Recommended stable build?

[The Belgain]

What is the latest recommended stable build. Ie something recommended for archiving rather than just for testing purposes? I went over to www.xvid.org but they don't seem to have a recommended version over there (they just say they're waiting to release the first version from the stable branch). Does anyone know when they'll relesase this? How about the final (1.0) version?

[iago]

@The Belgain

I think you can safely use Koepi's 04102002-1 release as a very stable build ;).

regards,
iago

[-h]

If you want to be positive that your encodes are OK for archiving, I would refrain from using QPel for the time being. B-frames should be OK however, they've been successfully decoded for a while now, it's just the container format that seems to be giving us the most problems.

-h

[unplugged]

I have tested and compared Qpel using Nic's 20021013 (latest) compile with 2CD encodings and especially with H.263 it doesn't add any artifact and reduce drastically blockness giving also more stability to image. (!!!)
Haven't seen any sideffect yet ;)

As opposite B-frames give *much* compressibility with 2 / 200% setting but tend to blur and make blocks with motion stuff and of course doesn't give the image stability of qpel.

In my tests haven't had good bitrate gain 100% B-frame setting...

[Smiff]

Originally posted by -h
If you want to be positive that your encodes are OK for archiving, I would refrain from using QPel for the time being. B-frames should be OK however, they've been successfully decoded for a while now, it's just the container format that seems to be giving us the most problems.

-h


damn.. i got the impression it was the other way around - that qpel was ok and b-frames were dodgy :/

[HarryM]

Originally posted by Smiff



damn.. i got the impression it was the other way around - that qpel was ok and b-frames were dodgy :/


Identical. I think, that qpel are O.K. and b-frames using not recommended (yet).

[HarryM]

A hele... ;D

Nic prepared new build 21-10-2002. :)

[Koepi]

The topic is about stable builds, not developer builds.

Regards
Koepi

[The Belgain]

Thanks Koepi. So would you agree with the first response as being the best build to use for archiving? Should I use B-frames, Q-Pel, and Lumi-Masking?

It is this kind of problem that is slowing the acceptance of XviD. There should be stable binaries on XviD's site for download (as well as the latest from CVS), so that there is no confusion as to what to use for non-testing purposes (I know XviD are planning to do this, but it should have been done a long time ago, in a similar way to vorbis development). Also, having a slightly more reliable site would be nice.

Thanks for all the feedback.

[-h]

There will never be binaries on xvid.org, or if there are I will be very surprised. Perhaps this will change some day, but I doubt it.

In terms of stable builds, the builds marked stable are stable (!) - no known MPEG-4 incompatibilities, and no known artifact-causing problems.

You take your life in your hands when you use a dev build though. That's the point of the dev branch.

-h

[OUTPinged_]

Does Qpel brake compatibility with mpeg4?

[-h]

QPel is part of MPEG-4, but I can't say for sure that XviD's implementation of QPel matches the spec exactly. It might (this seems likely), but it might not in some cases.

This will be sorted out over time.

-h

[ookzDVD]

My stable build choice award goes to Koepi's 0410. ;)