Does Xvid need more programmers?

[oddball]

Not to stick the boot into those that are working on this codec but. I know that DiVX has been going for a bit longer now but Xvid development seems to be rather slow. DiVX5.02 still appears to be the clear winner at present despite being closed source. Does Xvid simply need more people working on it to get it up to speed?

I feel that the codec is not quite mature enough yet for me to even consider using. After seeing a recent Xvid encode from DVL (You probably know the release I am on about) I feel it's not really ready for public consumption yet. I appareciate DVL supporting the Xvid guys by releasing in this codec but the quality is not up to par with some well coded SBC or DiVX5.02 movies. The picture is somewhat soft and lacking in detail while also exhibiting some blocking and a strange pulsing effect (The image dulls and brightens on occasion in various spots).

I'm not poo pooing Xvid by any means. I appreciate that it takes lots of hard graft by the people working on it. In fact it may be that the movie I watched was just not encoded with the best Xvid settings (Plus it contains an AC3 5.1 track over 2 CD's which impacts on the bitrate).

I dunno. Everyone says how Xvid looks as good as SBC but I have not seen it yet. I know Xvid is MPEG4 ISO compliant (Good) and does not suffer from shitframes and other oddities like SBC DiVX3.11a does. I'm just waiting to see something that kicks DiVX5.02's butt and by the time Xvid gets to that stage we may well already be onto DiVX6+

Closed source or not. DiVX5.02 still has the edge. I think perhaps B frames support should be top priority in Xvid. Get that working and worry about any other tweaks later as B frames appears to have a large impact on quality.

Just my two cents :)

[Koepi]

Well, the rip you're talking about really amazed me.

I was impressed that a release group can dare to spit out something like that. Admitted, I don't know the DVD sources, but my first impression was "hell, HOW did they fiddle around with xvid does it look like crap at this bitrate?".

XviD sure can use some more coders. But work is done, it's on it's way. You don't get to see everything as much stuff has to be tested and investigated internally first before applying it to the public sources.

And - once more, "hell!" - how can you dare to draw conclusions like these from a inproper rip you leeched from the net? This is really insulting for the xvid developers. I can show you some of my test encodings, and you'd know why it beats DivX and SBC.

Koepi

[fANMIR]

Hello...

I agree that you can't judge codec after seeing one probably bad rip. Also, I don't think that Xvid encodes are soft and lacking in detail. The Divx 5.x are soft and lacking in detail. But that strange pulsating effect ( oddball said that the image dulls and brightens on occasion in various spots ) should be one of the most important thing to fix by Xvid developers. Not B-Frames - On 2cd or 3cd rips I think they couldn't make quality better. And I simply don't use them. My 1cd Xvid rips look better without b-frames than divx 5.0.2 with them turned on...

Xvid developers' work is very appreciable...

[BiaTch 5.0]

The picture is somewhat soft and lacking in detail while also exhibiting some blocking and a strange pulsing effect (The image dulls and brightens on occasion in various spots).

I think this is ridicules, I think Xvid has the sharpest picture & detail comparing to divx 4,5 & Real & “strange pulsing effect, The image dulls and brightens on occasion in various spots” I found something like this on original DVD’s too, the reason you don’t see it on divx is because the image is so blurry.

[-h]

In response to the subject, yes, any open source project could use more developers.

XviD has just started a "branch" to enable work on both a stable version and unstable "dev" version, and you will see a lot more activity in the near future thanks to this new playground.

-h

[rui]

I know there is a thread about xvid development being stopped, but i thought that it wouldn't mind if i ask this here ;)

Reading -h last words, means that all the problems created by Sigma are over?

Oh, and will the "dev" code be available for public?

[Nic]

@rui: (hi mate! :) )
The sigma thing has calmed down, as far as I can see theyve still not done everything they should have, but the team has got to a point where 100% of their time doesnt have to be on dealing with Sigma...

I have a feeling that the dev & stable versions are a good idea, but in general, who wants the stable version?? ( :D ) The developer version will be avaliable too (its just a different branch of the CVS..so that people understand that its experimental & dont send useless bug reports to Micheal/Christoph/etc)

Cheers,
-Nic

[dread]

Originally posted by BiaTch 5.0

I think this is ridicules, I think Xvid has the sharpest picture & detail comparing to divx 4,5 & Real & “strange pulsing effect, The image dulls and brightens on occasion in various spots” I found something like this on original DVD’s too, the reason you don’t see it on divx is because the image is so blurry.

Couldn't agree.
I've found some comments of THAT movie compared to divx3.11 version.
Most advantage over xvid version which they found was prologue and end credits. No comments :)

oddball - I don't think that any other codec could give you so much detailed (compared to divx5) and less blocky (compared to divx 3.11) picture with that settings (640x272, ac3 448kbit, movie is 140min long !!!).

[athos]

I think the DVD source for this movie is very good. From what I hear it is digital all the way from shooting to DVD pressing, and the company releasing it are eager to show off technology.

[rui]

Sorry to keep going a little off topic.
Originally posted by Nic
I have a feeling that the dev & stable versions are a good idea, but in general, who wants the stable version?? ( :D ) The developer version will be avaliable too (its just a different branch of the CVS..so that people understand that its experimental & dont send useless bug reports to Micheal/Christoph/etc)

Cheers,
-Nic

Thanks Nic :), that's great news. Hope you guys (you and Koepi, for example), continue to provide compilations from that developer version to all users out there, so we can "hammer" (reminds something doesn't it? :D) it with experiments.

[MaTTeR]

Unfortunately I too have noticed that several XviD releases lately have looked less than great to my eyes as well. Call me a perfectionist but I know the codec performs better than some of the stuff I've seen in the newsgroups lately(even using defaults). It's a little discouraging but I suppose they are just now entering that learning curve. Let's not forget how long these ppl have been use to Divx 3.11.

Being a long time user of XviD, it's comical to hear that XviD produces a soft picture:D Obviously a bad rip. Anyways, glad to hear the CVS is back up and running full steam.

[int 21h]

A codec is only as good as its encoder (i.e. person behind the encoding).

XviD can produce crap. SBC can produce crap. When SBC first debuted, everyone said "I can produce better rips with hand MM4." Of course, the very same thing is now being said about XviD, "I can produce better rips with SBC." We all know who won the first argument. :p

With the correct settings, XviD kicks the ass of SBC (which as a supporter, contributer, and advocater of SBC, it is not easy to admit), end of story.

In any event, its definitely not XviD's fault a bunch of codec n00bs got together and decided to release their screener in XviD with terrible settings.

In other news, the SVCD is nice, except for the lack of Alien Speak subs.

So the moral of the story is, whatever you can produce the best rips with, go for it. Don't jump on the bandwagon. Don't be sheep. So complain to DVL/TcF, and then pause for a moment when they reply with "Rip it yourself! Wait for 2 months and buy it yourself!", but leave XviD out of it.

[Sigmatador]

1- xvid don't "needs" more developpers, but having more developpers isn't a bad idea :D :D
2- XviD ownz DivX4&502/SBC/RV9 and WMV9 :devil: ;p
3- but i think new tools like B-frames could be very useful

ps: "XviD ownz DivX4&502/SBC/RV9 and WMV9" it's not a joke, with good paramaters and avs scripts, xvid video are very beautiful and sure more than divx502 with b-frames (arf xvid & b-frames :cool: ^^)

[oddball]

Maybe someone can show me a side by side comaprison clip encoded in both DiVX5.02 and Xvid :)

[iago]

Originally posted by oddball
Maybe someone can show me a side by side comaprison clip encoded in both DiVX5.02 and Xvid :) @oddball

I'm planning to do that very soon, don't worry... (Any special settings you would like to suggest for DivX5.02Pro? B-frames, GMC, psychovisuals, quantizers capping, etc.?)

iago

[MaTTeR]

Originally posted by iago
@oddball

B-frames, GMC, psychovisuals, quantizers capping, etc.?)

IMHO GMC and Qpel are a complete waste of time and possibly bits in the Divx 5 implementation. B-Frames and normal psycho seem to be ok for movies in general though.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by Koepi

And - once more, "hell!" - how can you dare to draw conclusions like these from a inproper rip you leeched from the net? This is really insulting for the xvid developers. I can show you some of my test encodings, and you'd know why it beats DivX and SBC.

Koepi


The proofs in the pudding bro, XviD is just not ready. Even Doom9's had problems with it doing his latest codec compare.

I dont see why people try to compare and expect so much outa a alpha stage codec?



Anyway WMV9 is here and Pioneer has a DVD unit that supports it and it has kickass quality. So people really have alot options now when it comes to choosing codec's :D

[Koepi]

Neverlift,

I really liked you, but now that you are incapable of using the tool giving at your hands, always start trolling around (YES. you've become a TROLL unfortunately :( ) that YOU are the BEST in using OUTDATED technoligy, never get tired to place that WHERE you can...

Never, please, use what you prefer.

But stop wasting peoples nerves.

This is SURE against rule no. 4.

Man I hate this.

Never, I helped nandub development, do you really think i'm deaf-dumb-blind and use what's hype? I really prefered if you'd THINK about it a little more.

Koepi

[NeVeRLiFt]

@Koepi


Give us a good working build of XviD that has things working and doign what they should and make sure it has a good playback filter.


And I'm sorry if the facts or my opinion make you think of me as a troll.


Maybe its not the codec and where just all to stupid and dont know how to use it.

btw there's a new release group on the scene ;)
and the profile and settings used are mine *cough*

NbN@-divx our quality speaks for itself :devil:
we will use SBC until we have a profile/settings that allow Mpeg4 to play on DVD units.

Peace dude and I hope in the end XviD is there.

[NeVeRLiFt]

If you mods and power trippers dont want people voicing there opinions are discussing stuff then make this a private forums.

Its pretty lame how you think you can warn people and then suspend them for speaking their mind.


Good day

[sherpya]

If you don't like xvid just don't use it.
In this case this is not your forum... so don't write here
If you say these things you really don't help the codec develop

[MaTTeR]

I honest to God don't see why using XviD is so difficult. I mean no offense to anyone but do you really have to be a rocket scientist to use the codec and get excellent results out of it!

You want a good XviD playback filter? Uhm, care to point out what's wrong with the one we have been using for months? Show me another DSF that uses less resources other than ffdshow. If you have a problem with the current XviD filter then it would be quite helpful to point out the issues. Otherwise it's just as fast and stable as any other DSF out.

I swear the more I read some of these posts and comparisons the more I think I'm some sort of XviD rip guru. Truth is I do no magic and most likely know far less about video encoding in general than most ppl here but I'd glady put my rips up against any of the rips from some of the so called great "scene" groups. Sheesh:confused:

Koepi, don't get so frustrated dude. You guys are obviously doing top notch work with this codec. It's a shame some people don't have the patience or basic skills to realize. Thx so much for your effort as always;)

[Nic]

Hey, my DSF does ok too :D (Doom9 prefers the quality of mine ;) it can be buggy because it has to rely on the xvid build & xvid has decoding problems (hence the odd explorer.exe crashes)

& I agree with sherpya :)

Cheers,
-Nic

[iago]

@NeVeRLiFt

Well, actually I hate going into such pointless discussions, but I couldn't help saying a few words when I read your posts. Also, I well remember your arguments in the nandub forum a while ago, where you claimed to do wonderful 1cd rips with your "interesting" 1cd profile. From that time on, I had already decided not to take you seriously just like many other people, but certainly you seem to continue with your old habits without even one step of improvement. So...

1. Go use what codec and what "interesting" profiles you like with your perfect rips.
2. Your posts don't help a bit in XviD development and lacks respect to the great effort being put all around here on XviD development.
3. I also use(d) nandub-sbc many times to achive good results, though my profiles were far different from your "interesting" one you are so much bragging about, but still the sbc results were absolutely inferior compared to my XviD rips.
4. These are my last words about this meaningless argument, which means I won't reply any more to your posts here, hoping you learn to talk and play nice when it comes to XviD matters, which absolutely is discussed in a serious forum and requires some manners first before writing to it.

bye bye,
iago

[NeVeRLiFt]

It dont get more serious than this baby ;)
NbN@-divx

Our quality speaks for itself.

We have released LOTR, Ninth Gate, Van Wilder and a Dir Cut of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

My profile/settings works :devil:

All I said was I have not had much success with XviD, I can beat it with Nandub(SBC) and DivX5.
Maybe once XviD is done and matured.... but by then we will have DivX6+ and we already have WMV9 kicking ass with sweet quality.

Not to mention Pioneer has made a DVD-unit that supports WMV9 :rolleyes:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/Press/2002/Jul02/07-15DigitaLibraryPR.asp


nuff said

[BiaTch 5.0]

Originally posted by MaTTeR
I honest to God don't see why using XviD is so difficult. I mean no offense to anyone but do you really have to be a rocket scientist to use the codec and get excellent results out of it!

I wish.

I frame, P frame, MIN/MAX, lumi/mpeg, alt curve, HIGH/LOW, perfect Xvid, stats reader, not to mention all you have to do for the AVS & audio. Come on, easy? all this just to record a movie!.

But I guess all these features is what does & will make Xvid a top codec.

[MaTTeR]

@BiaTch 5.0

I'm not talking about trying to fit a movie like The Last Stand or LOTR on 1 CD here. IMHO it's very easy to get great results with XviD encoding most movies around 90-110 minutes long. I use to use SBC until XviD's quality surpassed it awhile back, now SBC to me was difficult.

I think maybe the problem is so feature rich that users want to start playing with all the settings and as Koepi has stated many many times, if you don't know what the settings do then dont touch them. A simple AVS script for a 100min movie has only a few lines...
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec.dll")
mpeg2source("D:\DIvX RIPs\Clay Pigeons\clay.d2v")
trim(0,143677)
crop(5,2,711,476)
TemporalSoften(1,5,11)
BicubicResize(624,352,0.333,0.333)

Gknot seems to be a good place to start if your not familiar with AVS, let it generate the script for you. Audio is way too easy these days with BeSweet and HeadAC3he. A few clicks in the GUI and you have a nice sounding MP3 or Ogg file. The only other thing to look at in general is the quantization type you might want to use such as H.263 or MPEG. The rest of the settings were seriously screw your rip up unless you know what they do completely. Maybe the guides need to be updated or made easier? I'll stop ranting now *grin*

[Teegedeck]

OK, this thread has been shifted to an off-topic, pointless discussion because one user, that I don't feel like mentioning, annoys everyone by repeating statements that summ up 'XivD's good but why use it if we have alternatives?'

Enough trolling now. Thread closed.