RealVideo 9 or DivX... You choose...

[ThePanther]

I currently encode DVD using GKnot to DivX.

I have heard some good reviews about WMV9 and RealVideo 9. But I
cannot find anywhere that does a comparison of the three.

Can any tell me if its worth trying RV9 as RealNetworks state on
there site that is better then WMV9.

Has anyone tried this and compared it to DivX, is it better.

I know it very difficult to say one thing is better than another.

[The Edge]

I'll assume the search is broken:)

http://www.doom9.org/codec3-1.htm

You should do your own tests and then decide.

Edge

[ookzDVD]

None of them,

I choose XviD!

[shirka]

RV9 is the best codec when you use a bitrate between 600 kbits/s and 900 kbits/s. But RV9 needs a more powerful machine than DivX. With 500 kbits/s, WMV9 is the best with high motion scenes, but provides less details and accurate keyframes than RV9. Moreover, WMV9 doesn't allow subtitles and is very very slow when encoding...

The best for a 1CD movie is RV9, it allows multiple audio tracks (use AutoRV9 : www.dark-angel.does.it), Surround audio, subtitles...
But if you prefer 5.1 sound, use WMV9 or DivX/Xvid-AC3/Ogg...
++

[iwod]

Really?? does real really uses more powerful machine to play then Divx or Xvid?? can comebody prove that??

[Neo Neko]

It takes more CPU on my machine. The post processing is not configurable. The latest Xvid developer binaries have lots of good things in store though. And very little CPU.

[Koepi]

Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.

Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing :)

Regards
Koepi

[iwod]

Originally posted by Koepi
Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.

Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing :)

Regards
Koepi


Lastest Xvid build Not yet published?? Is that what is the surpaise is all about?? As sais on the xvid web site?? :D

[Marc FD]

XviD is the best codec for any bitrate from 250 kbps to 2.5 Mbps.

quality is amazing, and if you prefer RV9/WM9, it's because you don't know avisynth, or you like blur effects.

[nigor]

Originally posted by Koepi
Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.

Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing :)

Regards
Koepi


Umm, any plans to publish that code on yee website?

[Snollygoster]

Hi people,

I have just experimented with RealVideo 9 using AutoRV9. I encoded a 10 minutes scene of Lord of the Rings Extended Edition. I used 58MB file output (hence a 2 hr movie could fit in 1 CD).

I encoded my video with DivX and XviD as well. Same audio bitrate same file size.

I can not believe that RealVideo 9 gives so much better results. The image has NO pixelation at all, although some detail is missing. Anyway it is clear that this codec is the best out there.

Now, I understand that you can only get Real Surround sound or whatever this is. May I ask something?

What is the difference between surround, prologic and stereo?

I have a 5.1 SB Live and no matter what when I use stereo, prologic or surround sound files I can hear the voices (dialogues) from all my speakers.

[RadicalEd]

Originally posted by Marc FD
XviD is the best codec for any bitrate from 250 kbps to 2.5 Mbps.

quality is amazing, and if you prefer RV9/WM9, it's because you don't know avisynth, or you like blur effects.

:P
I've done pretty extensive testing with both and while the one I use depends on my mood or the phaze of the moon, they are definitely very similar in quality, Real overtaking XviD in some places, XviD overtaking Real in some places.

[Marc FD]

>I can not believe that RealVideo 9 gives so much better results. The
>image has NO pixelation at all, although some detail is missing. Anyway
>it is clear that this codec is the best out there.

lol. you cannot compare RV9 with DivX/XviD if you don't pre/post filter as much as RV9 does. it's nonsense ^__^

>I've done pretty extensive testing with both and while the one I use >depends on my mood or the phaze of the moon, they are definitely very >similar in quality,

if you don't try to get the best, yes.

>Real overtaking XviD in some places, XviD overtaking Real in some >places.

i dunno with films, but on anime, even the on2vp3 is better than RV9.
of course, if you do a plain encode with both, RV9 will look better than XviD. but with some very simple tweaking, the RV9 result is the same, whereas XviD gets much much better.

[The Belgain]

@ Marc FD:

If you say XviD is the beats RV9 at pretty much any bitrate, what settings (in avisynth as well as in XviD) would you recommend to get results as good as RV9, re-enciding from a noisy VCD capture, at a total bitrate of 225 (audio+video). This is for cartoons (Simpsons).

Let's say I'm using a 32 kbit ogg for the sake of argument, leaving about 190 kbit for the video.

I realise this is a little under your claimed bitrate range, but all the same...

I'd be very interested in seeing what results you get. If I uploaded a short clip to my site for testing, could you encode it and send it back to me so I could see what kind of results you get?

I played around with both XviD (playing around with the codec settings) and DivX and couldn't get them to look anywhere near as good as RV9 at this bitrate (but I didn't really play around with my avisynth script much).

[Marc FD]

Hi ^^

>If you say XviD is the beats RV9 at pretty much any bitrate, what
>settings (in avisynth as well as in XviD) would you recommend to get
>results as good as RV9, re-enciding from a noisy VCD capture, at a
>total
>bitrate of 225 (audio+video). This is for cartoons (Simpsons).
>Let's say I'm using a 32 kbit ogg for the sake of argument, leaving
>about 190 kbit for the video.


that's a really small bitrate...

>I'd be very interested in seeing what results you get. If I uploaded a
>short clip to my site for testing, could you encode it and send it
>back to me so I could see what kind of results you get?

if you want a demo of what XviD can do,
i propose you to download short clips on my site (5 Mb each, 90 sec anime trailers) (at the end of the page)
i encoded the last one (Slayers Next - Opening / clean version ) today.

for your short clip, i'm sorry, my bandwith is too limited.

give me feedback ^_^

[iwod]

which one did you encode today??
Because there is two Slayers Next - opening.ogm ... one is opening and the other one is opening2

BTW, the part4 of the opening2 doesn't work... ot i coudn't download it due to a server problem...

[Marc FD]

>which one did you encode today??
>Because there is two Slayers Next - opening.ogm ... one is opening and >the other one is opening2

i encoded the second. seems logical, no ^_^

>BTW, the part4 of the opening2 doesn't work... ot i coudn't download it
>due to a server problem...

i rechecked, should work now. please retry.

[The Belgain]

They look pretty good. Better than what I expected at that size. Was the source DVD? So which combination of the filters on your site did you use for these?

What compination of the filters would you recommend for a noisy VCD source? Presumably using Cnr2 would be a good idea...what else? So you think that XviD can really look better than rm at 250 kbit? Any chance of a sample clip?

Also, which XviD build are you using? Are you using any of the advanced experimental features?

[Marc FD]

>They look pretty good. Better than what I expected at that size.

thx.

>Was the source DVD?

no. a 45 Mb MPEG-1 trailer of 90 sec (clean)

>So which combination of the filters on your site did you use for these?

i didn't use any of the filters of my site ^_^

>What compination of the filters would you recommend for a noisy VCD
>source? Presumably using Cnr2 would be a good idea...

only if you need to stabilize chroma. if your VCD source is an unfiltered analog cap, it may worth a try.

>So you think that XviD can really look better than rm at 250 kbit?
>Any chance of a sample clip?

on a very fast trailer like this, both will look like crap.
anyway, i still think XviD will look better than RV9/on2vp3.

>Also, which XviD build are you using?

mine. but i didn't used any hacks.

> Are you using any of the advanced experimental features?

??

i used halfpel, bframes, luma masking and chroma ME.
fixed quant encoding.

[soujir0u]

I haven't tried RV9 yet, but will a heavily filtered XviD encode (for very noisy source and low bitrate encoding) take longer or a normal RV9 (with it's own pre-processing)?

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by soujir0u
I haven't tried RV9 yet, but will a heavily filtered XviD encode (for very noisy source and low bitrate encoding) take longer or a normal RV9 (with it's own pre-processing)?

Unless you choose the Low or High Noise prefilter options in Helix producer, there is no pre-processing with RV9. Producer's noise filters are fairly simple temporal or spatio/temporal filters, and not as advanced or adjustable as some 3rd party filters. I would recommend trying out AVISynth pre-filters with RV9.

With the right AVISynth pre-filters, the result for noisy or otherwise sub-optimal source material, can be significantly improvement, and even high quality source can be improved..as you already know. It does not appear as if people experiment nearly as much with pre-filters for RV9 as for XviD. Perhaps not so strange, but at least now you know that there is *no* built-in pre-filtering in RV9 (unless those options are chosen in producer).

When the producer source code is released mid-December, I would think one of the first modules to be added is support for VirtualDub filters. At least, if I had some spare time, that's what I would do.

[vlad59]

Wahoooo no pre-processing with RV9 -> I'm very surprised.
I always thought it was an explaination for its very soft look.

So it should be many Custom matrix or something like Tom's DCTFilter directly implemented in the codec........ Still thinking
(I know you can't answer Karl, I'm just thinking with fingers on the keyboard ;) ;) )

[Marc FD]

>there is no pre-processing with RV9.
>but at least now you know that there is *no* built-in pre-filtering in RV9

hi karl. cool to see someone who knows how RV works.
no pre-filtering in RV9 ? mhhh...

>Wahoooo no pre-processing with RV9 -> I'm very surprised.
>I always thought it was an explaination for its very soft look.

i would have been very surprised too two months ago (yes i'm a newbie in video ^^) but now... lol. i'm not surprised at all.
it's very easy to achieve that with XviD, a bit hacking, that's all.

the RV technology main forces are streaming and post-processing, and i really respect the RV staff for the work achieved. but that's all. the encoder itself is not impressive.

BTW, if you use a "soft" encoding method (yes, it's not prefiltering) then prefiltering is really useless for increasing compression. even serial 3-tap blurs don't give me a noticable compressibility improvement with soft XviD encoding...

that's why RV is not better at low bitrate than XviD. if you could see RV without post-processing, you'll see it doesn't eat your cpu power for nothing.

but mplayer's pp has been very improved recently, and i so powerfull now, that anyone can easily achieve the same effect. i really don't see why i would use RV codecs.

Regards,
MarcFD

[-h]

RV9 is technically "better" than XviD, in terms of the features that have been implemented that the MPEG-4 spec lacks. I can't attest as to how well Real has implemented those features, obviously enough.

The blurring of RV9 isn't due to prefiltering, it's the side effect of high quantizers in an encoder that implements deblocking/deringing in the encoding loop. Instead of blocks, you get blur.

If the blurred look still appears at high bitrates, there is a problem. Deblocking and deringing should be quant-sensitive.

-h

[karl_lillevold]

The current MPEG-4 is aging quickly. To start with, it is not much more than a few tweaks to MPEG-2, which was a few tweaks to MPEG-1.. ()

I find the ringing artifacts in MPEG-4 to be the most annoying. However, mild ringing tends to add a sharpening effect to the image. There is no doubt a huge and successful effort has gone into improving MPEG-4 postfilters, but the underlying technology is still the limiting factor.

XviD and DivX's main advantage is the thousands of hours encoding experts (many of whom frequent this forum) have spent fine-tuning the settings, VBR rate control, and pre- and post-filters, to get the perfect combination for each encoding, to fit as good quality as possible on one CD. I have done this myself, and seen amazing results with RV9, and in my (biased) opinion, better than anything else. However, I am also very impressed with what can be achieved with MPEG-4 based technologies, as a result of the awesome tweaking that has been going on over the last few years.

I am fairly happy with the VBR rate control in RV9, but I also have no doubt that's where the highest potential for further improvement is. It is too easy to use the wrong settings, thus getting sub-optimal results. For instance, if Max bitrate is set too high, we will spend too many bits during fast action, which sacrifices some quality during slow scenes. I hope an interface to tweak the rate control will be available shortly after the release of open source Helix producer.

Compared with the very latest not yet standardized technology, the underlying RV9 encoding engine is best of breed.

[lilhobo]

my gosh, a senior Real engineer with time on his hands to scan forums :D

for feednack am sure ;)

[Sgt_Strider]

Is the real9 encoder a free encoder because I can't seem to find it at all at real's site? I would like to try using it myself. Btw can I choose dvd resolution to encode with the real9 encoder?

[Marc FD]

>RV9 is technically "better" than XviD, in terms of the features that
>have been implemented that the MPEG-4 spec lacks. I can't attest as to
>how well Real has implemented those features, obviously enough.

yes, they implemented a lot of things.
but MPEG-4 is evolving (i think of v10 adds to the spec.)

>The blurring of RV9 isn't due to prefiltering, it's the side effect of
>high quantizers in an encoder that implements deblocking/deringing in
>the encoding loop. Instead of blocks, you get blur.

Cool, that's what i thinked too. not bad for a teenager ^^
i've implemented it in XviD (absolutely not MPEG-4 compliant, but i don't care, it's to play) and i've still some things to tweak.

What about reduced frames ? it's in MPEG-4's specs, no ? i think that will do the job perfectly a compliant way.

>Compared with the very latest not yet standardized technology, the
>underlying RV9 encoding engine is best of breed.

i agree that RV9 is the best proprietary _free_ codec out.

[iwod]

Sorry... another newbie and stupid questions....... Is RV9 like Mpeg 4, is a format where by tweaking the codec.... ( For Mpeg 4 is Divx / Xvid, and for real..... ?? ) the quality could be enhanded??

And i enjoyed about this thread is the discussion between Real developer and Marc FD........ since i am stuck in between Xvid and RV9.... heee..

[The Belgain]

Right, I'm slightly confised by some of the things to with the upcoming open-sourcing of Real products.

What exactly will be open-sourced? By Helix Producer becoming open-sourced, does that mean the frontend and the codec, or just the frontend. Will it be possible to have opensource players for Real Media? Will it be possible to tweak the codec in an XviD kind of way, or still just setting bitrate, etc...? Will it be possible to use rv9 inside different containers? With different audio codecs?

Where can I find info about this?

[rjamorim]

According to the Helix site, the codecs will only be distributed in binary form.

Check the site:
http://www.helixcommunity.org/

Regards;

Roberto.

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by The Belgain
What exactly will be open-sourced? By Helix Producer becoming open-sourced, does that mean the frontend and the codec, or just the frontend. Will it be possible to have opensource players for Real Media? Will it be possible to tweak the codec in an XviD kind of way, or still just setting bitrate, etc...? Will it be possible to use rv9 inside different containers? With different audio codecs?

It is true that the codecs will be released as binaries only, but since you can then figure out the interface, you can do almost anything you like, including other containers (RV9 + Ogg Audio?), open source players playing RealVideo and RealAudio (but with binary codecs). There are binaries for Linux, OS X, and Win32, with more to come.

Producer wise, what I am hoping is that it will be possible to provide an easy-to-use interface such that for instance a 3rd party app can provide scene-by-scene rate control, or even frame-by-frame (QP selection), perhaps frame type selection. However, this is not going to be ready right at the start.

[Marc FD]

okay i've finished my quick hack. i added loop deblock/dering in encoder/decoder.

my source is a ultra-clean anime trailer (i say it's ultra clean because it's filtered with motion compensated temporal denoising, advanced motion blur, 3d filtering and warpsharping)

i encoded with both RV9 (producer defaults, "500k" audience) and XviD+ogg->ogm (common settings)

XviD post-processing by ffdshow (deblock+dering+sharpen)
RV9 ? (real one sharpness to max)

i simply have a result 99.9% close from RV9 (i'm unable to say if i see RV9 or XviD)

just a few things :
my sound is better (ogg q1)
encoding was faster in XviD (3x faster in 1pass, 50% faster in 2pass)
but RV9's decoding is faster.

karl, you say that RV9 is the better encoder under the sky. let's say it's right, then, why would someone use a slow proprietary encoder, if he's able to achieve exactly the same effect with a fast opensource encoder ??

is there any way to play RV9 without post-processing ?? because i'm sure that RV9 can do much better, the PP is just too strong. i achieve the same effect with 2 pass post-processing (it's just a bit slower)

[iwod]

Originally posted by Marc FD

just a few things :
my sound is better (ogg q1)
encoding was faster in XviD (3x faster in 1pass, 50% faster in 2pass)
but RV9's decoding is faster.


By saying RV9 's decoding is faster do you mean RV9 can be played on a lower spec system?? Or something else??

[karl_lillevold]

I am happy to hear inloop filtering works well in MPEG-4, and that you are able to make XviD encoded content look the same as RV9. Of course, if you inloop filter, it's not MPEG-4 compatible any longer. Your mileage will vary, depending on content and bitrate. Generally, when codecs compared are given ample amounts of bits, it's hard to tell the difference.

When I compared XviD and RV9 encoded content, the difference was huge, initially. Then I enabled full deblock/deringing in ffdshow. This cleaned up the XviD clip quite a bit, but made playback much more CPU intensive. However, in mine and two co-workers opinion (and did not tell which was which [played full-screen, hid player]), RV9 was still significantly better.

XviD encoding was a little faster, but not as much as you reported, 3.7 seconds for XviD, 4.9 seconds for RV9 (command line encoder, without video preview). MPEG-4 is much less complex than RV9, but still, the XviD developers have done a great optimization job.

So as usual, results vary, and you will only know which works better for you, when you compare yourself. And there will be other reasons for choosing one format - open source vs proprietary, freedom of player choice, beat the the big corporation etc. I understand all of these very well (trying to beat another even bigger corporation). So keep compressing (your format of choice) ;)

[Emp3r0r]

If I decided to try RV9, would I have to install other software besides a codec? For example, If I have to use any kind of Real Player then it is not worth even trying it, cause frankly, I've always hated having to install Real Player software (can you tell me it is any less intrusive in the last few years). If you changed this behavior, you might be able to compete with MS.

PS: would Real Video be free for educational purposes such as a University Digital Library?

[Marc FD]

>By saying RV9 's decoding is faster do you mean RV9 can be played on a
>lower spec system?? Or something else??

RV eated less CPU power.
but still, in 640x360 XviD decoding (with RV-like PP) i never need more than 700 mhz.

> I am happy to hear inloop filtering works well in MPEG-4, and that you
> are able to make XviD encoded content look the same as RV9.
> Of course, if you inloop filter, it's not MPEG-4 compatible any
> longer.

oups, sorry, i wasn't clear : inloop filtering was just to play. i would need to refine quantization/motion estimation/bs coding..., almost the entire codec, to get really good results. i prefer a compliant (and even more powerfull) way ^^.
RV look can be simply achived by 2pass post-processing (or 1pass hardcore PP).

>Your mileage will vary, depending on content and bitrate. Generally,
>when codecs compared are given ample amounts of bits, it's hard to
>tell the difference.

320x240 at 350 kbps, a ample amount of bits ??? the RV codec (with 50 kbps more) blur so much the image that even post-filtered DivX-sbc looks the same...

if someone can explain me how to take screenshots of RV, i can show it.

> When I compared XviD and RV9 encoded content, the difference was huge,
> initially.

just a question : when did you tested it ?? because XviD is not a stable encoder like RV is. i mean, the encoder improved a lot in the last months. (XviD was equal to DivX about 4 month ago)

>Then I enabled full deblock/deringing in ffdshow. This
>cleaned up the XviD clip quite a bit, but made playback much more CPU
>intensive.

first, ffdshow features 2 pp engines. and mplayer's pp engine was recently updated, and is very powerfull now.

>However, in mine and two co-workers opinion (and did not tell which
>was which [played full-screen, hid player]), RV9 was still
>significantly better.

using a 2pass pp combo XviD(lowpass pp)+ffdshow(final pp) you cannot say what is XviD and what is RV. i can even decode DivX sbc, with such postfiltering, you wouldn't see the difference. i just need minimal quality (around q15)

>XviD encoding was a little faster, but not as much as you reported,
>3.7 seconds for XviD, 4.9 seconds for RV9 (command line encoder,
>without video preview).

i always use the command line version of producer.
encode was 180 sec long in RV9 and 60 sec long in XviD 1pass.
320x240 huffyuv (YUY2) input.

>So as usual, results vary, and you will only know which works better
>for you, when you compare yourself.

that's not the problem. you say :

> MPEG-4 is much less complex than RV9

so theorically, RV9 should be _better_ than MPEG-4. but i achieve EXACTLY the same effect :D

what should i try to see RV9's real power ? encode at high bitrate or at low bitrates ? 1000 kbps or 100 kbps ^^

> And there will be other reasons for choosing one format - open source
> vs proprietary, freedom of player choice, beat the the big corporation
> etc.

it's another problem. XviD is not only a cheap open source alternative. compare objectively DivX 5 and XviD for exemple.
here, i'd like to speak only of brute power aspect, that's what i'm interessed in ^^.

on the "power" point of view, i prefer RV9 to DivX. DivX 5 pro is only a bloated MPEG-4 simple-profile encoder. maybe DivX 6 will be a very powerfull codec ? who knows.

> I understand all of these very well (trying to beat another even
> bigger corporation).

M$ ? On2 (vp5) ? DXN (lol ^^) ?

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by Marc FD
just a question : when did you tested it ?? because XviD is not a stable encoder like RV is. i mean, the encoder improved a lot in the last months. (XviD was equal to DivX about 4 month ago)

Yesterday, with the latest Nic's binaries. http://nic.dnsalias.com/ from 25.11.02.

Originally posted by Marc FD
i always use the command line version of producer.
encode was 180 sec long in RV9 and 60 sec long in XviD 1pass.
320x240 huffyuv (YUY2) input.

Ah, that explains it. I have had this same problem with huffyuv and producer. For some reason DirectShow will transcode YUY2 output from the huffyuv codec to RGB. Producer then has to convert RGB to I420, its native format. This extra double color conversion will take more or at least the same time as a full encode. For my test I used native I420 as input format. This huffyuv problem is most likely a bug in producer and does not apply to XviD. Producer really should be able to obtain YUY2, which is very quick to convert to I420. I will file a bug in the Helix producerapps project. Who knows, maybe someone here might be able to fix it.

[Marc FD]

> Yesterday, with the latest Nic's binaries. http://nic.dnsalias.com/ from
> 25.11.02.

okay, i just thougt it may ba an old test.
lemme guess : you feeded the same source to both XviD and RV without any filtering.

>Ah, that explains it. [...]

i prefer that ^^

[iwod]

Isn't RV9 == On2 VP4??

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by Emp3r0r
If I decided to try RV9, would I have to install other software besides a codec? For example, If I have to use any kind of Real Player then it is not worth even trying it, cause frankly, I've always hated having to install Real Player software (can you tell me it is any less intrusive in the last few years). If you changed this behavior, you might be able to compete with MS.
You are right, previous RealPlayers had very bad behaviour. We all know it, and we want to fix these problems. RealOne v.2 is much improved in these areas, but past reputation takes time to improve. If you answer "no" to questions about desktop shortcuts (Free AOL), and tell the installer not to keep watching for filetypes, it's quite nice. The best product we have shipped so far, in my biased opinion. Also, one thing I always do, is to set Tools->Preferences->General->On startup display to "Player Only". That way the browswer does not come up, and it starts much faster.

On OS X, RealOne is even "nicer" than on Windows, and it is getting great feedback on www.versiontracker.com. Commments like "we never expected a RealPlayer like this" are common.

RealNetworks very much want to make RealOne be as nice and polite as possible, so any feedback you have on that subject (pls use v.2 as reference) is valuable. Past is past and we know and admit older players than that had problems in these areas.

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by iwod
Isn't RV9 == On2 VP4??
Some On2 stock holders like to start that rumor once in a while on the Yahoo message board. Quite amusing, but also annoying, for myself and my co-workers, who have developed all the RealVideo codecs, so I am glad you asked that question.

RealVideo (any version) has nothing to do with any version of On2 VP

The only outside assistance we have had, is from some very skillful people at Intel in Hillsboro, OR, with optimizations for MMX/SSE/SSE2/StrongARM/XScale. We did our own PowerPC AltiVec optimizations, as well as encoder and decoder multi-threading.

We have evaluated On2's codecs. Personally, I think their VP5 is pretty good, but side-by-side with RV9, RV9 wins clearly. They have some nice demos on their site as well, but if you study closely, they are lower rez than expected.

A little off topic, but one problem with RealMedia, that On2 does not have, is that there are lot of bad RV encodes out there, since our producer is available to anyone, and not everyone uses it appropriately -- i have seen 176x144 at 300 kbps, gray black levels etc. etc. i am sure you have seen these too.

On this topic, I might was well mention some other common rumors that are not true : RealVideo is wavelet based (not). RealVideo is fractal based (not).

[iwod]

That sounds interesting.... somewhere on Doom9 i read about VP4 = RV9...
Now things clear up a bit.... which is good.

So.... when will RV10 come out?? :D

[Shootist]

rv9 is simply the best codec...not one can deny that


BUT


it is true that the quality at high bitrates is not so amazing, because it makes the video in many regions so to say nebulous
it has also probs with subtitles and other audio streams, for example ogg isn`t supported yet, and laos mp3-vbr has problems

my result:
use rv9 for 1 cd rips for long films and xvid with b-frames etc. for long films on 2 cds and short films on 1 cd

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by Shootist
rv9 is simply the best codec...not one can deny that
Thanks!

it is true that the quality at high bitrates is not so amazing, because it makes the video in many regions so to say nebulous
it has also probs with subtitles and other audio streams, for example ogg isn`t supported yet, and laos mp3-vbr has problems
my result: use rv9 for 1 cd rips for long films and xvid with b-frames etc. for long films on 2 cds and short films on 1 cd
I will run this same 2cd experiment and see what I come up. With regards to alternative audio formats, I will reply again on Dec. 9th. Stay tuned!

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by karl_lillevold
The only outside assistance we have had, is from some very skillful people at Intel in Hillsboro, OR, with optimizations for MMX/SSE/SSE2/StrongARM/XScale. We did our own PowerPC AltiVec optimizations, as well as encoder and decoder multi-threading.


So, the Real codecs are completely homebred? (Except mid-high bitrate audio, that is known to be Sony's Atrac3)

[iwod]

Originally posted by rjamorim
So, the Real codecs are completely homebred? (Except mid-high bitrate audio, that is known to be Sony's Atrac3)

OH!! hello rjamorim!! long time no see.... seriously, is the Real Audio part using Sony's Atrac 3?? Some body confirm that or is it just rumor again....

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by iwod
OH!! hello rjamorim!! long time no see....

Hello, iwod. :)
What's up?

seriously, is the Real Audio part using Sony's Atrac 3?? Some body confirm that or is it just rumor again...

It's vox populi.

And you can check that on producer's audio encoding config:

http://audio.ciara.us/rarewares/RA-atrac3.gif

AFAIK, every bitrate above 105kbps is Atrac3

Regards;

Roberto.

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by rjamorim
So, the Real codecs are completely homebred? (Except mid-high bitrate audio, that is known to be Sony's Atrac3)
Yes, all the Real codecs are developed in-house, with the exception mentioned above (MMX++ Intel optimizations for video) and the audio codecs listed below:
- Music 105 kbps and up : RealAudio 8 ATRAC-3 is Sony ATRAC-3 (Music 96 kbps and below is developed in-house)
- Voice codecs
- The old RA3
I'm not an audio codec engineer, so this is to the best of my knowledge, in case I missed one of the many flavors.

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by karl_lillevold
- Voice codecs

Ah, yes, now I remember the voice codecs are Sipro's Acelp-Net

Thanks for the info.