Multithreaded XviD - official thread [Archive] - Page 6

LordIntruder

24th June 2008, 00:13

But is v1.2.127 recent or 2 years old?

We are in the multithreaded XviD thread. I guess you want to encode with that version of XviD because you have a multicore, right? So use the 1.2.127. Recent or not, this is the only version that is multithreaded. ;) I'm afraid you have no choice. :)

The 1.2.127 has VAQ and this function is a new improvement introduce in February 2008 by Dark Shikari, so I guess it is recent enough isn't it? ;)

Now 1.2.127 is maybe 2 years old, I didn't count, but no one except Dark Shikari recently has been working on it. It is free stuff and if no one has time or will to work on XviD, it stays as it is. ;) But don't worry, 2 years old didn't mean your encodes will be bad, XviD rocks and my best advice would be to make an encode with XviD and the same one using DivX and compare both and I'm sure you'll love the 2 years old 1.2.127 :D

kandrey89

24th June 2008, 00:28

We are in the multithreaded XviD thread. I guess you want to encode with that version of XviD because you have a multicore, right? So use the 1.2.127. Recent or not, this is the only version that is multithreaded. ;) I'm afraid you have no choice. :)

The 1.2.127 has VAQ and this function is a new improvement introduce in February 2008 by Dark Shikari, so I guess it is recent enough isn't it? ;)

Now 1.2.127 is maybe 2 years old, I didn't count, but no one except Dark Shikari recently has been working on it. It is free stuff and if no one has time or will to work on XviD, it stays as it is. ;) But don't worry, 2 years old didn't mean your encodes will be bad, XviD rocks and my best advice would be to make an encode with XviD and the same one using DivX and compare both and I'm sure you'll love the 2 years old 1.2.127 :D

Rofl :eek:
Just that I thought the 2 year old version had been outdated by a complete routine rewrite of the multicore processing in XviD, and as for v1.2.127 having VAQ and old or not, I would say that the compiler took old code and embeded VAQ in it, doesn't mean it's recent code if it has VAQ.

Ranguvar

24th June 2008, 03:47

I see other builds in this thread :helpful: , I'm not blind, but are they with VAQ??????????????
If so which one? :mad:
Check and see if they say they're with VAQ. If they don't say so, they're most likely not. In which case it's extremely simple to patch with VAQ yourself.

Read the very first post here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=135093

drunken_clam

18th July 2008, 17:41

Hi does anybody know if xvid multithreading through ffmpeg is possible yet?

I tried with "-threads n" but can't get any performance enhancements.

Widok

7th October 2008, 10:17

Till now, the optimal way to use Q6600 for coding in XviD requires installation:
XviD-1.2.-127-VAQ http://koepi.leffe.dnsalias.com/
+
MT (MultiThreading in avisynth) v0.7 http://www.avisynth.org/tsp/MT_07.zip

Or there is the best decision?

DeathTheSheep

25th October 2008, 19:21

How to compile XviD with mingw? There's no ./configure script in xvidcore/build/generic/ !!

sh: ./configure: No such file or directory
Anyone?

Kurtnoise

25th October 2008, 19:34

./bootstrap.sh first...

DeathTheSheep

25th October 2008, 19:37

Ok...
$ ./bootstrap.sh
ERROR: 'autoconf' not found

;)

Kurtnoise

25th October 2008, 19:42

well...https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435&package_id=67879&release_id=540763

DeathTheSheep

25th October 2008, 19:57

Oh great, now I have to install perl too. XD Are you sure the process is so ridiculously long-winded? Doesn't somebody have an old configure script they can upload for me?

SledgeHammer_999

25th October 2008, 22:04

Oh great, now I have to install perl too. XD Are you sure the process is so ridiculously long-winded? Doesn't somebody have an old configure script they can upload for me?

No just download and install "autoconf".

Or if you have linux installed just run the "./bootstrap.sh" command from linux and then switch to Windows.

Kurtnoise

26th October 2008, 08:53

Oh great, now I have to install perl too. XD Are you sure the process is so ridiculously long-winded?
there is a MsysDTK package providing all this stuff, available here (http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/msysDTK-1.0.1.exe?use_mirror=)...

DeathTheSheep

27th October 2008, 01:01

Thanks everyone! I did end up taking sh999's advice (Linux to the rescue) and build in windows. But to be sure I'm grabbing kn13's MsysDTK which I just saw. :)

PS: To everybody who's interested, there has definitely been some improvement since the latest "CVS build" from Koepi, especially in keyframes (gradient blocking)...

It's unlikely the B-frames flickering will ever be fixed, seeing how all the developers abandoned their brainchild. There was such a nice "Possible improvements beyond 1.1" thread right here on Doom9 too. :(

ChronoCross

27th October 2008, 01:54

DeathTheSheep

27th October 2008, 01:58

ChronoCross

2nd November 2008, 18:42

Past its usefulness? That's not for you to say, my friend. :) What's no longer useful for the video archival enthusiast (such as yourself, perhaps?) may still be quite so for many other individuals who wish to glean benefits of decoding speed, HW/device compatibility, and so on. I do very much appreciate h264; however, I don't at all believe in giving up on something that still does in fact see much use. But now we're getting a bit off-topic, are we not?

Considering there are more and more H264 capable devices everyday I think the HW/Device capability point doesn't really work.

Decoding speed is also becoming more and more of a distant thing as CoreAVC make 1080 work on even my older Single core machine. Even FFDSHOW is making leaps and bounds in the speed department.

The Quality tradeoff between the two can often be quite drastic and even if I did things other than "Archiving" I would more than likely use H264 as there is plenty of support for streaming as Dark Shikari has often done with his web based touhou encodes. Even youtube is moving in the H264 direction (while still horribly done) and I've seen a few of the youtube clone scripts adding x264 encoding functionality.

Even DIVX is moving in the h264 direction.

IgorC

2nd November 2008, 21:58

A bit offtopic.
I think that industry pushes H.264 as a new standard. That's why all forces should be concentrated on it.
While old ASP will be improved people will still use it. Look what happens with MP3. There is already better codec like AAC. But while there will be improvements for MP3 encoders (even little ones) markets will stay with it. LC-AAC is more efficient in terms of quality and decode speed is very light. It's valid to compare Xvid vs x264 as LC-AAC vs MP3.

alexins

15th November 2008, 21:37

xvid 1.2-127.08.11.15-VAQ x86 (http://www.xvidvideo.ru/content/view/394/1/)

Initial SSE4 support; Noexecstack patch; NASM 2.x compatibility

DeathTheSheep

15th November 2008, 22:57

Interesting... so Xvid is still seeing improvement from the Russian developers' community? :) Or is this simply a new CVS compile?

LoRd_MuldeR

15th November 2008, 23:00

What exactly is "Initial SSE4 support", is it SSE4 Exhaustive Search ???

MasterNobody

16th November 2008, 00:28

What exactly is "Initial SSE4 support", is it SSE4 Exhaustive Search ???
After looking in http://cvs.xvid.org/cvs/viewvc.cgi/xvidcore/src/ it seems that "Initial SSE4 support" means only detection of SSE4 (without any use of it).

LoRd_MuldeR

16th November 2008, 01:21

After looking in http://cvs.xvid.org/cvs/viewvc.cgi/xvidcore/src/ it seems that "Initial SSE4 support" means only detection of SSE4 (without any use of it).

lol :D

hajj_3

16th November 2008, 03:53

so this wont give any speed boost over the older build of xvid 1.2?

LoRd_MuldeR

16th November 2008, 04:10

so this wont give any speed boost over the older build of xvid 1.2?

Definitely not. Maybe you see a message on the log that says SSE4 was detected on your machine, but that's it. (Unless MasterNobody missed something)

olnima

17th November 2008, 13:16

But - to think a bit more positive - isn't this "step 1" for coding routines boosting the speed?

Olnima

LoRd_MuldeR

17th November 2008, 14:40

But - to think a bit more positive - isn't this "step 1" for coding routines boosting the speed?

Olnima

Yes. But SSE4 is not that "magic" speed-boost for video encoding :rolleyes:

The "SSE4 Exhaustive Search" is in fact slower than the SSE2-based Exhaustive Search as implemented in x264 :p
There are some more operations in SSE4 that may be helpful, but "one has to be rather creative with it" and it's not available on Penryn.

So I wouldn't expect too much. Especially because Xvid doesn't have any active developers atm. But we'll see...

Dark Shikari

17th November 2008, 15:11

So I wouldn't expect too much. Especially because Xvid doesn't have any active developers atm. But we'll see...And there's far more important things to implement if you want to boost Xvid speed (SSSE3 quant, faster bitstream writer, cacheline SAD, etc...)

clsid

17th November 2008, 17:06

There haven't been any significant changes to the Xvid code in the past two years. So it would be kind of surprising if new optimized code is going to be added now.

Lenny_Nero

17th November 2008, 20:00

Considering there are more and more H264 capable devices everyday I think the HW/Device capability point doesn't really work.

Decoding speed is also becoming more and more of a distant thing as CoreAVC make 1080 work on even my older Single core machine. Even FFDSHOW is making leaps and bounds in the speed department.

The Quality tradeoff between the two can often be quite drastic and even if I did things other than "Archiving" I would more than likely use H264 as there is plenty of support for streaming as Dark Shikari has often done with his web based touhou encodes. Even youtube is moving in the H264 direction (while still horribly done) and I've seen a few of the youtube clone scripts adding x264 encoding functionality.

Even DIVX is moving in the h264 direction.
I see £20~50 Xvid enabled DVD players in almost every shop I look, I have yet to see any H264 enabled players on the high street, and online they are 10x the price.

That aside I still cant see the quality that I hear about, my hope is that all of the H264 encodes I have seen and or been given have not been done very well, but that just says that its too hard to get a good H264 encode, where as its a piece of cake to get a quality Xvid encode from a noob with something like AGK, and I can get very good results via StaxRip that can be put up against the original, give the template to someone and they can go from a off air mpeg capture to a quality Xvid that they can sit down in front of a big TV and watch in a few hours.

Or wait for 10~20 hours for an H264 encode and sit at the computer and watch, as for youtube, do people really watch that crap ?

Dark Shikari

17th November 2008, 20:10

I see £20~50 Xvid enabled DVD players in almost every shop I look, I have yet to see any H264 enabled players on the high street, and online they are 10x the price. That's because the H.264 players are HD and the Xvid ones aren't: there's no incentive to release new SD boxes anymore, so all the new ones are HD (and therefore more expensive). But the Popcorn hour is only $180; that's certainly not "10 times the price" (more like 2) and it plays 6 times the resolution (1080p).its too hard to get a good H264 encodeIf someone is really too dumb to use a one-click GUI to encode their videos, they really don't deserve to use a computer... it isn't as if everyone is forced to use something overcomplicated like MeGUI.where as its a piece of cake to get a quality Xvid encode from a noob with something like AGKSure, its just that your Xvid encode will have to be about half the size of the DVD to be good quality. Don't tell me you don't care about size: if you didn't, you wouldn't be re-encoding the file to begin with.

And don't tell me about 700MB DVD rips: seriously, they look awful unless you're completely blind. Even the 2xCD ones are an insult to the movie.Or wait for 10~20 hours for an H264 encode and sit at the computer and watch, as for youtube, do people really watch that crap ?x264 is only slower than Xvid if you want it to be.

kinematic

17th November 2008, 22:21

And don't tell me about 700MB DVD rips: seriously, they look awful unless you're completely blind. Even the 2xCD ones are an insult to the movie

The funny thing is that everybody on torrent sites think 2 cd scene rips are the dogs kahuna's even with all the fucked up downsizing the scene does. Apparently the number of bits per pixel is the only determining quality factor if you believe the scene. A prime example of the so called scene quality is the Indian Jones 4 rip by group DiAMOND, it's incredible how blurred the picture is and everybody still thinks it's great quality.

(FYI, I don't torrent, I saw that rip at a friends house along with some others)

LoRd_MuldeR

18th November 2008, 01:24

Who cares if some self-proclaimed "scene" groups produce crappy rips, as long as we know how to do it properly for our own legal encodes? :p

TripleA

18th November 2008, 04:39

If you've never seen what the original DVD, let alone HD, movie looks like, I am sure that a low-bitrate PoS will look good to you. Hence, the "scene" rules. Not applicable for most people here, that. Any for whom it is applicable will be keeping very quite about it, I am sure :D.

That said, I still use XviD exclusively for my own work. Mainly because of lack of h.264-capable standalone players in the immediate vicinity. I have no problems with using very high bitrates for what I need.

Lenny_Nero

18th November 2008, 09:14

Just on the single cost of Popcorn hour, over here £199 to £250, as I said I can go into many shops and get a good Xvid enabled player for £18~20 ...I will let you work that out, also I have yet to see anything like that in the hi street. £30~£50 gets you up scaling to 1080i/p.

I dont care about "scene" group rels and torrent sites, as I said I am doing this with my captures of DVB-TV and HD off the air, I dont encode to a set size, I have never seen the point I have my templates and they use as much as they need, but its rare for a 40~50 min SD prog to need more than 3-400 MB, unless its all moving outdoor stuff, its often hard to tell them from the raw mpegs. I have never had to encode a file to half a DVD size, what would be the point 600~1500 MB is often more than enuff, unless its a 3 hour film.

I have yet to do much with H264, as I said I base on stuff I get given, and so far I have been able to do Xvid encodes that look better in the same file size.

Dark Shikari

19th November 2008, 03:16

Just on the single cost of Popcorn hour, over here £199 to £250Then how about this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136325)?

Not my fault if your country's prices can't drop to sane levels... :p

akiza

19th November 2008, 04:50

And there's far more important things to implement if you want to boost Xvid speed (SSSE3 quant, faster bitstream writer, cacheline SAD, etc...)

That's all we pray for..... :)

LoRd_MuldeR

19th November 2008, 04:58

That's all we pray for..... :)

I somehow doubt that praying will help :p

akiza

20th November 2008, 10:39

I somehow doubt that praying will help :p

Hope someone can spend another "15min" ....:devil:

Dark Shikari

20th November 2008, 10:45

Hope someone can spend another "15min" ....:devil:But making Xvid faster just makes x264 look slower... :p

akiza

20th November 2008, 11:00

But making Xvid faster just makes x264 look slower... :p

When it happen, someone can spend another 15min to make X264 faster.... :devil::devil::devil:

Dark Shikari

20th November 2008, 11:06

When it happen, someone can spend another 15min to make X264 faster.... :devil::devil::devil:It isn't that easy when you've exhausted nearly every avenue of optimization... perhaps I can spend 15 minutes and make x264 ~0.01% faster...

gizzin

20th November 2008, 18:01

If someone is really too dumb to use a one-click GUI to encode their videos, they really don't deserve to use a computer... it isn't as if everyone is forced to use something overcomplicated like MeGUI.

lol

Too say that 700-1400 "scene" xvids looks like crap is overstatement. They don't look great compared to the original but they still look good. I did some encodes xvid, x264, and did some side by side comparisons. If xvid didn't look like such crap in dark areas, I would say that x264 is not much more than 10%, 15% better. Not that 80% that some people claim :)

DeathTheSheep

22nd November 2008, 21:59

But making Xvid faster just makes x264 look slower... :p
I don't think there should rationally be a "conflict of interest." Come on, give it a shot; you might even surprise yourself. Besides, you'd have two big codecs to your name instead of just one, ya know. ;)

prOnorama

23rd November 2008, 00:07

I don't think there should rationally be a "conflict of interest." Come on, give it a shot; you might even surprise yourself. Besides, you'd have two big codecs to your name instead of just one, ya know. ;)

Good argument ;)

For me using x264 only makes sense for HD sources at this moment. A good quality SD Xvid encode (usually >1500 Kbps or 1/3 DVD-R) will look fairly good IMO with the great added benefit I can watch them on my standalone DVD player.

Since I can't play HD content on my standalone DVD player (simply because of the fact resolutions >720 pixels width aren't supported by the chipset and I don't know any commercial DVD players that will), it makes sense encoding HD stuff with the superior x264 codec since Xvid won't be playable @ > 720 pixels width anyway.

If you look on the net x264 encodes of SD content just aren't popular probably precisely because the lack of standalone compatibility (yes I know PopCornHour but that's really a niche market)

And since SD content will still be produced for quite some time (especially the non-big budget non-Hollywood stuff) Xvid is still relevant as a codec at least until we see H.264 capable DVD players from big manufacturers sold at the average electronics store (maybe DivX Inc. can break the ice here)

Anyway (speed) improvements for Xvid would be nice of course

Sharc

23rd November 2008, 09:32

Since I can't play HD content on my standalone DVD player (simply because of the fact resolutions >720 pixels width aren't supported by the chipset and I don't know any commercial DVD players that will), it makes sense encoding HD stuff with the superior x264 codec since Xvid won't be playable @ > 720 pixels width anyway.

... or one resizes the HD stuff to 720x576 - eventually cropping the black borders and signalling the correct PAR - and encodes with XviD or DivX to make it playable on legacy standalones, until BD players fit the budget. The results are pretty good in my experience, because one can exploit the full 720x576 resolution with the active picture.

So any improvement on XviD would be welcome.

PatchWorKs

23rd November 2008, 19:20

So any improvement on XviD would be welcome.
Well, I loved XviD but its era is going to end....

So guyz, isn't time to switch to Theora/Dirac instead ?

They really need improvements !

http://www.theora.org/

http://www.diracvideo.org/ :helpful:

Dark Shikari

23rd November 2008, 22:19

Well, I loved XviD but its era is going to end....

So guyz, isn't time to switch to Theora/Dirac instead ?

They really need improvements !

http://www.theora.org/

http://www.diracvideo.org/ :helpful:Wait, the "Xvid era is ending"... so you want to switch to something inferior to Xvid?! (Theora)