XviD gives oversized files?

[Elias]

Seriously, XviD has always been super stable here on my computer (even with the unstable releases). But I believe that now is the first time I experience bugs with it. I am getting huge files, way too oversized in comparison with the bitrate settings I choose. So, I decided to check with DivX 5.2.1 and it is pretty much accurate. So was XviD a few days ago, but then something went amiss. I've been using XviD 1.1 and XviD 1.0.3 and they're both weird now. Any suggestions?

[Sharktooth]

Yes: :readrule: :search:

[Elias]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Yes: :readrule: :search: Thanks, that really helped me a lot. In fact, I've even fixed the problem now.
*Irony*

[Sharktooth]

Oversize is a common problem and has been discussed several gazzilions of times.
Just search for the term "oversize" and automagically you will find a solution...

[bob0r]

Load defaults :D

[jon.schaffer]

In his case, Load Defaults won't help. The problem comes form the nature of the video (too much compressible at 1st pass) and the way XviD deals with it.

[Elias]

Originally posted by bob0r
Load defaults :D load defaults has nothing to do with it. And neither does 1 pass. I'm encoding at 2pass with a bitrate at certain numbers that should generate the exact filesize.

[Sharktooth]

... if you had searched for "oversize" you would have found ratecontrol may fail with some sources and limiting quantizers to 2-31 ...................

[Elias]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
... if you had searched for "oversize" you would have found ratecontrol may fail with some sources and limiting quantizers to 2-31 ................... And how do you know that I didn't use search and looked for this? As a matter of fact, I used search, and no! The quantizers isn't the problem here. They're always 1-31 because I never touch them and always check them. And it's not just "some sources," every source I try to encode gets oversized. And yes, I checked the threads with the 2-31 issue.

[Sharktooth]

Whatever the problem was/is, you could find a solution by using the search function.
ALL the possible oversize questions have been discussed yet.

[jon.schaffer]

Originally posted by Elias
They're always 1-31 because I never touch them and always check them. ... And yes, I checked the threads with the 2-31 issue.

So you tried setting 2 as min quantizer for each frame type. What is the result?

[Elias]

Originally posted by jon.schaffer
So you tried setting 2 as min quantizer for each frame type. What is the result? I didn't try that. In my opinion, it shouldn't be necessary, because XviD has always worked fine without it. XviD has always been very precise about filesize output (at least for me). I'll try this later when I have more time and tell you about the results.

[Koepi]

If limiting quant to 2 as maximum quant you will get an _undersized xvid_ file.

It is clear that you didn't use the search Elias as the answer was given SO OFTEN because everyone CLAIMS to have used the search. This time I'll leave you with that - the search term you can use then is within the _ ....

Cheers
Koepi :D

[Elias]

Seriously guys, what a joke. I know that some of you might start calling me "n00b" now, but really, it's not that much of a big deal. First off all, I'd like to adress all of you that said it was the quantizers that should be set at 2 etc and that I should've used search: you were all wrong, that wasn't the problem (like I said) and once again, you were all wrong, I used search. The actual problem was that I had forgotten about setting the stats file for for 2pass encoding (that is, the log file) somewhere fitting. Like for instance: C:/ (where it should be by default). This is the reason why I got such huge files with XviD. Once again, XviD seems to be the most stable (and best) MPEG-4 video codec out there. So, problem solved and case closed (at least for me).

[jon.schaffer]

Hey, take it easy!
The problem you described is at first sight a rare issue but which lead to numerous questions on this forum...
So, well, we were wrong. But did you give us anything to really help you more than "I know how it should be"? :rolleyes:
How could you know that it was not the "Q2 issue" without testing it? If you have said to us: "I tried Q2... it does nothing... still lost", then, some kind soul would have help you more specifically.

I didn't try that. In my opinion, it shouldn't be necessary, because XviD has always worked fine without it.
It's not because everything use to be OK for ages in your encodings that you will never encounter this problem of real oversizing (I did tons of encodes before having this problem). And this day, the case won't be closed anymore.;)

At least, cool to see your problem's solved...

PS: being a newbie is not problem. We all are in a way :D

[Elias]

Originally posted by jon.schaffer
Hey, take it easy!
The problem you described is at first sight a rare issue but which lead to numerous questions on this forum...
So, well, we were wrong. But did you give us anything to really help you more than "I know how it should be"? :rolleyes:
How could you know that it was not the "Q2 issue" without testing it? If you have said to us: "I tried Q2... it does nothing... still lost", then, some kind soul would have help you more specifically.


It's not because everything use to be OK for ages in your encodings that you will never encounter this problem of real oversizing (I did tons of encodes before having this problem). And this day, the case won't be closed anymore.;)

At least, cool to see your problem's solved...

PS: being a newbie is not problem. We all are in a way :D Hehe. Truth is, XviD is like THE most stable software I've ever used. DivX 5 used to be buggy like hell over here. But it's pretty stable nowadays. However, I don't like the commercial interface DivX has gotten lately. And if you ask me, DivX 5 is inferior to XviD in more ways than one. Well enough of the comparison, I hope it all works out with you guys too. XviD forever!