Is XVID still used? [Archive]

Liisachan

18th June 2021, 16:02

I use Xvid as a quick way to get the list of scene-change frames (as the list of keyframes). Keyframes from x264 are not so simple as those used in Xvid (a scene-change may not be a keyframe). The list is then used to programmatically detect subtitle end-time overruns (bleed) and underruns, start-time overruns and underruns.

I also use Xvid for test-encoding and checking when typesetting a moving sign, because it's quicker. For similar reasons, I sometimes use Xvid.avi for typesetting in general, rather than e.g. using x264.mkv via ffms2.dll. Xvid is quicker and not using much memory.

Although, personally I no longer use Xvid as the codec for final encoding, it's still convenient for me for various purposes. There are many countries in the world, and some people are still using older CPU for various reasons. Such users may prefer Xvid.avi, as newer codecs might be too CPU-intensive for them.

GAP

19th June 2021, 14:50

I used to XVID a lot in my encodes until I learned of better methods and even then I did not change that easily. I am slowly transitioning to other codecs for my encodes but I still have a fondness of XVID due to low disk space and general ease-of-use. I used it for my encodes in the past but I am starting to move on to other encoders as I want to "keep up with the times."

Although, personally I no longer use Xvid as the codec for final encoding, it's still convenient for me for various purposes. There are many countries in the world, and some people are still using older CPU for various reasons. Such users may prefer Xvid.avi, as newer codecs might be too CPU-intensive for them.

Sad but true. Unfortunately I did not own high end, super advanced computers for gaming and recently editing but they were competent for me to at use programs like Virtualdub, PowerDirector, Resolve, etc. at least.

hello_hello

19th June 2021, 19:05

Right now, in forum "MPEG-4 AVC / H.264" there are 10 Viewing,
in this MPEG-4 ASP forum, there are 87 Viewing, it beats me why it is still so popular

It's probably not so much the codec that's popular, but a new post/thread in the ASP forum isn't too common, so maybe the forum equivalent of rubber-necking was causing some temporary congestion. :)

StainlessS

19th June 2021, 19:21

Right now 19 in AVC forum and 67 in ASP forum, nearly always the same.
A few months ago [maybe] PoisonDeathRay pointed out something like 650 online in ASP forum, its uncanny :)

EDIT: OK, maybe more than a couple of months ago [2018]
what's going on here ? There are about 1000 users on when I took this (right now), and ~60% are viewing mpeg4-asp ??

https://s33.postimg.cc/kul09vkd7/xvid.jpg (https://postimg.cc/image/kul09vkd7/)

EDIT: I'm guessin' that they all just curious to see what everybody else is lookin' at.
EDIT: Arh, you already said that.
forum equivalent of rubber-necking

FranceBB

19th June 2021, 20:42

Liisachan

19th June 2021, 21:39

It's not uncommon for a subbing group to do double or triple releases - the same content both as HD x264 and as SD xvid, for example. Which means, significantly many people still prefer xvid versions. I don't really know why, but I know this as a fact first hand - the download count may be like 2:1 or 3:1. (I suspect some of them are "file collectors", getting both versions "just in case").

Xvid may not be better in visual quality but it does have its forte. It's lightweight, tried and tested, player-side is always ready. Have you ever tried for example x264 with output color space 422 or 444 or even RGB? I don't think player-side is always ready yet if you use not-so-common options. Of course that does not mean newer codecs are bad - they're good and loved. But do we have to disrespect xvid just because we use newer codecs? Like, MP3 is still popular, even though there are Vorbis, AAC, Opus.

FranceBB

20th June 2021, 00:03

It's not uncommon for a subbing group to do double or triple releases - the same content both as HD x264 and as SD xvid, for example.

True, I've seen fansubbers do that a lot...

Xvid may not be better in visual quality but it does have its forte. It's lightweight, tried and tested, player-side is always ready. Have you ever tried for example x264 with output color space 422 or 444 or even RGB? I don't think player-side is always ready yet if you use not-so-common options.

Well, long time ago if you were using something like --ref 16, --me esa --subme 11 --preset placebo and reverse upscale to 1280x720 with 4:4:4 10bit, it was really hard to play 'cause it would have been CPU only with no GPU hardware acceleration and pretty heavy for the CPUs we had at the time, but nowadays we no longer live in an era in which 4c/8th Intel i7 were priced as gold, they could barely bear the load and AMD CPUs were not really usable... I mean, we've come a long way since then...
Still, I understand the "legacy" thing and the fact that most groups have been doing SD releases in Xvid since... well... forever and they're still doing it, so... fair enough. :)

Of course that does not mean newer codecs are bad - they're good and loved. But do we have to disrespect xvid just because we use newer codecs? Like, MP3 is still popular, even though there are Vorbis, AAC, Opus.

MP3 is a different thing: it's so bad that even MPEG actually begged users to please stop using it a few years ago. I mean, it was ok for primitive devices, portable MP3 players I used to use when I was a young lad and I was going to school (https://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/543949/9630.jpg), listening with crappy old earphones, but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone and I would love to see MP3 die once and for all. It's a crappy codec with a crappy psychoacustic model based on the filterbank polyphase that just has to die and has no meaningful use case in the modern world...

Liisachan

21st June 2021, 00:21

Okay, MP3 may not be a great example here. (However, although people say MP3 is bad and that is true in some sense, when double-blind-tested, maybe 99% of them can't ABX Lossless vs. MP3 @ 160, even @ 128. At least I can't...) Anyway, back when DivX was rather common, and coming with a bunch of unwanted bloatware, Xvid devs were stoically providing free (as in freedom), clean codec, even though there were potential legal/patent complications too. At least that's how I remember it. Newer codecs are great, yes, but we don't need to be disrespectful, especially given that Xvid is still useful in some limited areas...

Katie Boundary

21st June 2021, 02:19

Compatibility > efficiency

Every time.

Every. Goddamn. Time.

hello_hello

21st June 2021, 13:52

MP3 is a different thing: it's so bad that even MPEG actually begged users to please stop using it a few years ago. I mean, it was ok for primitive devices, portable MP3 players I used to use when I was a young lad and I was going to school (https://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/543949/9630.jpg), listening with crappy old earphones, but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone and I would love to see MP3 die once and for all. It's a crappy codec with a crappy psychoacustic model based on the filterbank polyphase that just has to die and has no meaningful use case in the modern world...

Today's youth.... no idea how good they have it. ;)
When I was young and going to school, my portable music player looked very much like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/KkpQhmqZ/maxresdefault.jpg (https://postimg.cc/KkpQhmqZ)

Mind you that's way more fancy than the one I owned because FM radio didn't exist and the Cue function was, if I remember correctly, a manually implemented feature involving holding the play button half way down while fast-forwarding and hoping it wouldn't end in tears. The only psychoacoustic model I was aware of when I went to school involved a portable player's lack of Dolby B to make pre-recorded cassettes sound brighter.
Ahhh... how I fondly remember performing regular maintenance on my player's storage medium with a hexadecimal pencil.

https://i.postimg.cc/gXwDqfsr/3b1f3b462b.jpg (https://postimg.cc/gXwDqfsr)

Seriously though....
The folks at hydrogen audio are confident the LAME MP3 encoder is transparent using the default VBR mode, despite MP3's limitations,
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=LAME#Recommended_encoder_settings
which makes me happy because my current MP3 player doesn't support AAC and a quick google indicates Cowon's latest players still don't support it. I assume they've decided to save themselves the licence fee.

You've inspired me to start a new thread on portable players though, as I'm considering the possibility of contemplating upgrading mine, but rather than sidetrack this thread any further I'll start a new one in the General forum.

StainlessS

21st June 2021, 17:49

because FM radio didn't exist
Wow, you must be ancient :)
When I was a kid, my mother had [in the kitchen] a 5 band radio that had FM, and could pick up airplanes, taxi's, police, and even TV audio.

EDIT:
FM broadcasting is a method of radio broadcasting using frequency modulation (FM). Invented in 1933 by American engineer Edwin Armstrong
FM broadcasting[wikipedia]:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting

EDIT: When I was about 12, my little brother turned a joke into a pretend competition letter [in a kids comic],
star letter prize was a nifty leather cased, 3 band transistor radio. [long/short/medium wave, no FM]
He said his little borther [Ie, me, his big brother] had come home from his first day at school crying, when asked why he [I] said
that he was told he was gonna get free school dinners, but he only got one. [free <-> three - he won, I shoulda had half ownership I think]

EDIT: Some years later, the same brother ended up fixing TV's and Radios for a company which did servicng for a big well known
corporation [was owned by same corp]. The major share of repairs was on radios, and they charged £18.00 + parts as standard charge.
The vast majoirty of problems was dud battery, so he spent a lot of the day just inserting new batteries and charging £18.00 + the
price of the batteries. Easy money. [quite a sum about 1975]

EDIT: Also, you could use a BIC biro pen instead of a hexagonal pencil to swizzle a cassette.

EDIT: And the first mobile phone call was about 75 years ago [demo'ed June 17 1946, first hand held in 1973]:- https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/21/mobile-calls-for-75-years-how-tech-goes-from-breakthrough-to-big-time-14790880/

EDIT: One guy I went camping with when about 14YO, had a battery operated record player, never seen one like it before nor since.
EDIT: Not sure, I think the record player worked kinda like a bread toaster [just for singles, not LP's].

GMJCZP

21st June 2021, 19:07

I still use Fhg MP3 with BeHappy and Adobe Audition. Because? because at 128 kbps CBR is preferable to Lame, but I admit that the latter should be more efficient according to what hello_hello says. My preference for CBR is from the times of VirtualDubMod and muxing avi video with mp3 audio, this program recommends not using MP3 VBR but MP3 CBR to prevent a desynchronization, but I recently took an mp4 video and converted it into avi xvid and the audio with lame converted it to three audios: CBR, ABR and VBR. These three equal XVID videos I tested on my LG DVK-9713N and curiously I noticed that the videos with ABR and VBR audio did not get out of sync, which made me think that if I had encoded in VBR in a series that I edited a while ago in XVID the audio would have been better, since, imagine, it was 56 kbps CBR, anyway it was an extreme compression test, it is a series of 56 chapters to 28 chapters per 4.7 GB DVD.

Edit: that radio photo reminded me of my defunct Silver Crown recorder, those 80's...

Blue_MiSfit

21st June 2021, 21:20

Compatibility > efficiency

Every time.

Every. Goddamn. Time.

Agreed! But H.264 hardware decode is utterly commonplace on any device shipped in the last decade.

I know there's a pool of legacy devices (especially outside of the biggest / wealthiest countries), but this will continue to dwindle down.

SeeMoreDigital

21st June 2021, 22:15

but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone...
Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!

The adoption of DAB+ (HE-AAC) has been very slow and sloppy here, primarily due to the quantity of early DAB radio adoptees who's devices don't support DAB+...

hello_hello

22nd June 2021, 10:37

Wow, you must be ancient :)
When I was a kid, my mother had [in the kitchen] a 5 band radio that had FM, and could pick up airplanes, taxi's, police, and even TV audio.

EDIT:

FM broadcasting[wikipedia]:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting

It would have been more accurate to say nobody was broadcasting.
I don't think my portable player had an FM receiver, but the first... cough... Hi Fi system I owned did. Remember when a Hi Fi system was made up of individual components? You bought an amplifier, a tuner, a turntable, a cassette player etc, but at some stage manufactures started combining them into "3-in-1" units. They eased us into it though by putting everything in a single box and designing it so it still looked like individual components, but wasn't. My first Hi Fi system was one of those. It did have an FM receiver but for the first year or so there weren't any FM stations broadcasting.

Apparently EON FM launched sometime during the year I turned 16. I would have said it was a couple of years later, but Wikipedia says it wasn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Australian_radio#1980-1989

FranceBB

22nd June 2021, 12:53

Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!

OMG! MP2?! Really?

The adoption of DAB+ (HE-AAC) has been very slow and sloppy here, primarily due to the quantity of early DAB radio adoptees who's devices don't support DAB+...

I see...

Today's youth.... no idea how good they have it. ;)
When I was young and going to school, my portable music player looked very much like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/KkpQhmqZ/maxresdefault.jpg (https://postimg.cc/KkpQhmqZ)

LOL "portable" xD

Mind you that's way more fancy than the one I owned because FM radio didn't exist and the Cue function was, if I remember correctly, a manually implemented feature involving holding the play button half way down while fast-forwarding and hoping it wouldn't end in tears.

FM didn't exist? (O_O)
Wow... I think about FM as something that has always been there... You guys must have been amazed by the sound quality when you moved from LW and MW to AM and FM ehehehehehehe

H.264 hardware decode is utterly commonplace on any device shipped in the last decade.

Exactly, which is why I find very odd the fact that some devices still don't have it...

I mean, we're here talking about H.266 VVC getting ready soon-ish and there are people still encoding in XVID... It definitely makes you wonder...

StainlessS

22nd June 2021, 13:45

FranceBB,
You guys must have been amazed by the sound quality when you moved from LW and MW to AM and FM ehehehehehehe
LW and MW (& SW) are AM (Amplitude Modulated).

HH,
Apparently EON FM launched sometime during the year I turned 16.
Switch on here in UK was in 1955:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_UK
I guess in Australa, take up was delayed as FM is more suited to short range, and Australia being Australia, would find longer range more useful.

Legal commercial broadcasting began in the United Kingdom in 1973, with the launch of LBC
although there were 'Pirate" radio stations before that.

EDIT: Radio Caroline and Radio Luxemburg being two, I think.
Caroline:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline
Luxemburg:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Luxembourg
Pirate Radio:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio

FranceBB

22nd June 2021, 16:42

I didn't know LBC was so old!
I've been listening to Nick Ferrari for politics every now and then and also to Mr James O' Bryan Mystery Hour to which I also participated once in 2015 to say "It's a question, James" xD

hello_hello

22nd June 2021, 17:14

HH,

Switch on here in UK was in 1955:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_UK
I guess in Australa, take up was delayed as FM is more suited to short range, and Australia being Australia, would find longer range more useful.

I did unintentionally lie to you. When I said EON FM was our first FM station, I should have said "our first commercial FM station".
I don't actually remember the ABC having an FM station earlier than the 80's, but apparently ABC Classic FM began broadcasting to a non-existent audience in 1974.

I have a vague memory the government body responsible for broadcasting at the time made a decision on FM frequency usage that triggered a government enquiry, and I think a new broadcasting body was formed, or something....
No doubt FM radio also had to wait for TV to get out of the way. Channel 0 moved to 10 in Melbourne, but I'm sure it broadcast on both frequencies for a fair while. Around that time Murdock bought Channel 0, which triggered a government enquiry into media ownership.

After the commercial Channel 0 moved to 10 the new multicultural TV station SBS was given Channel 0 to use for a year or three. SBS broadcast simultaneously on Channels 0 and 28 initially, so anyone interested in watching the soccer would have plenty of time to buy a TV with a UHF tuner, assuming their current set lacked one.

I'm sure there was also some fuss over a country TV station having to make way for SBS because they were close to Melbourne and already broadcasting on Channel 28. Aside from all that though, I don't think the general public really had much interest in FM back then. Possibly because the majority of cars still had AM-only radios. Remember the "push button" tuning?

SeeMoreDigital

22nd June 2021, 17:18

Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!OMG! MP2?! Really?

Actually... all 'first generation' DAB is MP2 :eek:

StainlessS

22nd June 2021, 17:58

Just be happy that it aint MP1 [layer 1].

SeeMoreDigital

22nd June 2021, 18:27

Just be happy that it aint MP1 [layer 1].Indeed...

That being said, back in the day I had an Technics DCC (Digital Compact Cassette) player/recorder, which I used to copy audio CD's to MP1 (Mpeg-1 layer 1).... They sounded pretty good.

But I preferred the greater flexibility and size of MiniDisc.

GAP

23rd June 2021, 16:41

I knew of MP3s but not MP1s. I am not that old as I was a kid in the nineties.

StainlessS

23rd June 2021, 19:10

Not sure but think maybe it used extender something like, mpa1, mpa2, mpa3 or [mp3],
for mpeg 1 layers 1, 2 and 3.
I'm also a kid, just a bit older than you. [when you get as ancient as me,you dont know that you are
ancient, except for comments from young fellas that seem to think that it aint ever gonna happen to them]
[in a few eye blinks, but it does and will].

mobile:

EDIT: Make the most of it, there are no "re-does".

FranceBB

23rd June 2021, 22:22

when you get as ancient as me,you dont know that you are ancient, except for comments from young fellas

Guilty :P

that seem to think that it aint ever gonna happen to them, but it does and will. Make the most of it, there are no "re-does".

Oh... :'(
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/49481986/right-in-the-feels.jpg

Liisachan

24th June 2021, 12:08

For those who are curious, here's an actual sample clip [ xvid+mp1234.mkv (http://faireal.net/aaa/xvid+mp1234.mkv) ], using xvid 1.1 (!) from about 15 years ago + the same audio in 4 formats (MP1/MP2/MP3/AAC). The default Audio is Apple AAC, created today via qaac. The other tracks are ancient. There may be a small click noise at the start of the MP1 track.

http://faireal.net/aaa/mp1234.jpg

rwill

24th June 2021, 14:46

I have no clue about audio compression but to me Mpeg Audio Layer 2 sounds more "complete" to me than MP3 and AAC. I read something on Wikipedia about some difference between MP2 and MP3 with frequency bands but don't know if thats the root cause.

StainlessS

25th June 2021, 02:37

I think that MPA2 was/is legal in DVD VOB, but think MP3 not legal. [???]

Think i remember that MPA1 could be pretty awful recording rain or shower, could sound like broken glass fragments raining from sky.

SeeMoreDigital

25th June 2021, 09:45

I think that MPA2 was/is legal in DVD VOB, but think MP3 not legal. [???]Yep

Think i remember that MPA1 could be pretty awful recording rain or shower, could sound like broken glass fragents raining from sky.I noticed some weirdness when generating a few recordings. The only thing I could put it down to, was that the MP1 audio encoder had become overloaded. As the, "turn it off and on again" trick would resolve such issues...

Katie Boundary

26th June 2021, 21:17

But H.264 hardware decode...

There is a world beyond hardware decoding.

j7n

28th June 2021, 17:17

Since the complexity of x264 is scalable with options such as CAVLC, I don't see a point in using Xvid. Although nobody seems to produce fastdecode H264 files. x264 is much easier to use from command line in single pass compared to Virtual Dub.

In the 1990s I had only a medium/long wave radio powered by AA batteries in a paper tube. There were two modern pop stations, one local, and one from Ireland. It was receivable at night along with several others that didn't interest me at the time. FM certainly did exist, but I could not own a receiver.

Mediumwave radio used to be better. a) The bandwidth was not cut off at 5 kHz. Channels could overlap. b) There were no switching mode power supplies. I lived in a wooden house and reception was always clear. Now it is a hell inside reinforced walls when the power is on, especially in daytime. Every piece of electronic, digital garbage radiates through wires and walls up to around 8 MHz. Curiously, when power gets cut for repairs, the building does not impede reception. Orientation of the antenna for best reception matches outdoors. I am surprised that broadcasters still exist if people in cities can't hear them. c) There were not single frequency networks where distant transmitters interfere with one another. d) transmitters had more power, a megawatt was common.

My memory of reception quality has certainly faded. My ears were better then and expectations lower. But I remember the sound quite sharp and clear. I wonder if it was practical for a government back in the 1980s to broadcast interference through building walls to disrupt foreign broadcasts, as effectively as it happens now.

Later I got a big old radio with vacuum tubes that could receive FM, but the reception faded as the device heated up. It also had a different frequency range. But due to a malfunction could also receive the "western" band overlapped. VHF TV channels had a very strong mono signal compared to audio only.

MP3 from online sources often is encoded with poor settings and sounds bad than the AAC alternative. For downloadable content and physical media enough bitrate can be used that MP3 is completely fine.

StainlessS

28th June 2021, 18:16

On radio reception, here part quote from some time ago in another thread

So basically 'Heat Haze'. [I'de never heard the term Fata Morgana, looked Heat Haze up and it got me to Wikipedia Mirage:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage].
I would not have any idea how to simulate heat haze.

Regarding the wikipedia Mirage link, Fata Morgana paragraph, "atmospheric duct" hilited popup, I think I once experienced that myself.
Back in 1981, I was stayng at a guest house in Bedfordshire countryside, about 5 of us were watching an Italian movie on analogue TV.
Due to weird atmosperic conditions, we could not pick up UK TV, only a single Italian TV station (maybe due to 'atmospheric ducting' which
probably acts similar to microwave WaveGuide used in Radar and microwave communications). the Italian movie of course had no subtitles
(as it was broadcast for Italians, not Brits), so we asked the Swiss girl with us to translate (she spoke Swiss German, Italian, French and English),
and we all sat there transfixed as she translated for a good 10 minutes, at which point she realised that nobody was watching the movie,
we were all fixed upon her. I said something like, "Enough of the French, how about giving it to us in English".
Some additional quite strange linguistic ducting had occurred.

Woz well weird. [EDIT: We normally (never) could not pick up any foreign TV stations at all]

kurkosdr

11th August 2022, 16:13

Apparently so,
quite often, in this [where this is posted, ie MPEG-4 ASP] forum, there are way - way more forum visitors than anywhere else on the D9,
so yes, ASP/XVID/DIVX is still quite popular, but I cannot say nor understand why.
Lots of car DVD players and lots of small TVs with integrated DVD players out there which support MPEG4 ASP but without support for H.264, and which still serve their owners faithfully. So, most people in this situation will download the H.264 version (usually MP4 or MKV) for their big screen TVs and the AVI file for those other devices. With a 30Mbit connection, downloading the AVI file takes like 3 minutes (disclaimer: I am talking about legal downloads yadda yadda).

kurkosdr

11th August 2022, 16:35

That's odd... but hey, apparently there are still people using it for... compatibility purposes?
I don't know...
Besides, I thought MPEG-2 was far more common than Xvid, not just for DVDs that are still being produced for some odd reason, but also for all the SD 480i or 576i TV channels out there that are still on air and also HD/FULL HD standards like XDCAM which just don't wanna die...
It feels weird to talk about these things in 2021, but hey, they're still a thing... :(
MPEG-2 is still big in the world of broadcasting due to all those SD receivers out there (and the reluctance of governments to tell the owners of such receivers it's time to move on). For example, in the UK there is a grand total of 8 HD channels, a couple of H.264 SD channels, and several dozen MPEG-2 SD channels that are broadcast at a very low bitrate and with lots of artifacts. I am talking about major channels that people actually watch that are only broadcast in crappy MPEG-2 SD.

However, MPEG-2 was never big on the internet, due to the fact it can only do widescreen at 720x480/576 resolution in its most common form (DVD-Video), which in turn forces high bitrates (together with the usual inefficiency of MPEG-2). And let's be real, nobody wants a file with mediocre SD video that weighs 4 frickin' gigabytes at minimum. So, MPEG4 ASP in AVI (aka Divx/Xvid) is the lowest common denominator on the internet. Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small and it plays even on most non-H.264 standalone players. Of course, it's always a good idea to also provide an H.264 version of the content.

kurkosdr

11th August 2022, 16:48

rwill

12th August 2022, 19:48

However, MPEG-2 was never big on the internet, due to the fact it can only do widescreen at 720x480/576 resolution in its most common form (DVD-Video), which in turn forces high bitrates (together with the usual inefficiency of MPEG-2). And let's be real, nobody wants a file with mediocre SD video that weighs 4 frickin' gigabytes at minimum. So, MPEG4 ASP in AVI (aka Divx/Xvid) is the lowest common denominator on the internet. Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small and it plays even on most non-H.264 standalone players. Of course, it's always a good idea to also provide an H.264 version of the content.

1. Necro
2. Mpeg-2 and Mpeg-4 ASP are not far apart in regards to compression efficiency if both encoder employ the same strategies. Mpeg-4 having the edge obviously.

kurkosdr

13th August 2022, 13:44

1. Necro
2. Mpeg-2 and Mpeg-4 ASP are not far apart in regards to compression efficiency if both encoder employ the same strategies. Mpeg-4 having the edge obviously.
1. Don't care.
2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.

SeeMoreDigital

13th August 2022, 18:48

2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.Actually you are wrong.

In the case of MPEG-2 DVD or DTV the 720x756/480 or 'D1' pixel frame size is always encoded along with either 4:3 or 16:9 DAR (ie: aspect ratio signalling). It is never distributed at 1:1...

rwill

13th August 2022, 21:27

1. Don't care.
2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.

Isnt most Divx/Xvid content on the internet derived from DVD ? I remember it was in the year ~2000. That just came about with people starting to re-encoding DVDs with the hacked Divx 3.11 Alpha codec in resolutions like 640x360. People could have used some Mpeg-2 encoder too but there was no one available for free I guess. MP3 started off the same, with some hacked Fraunhofer encoder and Napster. Ah, piracy... "Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small". Mpeg-2 video could have done this as well, SVCD being one popular standard.

kurkosdr

14th August 2022, 01:47

Actually you are wrong.

In the case of MPEG-2 DVD or DTV the 720x756/480 or 'D1' pixel frame size is always encoded along with either 4:3 or 16:9 DAR (ie: aspect ratio signalling). It is never distributed at 1:1...
Yes, 720x756/480 is always anamorphic (either for 16:9 or for 4:3), I never questioned that.

The real issue is that, according to the DVD-Video specs, only the 720x756/480 resolution can have the 16:9 flag, everything else (for example 352x288/240) can only be flagged as 4:3. Which is the real problem. If your content is 16:9, you have to use the 720x756/480 resolution (if you use the DVD-Video format), which means you have to use higher bitrates, which means you have to use at least 4GB for a half-decent picture.

So, where was I wrong? As I said in my previous post, DVD-Video forces you to use the 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen (16:9).

"Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small". Mpeg-2 video could have done this as well, SVCD being one popular standard.
No, it couldn't. And it's not for lack of trying by various people in the past.

First of all, SVCD doesn't do 16:9 anamorphic. Not reliably at least, aka with the players capable of signaling it properly (for 16:9 TVs) or putting black bars (for 4:3 TVs). So, you have to letterbox during authoring and manually crop/zoom in the TV's widescreen settings when viewing on a widescreen TV. DVD-Video only does widescreen at 720x756/480, which requires high bitrates (for the standards of the day, at least). And that's before we take into account the fact MPEG2 degrades much worse than MPEG4 ASP.

Basically, it all comes down to this: Have you tried squeezing a 2-hour movie on an SVCD? Or even on 2 SVCDs? It's unwatchable, even on a CRT television. You have to go to 4GB (DVD) at minimum, which was considered a huge filesize back then. Meanwhile, a 2-hour movie on 2CDs with MPEG4 ASP at 640x360 offered acceptable quality (for the standards of the day, at least), and even 1CD was considered watchable.

Now, why is MPEG4 ASP used today? The answer is it's pretty small (700MB or 1400MB) and plays on pre-H.264 players. Nobody will download a 4GB (or 4.38GB) MPEG2 file for their car DVD player or for their non-HD TV-DVD combo in the kitchen. At least that's what I get by looking at the availability online. And for their big screen TVs, they will download the H.264 version :)

j7n

14th August 2022, 02:53

None of the existing MPEG-2 encoders that I'm aware of would encode to long GOPs, and would enforce a strict pattern of P/B frames that sometimes didn't even respect a scene change, leading to low quality. For playback on a computer you could always encode to square pixels, same as XviD, no?

rwill

14th August 2022, 07:11

...

Damn.

First the necro and then the borderline insane way to present random fact snippets as if they support your argument... and being dense.

Are you Ballings Twin ?

FranceBB

14th August 2022, 13:49

So, where was I wrong?

Here:

DVD-Video forces you to use the 720x756/480 resolution

720x576 is PAL anamorphic
720x480 is NTSC anamorphic
both can be flagged either 4:3 or 16:9 and it's gonna be the player that will re-scale them on the fly.

Now, why is MPEG4 ASP used today?

'cause people don't wanna throw away their 2002-era players and that's just sad...

None of the existing MPEG-2 encoders that I'm aware of would encode to long GOPs, and would enforce a strict pattern of P/B frames that sometimes didn't even respect a scene change, leading to low quality.

The state of open source MPEG-2 encoders is just sad...

The MPEG-2 Libavcodec encoder allows you to set an arbitrary GOP, however by default it assigns waaaaaaaay too many bits to the Intra, thus bit-starving P and B and the result is just... very poor.

x262 doesn't support all interlaced chroma sampling modes as it was a work-in-progress encoder and unfortunately it stayed that way 'cause it has been abandoned eons ago, so... nope (and I know 'cause I begged the creator to keep going back then).

kurkosdr

14th August 2022, 17:09

Here:
720x576 is PAL anamorphic
720x480 is NTSC anamorphic
both can be flagged either 4:3 or 16:9 and it's gonna be the player that will re-scale them on the fly.
I mean 576, sorry. Typo that got copied pasted all over. My point stays the same. DVD-Video forces you to use full D1 resolution if you want anamorphic 16:9, which, together with the fact MPEG-2 degrades much worse than MPEG4 ASP, means you are looking at a 4GB file minimum, which is more than what people are willing to download for SD.

'cause people don't wanna throw away their 2002-era players and that's just sad...

Yeah, but nothing you or me can do about it, right? Also, things like car DVD players can't be easily upgraded.

FranceBB

14th August 2022, 20:54

things like car DVD players can't be easily upgraded.

As a broke person trying to save money, wishing to get on the property ladder and become a home owner one day, I drive a poor-people car, so a 2009 Nissan Micra where everything is analog and I had to buy a bluetooth to jack adapter to even use my phone... eheheheheh

Anyway, my father's car, a Mitsubishi, does indeed have a DVD player which reads MPEG-2 with either MP2 or AC3 audio, but my parents have never ever used it 'cause due to silly Italian laws they're not allowed to use it while driving as it might distract the driver (even if he's not looking at it at all). The Italian firmware made it so that if you're driving, it won't play and it will tell you that the playback will resume once the car stops, thus making it completely useless, 'cause let's face it, who in the world would sit in his car, in a car park, to watch a movie on a small screen? xD

DVD-Video forces you to use full D1 resolution if you want anamorphic 16:9

Uhm... it's actually the other way round: DVD Forces you to use full resolution if you want anamorphic 4:3.

DVD 720x480 flagged as 4:3 will be rescaled to 640x480
DVD 720x480 flagged as 16:9 will be rescaled to 848x480

with those being MPEG-2.
Now, if you re-encode in xvid, you can toss away the ugly anamorphic thing and re-encode to a proper 1.77 (so 16:9) or 1.33 (so 4:3) and your argument stands, but for 4:3 'cause 640x480 4:3 1.33 is smaller than 720x480 anamorphic flagged 4:3, so you save space, but it doesn't apply for 16:9 'cause 848x480 16:9 1.77 is larger than 720x480 anamorphic :P

(I don't wanna be pedantic, I got what you're trying to say, but you know this forum is read by thousands of people every day, so I like to clarify things for people who will read it in the future :) ).

MPEG-2 degrades much worse than MPEG4 ASP

True, in general, if you compare apples with apples.
In the case of DVDs, though, you have MPEG-2 25i or 30i which are generally deinterlaced before being re-encoded to xvid. Even though xvid is better than MPEG-2, we should note that encoding an interlaced source takes less bitrate than encoding a progressive source, if the same codec is used. In other words, if I were to use MPEG-2 to encode the same source, but one time progressive and one time interlaced, the latter would take less bitrate.
Still, given that xvid is better than MPEG-2, it will still be able to yield an advantage even if it's progressive.

you are looking at a 4GB file minimum, which is more than what people are willing to download for SD.

"De Gustibus"
(I think it's widely used across the world, but if you don't know it's an ancient latin sentence used during the Roman Empire and you can find the meaning on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum))

kurkosdr

15th August 2022, 13:52

Nobody encodes Divx avi in 848x480 and most pre-H.264 devices out there won't even play it (because it's beyond the maximum resolution allowed by the "Divx Home Theater" profile, which is what those devices implement). Most widescreen Divx AVI files are 640x360, which is substantially less pixels than the 720x480 minimum resolution that DVD-Video mandates if you want to have anamorphic widescreen. Coupled with the fact MPEG4 ASP degrades less bad than MPEG2, it allows for substantial bitrate savings (for example, an entire movie on 1400MB or 700MB), without the sea of artifacts you would encounter if you targeted such filesizes on DVD-Video.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I wish more stuff was made available as 4GB, 4.38GB, or even 7.96GB DVD-video for people with old devices, but that's not what I am seeing around. Most stuff out here is either Divx avi (700MB or 1400MB) or H.264 (MKV/MP4).

rwill

15th August 2022, 17:27

Here are some Tears of Steel 720x300 encodes:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1T5NAecI5JF9n5v0_bDJrGTjin_RhnxUW?usp=sharing

Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 look pretty equal to me.

FranceBB

17th August 2022, 21:30

Nobody encodes Divx avi in 848x480 and most pre-H.264 devices out there won't even play it (because it's beyond the maximum resolution allowed by the "Divx Home Theater" profile, which is what those devices implement).

Right! I see! I forgot!
I took a look and yeah, I saw old ancient SD 4:3 encodes as 640x480 and my oooooooooooold SD 16:9 xvid encodes as 704x396 so that they were gonna stay within the profile constraint. To be fair, I should have remembered it given that I was one of the people who encoded in 640x480 and 704x396 in 2006-2007 for the Italian """branch""" of ADC-Elites (which then turned into OPF-Italia), but I forgot... it's been ages ago...