witch is better, DivX or XVid...?

[roise_r]

hi, i have a big project a head of me, that i plan to accomplish offhandly, and i want to get over with. I want to get all my movies in my harddrive to DVD-s in .avi format, couse there is not a single MB free now. the thing is that i want also to be able to read tha .avi's from my DVD player which can't play bigger resolutions then 720x560, and most of my movies are 800x336, so i need to re-encode, which is better Divx 6.1 or Xvid 1.1.0, i use to encode PocketDivXEncoder which despite of its name will convert to Xvid also

i am asking this couse it seems there is a problem with xvid sometimes, when played on dvd->TV, sometimes in motion moments of the movie, some areas will appear in small pink or green boxes, and will dissappear after 1 to 2 sec. its very rear, maybe 3-4 times during the entire movie, but it is anoying...and i have encounter this issue in other forums too, i can see that this thread is already taken care of in the FAQs section, but the comperison test between Divx & Xvid is very old now, before Xvid came out with their 1.0 version, thats why i asked anyway.

[roise_r]

i just want to specify something about the pink/green squares that appear. they dont just appear, but instead thay will gradualy accumulate in a matter of seconds if there is some motion, not very fast motion though, and then when the scene will change its colors totaly, i mean if the scene is dark blue, and suddenly turns light yellow, the squares will disappear...
10x

the main question still remains which codec is better..:)

[Teegedeck]

Congratulations, you've managed to break a forum rule with your very first post! :readrule:

12) Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!

There's no way to answer your question so I won't. XviD 1.1 and DivX 6.1 can reach very similar quality, according to Doom9's latest codec comparison, but much depends on personal taste and bitrate-target etc.

Whatever you do, use an up-to-date version of either codec; in XviD's case that would be 1.1 final.

[weaver4]

There is not really much difference. XviD seems to do a little better at low bit rates (<900 kbs). If you plan to play your movies on a StandAlone settop box DivX is safer, but if you use a program like avi.net to encode your movies then it will make sure they will play using XviD on a StandAlone box.

With XviD I always felt I needed to "burn" the movie I just encoded onto a DVD and then test it on my two settop boxes before I was done. With DivX I never worried about it. But that is just me.

Xvid is free and there are good tools to support encoding including avi.net, staxrip, autogk, MPEG Mediator among others.

[roise_r]

well Teegedeck, i think this rule kind of doesnt make any sense, bacouse it is obvious that everything is realtive, users tastes differ as you said, These kind of questions expect different kind of opinions, not exact answers..., many people say their opinion and i make a decision based on thair anwers, thats why your reply was exactly what i was looking for...

P.S.
do you agree that divx is faster, we are talking about the same output quality, i mean if Xvid and divx are set to produce the same , i mean absolutly the same quality, which would encode faster???

[kotrtim]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=105763

There is an interesting topic, it can give you answer about speed/psnr

[shon3i]

XviD is better than DivX Doom9 has proved it

[weaver4]

XviD is better than DivX Doom9 has proved it

Doom9 proved that picture quality is slightly better with XviD. But picture quality is only part of the product. When it comes to commercialization DivX is way ahead of XviD. x264 is better than both of them, but find a good player for it.

[shon3i]

Doom9 proved that picture quality is slightly better than XviD. But picture quality is only part of the product. When it comes to commercialization DivX is way ahead of XviD. x264 is better than both of them, but find a good player for it.
DivX newer can be a good codec. I now this about x264.

[CWR03]

roise_r, the responses you're getting should be an indication for the reasoning behind the creation of rule #12. Exactly as it states, a "which is better" question cannot be answered objectively, so if you had wanted people's opinions on which they preferred and why, it would have been a question that could have been more useful to you.

Moving beyond that, regardless of the codec you choose you are always going to achieve a better encode if you return to the source material instead of re-encoding an existing one. It would also make sense that if you have issues with one codec that your choice would be simple.

[Sagittaire]

Objective and Subjective tests can't say that at this time : because DivX and XviD are very similar codec now. After it's just personnal impression ...

[Teegedeck]

To make this clear once more (hello, shon3i): Before we had rule 12 there were numerous threads with endless, unproductive and inconclusive blah-blah about why codec x was better than codec y and why codec z was utter crap. (Often degrading to the level of 'XviD is better!', 'No, DivX is better!', 'No, it isn't!', 'Yes, it is!' etc. etc.) And in spite of Doom9's test it still is hard to make definite statements, especially since XviD and DivX were never so close in quality. We don't want bad blood here, so there's rule 12. Full stop.

Discussing of the progress made by differenent codecs, or exposing flaws is something completely different. So, roise_r, feel free to discuss pros and cons of XviD and DivX with us. :)

do you agree that divx is faster, we are talking about the same output quality, i mean if Xvid and divx are set to produce the same , i mean absolutly the same quality, which would encode faster??? No, roise_r, I wouldn't say that because I would not know which DivX setting produces the exact same quality as some XviD setting.

I just go for the ratio of quality/filesize/encoding time that's just acceptable to me. (Full resolution and perceived transparency at about 40% of the DVD's filesize at about 12 hours encoding-time.) Perhaps it could be done at the same perceived quality in less time with other settings - XviD is so configurable. That would need extensive testing, as I performed it for myself, once - but I perform such painful tests only every 2 years. And next time it certainly will be ASP vs. AVC, not another test of which XviD-settings look transparent to me and certainly not XviD vs. DivX.

[shon3i]

I know rule 12 but facts tells all

[Teegedeck]

The original question has been answered and as we can see above this discussion leads to nothing good, now.

Thread closed.