Different Codecs -- Same Bitrate

[Asrial]

Encode A: XviD @ CBR 2000 kb/s

Encode B: x264 @ CBR 2000 kb/s

.

Both of those SHOULD come out to the same file size.. yes?

What makes one better than the other in this situation?

[shakey]

x264 is a more recent codec, implementing a more up to date compression standard than Xvid. This means it uses more advance compression techniques and produces better quality encodes at the same bitrate as Xvid. Or alternatively the same/similar quality at much lower bitrates.

[7ekno]

The recent MSU comparison show XviD need 60% more bitrate than x264 to maintain the same quality ...

So Encode B will be a far better quality encode than Encode A ...

Tek

[Ghitulescu]

Encode A: XviD @ CBR 2000 kb/s

Encode B: x264 @ CBR 2000 kb/s

.

Both of those SHOULD come out to the same file size.. yes?

What makes one better than the other in this situation?

Why on hell do you think that?

You won't get EXACTLY the same size even on 2 encodes with identical parameters (codec, bitrate, passes etc.), unless one reuses some information, and even then. And you think you'll get identical sizes on two different codecs?!

[Asrial]

shakey, 7ekno.. thanks guys :)

Helpful information (I needed to change how I thought of the comparison).

Ghitulescu.. not really helpful. Not to mention erroneous.

[Ghitulescu]

Ghitulescu.. not really helpful. Not to mention erroneous.

What is false in my statements and [most important] how can you assess this, if you don't even know the difference between these two codecs?

Instead of asking theoretical questions, why not directly state what you want to do: probably how to encode a DVD into a well-supported codec?

[GodofaGap]

What is false in my statements and [most important] how can you assess this, if you don't even know the difference between these two codecs?
He means that encodes with the same bitrate will have the same size. Perhaps not exactly up to the byte (although if you repeat the exact same process normally this should happen), but that wasn't what he meant.

Instead of asking theoretical questions, why not directly state what you want to do: probably how to encode a DVD into a well-supported codec?
He was asking is if there would be a quality difference between x264 and XviD at the same bitrate and if so, why. And this was already answered.

[Asrial]

GodofaGap's post is 100% correct.

It's just the tone you used Ghitulescu. It was one of those that made me go "why'd you reply if that's all you were going to say?"

[Ghitulescu]

I used no tone, I simply was astonished. Sorry if it looked this way, not my intention. However, the answer to this question was already here, even if not referring to 2000 kbps ...

[foxyshadis]

Encode A: XviD @ CBR 2000 kb/s

Encode B: x264 @ CBR 2000 kb/s

.

Both of those SHOULD come out to the same file size.. yes?

What makes one better than the other in this situation?

Watch out thinking that x264 will automatically be higher quality; there's a point where both codecs would simply saturate and there'd be no perceptible difference between them. A normal QCIF video at 2000 will often undersize with both codecs because you hit their minimum quantizers on most frames (unless you lower them or use a custom matrix).

[GodofaGap]

Watch out thinking that x264 will automatically be higher quality; there's a point where both codecs would simply saturate and there'd be no perceptible difference between them.
I think this is a rather bold statement. A lossy codecs highest quality does not guarantee visual transparancy.

[LocalH]

He didn't say that - he said no perceptible difference "between them", i.e. between XviD and x264, in that situation. Plus, he speaks to perception, not bit-perfection. There will always be differences between lossy and lossless compression, however at very high bitrates they can be few and barely perceptible.

[burfadel]

Also if you set the x264 to ultrafast and the highest quality options in the latest xvid (with VAQ ported from x264), the statement that the x264 encode will be of higher quality may not be true. For standard settings however x264 should produce noticeably imrproved quality over that of xvid, even if it is some obscure thing in the background of the video.