Has AVC made XVid/Divx (mpeg4 asp) obsolete?

[drbuzz0]

Well, okay... not "obsolete" there are some features of Divx which are useful and propriotary and Xvid is great for on the fly encoding in my experience. Also, there are ASP DVD players.

But I'm wondering if there's any real reason why one would still use the Mpeg4 ASP codecs such as Xvid, Divx and other similar implementations for general purpose ripping/archiving/DVR'ing.

For a long time I used Xvid, simply becased I always have and it worked well. But since I started playing around with some of the AVX/H.264 codecs, I've pretty much switched.

Hands down, the efficiency is just better for almost everything. The same bit rate on AVC vrsus the older simple profile implementations of mpeg4 it's not hard to see that AVC looks better... noticeably. And x264 does a pretty damn good job of giving you a lot of control over how the media is encoded.

The difference is not nearly as dramatic as compared with something like mpeg-2, but it's definitely signifficant.

Possibly some of the On2 or proprietary codecs may be as good or better (or at least, that's what they say).

But for general purpose encoding is there any real reason not to go with h364

[Brother John]

I can think of a whole list of reasons for preferring MPEG-4 Visual:

– Faster encoding.
– Less demanding decoding.
– More widespread SAP support.
– Storage space is less and less limited (these days you can get 1000 GB hard drives at a perfectly reasonable price), so you don’t need to compress the hell out of everything. And at high datarates AVCs advantage is a lot less pronounced.
– Configuring Xvid is a lot more straight forward than x264, just because of the amount of available options. Yeah, you got Nero AVC, but that’s not for free.
– Still a very major playback device are crappy TVs that smooth over a lot of artefacts. If you can’t see AVCs better quality anyway, why bother?
– Editing tools for AVC are a lot less mature than for ASP. Just get for example an x264 MKV and try to cut it.

It’s possible – probable even – that in a few years we’ll look back and say: ASP was the transitional step between MPEG-2 and H.264. But at at the moment it’s one of the major video formats with no immediate change in sight.

[*.mp4 guy]

I would put it this way, unless there is a specific reason that you need to use Mpeg4-ASP, you should use Mpeg4-AVC. Brother John listed all of the major reasons you might need ASP (and a bit extra), and If they don't apply to you, then ASP is, as far as you are concerned, obsolete.

[Sagittaire]

– Faster encoding.

It's false. For the same speed, H264 produce better quality.


– Less demanding decoding.

It's false. 5% CPU charge with lastest GPU hardware acceleration for 1080p. There are no available hardware acceleration for MPEG4 ASP.


– More widespread SAP support.

It's false. MPEG4 ASP is not officialy supported for movie production. You can only find "DivX" on p2p or make yourself the backup.


– Storage space is less and less limited (these days you can get 1000 GB hard drives at a perfectly reasonable price), so you don’t need to compress the hell out of everything. And at high datarates AVCs advantage is a lot less pronounced.

It's false. Preserve space ar bandwidth is always usefull. HDTV in europe will use H264 only for that.


– Configuring Xvid is a lot more straight forward than x264, just because of the amount of available options. Yeah, you got Nero AVC, but that’s not for free.

Always false. You can use many gui for one clip encoding with x264. There are many professional H264 implementation in the world.


– Editing tools for AVC are a lot less mature than for ASP. Just get for example an x264 MKV and try to cut it.

Always false. You think about only for avi/mkv. You can use mp4, mpeg, mkv, avi, ts, m2ts, evob with H264. In fact there are no futur for MPEG4 ASP in the professional world video editing. HDDVD or BD editing are by far more mature than divx or mkv container editing.

[arfster]

Lots of people are more familiar with divx, and hardware demands are a lot less - yes, there is gpu acceleration, but that's still problematic for a lot of people.

That's about it though. AVC is simply superior otherwise.

[Eno / Omni]

Guys here forget something, just few people have h264 hardware decoding ...
Xvid/Divx run on slow computer, this is what it's not obsolete atm
AVC > Divx / Xvid quality but not for decoding yet.

[smok3]

the only reason (i can think of) to still use xvid/divx is widespread hardware players support.

[Brother John]

@Sagittaire
I was talking about the usual practical encoding/playback situation on an average computer, not about the newest top of the line machine and not about encoder setups you'd hardly ever use for a serious encoding.

I disagree with the rest of your post as well. Every crappy 20 quid SAP has »DivX support«. That storage is as cheap as never before is a fact, and search this very forum for all the problems with editing (usually high def) AVC.

You have a point with the configuring thing, though. We have easy profiles for Xvid as well as x264. And because the x264 profiles are better integrated into the popular frontends than Teegedeck's Xvid profiles, I guess setting up x264 really is a little easier for the beginner. But if you start to learn about the details yourself, x264 is a lot more complex, isn't it? After all, that's one of its advantages.

[check]

It's false. 5% CPU charge with lastest GPU hardware acceleration for 1080p. There are no available hardware acceleration for MPEG4 ASP.
Red herring - the majority of computers lack powerful video cards to decode h264 at all, much less include a directX 10 nvidia card that can decode everything on the GPU. Even in the selection of high end gamers that comprise the population of Steam, only 2% (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html) have a directX 10 system. Try this point again in two years :)


I was talking about the usual practical encoding/playback situation on an average computer, not about the newest top of the line machine and not about encoder setups you'd hardly ever use for a serious encoding.
Are you referring to his point about x264 giving the same or better quality in equal time? In my tests with an A64 3000+ after sagittaire first posted this surprising (to me as well originally) conclusion, my numbers agreed that x264 was always better in terms of speed/quality.

You have a point with the configuring thing, though. We have easy profiles for Xvid as well as x264. And because the x264 profiles are better integrated into the popular frontends than Teegedeck's Xvid profiles, I guess setting up x264 really is a little easier for the beginner. But if you start to learn about the details yourself, x264 is a lot more complex, isn't it? After all, that's one of its advantages.
In many ways I disagree. Although xvid has fewer options, they don't all work in predictable ways. With x264, options will either improve or reduce efficiency, and it's pretty clear which is which. xvid seems to have a much more convoluted set of options than this, just see qpel, gmc, etc etc.

[Soulhunter]

Why I still use ASP [XviD] and not AVC...

- Faster decoding [I dont have one of the latest GPUs]
- In my case AVC still fails to deliver transparent results



Preserve space ar bandwidth is always usefull. HDTV in europe will use H264 only for that..

Well, saving bandwidth might be good for the broadcasters [its cheaper for em] but its not always beneficial for us... A good example is the sucky blocky STD stuff they air over here! And for storage: I just got a 500GB HDD for 85 Euros... Sooo much space for backups for soooo little money, yay!


Bye

[*.mp4 guy]

Are you referring to his point about x264 giving the same or better quality in equal time? In my tests with an A64 3000+ after sagittaire first posted this surprising (to me as well originally) conclusion, my numbers agreed that x264 was always better in terms of speed/quality.

Its important to quantify this further, because what you were encoding makes a big difference. Whith the results you got, I would expect that you were encoding anime, which benefits from AVC much more then most other material.

[Sagittaire]

- Faster decoding [I dont have one of the latest GPUs]
- In my case AVC still fails to deliver transparent results


1) Well why XviD in this case. MPEG2 with DVD image produce very better quality than backup, isn't?

2) You got a 500GB HDD for 85 Euros and 50€ for GPU with hardware decoding (ati 2xxx or nvidia 8xxx).

[Trahald]

options for gpu decoding have gotten cheaper .. assuming you have a mobo that can do pciexpress.... and have the money. its worth it. im using my video chipset. 720p x264 is all it can muster smoothly.. 960x1080 works with lots of jitter

[weaver4]

I have found that DivX that is encoded with 25% higher bitrate is equal in quality to X264. I believe this website which did a double-blind test supports that.

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/subjective_codecs_comparison_en.html

Since DivX/XviD seems to play everywhere it is worth larger filesizes for me.

I find X264 lack of standards to be frustrating. Just because you encode a file in H264 does not mean it will play everywhere you think it should. For example I encoded (on my PC, in H264) one movie this weekend 8 different ways; only one of the encodes would play on Quicktime on my Mac (nero digital). If you really want to ruin a weekend try to make a H264 movie on your PC that will play on a Apple TV.

If you want to make a movie on your PC, keep it on your PC, and play on your PC then you might want to use H264; else use DivX...IMHO.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I find X264 lack of standards to be frustrating.

Öhm? As far as I know, x264 produces 100% H.264 compatible bitstreams! Of course H.264 support in Hardware Players is still rare at the moment, but this is definitely not due to the lack of standards. It's only a matter of time till more Hardware Players will support H.264. And of course you will have to configure x264 according to the H.264 profiles supported by your Hardware Player, but that should be piece of cake with a proper GUI...

[Jay Bee]

It depends on what you're encoding. For high motion, noisy, interlaced sports content the difference between AVC, ASP and MPEG-2 isn't anywhere near as big as for movie and animee content. I often still prefer DVD compliant MPEG-2 streams for the stuff I encode. Although this may soon change now that CoreAVC 1.5 finally has good interlaced support.

I won't be entirely convinced until it's easy to go HD optical compliant with AVC though.

[Brother John]

Are you referring to his point about x264 giving the same or better quality in equal time?
Well, what I can speak for is mainly what I do myself. And that’s full res DVD encodings of mostly real world films to 1/2 DVD-5 size on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M laptop which is also my only playback device. Quality is roughly the same with both formats, I even slightly prefer the Xvid look, though that might be purely because I’m so used to it. What makes H.264 a no go under these circumstances is its higher decoding CPU load, which causes more frequent and longer fan running times. Obviously I’d like to avoid that.

I think it’s easy to lose ourselfs in tedious detail discussions. And then of course we’ll find particular circumstances where either ASP or H.264 is better/easier/faster/sexier/whatever. But drbuzz0 asked a very general question: if H.264 has made ASP obsolete today? This question isn’t answered by tiny quality or encoding details, but by large scale aspects like SAP support, maturity of editing tools, general ease of use, etc. When looking at those it seems quite clear to me that ASP is a very mature and well established format while H.264 still has to catch up in a couple of areas.

[CruNcher]

Why I still use ASP [XviD] and not AVC...

- In my case AVC still fails to deliver transparent results



Implementation ?
Bitrate ?
case Anime or Real ?

there are major visual differences bettween implementations especialy @ low bitrates and HD x264 seems to be the weakest in this category yet, but you can't talk for the complete AVC standard only from 1 implementation results, that would be false (especialy as one can be more optimized for a special purpose then another).
Also the bitstream (decoding complexity) can be different for different implementations x264 for example is more decoding complex then a same settings Ateme encoded stream (more efficient block prediction it seems).

[dbzgundam]

I find X264 lack of standards to be frustrating. Just because you encode a file in H264 does not mean it will play everywhere you think it should. For example I encoded (on my PC, in H264) one movie this weekend 8 different ways; only one of the encodes would play on Quicktime on my Mac (nero digital). If you really want to ruin a weekend try to make a H264 movie on your PC that will play on a Apple TV.

It's not the codec's fault that Apple decided to give crappy profile support. ;)

[R3Z]

It's false. For the same speed, H264 produce better quality.

It's false. MPEG4 ASP is not officialy supported for movie production. You can only find "DivX" on p2p or make yourself the backup.


I would just like to point out that i think you are wrong on these two points.

Firstly, xvid is able to retain detail and grain better than x264. Tests have shown this on this very forum.

MPEG4 ASP is supported on the majority of DVD players. Even big companies like LG, Panasonic and Phillips have ASP compatability on their dvd players.

[Sharktooth]

Firstly, xvid is able to retain detail and grain better than x264. Tests have shown this on this very forum.
Im not so sure about that. Maybe it's just the fact most ppl is used to set subme to 6 or more. Extreme settings (expecially RDO) will always kill some details in favour of compression.

http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-4.PNG
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-2.PNG
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-6.PNG

[drbuzz0]

I would just like to point out that i think you are wrong on these two points.

Firstly, xvid is able to retain detail and grain better than x264. Tests have shown this on this very forum.

MPEG4 ASP is supported on the majority of DVD players. Even big companies like LG, Panasonic and Phillips have ASP compatability on their dvd players.

Well okay, sure. There's no doubt that format is going to be somewhat dictated by the support of the device you're planning on playing it with. The same case could be made for mpeg-2. You would use it for a lot of things, such as standard DVD players, because it's supported, not because it offers the best compression efficiency and picture quality.

Anyone on here is going to know that there's no question more annoying than "What's the best codec."

But, assuming one has capable hardware/software, I'm hard pressed to find a reason why I'd go with an ASP option over AVC for general purpose DVD backups, archiving of stuff and that sort of thing.

I'm not entirely sold on xvid preserving detail better. For the same bitrate AVC always just seems to do a better job, in my own personal experience.

And you can get some pretty decent quality out of AVC for shots which, in the same bit rate, look very badly degraded in Divx.

[R3Z]

Well okay, sure. There's no doubt that format is going to be somewhat dictated by the support of the device you're planning on playing it with. The same case could be made for mpeg-2. You would use it for a lot of things, such as standard DVD players, because it's supported, not because it offers the best compression efficiency and picture quality.

Anyone on here is going to know that there's no question more annoying than "What's the best codec."

But, assuming one has capable hardware/software, I'm hard pressed to find a reason why I'd go with an ASP option over AVC for general purpose DVD backups, archiving of stuff and that sort of thing.

I'm not entirely sold on xvid preserving detail better. For the same bitrate AVC always just seems to do a better job, in my own personal experience.

And you can get some pretty decent quality out of AVC for shots which, in the same bit rate, look very badly degraded in Divx.

I am not saying i would go ASP either, in fact i never have. As for the xvid detail vs x264, its been proven on these forums. Heres one of a few links posted in our battles;

http://temppeli.ton.tut.fi/~roger/codectest/test2/results.html

[roket scyntist]

Simple answer to the original question: No (before we get to a codec battle, again). Did AVC obsolete ASP? Not really. Many of my friends do not use their PC's for games, and do not see the need to upgrade their GFX cards or CPUs. Decoding ASP works fine on my wive's P3 1Ghz with A GeForce 5, while AVC can be quite demanding. On that note, watching movies on my PC is my last option. My main machine encodes/decodes AVC just fine (even Hi Def stuff), but I like being able to relax on a couch in front of a big tv. My SAP plays everything ASP wise I throw at it, so I can watch in comfort without noise from a media centre (which is about the only reasonably priced solution to play AVC on TV). That being said, most problems with AVC now is a cost issue. AVC is easy if you have a fast CPU, very recent GFX card (for which you still need to buy more software to use GPU accel), cutting edge SAP (more likely a HDD based media player).

Not so simple answer to question: Techically, yes. Practically, no. Depends on what your budget/needs are, as always :-)

[CruNcher]

Im not so sure about that. Maybe it's just the fact most ppl is used to set subme to 6 or more. Extreme settings (expecially RDO) will always kill some details in favour of compression.

http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-4.PNG
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-2.PNG
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain/720x288@847kbps-6.PNG

yep sad but true that is the case, especialy at low bitrates everything looks angelized with x264 sooner or later the more compressed
but i can definatly say that is not the case for every H.264 implementation, at least not @ the same compression factor

[R3Z]

Im not so sure about that. Maybe it's just the fact most ppl is used to set subme to 6 or more. Extreme settings (expecially RDO) will always kill some details in favour of compression.


I find x264 can retain alot of detail, especially if inter and intra quants are tweaked. But then trellis has to be disabled.

[weaver4]

It's only a matter of time till more Hardware Players will support H.264. And of course you will have to configure x264 according to the H.264 profiles supported by your Hardware Player, but that should be piece of cake with a proper GUI...

"Your Hardware Player" is exactly what I am talking about. I don't want it to play just on my player. I want to know that it will play on my son's player, my aunts player, my computer, my friends mac, my next player, on Linux, on my PDA, on Apple TV, etc.

Say what you will; DivX has done a good job of this, X264 has not....yet.

You are right about the H264 "standards" I should of said "standard profiles"; or whatever it is called that has causes such a huge deviation.

[Mutant_Fruit]

"Your Hardware Player" is exactly what I am talking about. I don't want it to play just on my player. I want to know that it will play on my son's player, my aunts player, my computer, my friends mac, my next player, on Linux, on my PDA, on Apple TV, etc.

Say what you will; DivX has done a good job of this, X264 has not....yet.

You are right about the H264 "standards" I should of said "standard profiles"; or whatever it is called that has causes such a huge deviation.
Thing is, H.264 can guarantee you compatibilty in a way that DivX/Xvid can't. H.264 is the standard adopted by HD tv stations, and by HDDVD and Blu-Ray discs*. Therefore it will get more and better support than DivX ever did and will and it will gain that support faster than DivX did.

How long was it until hardware support came out for DivX players? There are already quite a few players out there with H.264 support, it even has support on quite a few of the newer video mp3 players such as the iPod and Zune. I'm sure there are PMP devices out there with H.264 support aswell.

* There are other codecs which can be used in the new HD discs. H.264 has been chosen as the standard for european HD broadcasts though (iirc).

EDIT: Apple TV is H.264, just so ya know ;)

[weaver4]

Thing is, H.264 can guarantee you compatibilty in a way that DivX/Xvid can't. H.264 is the standard adopted by HD tv stations, and by HDDVD and Blu-Ray discs*. Therefore it will get more and better support than DivX ever did and will and it will gain that support faster than DivX did.

How long was it until hardware support came out for DivX players? There are already quite a few players out there with H.264 support, it even has support on quite a few of the newer video mp3 players such as the iPod and Zune. I'm sure there are PMP devices out there with H.264 support aswell.

* There are other codecs which can be used in the new HD discs. H.264 has been chosen as the standard for european HD broadcasts though (iirc).

EDIT: Apple TV is H.264, just so ya know ;)

The Zune only plays wmv files on the handheld, the Zune PC app will play H.264. The PSP will play H.264 as well, but files made for the PSP, or XBox or Ipod will not play on the others....that is my point. Whereas files made on the DivX Handheld profile will play on 37 handheld players, and Palm Pilot, and PocketPC.

Specs from Microsoft web site on Zune:

Windows Media Video (.wmv): Main Profile, CBR or VBR, up to 1.5 Mbps peak video bitrate, 320 x 240 pixels, 30 frames per sec., with Windows Media Audio up to 192 Kbps, 44.1 kHz, stereo audio; Simple Profile, CBR, up to 736 Kbps video bitrate, 320 x 240 pixels, 30 frames per sec.

[Terranigma]

R3Z, I bet to differ. That test is obsolete; use the settings to which I specify.
Try subme7, trellis2, hadamard, -esa, & 8 reference frames minumum with the default flat matrix versus anything in asp's arsenal, then show me screenshots.

[Mutant_Fruit]

The Zune only plays wmv files on the handheld, the Zune PC app will play H.264.
Ah, my mistake. I knew there was more than just the iPod that played H.264, so i googled up and it found me the zune (only).

The PSP will play H.264 as well, but files made for the PSP, or XBox or Ipod will not play on the others....that is my point
There's no reason why they shouldn't. If you made a video clip using H.264 handheld profile it'd work perfectly on your xbox and PSP and iPod assuming that they all have the ability to play standard streams.

Some pocket PC's are able to play back H.264 content (iPAQ 1945 for one).

The point is that as H.264 is (one of) the standard codec for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, it will be getting great support in the future. I'd be nearly willing to bet that all new portable video players will come with H.264 support. Thing is, H.264 has only really hit mainstream in the last year or two, so things are limited at the moment in terms of devices which can play the stuff back, but that will only improve with time.

EDIT: The PSP supports Main profile @ Level 3. The iPod doesn't actually support any particular profile. So it's a bit of an odd one. The xbox plays H.264 at up to 15Mbps according to google, so thats probably Main profile @ level 5 or so.

[bah147]

Ah, my mistake. I knew there was more than just the iPod that played H.264, so i googled up and it found me the zune (only).


There's no reason why they shouldn't. If you made a video clip using H.264 handheld profile it'd work perfectly on your xbox and PSP and iPod assuming that they all have the ability to play standard streams.

Some pocket PC's are able to play back H.264 content (iPAQ 1945 for one).

The point is that as H.264 is (one of) the standard codec for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, it will be getting great support in the future. I'd be nearly willing to bet that all new portable video players will come with H.264 support. Thing is, H.264 has only really hit mainstream in the last year or two, so things are limited at the moment in terms of devices which can play the stuff back, but that will only improve with time.

EDIT: The PSP supports Main profile @ Level 3. The iPod doesn't actually support any particular profile. So it's a bit of an odd one. The xbox plays H.264 at up to 15Mbps according to google, so thats probably Main profile @ level 5 or so.

Just a comment and a question.

The Zen Vision M supports MPEG-4 SP( there's more on the box, but this is all I could find from the lame User's Guide). I believe it will take Divx5 and Xvid, but that is from memory.

HDV is spread out thru the forum it seems,so please move my post to proper forum if need be. My question is: Am I better off with AVCHD(MPEG-4 AVC) recordings or stick with HDV(MPEG-2)from HC1 cam. I originally created a .mpv(MPEG-2) and a .wav(for sound using Pinnacle Studio). Using HDVSplit, I now have a .mts(transport stream). Using TsRemux, I can create a .m2ts(BD or AVC compatable stream) and can burn a standard DVD with NERO RECODE 2 in AVCHD high def. I guess I am expanding on OP's question. It is very exciting( THANKS 2 DOOM9!!) to see this technology unfold, but its hard for a consumer to keep up($$) with the technology. I see a lot of posts on HDTV h.264 streams, but I get MPEG-2 .ts from my cable( I thought the standard in US).

My question is not which is better( I know better), but in lighjt of the conversation: How strong is MPEG-4, whatever profile? Have I answered my own question? :stupid:

[Mutant_Fruit]

Whichever you set your camera to record to, they will both have to be transcoded into Divx/Xvid before you can play em on the Vision M. I'm fairly certain that the vision M can play mpeg2 aswell, but mpeg2 really eats space, so i wouldn't recommend that ;)

So if you want to play your video on a handheld device, DivX is still the winner by a long shot, simply because there are currently a lot more devices out there that can handle divx content.

[Soulhunter]

1) Well why XviD in this case. MPEG2 with DVD image produce very better quality than backup, isn't?

No, after removing/fixing stuff like chroma shifts, dirt, broken frames, aliasing, dot crawling, chroma bleeding, blurriness or blocking, a lot backups will actually look better than the DVD... And in difference to most other codecs, XviD is able to deliver transparent results [result looks like the AVS], and that at a ~25% lower bitrate than the DVD source in most cases! Of course this is all based on my own visual impressions and it doesnt has to apply for you... But this doesnt mean its wrong!


2) You got a 500GB HDD for 85 Euros and 50€ for GPU with hardware decoding (ati 2xxx or nvidia 8xxx). A: I dont have a board with PCI-E B: I dont need a GPU with hardware decoding as I dont wanna use AVC for reasons I described in my last post C: Id rather get a another 500GB HDD for just 35 Euros more!


Bye

[Soulhunter]

Implementation ?
Bitrate ?
case Anime or Real ?

there are major visual differences bettween implementations especialy @ low bitrates and HD x264 seems to be the weakest in this category yet, but you can't talk for the complete AVC standard only from 1 implementation results, that would be false (especialy as one can be more optimized for a special purpose then another).
Also the bitstream (decoding complexity) can be different for different implementations x264 for example is more decoding complex then a same settings Ateme encoded stream (more efficient block prediction it seems).

Of course I can speak only about the implementations I used... But thats obvious! Its like... When someone says hes allergic to cats, but he had only contact with 3 or 4 cats so far... Can he say hes allergic to cats? Who knows, maybe there is some kind of cat hes not allergic to, heh!? ;] So far I only tried x264 and ateme... They produce different results, yes, but both seem to share the same problems... Banding in low luma regions and a general detail loss... Disabling inloop helps, but then I get some blocking here and there... Till I find a cure for this my allergy will persist! ;D

Ps: For anime at lower bitrates I see the advantage of x264 n co. But I mainly do real footage and I go for bitrates ~4000kbps @ 720x576... Transparency at reasonable bitrate is all I care about!


Thx n' Bye

[PuzZLeR]

Let me summarize it for you folks.

Yes, ASP has its advantages: better speed and support for this-and-that. I’m not arguing the definite benefits of it. I’ve been a hard-core DivX-er for years now, and no matter what, I will always have my heart with them.

However, keep in mind that all ASP advantages are only for the SHORT TERM. Every single point scored for Xvid/DivX in this thread’s debate will be irrelevant in a few years.

Easier playback for ASP – SHORT TERM
Faster encoding for ASP – SHORT TERM
Better support for ASP – SHORT TERM
Better FGM for ASP - SHORT TERM (it's only in the decoding anyway)
The cash cow that DivX is milking off with ASP – SHORT TERM

H.264 is the future. Chipsets will adapt. The quality is superior. Support will for it is, and will continue to grow for it, EVERYWERE. We’re talking about the type of support that MPEG-2 achieved – something no ASP codec has ever, or ever will, achieve. Not even close.

MPEG-4 ASP unfortunately was only a bridge between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AVC. DivX/Xvid served roles as only "alternative compressed versions" of the bulky MPEG-2 standard, nothing more. If MPEG-2 had better bitrate efficiency than DivX, then DivX would never have existed – and that’s how DivX will vanish when the standard itself this time – H.264 – is going to have better efficiency.

And I don’t want to hear anything about Cr-Apple TV not supporting a feature of the standard. These dinky machines are early entries folks - just introductions to skim the market in a steady effort to penetrate mass consumerism. They are not indicative of a standard. I admit I bought one because I was bored. I hate it. One stupid feature-limited 1st version of a machine in the dawn of a superior standard isn’t going to freak me out. The fact that H.264 is demanding of processing tells you how good it is.

As a marketing guy by career, I see no future for DivX and ASP. Consider this a real opinion since I’m a mod from DivX.com. I have been pushing them for a while now to come out with their version of AVC.

They will rule supreme with DivX AVC (if they know what they're doing) or they will drown in a few years with DivX ASP – which will only benefit them SHORT TERM.

There is no gray area. It's feast of famine for DivX (and of course, the relevance of Xvid-ASP).

[Brother John]

True. That’s the way technology goes. In a couple of years we’ll be sitting here discussing if H.264 is obsolere, now that the new H.26400 is finally gathering speed. I agree though that ASP’s life probably will be significantly shorter than AVC’s.

[Sharktooth]

ASP is as doomed as MPEG-2. AVC has no problems reaching transparency but ppl have to re-learn how to configure a codec. The more compression you squeeze, the more "useless" details you drop. but often those "useless" details are exactly what we dont want to be removed (small grain, fine details, etc) and sometimes that cause also blocking.
so crankin the settings all the way up is not a good choice if you want a quality encode. For example, not using RDO at all, will result in a crisp picture. The same can be applied to Xvid, where VHQ 1 or 2 is a better choice than VHQ 4 to retain fine texture details and grain. With modern codecs and displays this difference is accentuated. So i can affirm AVC reaches transparency as well as other codecs AND at a lower bitrate. If you cant obtain those results you're obviously misconfiguring the encoder.

[shon3i]

I don't haved problems to reach transparency with Ateme (not recode) and Elecard/Mainconcept implementations. Both encoders give me very sharp and clear (without blocks) picture with -2:-2 (elecard) and -2 for ateme, which i tryed to do same with x264 but without success, picture is to sharp and full of blocks, also i tryed to reduce -2:-1, -1:-1 and other but i'am not happy.

[Terranigma]

I don't haved problems to reach transparency with Ateme (not recode) and Elecard/Mainconcept implementations. Both encoders give me very sharp and clear (without blocks) picture with -2:-2 (elecard) and -2 for ateme, which i tryed to do same with x264 but without success, picture is to sharp and full of blocks, also i tryed to reduce -2:-1, -1:-1 and other but i'am not happy.

Then try positive values such as 2,2 and 3,3.

[CruNcher]

ASP is as doomed as MPEG-2. AVC has no problems reaching transparency but ppl have to re-learn how to configure a codec. The more compression you squeeze, the more "useless" details you drop. but often those "useless" details are exactly what we dont want to be removed (small grain, fine details, etc) and sometimes that cause also blocking.
so crankin the settings all the way up is not a good choice if you want a quality encode. For example, not using RDO at all, will result in a crisp picture. The same can be applied to Xvid, where VHQ 1 or 2 is a better choice than VHQ 4 to retain fine texture details and grain. With modern codecs and displays this difference is accentuated. So i can affirm AVC reaches transparency as well as other codecs AND at a lower bitrate. If you cant obtain those results you're obviously misconfiguring the encoder.

:goodpost: people shouldn't be so obsesed with SSIM results either it's all based on mathematics, and some very early HVS aproaches :P

[shon3i]

Then try positive values such as 2,2 and 3,3.
I've tryed, but in that way picture is too smoothed and too blured. Realy i can't find proper deblocking values for x264. Aslo the good side of Elecard/Ateme encoder's is Psy elements, which make encoding block free.

[Terranigma]

Aslo the good side of Elecard/Ateme encoder's is Psy elements, which make encoding block free.
Never heard of such a thing. :eek:

[ricardo.santos]

Well im sticking with divx/xvid, their profiles system altough not as widely accepted as some say will h264 will be, are far more user friendly than the h264 profiles system:

divx/xvid:

handheld, portable, hometheather, high definitiom and unrestricted

Mpeg4 AVC

I have seen the list and "oh my" ...

a couple of main profiles, subdivided in their own litlle profile and "The PSP supports Main profile @ Level 3", the xbox is that one, the player x supports that one.

In my opinion for something that is going to become standart, Mpeg AVC is in my opinion doing a bad job, why all this:" this device is supports that, this one is that" with Mpeg4 ASP all handheld encodes would play on handheld devices with handheld certification, with MPEG4 AVC what im feeling is that inside the same products area there are diffrent profiles, its confuse and to me far from simple

but hey im a newbie

[bah147]

Whichever you set your camera to record to, they will both have to be transcoded into Divx/Xvid before you can play em on the Vision M. I'm fairly certain that the vision M can play mpeg2 aswell, but mpeg2 really eats space, so i wouldn't recommend that ;)

So if you want to play your video on a handheld device, DivX is still the winner by a long shot, simply because there are currently a lot more devices out there that can handle divx content.

:thanks:

[Sharktooth]

Well im sticking with divx/xvid, their profiles system altough not as widely accepted as some say will h264 will be, are far more user friendly than the h264 profiles system:

divx/xvid:

handheld, portable, hometheather, high definitiom and unrestricted

Mpeg4 AVC

I have seen the list and "oh my" ...

a couple of main profiles, subdivided in their own litlle profile and "The PSP supports Main profile @ Level 3", the xbox is that one, the player x supports that one.

In my opinion for something that is going to become standart, Mpeg AVC is in my opinion doing a bad job, why all this:" this device is supports that, this one is that" with Mpeg4 ASP all handheld encodes would play on handheld devices with handheld certification, with MPEG4 AVC what im feeling is that inside the same products area there are diffrent profiles, its confuse and to me far from simple

but hey im a newbie
even MPEG4 has Profile@Level. it was just DXN that simplified those profiles creating their own.

[ricardo.santos]

Like i said "i'm a newbie" but i think "our"(newbie) opinion can be usefull. I think the "format" is very very unfriendly, perhaps like you "said" a simplification of the profiles needs to be done and more important a nice SIMPLE program to use.

Im only interested in standalone playability(asp or avc), i havent found anyone saying that if i use a certain profile you can play it in all avc standalone players. Also on my tests using the same final size the video looked better using ASP. I can see Sagitaire saying you need to "fine tune" here and here and there and somewhre over the rainbow.... Cant it be simple?

[Brother John]

Cant it be simple?
Hardly. Video encoding has never really been simple, if you wanted top results. And that’s unlikely to change.

In the end I guess we’ll end up with a handful of commonly used profiles with pretty, catchy marketing names; they’ll probably have a broader scope than the official H.264 profiles. At least it would make sense to define details of the supported audio, subtitle, container types etc. as well.

[ricardo.santos]

Cant it be simple?

Hardly. Video encoding has never really been simple...

if its going to be/is a standart, shouldnt it be simple to achive a broader "audience"? Or am i in a "rush" and the format still has a long way to go and settle down?

[Sharktooth]

things tend to get complicated in this technological age