sonni_kuba
29th March 2002, 16:35
I have heard that there is still a debate over whether Divx5 is better than Divx4 in terms of visual quality/MB
I have previously encoded Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon with Divx4.0x at 496x208. I had to encode it a few times, to get it really close to the 700MB CD size, mainly playing around with quantizers.
I have done the same test with Divx5PRo. With bidirectional encoding enabled, I was able to compress the whole movie with audio onto 700MB CD, by using 1-pass quality based at 100%. That means watching it on my laptop, there is virtually no block noise at all, without the need for any postprocessing filters, etc.
Although, it takes much longer to encode, the results are indeed impressive. It would be interesting how XviD will fare wtih B-frames.
PS> The reason why I am encoding at 'only' 496x208 is because my 1998 lap-top can't quite decode at 640x272.
I have previously encoded Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon with Divx4.0x at 496x208. I had to encode it a few times, to get it really close to the 700MB CD size, mainly playing around with quantizers.
I have done the same test with Divx5PRo. With bidirectional encoding enabled, I was able to compress the whole movie with audio onto 700MB CD, by using 1-pass quality based at 100%. That means watching it on my laptop, there is virtually no block noise at all, without the need for any postprocessing filters, etc.
Although, it takes much longer to encode, the results are indeed impressive. It would be interesting how XviD will fare wtih B-frames.
PS> The reason why I am encoding at 'only' 496x208 is because my 1998 lap-top can't quite decode at 640x272.