Divx 5.2?

[Yo]

Anyone tried it yet? Is it really better than 5.11? Is there really a significant difference between the "Pro" and "Standard" versions? How do they compare with XVID?

How is their encoding program, Dr. DIVX? To get the benefits of DIVX 5.2 (if there are any) with a different encoding program (such as Gordian Knot, Auto GordianKnot, etc.) would one have to wait until there is an updated version that supports DIVX 5.2, or would the benefits of the new DIVX version be available already, even if the encoding program version was created before the new DIVX version came out?

Will there be a new "codec shoot-out" soon? :D

(Suggestion--when there is such a new codec comparison, I would suggest that it include encoding videos for use on small devices like Pocket PCs. With the advent of the new portable media players, there is going to be many more people encoding movies into small sizes for such devices. The most common resolution is 320x240, which fills up the screen of most PPCs (landscape view). (of course the height may vary according to AR). One profile that could be used as a point of comparison--in Windows Movie Maker, using the "full screen PPC profile", the resulting video is 320x240, and I think the file size ends up usually being approximately 100 MB per hour of video. Perhaps that profile could be used as a point of comparison--make .AVIs (and .mp4s, what else) with different codecs and that resolution trying to get a similar file size, and see which of them gets a better quality on the same movie for a similar file size. (Of course compare the .wmv with the different .avis and .MP4s as well.)

[Sirber]

You should ask in DIVX forum :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Yo
Will there be a new "codec shoot-out" soon? :D

Depends on your definitio of soon.

Originally posted by Yo
(Suggestion--when there is such a new codec comparison, I would suggest that it include encoding videos for use on small devices like Pocket PCs. With the advent of the new portable media players, there is going to be many more people encoding movies into small sizes for such devices. The most common resolution is 320x240, which fills up the screen of most PPCs (landscape view). (of course the height may vary according to AR). One profile that could be used as a point of comparison--in Windows Movie Maker, using the "full screen PPC profile", the resulting video is 320x240, and I think the file size ends up usually being approximately 100 MB per hour of video. Perhaps that profile could be used as a point of comparison--make .AVIs (and .mp4s, what else) with different codecs and that resolution trying to get a similar file size, and see which of them gets a better quality on the same movie for a similar file size. (Of course compare the .wmv with the different .avis and .MP4s as well.)

Well that is a bit counter intuitive to the forum as the main topic is DVD backup and related topics. And most of us considder that making a copy nearly equal to the original in most aspects. A palm top PC is so limited in resources in general that an encode made for it is not so much a backup as it is just format shifting in general. That is not to say that something like this could/should not be done. But it does not belong as part of the traditional testing. So it's a possibility. But farther off than the usual testing.

[Yo]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Depends on your definitio of soon.


Well that is a bit counter intuitive to the forum as the main topic is DVD backup and related topics. And most of us considder that making a copy nearly equal to the original in most aspects. A palm top PC is so limited in resources in general that an encode made for it is not so much a backup as it is just format shifting in general. That is not to say that something like this could/should not be done. But it does not belong as part of the traditional testing. So it's a possibility. But farther off than the usual testing.

Well, the name of this forum is Codecs, so it does not say DVD Backup. In fact, when I think of DVD Backup, it is with programs like DVDShrink, which uses the same MPEG-2 as the original DVDs, not codecs like DIVX and XVID and WMV, MP4, etc.

I actually think encoding for PDAs, smartphones, etc., will be an increasing use of these codecs in the future. Soon there will be these new portable multimedia devices (like IPOD, but with video too), and the demand for small compressed videos will increase exponentially. As it is, PDAs like my Pocket PC can play movies, as well as smartphones, etc. In a couple years possibly everyone's mobile phone will be capable of playing movies, people will want to know how to get them from DVD to their small device, which codec works best for that, etc.

So---"format shifting", of course yes. Changing from 720x480 to 320x240 is a large resolution change, and the file size and bit rate have to decrease dramatically. That is a big challenge for the codecs, and it would be interesting to see which do better with it.

So IMP, a comparison at small resolutions and low bit rates would be VERY appropriate to be part of the next codec shoot-out. It would really put the codecs through their paces more than just doing encodings at high bit rates and resolutions.

[Lagoon]

Well, the name of this forum is Codecs, so it does not say DVD Backup.


The main site title page : "Doom9.net - The Definite DVD Backup Resource"

Forum title : "Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion."

Sorry :p

Now it is still a good idea, if someone ever get the time to do it..

[Koepi]

Well, it's a bit tough to do such a test though - your favortie ipaq toy may have a display of 320x240 - but mobiles usually have a much smaller one and could display (in case of a t610) max 128x160... (ok, not that i suggest someone to write a tiny java player for that phone, is much too slow for that).

So you can do a special "handheld profile" codec comparison, but i don't expect any codec to look good at such a small resolution honestly. It's just way too tiny and no pixels left for showing details!

Regards
Koepi

[Blight]

I've been getting reports that the 5.2 filter freezes up on a lot of systems (where-as 5.11 was just fine on these same systems), might be worth to wati for 5.21 or something.

[Yo]

Originally posted by Lagoon
The main site title page : "Doom9.net - The Definite DVD Backup Resource"

Forum title : "Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion."

Sorry :p

Now it is still a good idea, if someone ever get the time to do it..

Now wouldn't converting a movie on DVD to a small one to use on a PDA be considered "DVD Conversion"??:confused:

Certainly DVD backup is an important topic in the Doom9 Forums, but so is DVD conversion. Actually, the forums are very wide-ranging, pretty much dealing with anything having to do with video processing.

[Yo]

Originally posted by Koepi
Well, it's a bit tough to do such a test though - your favortie ipaq toy may have a display of 320x240 - but mobiles usually have a much smaller one and could display (in case of a t610) max 128x160... (ok, not that i suggest someone to write a tiny java player for that phone, is much too slow for that).

So you can do a special "handheld profile" codec comparison, but i don't expect any codec to look good at such a small resolution honestly. It's just way too tiny and no pixels left for showing details!

Regards
Koepi

No, Koepi, 320x240 is not just the resolution of "my favorite IPAQ". It is the standard resolution of Pocket PC screens. I think it will also be the resolution of the new portable media devices. Of course telephones have a smaller screen.

If you look at Windows Media Encoder and Windows Movie Maker, I think both have a profile (certainly WMM does) called "Pocket PC, Full Screen". The resolution is 320x240. They have another PPC profile with a smaller resolution, I guess for those who want a smaller file size. (I've never used that one. The screen is small to begin with, I certainly want to use the full screen (landscape mode) in watching a movie on it.) I believe DIVX also has a Portable Profile, with a 320x240 resolution. And others--it is by far the most common resolution for portable devices. I believe Nero Recode has such a profile as well.

Following is a freeware application for creating divx or xvid movies specifically for portable devices, "Pocket DIVX Encoder",

web site (http://divx.ppccool.com)

It's default resolution is 320x240. (Nice little program, btw, but still has problems, like no subtitles. I prefer AutoGK.)

So 320x240 is pretty much a standard that could be used for judging the codecs for use on portable devices.

You wrote that "you cannot expect any codec to look good at that resolution". Think about that for a minute. Yes, if you took a movie at that resolution and enlarged it to fill a full size computer screen, 1024x768 or higher, the video quality would be pretty bad. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense to do that. However, on a 320x240 pixel screen, a 320x240 resolution video looks fine. Any resolution higher than that on that that size screen is a waste of file space and CPU load.

If you look at newsgroups like microsoft.public.pocketpc.multimedia (I think that's the name, not sure) or at PDA forums like those at Pocket PC Thoughts (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com), the multimedia forum, one of the most common question is--"how do I convert a movie from DVD to show on my Pocket PC"? This is only going to increase in the future, with more small devices that can play movies. It sure would be interesting to see which codecs do that better, in trade-off between video quality and file size, encoding speed, etc.

[unmei]

I interpret koepis
"but i don't expect any codec to look good at such a small resolution honestly. It's just way too tiny and no pixels left for showing details!"
not as that he meant to encode at a larger resolution than the screen has, but rather as a hint that with this resolution you sacrifice so many of the movie by resizing already, it could be hard to talk about the details a encoder would additionally throw away.

Also i think talking about portable encodes is not so out of place on doom9, it doesn't hurt and in earlier times these resulutions were actually used for PC targeted DVD rips. But still asking doom9 himself for including it in his comparisions is maybe too much or too early. He invests an enormous amount of effort in his comparisions for the relatively small quantity of test samples. If you now want another resolution, it would probably double the number of samples apart from requiring to elaborate a new approach for these resolutions (different goals, different platforms, different codecs..). But no-one prevents you from doing own tests and publish them here or organizing a public test on this forum. At least i think so :)