Why does DiVX 5.02 (pro) look so crap?

[snake-boy]

Hi,

I've been using gknot, as per the guides on this site to encode. Having only used 3.11 for ages, I thought I may as well move on with the times and start using 5.02, but although I have followed the guide very closely, I can't help but comment that everything I have encoded with the DiVX 5.02 codec looks shit!
Yet, encoding the exact same footage with the 3.11 codec looks mind-blowingly amazing ;)

I was under the impression that 5.02 was a HUGE leap ahead of the "hacked" 3.11 codecs? I thought I was going to be so impressed, but instead am very VERY disapointed with the results. :(

Could it be I am doing something wrong that is causing them to come out looking so poor (grainy, colours washed out, pixelated, aliased), or is this "just the way it is"?

I hope it's just something I have not set somewhere that is causing these horrible results.

Am I allowd to post (small) pics here that will illustrate the difference between a 3.11 and 5.02 encoding of the same footage? Perhaps it will help for someone with more experience to detect what could be the cause...?

Many thanks

-snake

[diji1]

well, i can concur that i had the same experience when i tried divx5 - so it may be something that you are doing/not doing , but the codec imho doesn't measure up in the first place usually ( depending on source ). maybe try xvid out and see what u think.

... and yes you can post pics ( mods have to approve them before they are visible tho )

[hyperspaced]

I experience the same problem myself.

DivX 5.02 pro videos look very "grainy".

Perhaps it is because of low CPU power.
Are you decoding in a low-end system ?

[DaveEL]

If its a decode problem try the ffdshow filter which decodes divx 5

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23101


it may of course just be that you prefer the look of divx 3.11 i certainly still do the only thing that has convinced me so far is xvid until i tried recent builds (my first tests i didnt like but it got better fast) of xvid that i stayed with 3.11.


DaveEL

[snake-boy]

>>Perhaps it is because of low CPU power.
>>Are you decoding in a low-end system ?

I'm using a P4 1.4ghz for viewing and encoding. Although not top of the range (anymore) I'd hardly call it low-end just yet ;)

Caught between a rock and a hard place in that I have to fight the artifacts with 3.11, whereas with 5.02, I never get any artifacts encoding the same material.

Do you thing 3.11 support will ever be dropped from the 5.XX codec's? It wouldn't be the first time backward compatibility was dropped in favour of the progress of a possibly inferior solution...

-snake

[DaveEL]

Caught between a rock and a hard place in that I have to fight the artifacts with 3.11, whereas with 5.02, I never get any artifacts encoding the same material.

Try xvid :)

Do you think 3.11 support will ever be dropped from the 5.XX codec's? It wouldn't be the first time backward compatibility was dropped in favour of the progress of a possibly inferior solution...

Possibly doesnt matter anyway will still be able to decode 3.11 with other decoders (the original 3.11, current divx decode filter or ffdshow at the very least).

DaveEL

[hyperspaced]

This is a very new technology and that's why there are some glitches.

I removed the psychovisual modeling and the results were a bit better, but still not as good as the 3.11. I am staying with 3.11 for the time being.

What concerns me the most, is when there will be any DVD/DivX/SVCD/MP3 players available and if they will be able to decode DivX 3.11 (which is a bit illegal by the way). After all, you can't be watching a movie with your friends in front of a computer (17-19 inch monitor).

Should we have been encoding in SVCD after all ? :p :p :p

[vorbis]

I've done plenty of decent divx 3 and divx 5 rips. i have to say that the picture quality is about the same but divx 5 does it at a lower bit rate. You might to be trying to get too much out of the codec.

[diji1]

hyperspaced : What concerns me the most, is when there will be any DVD/DivX/SVCD/MP3 players available and if they will be able to decode DivX 3.11 (which is a bit illegal by the way).

good point, that's one definite problem with 3.11 - i doubt there would be a legal solution to it, though who knows what hacks to any future hardware players may be possible ( gettin very hypothetical ;) ) ... and XviD is fully
mpeg4 spec compliant which would guarentee compatibility with video anyhow.

i'd like to add to this discussion that it is my opinion that certain movies just come out looking better using some codecs over others as well. for 2 dvds of absolutely shocking source quality ( cheap adult rubbish ... ) div5 just seemed to do a better job than xvid or 3.11, just because it seemed to smooth everything so severely. this difference in results was certainly not thru lack of filtering either. i have no doubt that XviD will eventiually become my preferred "default" codec tho :)