Which codec is better at low bit-rates?

[Captain_Nipple]

Just a general question so it deserves a general answer...

Which codec is better at low bit-rates?
The reason i ask is that I'm about to get around encoding with 4.1x and need to know is this a good codec at low bit-rates.
I have read around the forums and the general feedback is that 4.1x is best at higher bitrates and higher res movies. I like to stick with 1 cd rips. Not sure if i will stick with 3.11. My first experience with GKnot and i think 4.12 codec was that it produced two avi's about 45min each, each being the very same. Don't have the log file anymore. The dvd was much longer indeed. This was enough to put me off. I would like to get to know this codec better.

Any feedback is good feedback, even if it is just peoples experience with the codec. (4.1x)

Captain

[Captain_Nipple]

Maybe i should have posted this in the DivX4 forum?!?!?

[LotionBoy]

at low-bitrates, I'd go with Nandub, because I think its bit-distribution module is better than Divx4.11, which would hopefully keep the quality okay. How low bitrate are you talking about?

The only place that Divx4 is clearly superior is at resolution over 640 horizontal. Divx 3.11 was written as a streaming format and does not deal well with high resolutions at all.

LotionBoy

[NeVeRLiFt]

Its really easy to make 2CD rips. I dont care what anyone says.
For 1CD rips Nandub is king! The quality I get using Nandub and the filesize is freaky crazy. DivX4.xx can make good rips and all but I'm tired of people talking trash about DivX3.11 and Nandub. DivX4.xx is easy for n00bies to use. And they think its so good..... hell they learn how to use Nandub they will see good!
:D

[Captain_Nipple]

Hi again....
The film I am running my few comparison tests on on "HEAT".
The reason is that it is 2hrs or so long, has alot of low action scenes but also has some good action scenes (classic bank robbery scene). For me it is a good choice because it really puts the two codecs head to head.

I don't want to start another "My codec is better then your codec" argument. "AMD better then Intel". "Coke better then Pepsi"!!!:D Anyways, the birate is 595 or so(I know it's very low, that's the idea!) and it IS hard to tell the difference between the two codecs.
Most of my rips are 1cd based anyway.

I think 4.1x is better on dark scenes, but that's about it. I believe 3.11 is a better all-rounder, but hey, what do I know:) I find comparing the two interesting.

I agree with LotionBoy totally.
NeVeRLiFt, your right, anybody can do a 2cd rip and have a great looking movie. The real challange is to have a 1cd rip looking as good as a 2 cd rip.

Just to finish, I am going to check out 4.1x a bit more, just to see, but for now NanDub/GKnot conversion is superior. Anyone can tell me different, please do.;)

Captain.

[NeVeRLiFt]

I have done "Gone In 60secs" Which is 1hr 57mins. I cut off the ending and start credits, made it 1hr 48min 24secs. Using ole Nandub
and 900bitrate w/ VBR mp3 the size is at 772mb! I'm tweaking the sound alittle more and then gonna lower the bitrate some....
Needless to say the quality is super damn freaky for the size!
Jan 11th I will upload it to anyone who wants it.
I get my DSL back :D

[Captain_Nipple]

That would be good for comparison. I have it done too but no DSL:(

Captain.

[Pikoa]

Here goes. I've used both codecs on many occasions. Here's what I've found out which may be already known fact to you. Divx3.11 makes a great codec for 1 CD rips. The only problem is dealing with dark scenes in low motion. Divx3.11 will generate typically green blocks on black background. They're typically caused by noise in the source and can be lessened (not removed) by some temporal smoothing.

Divx4.11 seems to automatically apply mid/heavy smoothing, making them robust and well adapted to dark scenes. I've found that for long-not-very-compressible movie (2++hrs) at high res (check with GKnot), Divx4.1x may be the better solution. Otherwise, 3.11 is a better solution. Check out Doom9's study on various codecs below: Remember, with Divx3.11, its not a two pass process in most instances, you have to perform minor experimentation on the side to get the best setting.

http://www.doom9.org/codec_1800.htm

:) Pikoa

[JayTray]

I agree DivX 4.x is better for encoding dark, low motion scenes. And DivX 3.x is best for 1 cd rips (especially at getting exact file size). My personal preferance is DivX 3.11!

I get micro blocks with DivX 4.x and I can't stand the unsharpening effect most filters leave (especially in noisy backgrounds). No matter what strength or filter. If it removes micro blocks it also makes the picture blurry, like Gaussian Blur in Photo Shop. I have experimented with both codecs but only with one CD rips. Both codecs cause little micro blocks, but DivX 4.x is way more noticeable to my eye (Bigger Blocks or pixels). I'd rather have a 2-pass (no filters) DivX 3.11 than a 2-pass DivX 4.x (w/ filters).

I like the way Nan Dub works over Virtual Dub. You end up with a much closer to the predicted file size with Nan Dub SBC. That's all I have to say about that. I don't want to start a Coca Cola/Pepsi or Intel vs AMD war here. I am just stating my opinion!

Thanks For hearing it!

[cofferscuffs]

Try encoding Waterworld then you're fuxx0rd, even at massively over-the-top bitrates of 2000 it still looks like doggy poo. Anything with water, fog, mist etc DivX 3.11alpha s**ts on. I don't know whether this applies to DivX 4....

[philippas]

If you do a recompress, like dvd->divx, the quality of the divx is highly dependable from the source. So if the source is crap the product will be crap also.
Is the DvD version of the waterWorld good ?
I haven't seen it on DvD yet.

In movies like the waterworld, there is a lot of motion in the overall of the film, which needs a lot of bitRate to look good.
Also i think waterworld was close to 3 hours long.
Maybe in 3 cd's will look good.

[cofferscuffs]

No, the source is good, and if you'd read I said I had also tried encoding it at 2000... DivX 3.11alpha just doesn't like water.

[philippas]

It's not the water!!!
It's the motion.
Scenes of water have very high motion scenes.
Also average bitRate doesn't matter as much as the max bitRate limit that u set. For films like that you might need to set the max to 6000kbits or more.

[Captain_Nipple]

Waterworld was a crap film anyway.

[cofferscuffs]

LOL! A exspensive and crappy movie. :D

[JayTray]

I encoded Cast Away which also has a lot of high motion (water Scenes) with DivX 4 and the quality was also crappy. I have to agree with Philippas In that any movie with a lot of motion in water scenes
is gonna look like crap. That is the only time I will use the lightest filter available. Otherwise I can't stand the blurry effect of filters. In the case of Cast Away I used Both Codecs and must say I had better results with DivX 3.11 via NAN DUB SBC. I think that the use of Nan Dub With DivX 3 give it the advantage over DivX 4 with V~Dub.

Nan Dub detects the motion better I'd say. But I believe the Cap'n was askin which codec works better at lower bit rates? And if I had to choose I would say DivX 3.11. Although you are allowed more kb per second with DivX 4. Or so they say. Everytime I go with the recommended bit rate I end up with an over sized file using DivX 4.x.

[philippas]

I agree with you. If you tweak nandub you will get better results than divx4 nomatter if you use low bitRate or high.
JayTray said:
Although you are allowed more kb per second with DivX 4. Or so they say.

No its just a convesion(approximation if you like)
For divx4 1000bits = 1kbit
For divx3 1024bits = 1kbit

So 6000kbits in divx4 is equal to 6144kbits for divx3

[LotionBoy]

To jump in here and correct something
High motion = LOW Bitrates.

The reason that water defeats pretty much any video codec is that it is random. The codec cannot predict delta frame movement because it is impossible to predict, so it all just goes to hell. Under normal circumstances, motion will result in smaller file sizes because codecs can cheat more without the eye detecting it. Water is just a special case.

LotionBoy

[philippas]

The reason that water defeats pretty much any video codec is that it is random. The codec cannot predict delta frame movement because it is impossible to predict, so it all just goes to hell

No i don't think water is a special case and it defeats the codec. Water scenes have motion that lasts alot more than a movie without water. So overall the movie has alot more fast scenes than slow scenes thus it needs alot BitRate to achieve good quality.
Don't forget also that the dvd's are mpg-2 which is much less efficient than divx-mpg4, and when you encode a movie you perform a recompress. If the source is not good the divx won't be good either.


The only weakness of divx that i can see and its not related to high motion is when you try to encode frames with parts of deep red colour i don't really know why, it might be the YUV colour space.

[LotionBoy]

Water is a special case.

Motion encodes well. Look at the Matrix. Look at the action scenes. They all use high DRFs, much higher DRFs than the still scenes. Slow scenes eat up bits. Slow scenes eat up bits. The less movement, the more detectable errors are to the eye and the more bits are needed to make a passable rendition. The problem with water is that it is nearly impossible to save the changes in water in a delta-frame. Too much changes too randomly (it's the same with smoke and fire, although not as bad as with water). MPEG-2 deals with water with the brute force method: really high bitrates. MPEG-2 is much less efficent that MPEG-4, but with a DVD you have 9.6gig to deal with. With a one CD divx you have 700MB. Where do you think bitrate is going to be more precious?
On the issue of the source not being good, the Waterworld source is fine. The problem is not a bad source. The issue is the water.

Agreed on the red thing. Seems like Divx4 is not as bad in this respect.

LotionBoy

[ohliuv]

Water is a special case.

I'd rather say that all non-linear motion is a special case ;)

[LotionBoy]

agreed. :)

LotionBoy