piscator
15th September 2003, 02:41
I did a test between an 'old' DivX 5.02 encode and the new 5.1-standard and 5.1 slowest. So here are the results. If you're interested, I can post a few snapshots out of the movie so you can judge for yourself.
Movie Type: PAL 16:9 Progressive 720 x 576
Movie Length: 01:28:26
Frames: 132618
Credits Size: 00:07:28
Credits Frames: 11205
Target: 680 MB with ac3-384 (431 MB without audio)
Encoding Parameters Movie:
+ Neutral Bicubic Resize (576 x 304)
+ Bidirectional
+ GMC
+ Psychovisual Enhancements Fast
+ 2-pass encode
Encoding Parameters Credits:
+ Bidirectional
+ GMC
+ 1-pass Quality-based at quant 20
Processor Used:
+ AMD Athlon XP1800+ (1.54GHz)
5.02-slowest 5.1-standard 5.1-slowest
CreditsSize 6508 Kb 5642 Kb 4606 Kb
CreditsTime 00:08:06 00:05:46 00:36:43
MovieAvgBitRate 725 kbps 735 kbps 737 kbps
1stPassFPS 19.094 17.496 2.606
2ndPassFPS 26.465 18.455 2.665
1stPassTime 01:45:58 01:55:40 12:56:27
2ndPassTime 01:16:27 01:49:38 12:39:21
TotalTime 03:10:31 03:51:04 26:12:31
Note:
5.02-slowest encoded at slightly different settings:
+ No Psychovisual Enhancements
+ Neutral Bicubic Risize (544 x 288)
+ Target 675 MB with ac3-384
Conclusions speed:
+ At 1-pass Quality-based, 5.1-standard is a lot faster than 5.02-slowest (29%).
+ At 2-pass encoding 5.02-slowest is faster than 5.1-standard, though PsyVis could make the difference. Noteworthy is that the 2nd pass is a lot faster than the 1st pass in 5.02 compared to 5.1.
+ Of course, 5.1-slowest is a lot slower than 5.1-standard (580%).
Conclusions size:
+ Credits with 5.1-slowest get a lot smaller than with 5.1-standard. Quite a surprising result (18% smaller).
+ Also quite a difference in credits size between 5.02-slowest and 5.1-standard (13% smaller).
Conclusions quality:
+ 5.1 both standard and slowest have a lot less macro-blocking in high-motion scenes than 5.02-slowest has. This effect is really good visible.
+ I find the difference between between 5.1-standard and 5.1-slowest hard to spot. Looking really carefully (and zooming a little bit), I can see the following differences.
+ Macro-blocking in 5.1-standard and 5.1-slowest look roughly the same, though the color distribution between the blocks in slowest look slightly better balanced, making the contrast between the blocks slightly less.
+ Near the edges of moving objects, 5.1-slowest looks like to have slightly sharper edges.
+ Slightly less ringing artefacts in high-motion scenes with 5.1-slowest than with 5.1-standard.
So is it worth the encoding time? That's upto yourself, but I expect the benefit to be the greatest with this low-bandwith test I did (700 kbps). For higher bandwith 1100-1300 kbps (2 cd rips), I expect the differences near impossible to spot.
greetz,
Piscator
Movie Type: PAL 16:9 Progressive 720 x 576
Movie Length: 01:28:26
Frames: 132618
Credits Size: 00:07:28
Credits Frames: 11205
Target: 680 MB with ac3-384 (431 MB without audio)
Encoding Parameters Movie:
+ Neutral Bicubic Resize (576 x 304)
+ Bidirectional
+ GMC
+ Psychovisual Enhancements Fast
+ 2-pass encode
Encoding Parameters Credits:
+ Bidirectional
+ GMC
+ 1-pass Quality-based at quant 20
Processor Used:
+ AMD Athlon XP1800+ (1.54GHz)
5.02-slowest 5.1-standard 5.1-slowest
CreditsSize 6508 Kb 5642 Kb 4606 Kb
CreditsTime 00:08:06 00:05:46 00:36:43
MovieAvgBitRate 725 kbps 735 kbps 737 kbps
1stPassFPS 19.094 17.496 2.606
2ndPassFPS 26.465 18.455 2.665
1stPassTime 01:45:58 01:55:40 12:56:27
2ndPassTime 01:16:27 01:49:38 12:39:21
TotalTime 03:10:31 03:51:04 26:12:31
Note:
5.02-slowest encoded at slightly different settings:
+ No Psychovisual Enhancements
+ Neutral Bicubic Risize (544 x 288)
+ Target 675 MB with ac3-384
Conclusions speed:
+ At 1-pass Quality-based, 5.1-standard is a lot faster than 5.02-slowest (29%).
+ At 2-pass encoding 5.02-slowest is faster than 5.1-standard, though PsyVis could make the difference. Noteworthy is that the 2nd pass is a lot faster than the 1st pass in 5.02 compared to 5.1.
+ Of course, 5.1-slowest is a lot slower than 5.1-standard (580%).
Conclusions size:
+ Credits with 5.1-slowest get a lot smaller than with 5.1-standard. Quite a surprising result (18% smaller).
+ Also quite a difference in credits size between 5.02-slowest and 5.1-standard (13% smaller).
Conclusions quality:
+ 5.1 both standard and slowest have a lot less macro-blocking in high-motion scenes than 5.02-slowest has. This effect is really good visible.
+ I find the difference between between 5.1-standard and 5.1-slowest hard to spot. Looking really carefully (and zooming a little bit), I can see the following differences.
+ Macro-blocking in 5.1-standard and 5.1-slowest look roughly the same, though the color distribution between the blocks in slowest look slightly better balanced, making the contrast between the blocks slightly less.
+ Near the edges of moving objects, 5.1-slowest looks like to have slightly sharper edges.
+ Slightly less ringing artefacts in high-motion scenes with 5.1-slowest than with 5.1-standard.
So is it worth the encoding time? That's upto yourself, but I expect the benefit to be the greatest with this low-bandwith test I did (700 kbps). For higher bandwith 1100-1300 kbps (2 cd rips), I expect the differences near impossible to spot.
greetz,
Piscator