Highest quality format?

[Dragoneer]

I have some questions regarding file quality that I would like answered.

1. What is the highest quality between avi, mpeg2 and mpeg4? (Am I missing any that I should know about?)

2. Does the program that is being used greatly affect the outcome which could make the higher quality one lower than the one that is supposed to be of lower quality?

3. If the program does in fact greatly affect the outcome, is there a general rule as to which one is usually higher anyway?

4. Does one perform better than another in specific purposes, thus making it rely solely on what format you're converting from or to?

Thanks in advance.

[dat720]

1. for a start your mixing up Containers with Codecs there, AVI is a container, MPEG2 and 4 are Codecs, MPEG2 codec is mostly used by DVD, it is not very good for compressing video, altho it serves its purpose quite well for DVD... MPEG4 on the other hard comes in many different flavours, the 2 most commonly used in video compression are Part 2 and Part 10... Part 2 is mostly known as Divx/Xvid, while Part 10 is referred to as either H264 or AVC... H264 is generally the preferred codec as you get very good compresion (it is very common on Blu Ray discs).

2. Yes and No, the output quality are results of the encoder settings, if you match the settings in 2 different programs theroeticly you should get exactly the same quality.

3. As above, you may want to try AVIDemux, i've had very good results with it.

4. Again as above, the performance of the program usually is reliant on the codec being used and what settings are being used, that being said some programs are faster than others, some support multi threading while others are only single thread. as a example Xvid encoding is usually slower then H264 on a multi core/CPU Computer as XVID is only capable of using a single core to encode while H264 can use all available cores.

[Dark Shikari]

MPEG2 and 4 are CodecsNo they aren't, they're video formats. A codec is a piece of software.

[Inspector.Gadget]

I have some questions regarding file quality that I would like answered.

1. What is the highest quality between avi, mpeg2 and mpeg4? (Am I missing any that I should know about?)

MPEG-4 is the newest standard and includes two formats that you might use: MPEG-4 ASP encoders like XvID, and MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 encoders like x264. Of the two, AVC provides noticeably better quality at a given bitrate until you hit the point at which the encoded file is indistinguishable from the source - which AVC will accomplish at a lower bitrate than ASP can.

2. Does the program that is being used greatly affect the outcome which could make the higher quality one lower than the one that is supposed to be of lower quality?

I suppose it's possible with a totally screwed up encoder, but generally no. Stick with x264 and XviD and you'll be getting best-of-breed quality for each standard. Between the two, x264 is more efficient (as discussed in my response to question 1).

3. If the program does in fact greatly affect the outcome, is there a general rule as to which one is usually higher anyway?

No, except that in modern times it's better to use a CLI (command line interface) encoder than a VFW (Video For Windows) encoder, whether or not you use a GUI (graphical user interface)to drive the CLI encoder by feeding it uncompressed video (for example using MeGUI to create an AVS script to feed raw video to x264). If you'd like to know more about why VFW is broken, read Dark Shikari's comment history; I'm sure he's sick of talking about it. :cool:

4. Does one perform better than another in specific purposes, thus making it rely solely on what format you're converting from or to?

Unless you have some sort of hardware profile to encode for that doesn't support a given standard or profile (iPods only support AVC "Baseline Profile", Xbox 360 supports a limited set of AVC features, etc.), go with the most efficient codec. For playback on any modern PC, x264 will give you better video quality at a given bitrate.

[yetanotherid]

as a example Xvid encoding is usually slower then H264 on a multi core/CPU Computer as XVID is only capable of using a single core to encode while H264 can use all available cores.

I still encode mainly using XviD via AutoGK, although I've experimented with H264 using StaxRip. When I convert to XviD, according to Task Manager all four cores of my Q9450 are being used, although admittedly not efficiently. I also have an E6750 PC which isn't all that much slower at the same job, but that's because the two cores are worked harder.

There's no doubt that converting to H264 uses all four cores more effectively. When I look at Task Manager they're often pushed to 100% whereas XviD only runs them at 50% during the first pass and around 75% for the second pass. Despite that though, converting to H264 is still much slower. I'm wondering why that's my experience when yours is the opposite?

As an added note, my hard drive speed isn't a limiting factor as I run RAID volumes and using AutoGK at least I can get it to read the source file from one volume and write the output to the second, so they don't work particularly hard at all.

[Dark Shikari]

There's no doubt that converting to H264 uses all four cores more effectively. When I look at Task Manager they're often pushed to 100% whereas XviD only runs them at 50% during the first pass and around 75% for the second pass. Despite that though, converting to H264 is still much slower. I'm wondering why that's my experience when yours is the opposite?Because you're using much slower encoding settings with x264 than you're using with Xvid, and thus are comparing apples to oranges.

[shinedot]

wait maybe 1-2 year more for encoders with cuda support and
encoding h264 will be no problem :)

[Dark Shikari]

wait maybe 1-2 year more for encoders with cuda support and
encoding h264 will be no problem :)CUDA support has been around for years now and we still have yet to have a single worthwhile encoder using it. Don't get your hopes up.

[dat720]

No they aren't, they're video formats. A codec is a piece of software.

Sorry for the mix up.... i deliberatly used the word codec as he will be using one to encode to the required format.....

[BigDid]

...
There's no doubt that converting to H264 uses all four cores more effectively. When I look at Task Manager they're often pushed to 100% whereas XviD only runs them at 50% during the first pass and around 75% for the second pass...
Hi,

Interesting, my experience with Autogk is different; I often have 90% or more on the 2 cores 1st or 2nd pass.

I suppose it is because I use AGK-PAL, often use MT in the filtering chain and toy with the 2.58 MT avisynth and dll. I will test with no MT filtering and/or no MT avisynth to see if my procs usage go down to your numbers...

... as a example Xvid encoding is usually slower then H264 on a multi core/CPU Computer as XVID is only capable of using a single core to encode while H264 can use all available cores.

As stated above and in other posts this is not true anymore, xvid uses whatever cores/threads available. From digital digest
http://www.digital-digest.com/software/xvid_history.html#tabs
Version 1.2.0 Stable
* Release Date: Dec 2, 2008
* xvidcore library:
o Complete AMD64/EM64T 64-bit support
o Added support for WIN64 platform
o Multi-threaded encoding support
o SSE3/SSE4 optimizations
o Faster and more precise mpeg intra quantization
o Fixed bug in packed pixel format colorspace conversion
o Noexec-stack security patch
o Fix for bad resync marker length
o Improved decoder robustness for broken streams containing B-frames
o Fix for potential out-of-bound access to MV bits table
o Added SSIM quality-metric plugin ...

Did

[dat720]

And from my experience i can tell you that while it does support mutlithreading it will not eat up all of my CPU no matter how high the priority.... where H264 will!

My point was that H264 is a higher performance/more advanced codec than XviD....

[BigDid]

Hi,

Which was covered in the first part of my previous post and I have agreed being an exception compared to yetanotherid or you ( you were the one that stated xvid was using a single core and it would be fair to xvid developpers to edit that statement)

Anyhow I also agree to x264 being performant and advanced (and I am glad to use x264 as a complete noob) even if xvid can now use VAQ which was partially ported by dark shikari :thanks:

Did

[LoRd_MuldeR]

And from my experience i can tell you that while it does support mutlithreading it will not eat up all of my CPU no matter how high the priority.... where H264 will!

H.264 does not cause any CPU load, as H.264 is a video format. The individual H.264 encoder (or decoder) software does!
It's right that x264, which is one H.264 encoder out of many, scales very well up to eight cores. But that doesn't necessarily apply to all the H.264 encoders out there.
Also it's known that Xvid's multi-threading code isn't nearly as efficient as x264. You won't get double encoding speed for double CPU load...

My point was that H264 is a higher performance/more advanced codec than XviD....

Here the same: H.264 is a video format, while Xvid is an encoder software. You can't compare them! Xvid is one MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP) encoder out of many. DivX is another one.
In general H.264 (MPEG-4 Part-10) format compresses more efficient than the older MPEG-4 Part-2 format, but this comes at the cost of higher complexity.

x264 is a pretty fast H.264 encoder. If you choose "fast" settings then x264 can run as fast as Xvid or even faster.
Also x264 will almost certainly deliver more "quality per bit" than Xvid, even if you choose settings that allow x264 to run at least as fast as Xvid.
Of course by choosing "slower" settings x264 will deliver even more quality. So x264 always beats Xvid regarding "quality per ending time".

[dat720]

Am i going to have to explain every little thing i say????

Encoding to H264 results in a higher CPU load than encoding to XVID on my system, wether that's because H264 scales better or not is beside the point the fact is pretty simple, encoding to XviD results in about 25-30 percent of my quad core systems CPU time being utilised, where encoding to H264 ends up consuming 100%!!!

I'm just gunna have to keep my fingers off the keyboard from now on!

[Dragoneer]

LoRd_MuldeR, you may have hit upon the answer I was looking for. The only thing that worries me is this statement by you.


Here the same: H.264 is a video format, while Xvid is an encoder software. You can't compare them! Xvid is one MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP) encoder out of many. DivX is another one.
In general H.264 (MPEG-4 Part-10) format compresses more efficient than the older MPEG-4 Part-2 format, but this comes at the cost of higher complexity.

(I changed the worrisome part of your statement to bold).

1. Does this mean that I'll have to learn a bunch of syntax stuff like using Vdub?

I tried using it and got a few pointers on how to append a few types of formats with it and that's it. I'm normally good at picking up on things and figuring them out, but this editing stuff without a GUI software such as WinDVD Creator is killing me! I gave up on trying to use it.

2. What software/method are you using to accomplish the things you spoke about in your post (of course including above also).

x264 is a pretty fast H.264 encoder. If you choose "fast" settings then x264 can run as fast as Xvid or even faster.
Also x264 will almost certainly deliver more "quality per bit" than Xvid, even if you choose settings that allow x264 to run at least as fast as Xvid.
Of course by choosing "slower" settings x264 will deliver even more quality. So x264 always beats Xvid regarding "quality per ending time".

The only editing I do are from various wmv, mpeg, and flv files that I like to make into my own compilation disc by appending them and inserting chapters.

3. Will the program/method you use be able to convert all of those types of files, or will I have to first convert them to something it recognizes?

One of the problems I run into is when my compilation exceeds 1 hour. WinDVD 2 for example, lets you know that the quality will be compromised once you go over, I guess it's because it's too much to fit on the disc at the highest quality setting.

It shows a scale that will turn red at the end, and if you try to do it anyway, it will go through the process for quite a while and then stop the process.

4. Will the program/method compress 2 hours of footage at the highest quality setting on a regular DVD disc much like when a DVD is backed-up?

5. To summerize the line above question 3, and a summary of question 4, is the program/method you use capable of appending, making chapters, and compressing it at the highest quality setting for 2 hours to fit on a regualar DVD?

[Dark Shikari]

1. Does this mean that I'll have to learn a bunch of syntax stuff like using Vdub? "Higher complexity" refers to decoding CPU cost, not complexity of use.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Am i going to have to explain every little thing i say????

Well, it's important to use the correct technical terms, especially in a "Newbie" thread where you can not assume that the OP knows the details.

And it's simply incorrect to use "Codec" and "Format" synonymously! They are two different things!
Video Formats (H.264/AVC, MPEG-4 Part-2, VC-1, MPEG-2, etc) are specifications/documents, while Codecs/Encoders (x264, Xvid, DivX, etc) implement these specifications in software.

Hence comparing Xvid to H.264 is like comparing apples and oranges. You can either compare MPEG-4 Part-2 to H.264/AVC -or- Xvid to x264 ;)

Encoding to H264 results in a higher CPU load than encoding to XVID on my system, wether that's because H264 scales better or not is beside the point the fact is pretty simple, encoding to XviD results in about 25-30 percent of my quad core systems CPU time being utilised, where encoding to H264 ends up consuming 100%!!!

On your system encoding to H.264 results in higher CPU load than encoding to MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP), because you are using x264 as your H.264 encoder, because you are using Xvid as your MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP) encoder and because x264's multi-threading code scales much better than Xvid's. But still you cannot generalize this to the underling video formats! x264 scales better than Xvid because the x264 developers did a better job on optimizing their code for multiple cores. It has nothing to do with H.264/AVC -vs- MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP). If you think that, you are wrong. Sorry...

1. Does this mean that I'll have to learn a bunch of syntax stuff like using Vdub?

With "higher complexity" I meant the H.264/AVC (MPEG-4 Part-10) format, compared to the older and less complex MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP).

But you are talking about the "complexity" of encoder software! Of course a H.264 encoder software can be more, equal or less complex (for the user) than a MPEG-4 Part 2 encoder software. It all depends how the developers have written the software and how many options they expose to the user. For example x264, which is one H.264 encoder software (the one used by all free H.264 encoder tools), has a lot of options! Anyway, you don't need to learn of all the options. Usually the following rule applies: Unless you know what a certain option does and why you need to change it, keep the default value! Furthermore we have various GUI's for x264 available. These GUI's usually provide a nice user interface with pre-defined profiles and stuff. So configuring x264 is not more complex than configuring Xvid or DivX.

2. What software/method are you using to accomplish the things you spoke about in your post (of course including above also).

My favorite encoding application is Avidemux (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=126164). The interface looks almost like VirtualDub, but in contrast to VirtualDub it doesn't depend on nasty VFW Codecs and it is NOT limited to the AVI container. Encoders like Xvid or x264 are already built-in. The same goes for various processing filters. Anyway, you may want to check out MeGUI too.

The only editing I do are from various wmv, mpeg, and flv files that I like to make into my own compilation disc by appending them and inserting chapters.

3. Will the program/method you use be able to convert all of those types of files, or will I have to first convert them to something it recognizes?

MPEG and FLV files are no problem at all. WMV can be a problem indeed. That's the joy of proprietary video formats :rolleyes:

You may need to read your WMV files trough Avisynth and DirectShowSource().

4. Will the program/method compress 2 hours of footage at the highest quality setting on a regular DVD disc much like when a DVD is backed-up?

If you use x264's 2-Pass mode and if you set the target filesize to 4,7 GB (the capacity of a DVD-R), then yes!

5. To summerize the line above question 3, and a summary of question 4, is the program/method you use capable of appending, making chapters, and compressing it at the highest quality setting for 2 hours to fit on a regualar DVD?

Making chapters is not easily possible, but it should be possible with the Matroska container...

[BigDid]

Originally Posted by Dragoneer
Encoding to H264 results in a higher CPU load than encoding to XVID on my system, wether that's because H264 scales better or not is beside the point the fact is pretty simple, encoding to XviD results in about 25-30 percent of my quad core systems CPU time being utilised, where encoding to H264 ends up consuming 100%!!!

Hi LordM,

Hemm, the original poster for this quote was DAT720, not Dragoneer. Hence the previous exchanges between DAT and myself. I did some quick tests and I confirm, with or without MT, I get 90% or more 2 core use, 1st or 2nd pass; simple avs use was crop - resize and removegrain(mode=2) from AGK usual encoding script. Codec used being Xvid-1.2.1-04122008 VFW with VAQ.

I am aware that these technicalities may not have interest for the OP-Dragoneer but, as you stated it is important to give correct information for the newcomers. To get back on the subject I believe all the originals questions have been covered so my 2cents for Dragoneer are if you watch the encodes with a mediaplayer or any AVC-capable device go MPEG4-x264. If you have a dvd player divx-capable you may want to see if MPEG4-xvid good quality encode give you satisfaction. As stated xvid encodes are for my gear -generally- quicker than x264 encodes.

Did

Edit: Proud Xvid and ASP-SAP user (and only dual core owner), I claim the right to difference and have no need of any condescension :mad:

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Hence the previous exchanges between DAT and myself. I did some quick tests and I confirm, with or without MT, I get 90% or more 2 core use, 1st or 2nd pass; simple avs use was crop - resize and removegrain(mode=2) from AGK usual encoding script. Codec used being Xvid-1.2.1-04122008 VFW with VAQ.

Xvid hardly uses more than two CPU cores. On my Quadcore system it won't go above ~50% CPU load.
Also even if Xvid uses two CPU cores, you won't get 200% speed of a single core, because Xvid doesn't scale very efficient.
At the same time x264 scales very well. It fully utilizes all cores. On a Quadocre you get ~400% speed of a single core.

Again this info is specific to x264 and Xvid, two encoders out of many. It does not apply to H.264/AVC or MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP) in general!
And of course you can bottleneck any encoder with a "slow" Avisynth script as input. But that's a completely different story...

As stated xvid encodes are -generally- quicker than x264 encodes.

No, that's simply incorrect! If you use x264 with appropriate settings, it can be at least as fast as Xvid :rolleyes:
With x264 you will always get "more quality per bit" at equal speed -and- you will always get "more quality per encoding time" at any speed (compared to Xvid).
Consequently there's no reason to use Xvid nowadays, except for compatibility to old "MPEG-4 Part-2 (ASP)" Standalone players ...

[Dragoneer]

LoRd_MuldeR, thanks for your help. I have a few more questions. I have DVD Decrypter 3.5.4.0. & DVD Shrink 3.2 installed along with Nero (that came with my external DVD drive that I purchased for my laptop).

I use them for backing-up my DVD's. I just put the original away and use the copy in case it gets scratched etc. Anyway, I clicked on your link at the bottom of your post and downloaded and installed Avidemux, DVD Styler, and ImgBurn.

If I'm not mistaken, when I first installed DVD Shrink, I installed Imgburn http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/software.htm quite some time ago. I got lucky and stumbled onto that site, but Imgburn wouldn't work and I couldn't understand how to use it. I notice that when I installed it today, it looks different now than I remembered.

Today when I began to install it, it wanted to replace DVD Decrypter. I clicked no because I haven't had one problem with the Nero, DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink combo.
In fact, so far it has worked flawlessly and was afraid to mess it all up.

Now for my question.

1. Should I go ahead and reinstall it so it can replace DVD Decrypter?

2. Will it perform differently or cause conflicts if I leave it as is?

3. If I install meGUI (already downloaded it) does it work in conjunction with any of the mentioned programs, or cause any conflicts with any of the several authoring programs I have?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Again: You can install Nero, ImgBurn, DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, Avidemux and MeGUI side-by-side! They won't conflict, as long as you install each application to it's own folder ;)

Anyway, all these applications do completely different things! You can combine these applications in various ways, but you don't need to.
Just throwing in as many tools as you can find won't get the job done. First decide what you want to do and then decide what tools are required to achieve that!

Nero and ImgBurn are burning applications. You can use them to burn files to DVD-R, but they will not read/decrypt any "protected" Video-DVD's!
Hence in order to rip your original discs to your HDD, you will need to use a tool like DVD Decrypter or DVD Shrink. For newer releases you will even need to use DVDFab or AnyDVD.

Avidemux and MeGUI are video encoding applications. You can use on of them to edit and/or re-encode the a DVD after you have ripped it to your HDD.
But if you just want to make a backup copy, you don't need to re-encode the DVD! Simply use DVD Shrink to "shrink" the DVD to 4,7 GB and then burn the result to a DVD-R media.
If you spend a double-layer DVD-R media (8,5 GB), you can even make a 1:1 backup copy of the original disc without reducing the size.

Last but not least DVD Styler and DVD Author are authoring applications. You'd use these tools to create a Video-DVD from None-DVD files, such as plain MPEG-2 files...

[yetanotherid]

Because you're using much slower encoding settings with x264 than you're using with Xvid, and thus are comparing apples to oranges.

Well.... I was actually referring to my experience with x264 encoding times in comparison to someone else's x264 encoding times in relation to both our encoding times when using XviD, so in that respect I was at worst comparing red apples with green apples.

[yetanotherid]

Interesting, my experience with Autogk is different; I often have 90% or more on the 2 cores 1st or 2nd pass.

Yeah..... but I was referring to running XviD on four cores in my post.
I also have an almost identical PC with 2 cores and my experience there is similar to yours. I think I average around 75% CPU usage during the first pass and close to 100% during the second. When using the 4 core machine each core does less work even though they're all being used, and encoding times aren't much faster as a result.
If I had to guess, I'd say the four core machine may only be able to manage to do the job around 5 minutes faster for an average movie. Even then, I don't know for sure if that's due to slightly more efficient CPU usage by XviD while running on 4 cores or if it's because the 4 core CPU is a newer model than the 2 core and is therefore itself able to get a little more work done at the same clock speed.

PS. I should add.... the five or so minutes time reduction is for the whole process using AutoGK from start to finish. I don't think I've compared just the video encoding part of the job on it's own.

[yetanotherid]

Today when I began to install it, it wanted to replace DVD Decrypter. I clicked no because I haven't had one problem with the Nero, DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink combo.
In fact, so far it has worked flawlessly and was afraid to mess it all up.

ImgBurn definitely doesn't replace DVD Decryptor as such. I have both installed as I use RipIt4Me which in turn uses DVD Decryptor.
All I think ImgBurn is offering to do when it talks about replacing DVD Decryptor is to take over the file associations which would normally be associated with DVD Decryptor. So if clicking on a certain type of image file, for example, would normally cause it to be opened with DVD Decryptor, allowing ImgBurn to replace DVD Decryptor would cause that file to then be opened with ImgBurn instead. DVD Decryptor will still be installed and functioning normally though.