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

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 3rd May 2003, 10:51   #1  |  Link
Teegedeck
Moderator, Ex(viD)-Mascot
 
Teegedeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,564
anyone that can tell us the results of c't's latest video-codec comparison?

Soooo, any subscribers that have received (and read) the lastest issue, already?
__________________
It's a man's life in Doom9's 52nd MPEG division.
"The cat sat on the mat."
ATM I'm thoroughly enjoying the Banshee - a fantastic music player/ripper for Linux. Give it a whirl!
Teegedeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 11:20   #2  |  Link
Koepi
Moderator
 
Koepi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,454
*grr* Volker wanted to send me that article as pdf, he has forgotten about that :-/ Well, you can read it online (most of it): http://www.heise.de/ct/03/10/146/

Regards
Koepi
Koepi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 11:33   #3  |  Link
TactX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: /home/tactx/
Posts: 367
Re: anyone that can tell us the results of c't's latest video-codec comparison?

Quote:
Originally posted by Teegedeck
Soooo, any subscribers that have received (and read) the lastest issue, already?
Received, yes. Read, no.
I've just had a small look on the charts.
__________________
Quoted from an FAQ at the linux-wlan project:

"If a given distribution chooses to do something funky, we rely on users of that distribution to contribute patches to deal with their funkiness."
TactX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 12:33   #4  |  Link
Ookami
Xe-Rotaredom
 
Ookami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Croatia
Posts: 1,029
>*grr* Volker wanted to send me that article as pdf, he has forgotten about that :-/

You mean Volker Zota? I've had some very short e-mail contact with him and was very surprised how humble and nice that person is. Not to mention that he even replied to my stuff

I am subscribed to c't but only get the mags every now and then (when I get to Germany or someone from Germany brings them to me), so right not I'm reading about the trouble of tacting the 486 at 75 MHz, is that outdated info?

Cheers,

Mijo.
__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd achieve the impossible."
Ookami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 13:38   #5  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Mathematical Codec Shootout by German C't released

it's a more mathematical Comparsion using a measurement system called JND then the normal Doom9 Shootout so it belongs to the user what he thinks about it but XviD has done quite good


http://www.heise.de/ct/03/10/146/ <- Intro
http://www.heise.de/ct/03/10/146/testsequenzen.shtml <- explanation of JND-metrix measurement (lower is better) not as PSNR

http://www.heise.de/ct/03/10/146/tabelle_engel.shtml <- Results Dvd "Cruel Intentions" 16:9

http://www.heise.de/ct/03/10/146/tabelle.shtml <- Results VQEG testsequences

Last edited by CruNcher; 4th May 2003 at 02:13.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 13:51   #6  |  Link
avih
Capture, Deinterlace
 
avih's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Right there
Posts: 1,967
since the links are in german (and at least for me, i often find pages in non-english languages that i wish i could have read). here's a quick way to translate pages to english using google:

http://translate.google.com/translat...d=mozclient&u=<URL_TO_TRANSLATE>

i guess the 'sourceid=mozclient' part might be redundant.

in I.E, the google toolbar gives a translation option.
in mozilla/phoenix/firebird you can make usage of the keyword bookmarks as follows:

make a new bookmark with this data:

Name: Google translate (gt <url>)
Location: http://translate.google.com/translat...mozclient&u=%s
keyword: gt

now all you have to do with a page u can't read is to add gt on the location bar just before the url (with space), and u get your automatic google translation.

hope it helps
avih
avih is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 15:34   #7  |  Link
downloada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Ookami
You mean Volker Zota? I've had some very short e-mail contact with him and was very surprised how humble and nice that person is. Not to mention that he even replied to my stuff
hi,

yeah, i can confirm that, he's really nice. i saw a little typo (he wrote forum.doom.org ), sent an email and just about 30 minutes later the reply was there.

'bout the codec comparison:

it's a very mathematical comparison but it doesn't use the usual PSNR-values, it uses JND by Sarnoff (a "human vision system model"), which includes blocking artifacts and similar things in the rating, so it should give a quite good result.

bitrates were rather low, max. 1,3 mbit, but also bitrates like 30 kbit (-> streaming with analog modem...).

wmv9 was the overall winner concerning quality, followed by rv9, but both of them are horribly slow...
xvid and divx (5.0.4) give good results, they're in mid-field with, in lower bitrates, divx is slightly better than xvid, high(er) bitrates are xvids strength.
quicktime and other plain mpeg4-codecs were really bad, the last ranks.
vss264b2 and vp3.2.5.0/ogg theora are promising, but since they are both still early beta implementations, they still have a few bugs...

cu
downloada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2003, 15:38   #8  |  Link
Ookami
Xe-Rotaredom
 
Ookami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Croatia
Posts: 1,029
Threads merged. CruNcher and avih's messages are from the thread "Mathematical Codec Shootout by German C't released".
__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd achieve the impossible."
Ookami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2003, 02:13   #9  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
@Ookami
thx
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2003, 13:41   #10  |  Link
Arcon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally posted by downloada
wmv9 was the overall winner concerning quality, followed by rv9, but both of them are horribly slow...
xvid and divx (5.0.4) give good results, they're in mid-field with, in lower bitrates, divx is slightly better than xvid, high(er) bitrates are xvids strength.
i think it's pretty disappointing that a M$-codec gets the first place. will this gap between xvid and wmv9 be closed during the next months? i don't like the idea of seeing wmv9 dvd-rips on the net
Arcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2003, 14:28   #11  |  Link
Koepi
Moderator
 
Koepi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,454
The c't test is about ultra low bitrates and on very short samples - which is what WM gets tweaked for (web streaming), a well as RM.

XviD is tweaked for usual bitrates you use when encoding movies, like 90minutes per cd. And _not_ for watching 160x120 12.5fps-videos.

The DVD-sample was more like 2 movies on 1 CD, thus all those tests are quite a bit over the limits of what gets usually used. It seems like Volker wanted to find out how the codecs behave in extreme scenarios - and that's what xvid at least isn't optimized for (we sure could do that, but then "usual encodes" would look bad.)

That we can even play in that league is good.

Regards
Koepi
Koepi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2003, 12:16   #12  |  Link
JimiK
just me
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 158
I read the c't test and I can say that Koepi really got the last out of the XviD codec with his tweaks. Even though JND may be supposed to act like the human eye, it's still a computer program. Still, as Koepi pointed out: this might not have been XviDs world. Now I'm about to read Doom9s comparison, where XviD seems to have scored even better.
Best regards,
JimiK
JimiK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2003, 18:58   #13  |  Link
sirbender
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 42
Further Information...

They also talk about wmv9 in this article and about its speed...they say that it doens'nt mean that it is bad implemented but from all info they have that it already has elements of "H264" in it.

Moreover I tested the new wmv9_vcm codec which allows production of avis even under windowsNT4...great !!! For me the only codec is so far Xvid and Wmv9. Xvid because it is free (unlike divx5 which is no better then wmv9) and Wmv9 because it is the best codec and now even allows production of avis which allows postediting.

sirbender
sirbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2003, 20:52   #14  |  Link
fberreth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 42
My tests show what Koepi said to be very true. WMV9 was designed for very low bitrates and actually blurs quite a bit. Best 1-2CD/movie results you can get with XviD. That's what my personal tests show.
I hope XviD doesn't change in that regard (keep the emphasis on 1-2CD encodes).
fberreth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2003, 21:56   #15  |  Link
Doom9
clueless n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,583
I just got an email from the author of the c't article.. I have to admit I haven't read either one yet (gearing up to go to bed early again.. after one week with almost no sleep and the subsequent headaches, dizzyness and general feeling of loosing control I have to slow down or I join the ranks of the people having a heart problem by the arge of 30) but I'm looking forward to it (ct article and email, not the heart condition
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org
Doom9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2003, 23:31   #16  |  Link
karl_lillevold
Moderator
 
karl_lillevold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
Originally posted by downloada
wmv9 was the overall winner concerning quality, followed by rv9, but both of them are horribly slow...
Hmm, I think you may have glanced at the wrong line for RV9. In this test it is faster than XviD, for instance Engel 352x192:
RV9 : 32.1 fps
XviD: 23.5 fps
wmv9: 7.5 fps (indeed, very slow, less than 1/4 than RV9)
For this clip RV9 was the fastest encoder, it is not always the fastest, but always among the fastest.

With this JND quality metric RV9 came in just behind WMV9, which was run in its highest complexity mode. RV9 does not (yet) have a high complexity mode.
__________________
This information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, grants no rights, and reflects my personal opinion.
karl_lillevold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2003, 00:17   #17  |  Link
Koepi
Moderator
 
Koepi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,454
Karl:

noone makes a problem out of your commercial interests. I think everybody should know you're representing Real Media, thus being interested in the money of everyone around here.

But still: we're talking about a small snippet out of a huge comparison which you make the "bottom line" of it.

So please stair fair, I (and I am sure most of the other xvid devs) are doing something out of fun. And not because there's money in it for them (who should pay them?).

So - think about your statement again - and feel guilty.

A little distracted by that interpretation.

Koepi
Koepi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2003, 00:36   #18  |  Link
karl_lillevold
Moderator
 
karl_lillevold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,584
I apologize for any negative interpretation of my statement, i was merely trying to refer to what was said about RV9 being "horribly" slow, which is not a fair statement, IMHO, and included XviD's encoding speed, since it is the best known codec here. In case of any misunderstanding, it was /not/ XviD I referred to as "1/4 of RV9 speed".

I should also add that the JND metric's usefulness and accuracy can be debated, and that the conclusion of the test based the JND can thus be debated as well.

XviD did wonderfully well in the c't comparison, and even better in the doom9 comparison, and it is a very very fast codec. I congratulate all the XviD developers. You have done great work!

Yes it is true we are a commercial company, but from a video codec perspective, we are really very small, just about 1/2 hand of video codec developers, and we lucky enough to be paid for doing what we think is fun.
__________________
This information is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, grants no rights, and reflects my personal opinion.
karl_lillevold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2003, 11:26   #19  |  Link
^^-+I4004+-^^
Banned
 
^^-+I4004+-^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Croatia [local name:Hrvatska]
Posts: 551
what does free willingness has to do with codec speed?
karl said rv9 is faster and you're saying "we're not getting payed for doing this".........

is that some universal answer when someone mentiones xvid bug or slowness due to new fancy stuff in the codec.(but then again,d9 said it too,so why not tell him that you're dong it for free likewise?)

from a users point of view doesn't mater if someone got payed or not...he just wants the best codec....and both codecs are distribted freely (ie. you can encode to either format)
if you like the stuff you do,payment doesn't matter....at all!

get a grip ,man.no one is objecting xvid(slow or not) or rv9(fast or not).......it's better to have more codecs to choose from..........

don't scare off developers,even if they work in real networks.....
they made and continue to make excellent lo-bitrate codecs.......
(and improve the codecs because the feedback on forums such as this......so no harm done if they advertise a bit too.....don't you advertise xvid?)

i should also say somethign about whole this stuff on automated,machine way of testing stuff (like systems that substitute the human eyesight etc.) but that's not worth mentioning.....the machine will tell me if my video is good or not?
sarnoff or not,it's bunch of crap..........

better ask humans.....

/ivo
^^-+I4004+-^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.