AutoGk ability to output HD DIVX

[ricardo.santos]

ive been playing around with high definitation for a bit, divx converter doesnt do agood job with it, i tried gordian knot and i had much much better results with it.

with high definition tv sets up on(not all :( ) what about having AutoGk convert to high definition divx? I know i can do it with Gordian but the addition of the High definition to the Auto would be good.
dont know how hard it would be to implement it.

[len0x]

AutoGK fully support HD content... what is the question again?

[ricardo.santos]

i meant encoding to divx profile "high definition" instead of "home theater"

[len0x]

HT profile is only used for stanalone compatibility as its a part of DivX certification. Atm there are no devices certified to play HD profile encodes anyway and for such encodings unconstrained profile is used.

[ricardo.santos]

i changed the title post as it was misleading people

[thekid]

There are a few high definition players available today (http://www.divx.com/hardware/browse.php?c=7) and more to come that will do HD DivX

It would be cool to have autogk let you choose your encoding profile, especially as more and more portable players (http://www.divx.com/hardware/browse.php?c=2) hit the market

thekid...

[laserfan]

kid FWIW I have made several "HD resolution" Xvids using AGK and play them back on my standalone ShowCenter SC200. One I made at 1360 and another at 1920. They're great to look at though I can't honestly say they look significantly better than just letting my equipment up-scale the 720x480 original.

As for HD programs, I haven't yet tried making Xvids from my ATSC captures, but as len0x has said I expect AGK will glide right thru 'em.

[ricardo.santos]

They're great to look at though I can't honestly say they look significantly better than just letting my equipment up-scale the 720x480 original.
.

ive made a couple of tests and i have to disagree, there is a difference and its noticeable


It would be cool to have autogk let you choose your encoding profile
this what i had in mind when i started this post.

[hat3k]

Why do we need profiles like HD or HT or etc at all?!!!!!!!!! We need only tweaks but not "war of standarts". Why not to make everything suitable?

[laserfan]

ive made a couple of tests and i have to disagree, there is a difference and its noticeableI had said I didn't see any difference.

I WANTED to see a difference, because intuitively a program that goes frame-by-frame thru a movie ought to make a better result than an on-the-fly conversion made by a hardware scaler. But my TV has a very good scaler! I'm sure I will try this again w/different settings but the preliminary results were definitely not worth the effort involved.

[DIggedy]

laser, I think Ricardo is referring to encodes in HD resolution from a HD original, not upscaling DVD content. I'd agree that HD sourced encodes can look way better than the dvd equivalent, and would also agree with you that upscaling through software doesn't make a huge difference to hardware based scaling.

[ricardo.santos]

[QUOTE=DIggedy]laser, I think Ricardo is referring to encodes in HD resolution from a HD originalQUOTE]

yes that is what i meant

[laserfan]

Ok, well I have now re-encoded several HD 1920x1080i programs w/AutoGK, and it looks and works great using Xvid, I haven't tried Divx6. The few comparisons I've made though suggest Xvid is the codec for me.

The downside of doing this is that it takes a LOONNGG time to convert, even w/my 3.2GHz P4, nearly 5 hours.

These Xvids play on my SC200 and are hard to tell from the original, at even 15% of the original size. Easy to do w/AGK & Xvid.

p.s. If you want more control, maybe you want to try Fairuse Wizard...

[Ogy101]

Ok, well I have now re-encoded several HD 1920x1080i programs w/AutoGK, and it looks and works great using Xvid, I haven't tried Divx6. The few comparisons I've made though suggest Xvid is the codec for me.

I'm relatively new to AutoGK and I've been experimenting with HD transport streams. I have a question tho. How did you get AutoGK to maintain the 1080 height? The best I've been able to get out of AutoGK was 1920x960.

[QUOTE:These Xvids play on my SC200 and are hard to tell from the original, at even 15% of the original size. Easy to do w/AGK & Xvid.[/QUOTE]

When I use the default setting of 75, I end up with a conversion that is in the area of 70% of the original. What setting allows you to get that much size reduction w/o compromising quality?

[laserfan]

...How did you get AutoGK to maintain the 1080 height? The best I've been able to get out of AutoGK was 1920x960.
I didn't. I just set AGK to 1920width and let it take over from there.

...When I use the default setting of 75, I end up with a conversion that is in the area of 70% of the original. What setting allows you to get that much size reduction w/o compromising quality?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was no compromise in quality, there is ALWAYS a compromise, though unless you do a direct A-B comparison with the original an Xvid conversion can look very good.

I've never tried the Quality setting--I've only done 2-pass. Also, I should be clear--I only did a few encodes as tests. I don't routinely try to make Xvid HD files from 1920x1080i captures. I usually just save the edited transport streams as they are. I do like to down-res these HD captures (make SD copies) for my SD televisions & media players.

EDIT: OK for grins I decided to attempt a 1920x1080 transport stream conversion to 1920xwhatever Xvid, this on a 44minute HDTV show. So far it's taken 4.5 hours just to run the first pass; looks like pass 2 is going to take another 7 hours! BTW AGK selected 1072 as the height for the output.

It feels already that regardless of how good my Xvid might look at a reduced file size on my hard disk, that the processing time & effort (especially tying-up my computer) probably just aren't worth it. Easier to just keep the original, and/or dump it off to a $0.40US DVD for safekeeping! We report, you decide!