[HELP] H.264 or XviD or DivX @ Low Bitrate ?

[P.J]

Which one is better for HD/SD resolution @ low bitrate ? :confused:
I think XviD doesn't support HD and WVC1/MPEG-2 doesn't provide good quality @ low bitrate xD

Thanks !

[Blue_MiSfit]

Define low bitrate :)

x264 will be better in all cases at any given bitrate - most likely..

~MISfit

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I'm not aware of any HD limitations in Xvid. I got a 3840x2160 video encoded by Xvid here ;)

However H.264 (x264) compresses more efficient than MEPG-4 ASP (Xvid). Especially at HD resolutions. And especially at low bitrates.
So I'd definitely go with x264. At a given bitrate x264 will certainly produce better quality than Xvid (except for overkill bitrates where both look transparent).
The only reason to use Xvid nowadays is compatibility to standalone devices that can't play H.264 video yet...

[Sagekilla]

Overall H.264 is vastly more efficient than XviD or DivX, especially when you're dealing with relatively low bitrates. At the high end of the spectrum differences even out, but H.264 still comes out as being slightly better.

In short, go with x264 if you need to work with low bitrates at good quality. AVC > ASP ;)

[P.J]

=> H.264 FTW ! :D

Can you compare H.264 with WMV/WVC1/VC1 and MPEG-2 @ Medium/High bitrare for both HD/SD resolution ?

[Dark Shikari]

=> H.264 FTW ! :D

Can you compare H.264 with WMV/WVC1/VC1 and MPEG-2 @ Medium/High bitrare for both HD/SD resolution ?Sure (http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html). Note that test is a bit old; x264 has gotten quite a bit better since (it was before the finalization of psy-rd, psy-trellis, and b-adapt 2).

[Sagekilla]

Here: http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html

We have cake too ;) (http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=40)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Very roughly MPEG-2 requires ~25 MBit/s to produce decent quality for 1080p HD content, while H.264 requires only ~8 MBit/s.

Of course this may vary significantly from source to source...

[P.J]

Can you tell me which one is better ?
I don't want to download xD

[HD] Medium Bitrate: ?
[HD] High Bitrate: ?
[SD] Medium Bitrate: ?
[SD] High Bitrate: ?

Thanks very much !

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Can you tell me which one is better ?
I don't want to download xD

[HD] Medium Bitrate: ?
[HD] High Bitrate: ?
[SD] Medium Bitrate: ?
[SD] High Bitrate: ?

Thanks very much !

Download what and from what source? :confused:

And of course HD + High Bitrate will give best quality :p

[Sagekilla]

If your source is a Blu-ray, go with 720p at a medium (~2-6 mbps) bitrate. Otherwise, if it's DVD leave it at SD resolutions and encode at 0.8-3 mbps. All these values vary with respect to source complexity and quality.

[lexor]

Still, asking what's better x264 or something else, in x264 forum... seems pointless.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Still, asking what's better x264 or something else, in x264 forum... seems pointless.

Since when is Doom9 a x264 forum? Even the "MPEG-4 AVC" sub-forum is dedicated to H.264 in general, not only x264.

And most important: The OP asked whether Xvid (MPEG-4 ASP) or H.264 is to be preferred quality-wise at a given bitrate.
The answer clearly is H.264. This fact doesn't change, no matter on what forum it is asked/answered...

[P.J]

@LoRd_MuldeR: http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html
@lexor: NO! xD

For HD720/1080: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24Mbps

For SD: [H.264/WMV/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~3Mbps
Medium Bitrate: ~6Mbps
High Bitrate: ~9Mbps

*EDITED*

[LoRd_MuldeR]

H.264 at 12 MBit/s should deliver excellent quality for HD content. H.264 at 24 MBit/s usually is overkill, even for 1080p material...

Just look at this 8 MBit/s 1080p H.264 sample:
http://files.x264.nl/force.php?file=./AQ/x264.736.aq.0.48.8mbit.mkv

(Looks excellent - and it was encoded with a pretty old version of x264)

[Dark Shikari]

For HD720/1080: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24Mbps

For SD: [H.264/WMV/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~3Mbps
Medium Bitrate: ~6Mbps
High Bitrate: ~9MbpsYou kidding me? 9 megabit H.264 for SD?

You can't just lump H.264 and WMV and MPEG-2 together like that either :rolleyes:

Nor can you lump together 720p and 1080p, since the latter needs roughly twice the bitrate of the former...

[P.J]

You kidding me? 9 megabit H.264 for SD?

You can't just lump H.264 and WMV and MPEG-2 together like that either :rolleyes:

MPEG-2 needs to 9Mbps bitrate -> DVD :D
I think MPEG-2/VC1 will perform better in high bitrate because of their low compression method xD

Nor can you lump together 720p and 1080p, since the latter needs roughly twice the bitrate of the former...

? :confused:

For HD720: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24Mbps

For HD1080: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24Mbps

For SD: [H.264/WMV/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~3Mbps
Medium Bitrate: ~6Mbps
High Bitrate: ~9Mbps

:rolleyes:

[wyti]

I don't know well the 2 others formats but for H264 (x264) it will be something like this

[1080p]
Low bitrate : 6 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 8Mbps
High bitrate : 12+Mbps

[720p]
Low bitrate : 2 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 4Mbps
High bitrate : 6+Mbps

[SD (DvD)]
Low bitrate : less than 1 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 1.5Mbps
High bitrate : 2.5+Mbps

[Dark Shikari]

For HD720: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24Mbps

For HD1080: [H.264/(W)VC1/MPEG-2]
Low Bitrate: ~6Mbps
Medium Bitrate: +12Mbps
High Bitrate: +24MbpsSo you're saying, despite 1080p being twice the resolution of 720p, it doesn't need a higher bitrate for the same quality? :rolleyes:

[Sagekilla]

Even at 720p, you can coax some very good quality out of video at something like 2 mbps, I've done it before :)

[Avenger007]

This thread is pointless and useless. :angry:

@P.J

:readguid: :readfaq: :search:

MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Information (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059)

An overview of AVC/H.264 compared to other popular video coding formats:
http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/166/compchart2fana8.png
:goodpost: :thanks:

[Sagittaire]

Use the bitrate / (W*H*Fps) ^ 0.75 rule for quantizer equivalence:


|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| | files sizes | bit/(pel*fps) | bit/(pel^0.75*fps) |
|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| q20 1280*720 | 4026 Kbps | 0.182 bpf | 5.63 sci |
| q20 720*400 | 1728 Kbps | 0.250 bpf | 5.79 sci |
| q20 512*288 | 1057 Kbps | 0.299 bpf | 5.85 sci |
| q20 384*208 | 661 Kbps | 0.345 bpf | 5.80 sci |
|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| q25 1280*720 | 2074 Kbps | 0.094 bpf | 2.90 sci |
| q25 720*400 | 924 Kbps | 0.134 bpf | 3.09 sci |
| q25 512*288 | 573 Kbps | 0.162 bpf | 3.17 sci |
| q25 384*208 | 363 Kbps | 0.189 bpf | 3.18 sci |
|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| q30 1280*720 | 1023 Kbps | 0.046 bpf | 1.43 sci |
| q30 720*400 | 460 Kbps | 0.067 bpf | 1.54 sci |
| q30 512*288 | 286 Kbps | 0.081 bpf | 1.58 sci |
| q30 384*208 | 181 Kbps | 0.094 bpf | 1.59 sci |
|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
source 1920*1080
resize with lanczos
encoding with x264


q15 will be high bitrate with medium compressibility source (reference)
q20 medium bitrate
q25 low bitrate

[P.J]

Yes, it's better:

[1080p]
Low bitrate : 6 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 8Mbps
High bitrate : 12+Mbps

[720p]
Low bitrate : 2 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 4Mbps
High bitrate : 6+Mbps

[SD (DvD)]
Low bitrate : less than 1 Mbps
Medium bitrate : 1.5Mbps
High bitrate : 2.5+Mbps

Now can you compare 720p @ 6+Mbps with 1080p @ 6/8Mbps ?

Ok, XviD and DivX are worse than H.264 (for both SD/HD resolution). H.264 is very good (especially at lower bitrate), but I still wanna compare it with WMV9/MPEG-2 for SD and VC1(WVC1)/MPEG-2 for HD :rolleyes:

[wyti]

Depends of the source but 6mbps 720p is fast always better than 1080p (except for very compressible sources)
1080p @ 8 mbps may be better with LCD / PC screen than 720p, but you can't tell easily the differences

[me7]

Ok, XviD and DivX are worse than H.264 (for both SD/HD resolution). H.264 is very good (especially at lower bitrate), but I still wanna compare it with WMV9/MPEG-2 for SD and VC1(WVC1)/MPEG-2 for HD :rolleyes:

To clear some confusion: MPEG-2 < Xvid/DivX < x264. There is no need to compare x264 to MPEG2 at any bitrate, x264 is superior in every aspect.

[P.J]

To clear some confusion: MPEG-2 < Xvid/DivX < x264. There is no need to compare x264 to MPEG2 at any bitrate, x264 is superior in every aspect.

What about WMV9 for SD and WVC1 (VC1) for HD? :confused:

[LoRd_MuldeR]

MPEG-2 < MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid, DivX and Co) < VC-1/WMV9 < H.264 (x264)

This applies to SD and HD ;)

[P.J]

:thanks:

[Sharktooth]

well, i'd say MPEG-2 < MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid, DivX and Co) ~= VC-1/WMV9 < H.264 (x264) coz (speaking about the absolute quality) the actual VC-1/WMV9 implementations are not as optimal as the well known MPEG-4 ASP implementations, however that may change... or better it IS changing...

[P.J]

:thanks: x2