DivX Vs. Nero Recode 2!

[castellanos]

Hi there! I've made a few tests just to compare the diferent video qualities we have today, I've seen also that many people in this forum is interested on having AAC or MP4.
I used Nero Recode 2 to test the MP4 video qualities and I must say that I'm not sorprised with that (not even talk about the subtitles, they look really awfull!). I used the same bit rate on both (MP4 & AVI) and the AVI quality is much better (DivX or XviD).
A good point for Nero Recode 2, it's able to back up an entire film in less than 1 hour!... but quality is the question.
Anyway, may be it is possible to have, as a better soultion, AVI/AAC intead of AVI/MP3, for those who complains about the audio qualities, that is what Dr. DivX promised in the new versions.
Whatever: Somebody like more MP4 than AVI?

[stephanV]

DivX/XviD is MPEG4 too... the difference in quality is not caused by the container but by the codec i think. You shoudl seperate those things:
- containers: e.g. MP4, AVI, Matroska
- codecs: e.g. DivX and XviD, which happen to be MPEG4 codecs
a container holds video and audio streams (subtitles also), while codecs code and decode those streams.

You should be able to mux your DivX/XviD stream in a MP4 container together with aac sound with a little help from the 3ivx filter-suite and graphedit.

Whatever: Somebody like more MP4 than AVI?

I think in principle everyone prefers MP4 and/or Matroska over AVI. But at least untill today AVI is still the most widespread and best supported container there is. Having said that, this might be not so long anymore when DVD-players start supporting the MP4 container.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi castellanos,

You are getting confused again. AAC is an type of audio. MP4 is a type of container!

An AAC audio stream can be placed in an MP4 container or AVI container. So can any of the Mpeg4 video streams, such as DivX, XviD, 3ivX, FF, Nero etc.

You talk about using Nero's Recode2 and it's lack of quality. Well yes it is true it does not look as good as say XviD or DivX. This is because Recode2 has been tuned for speed first, quality second. And given it's incredible encoding speed it's not that bad at all.

When comparing Recode2 against say XviD or DivX, it's very important to generate 'video only' tests (ie: no subtitles, no chapters, no audio etc). Try and match the output file sizes. And then 'visually' compare the encode quality!

On the container level, one thing to note is, MP4 is Mpeg4's generic container, although AVI is far more popular!

Personally I prefer to use the MP4. And hopefully this container will become far more popular once Stand-alone players begin to support it.


Cheers

[castellanos]

It is clear: But I made the tests: Without subtitles and same bit rate, the AVI "container" quality is much better than MP4, and I can see that at once.
As I said, the good point in MP4 is the speed...
To choose, at the moment, between speed and quality is the trick.
I like to use AVI (DivX).

P.S.: Hey guys, I know that AAC is the audio type... I wasn't talking about only video when I said AAC or MP4. What are you thinking about?

[SeeMoreDigital]

The speed and visual quality has nothing to do with the AVI container or the MP4 container.

The speed has everything to do with the 'encoder' part of the codec. And as I said before, Recode2's Mpeg4 encoder is very fast.

If you want to generate quality looking Mpeg4 encodes then in my opinion XviD is the way to go. And it's also quite quick (although not as fast as Recode2).

Also, there is nothing stopping you 'muxing' your XviD Mpeg4 streams into the MP4 container instead of the AVI container. Like Recode2 does!


Cheers


EDIT: Also, your thread title is misleading as DivX is an codec. And MP4 is a container.

[jggimi]

castellanos:

This Link takes you to Doom9's 2nd codec comparison of 2003, in which the NeroDigital codec was compared with DivX 5.1.1, ffvfw, RV9, VP6, and XviD 1.0. Take a look at how the comparisons were made, particularly the test setups. You can follow the same procedures Doom9 did.

While the comparisons contain only still images, his comments refer to the video output. There is enough information in the test setup section for you to recreate his tests and view the video output for yourself.

You'll find a link to all of his codec comparisons in the main website under "The Basics."

[castellanos]

Thanks for the link! Anyway, I canged the title of this thread: from "DivX Vs. MP4!" into "DivX Vs. Nero Recode 2!". To avoid misunderstandings.

[bond]

Originally posted by castellanos
not even talk about the subtitles, they look really awfull!

the subtitles are exactly the same as the ones from the dvd! recode2 simply takes the vobsub stream from the dvd and places it unchanged in .mp4
the new 3ivx splitter will let you pass through this subs to gabests vsfilter, which will make them maybe look better as if using neros filter

A good point for Nero Recode 2, it's able to back up an entire film in less than 1 hour!... but quality is the question.

aac audio, as used in recode2, blows away mp3 qualitywise (also you can have multichannel with aac, which isnt possible with mp3)

and as the others already mentioned you can place any mpeg-4 video stream in .mp4, which includes xvid, divx5, nero digital, 3ivx aso...
the container itself has nothing to do with quality of the a/v streams

[castellanos]

Originally posted by bond
the subtitles are exactly the same as the ones from the dvd!

Well, What I saw was not the same quality of subtitles, not even to talk about the color, the original ones were yellow, and after encodig they were just white and really not the same quality.

[jggimi]

If subtitles are "burned" into the video, then you are at the mercy of the video encoding process.

On a DVD, the subtitles are retained in a separate stream. The AVI container does not have a subtitle stream capability.

Your choice with AVI is to either "burn" the subtitles into the video, as you seem to have done, or, to keep the subtitles in a separate file from the AVI.

Separate subtitle files with AVI is usually recommended. This requires one of two options:

1. A player that supports subtitle overlay (BSPlayer, ZoomPlayer, etc.)
   
2. A subtitle overlay tool for DirectShow, such as DirectVobSub. With DirectVobSub, one can use any DirectShow based AVI player with separate subtitle file(s).

[castellanos]

No, I am talking about something else. There is nothing to do with AVI files this time.
I've made a test with Nero Recode 2, and I encoded a DVD, direct from the VOB file and it subtitle stream.
The result was a mp4, "not bad" video with very bad looking subtitles (They supose to be exactly the same as the original subtitles, but not), diferent color as well.

[jggimi]

If subtitles are "burned" into the video, then you are at the mercy of the video encoding process.

[castellanos]

I don't understand what you mean, the original was a VOB file, not an avi with burned subtitles

[jggimi]

I am not a recode user; so I do not know what container it uses. But regardless of the container (.avi, .mp4, .ogm, .mpg ...) [if you are creating video output that includes subtitles within the pictures, then these subtitles get encoded. It doesn't matter if you are using MPEG-1, MPEG-2, or any of the many MPEG-4 codecs.

Your source (DVD) has separate subtitle streams. I do not know what Nero's encoding suite does.

But, as I described above, the most common method used by Doom9 members is to keep the subtitles separate. Either in a seperate stream in containers that support it (.vob, .mkv, .ogm ...) or in separate files. For the latter, we either use players that support separate subtitle files, or we use DirectVobSub with any DirectShow based player.

For much more information, please see the Subtitle forum.

[castellanos]

Well, I have a lot of experiance with subtitles, I have already create DVDs with my own subtitles very successfully, and I've made AVI files as well as MPEGs with permanent subtitles, also with very good results.
The problem is that the subtitles that Nero encode in the final mp4 (From a DVD "Vob") are not so good as the original ones (See what "bond" said above) They are (the subs) even in another color than the original.
That was what I wanted to say. It is not the same subtitle quality as the original.

[bond]

i can only repeat again that recode2 takes the subtitlestream directly from the dvd and places it unchanged (!) in the mp4!

therefore the color differences are most likely caused by the different subtitles decoder you use (maybe its possible to change the color somewhere?)

[castellanos]

May be, I would like to know where you can change the subtitle color in a mp4. It should be possible. After encoding the subtitles are in a stream, because there is the possiblity to show or disable the subtitles, so, the colors must be somewhere.
Anyway, I saw that the antialias is kind of different than the original, may be it can be changed also somewhere.
However, is it possible to see the mp4 files with the Win. Media Player... may be adding some codecs? Or it only works for Nero?

[bond]

Originally posted by castellanos
May be, I would like to know where you can change the subtitle color in a mp4.

this doesnt depend on the container, but on the used decoder filter
maybe its possible to decode a dvd using the nero filter, in this case i assume it will display the subs the same way as if they are placed in mp4

However, is it possible to see the mp4 files with the Win. Media Player... may be adding some codecs? Or it only works for Nero?

atm it only works with the nero filters, but 3ivx is working on supporting them too in their splitter and will make it possible to decode them with the vsfilter from gabest

[digitalman]

I do not see this bad quality you all speak of. I set the quality to all of the highest settings in Nero Recode and they come out looking amazing. The speed blows away any other codec out there. Plus, you can set the encoder to encode with Quicktime compatibility, so anyone that has Quicktime installed, can view the MP4 file, with some loss of quality though. I am using the latest version.
It also does great de-interlacing on NTSC material, and the sound comes out sounding amazing, even though it is compressed to 64kbps.
-I do not have any affiliation with Ahead.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Are you talking encodes with subs digitalman?

If not, I guess I'll have to generate some of my own 'with subs' Recode2 test files, to see what all the fuss is about!


Cheers