YOU are in the wrong forum!

It seems I got another strike, claiming I violated rule #4.

I'm not sure where my insults or profanity were. Are you referring to my quote of doom9 earlier?

I'd go ahead and send it in for review, but I doubt it'd get a fair chance at review.

Anyway, there seems to be no room for criticism here, I'll just read the boards in peace, banned or not, and not bother you guys since it will never do any good.

[Kaizen]

Originally posted by Angrychair
It seems I got another strike, claiming I violated rule #4.

I'm not sure where my insults or profanity were. Are you referring to my quote of doom9 earlier?

I'd go ahead and send it in for review, but I doubt it'd get a fair chance at review.

Anyway, there seems to be no room for criticism here, I'll just read the boards in peace, banned or not, and not bother you guys since it will never do any good.

If you get one more strike you will be banned. Be very carefull what you say.