Why use XviD for backups?

[h0MBRe]

Flamers behold:

as we see the advent of new tools for fast and reliable DVD backups, even for quality backups using external encoders like CCE, I'm wondering why ppl (and XviD developers especially) still concentrate on fine-tuning codecs for encoding a whole lotta movies on 1-3 CD's ...

The bottom line is:

MPEG-2 is suitable enough for any major motion picture, at least it's perfect for any non-high-definition TV set and average consumer DVD player. MPEG-4 from the beginning was aimed at streaming video-audio-content over medium- or high-bandwidth connections. DVD+R/RW and DVD-R/RW will be cheap enough in the near future, offering a multiplicity of the storage capacity a CD-R/RW offers right now.

So: Why not concentrate on streaming movies over a Cable/ADSL line? Why do people bother if a movie fits on one or two CD's? The limit must not be 700/800 MB (or 1400/1600 MB) for a movie, but a maximum of 720 KBit (video+audio) for every second of the movie.

h0MBRe

> awaiting flames ...

[angelyote]

4th post and already trolling.

There is a forum for DVD authoring and burning under the 'DVD and miniDVD' heading of the forums if that's what you enjoy.

Dave

[Teegedeck]

There are different MPEG4-codecs for different needs. Look around a bit; try the MPEG4IP project, for example.

[LordDethstar]

The Problem with MPEG2 is that the encoders are either very slow (TMPGEnc) or very expensive (CCE). It should also be noted that SVCDs still look worse than XVid movies on a computer monitor (because of the SVCDs lower resolution). Good MPEG2 quality really requires a DVD burner, and they are still very expensive.

[h0MBRe]

There is a forum for DVD authoring and burning under the 'DVD and miniDVD' heading of the forums if that's what you enjoy.

Oh, really? I never bothered digging through those pages full of words and complete sentences before posting. You know, my head starts aching once I see more types than pictures. ;o)

There are different MPEG4-codecs for different needs. Look around a bit; try the MPEG4IP project, for example.

Yes, I happen to know that project. Thanks anyway.

---

No, this is not a bait. To put it in a more precise picture: I do have the impression that much effort is put into the XviD project to optimize it for DVD backup purposes, i.e. the resulting video files will be displayed either on a computer monitor or on a tv set. This is a dead end IMHO.

So what about other devices, like the P800 PDA/Cellphone (as mentioned in another post), which inherently runs at much lower resolutions and color depths, being capable of rendering MPEG-4 compliant streams? When will we see XviD releases being optimized for 320x200 at 16 bit? Actually, I'd like to see the XviD project expand into that area, too, as I do think today it is, technically speaking, the most advanced MPEG-4 codec (as opposed to MPEG4IP, which is more of a proof-of-concept). But once DVD burners become cheap enough, I will switch backwards to MPEG-2 again for my backup needs. Left aside the future of MPEG-4, what is the future roadmap for XviD?

@angelyote:

4th post and already trolling.

Please, don't treat this post as your average "Me ttl n00b, but ME THiNK XViD suX0rs! DVD rulez! Y dontcha listen???". Actually, there are some people out there who put some intellectual effort into writing a post, although these might trigger your standard "troll behavior" filter. So I kindly ask you to make a distinction between "seeking trouble" and "proposing a discussion".

[h0MBRe]

The Problem with MPEG2 is that the encoders are either very slow (TMPGEnc) or very expensive (CCE). It should also be noted that SVCDs still look worse than XVid movies on a computer monitor (because of the SVCDs lower resolution). Good MPEG2 quality really requires a DVD burner, and they are still very expensive.

1. Please note I'm not talking about XviD vs. SVCD. It's more about CD-R vs. DVD+R. There are no DVD players out there who can reliably play a DivX/XviD encoded movie from a DVD. But (almost) any DVD player can play MPEG-2 stored on a DVD+R (or whatever DVD format).

2. Yes, a DVD burner is expensive at the moment. I do believe, though, prices will drop below 200 euro/dollars by the end of the year.

Just think about why DivX/XviD came into existence. People demanded a way to store the information a DVD-5 or DVD-9 supplied, on one to three CD-R/RWs because at that time other storage solutions (DVD-RAM or tape) were just too expensive. Compressing a movie always meant degrading the picture quality. It is still a tedious task involving quite a bit of knowledge (e.g. handling macroblocking in dark areas). So what will happen when a tool arrives which can backup a DVD on a DVD+R (which might cost less than 3 CD-R's then) in about 30 minutes, with no visible degradation of picture quality? Do you think people will stick with XviD?

Please, don't think I'm here to spit on your existing backup solutions. Back in the 80's, amateur film makers switched over from shooting movies on real film to video tapes. Although the resulting image quality was worse, the whole task was cheaper, quicker, and you could overwrite a tape multiple times if the product did not satisfy you. So that's number 3. MPEG-2 is, technically, inferior to MPEG-4. But when people are provided with simple tools to backup a DVD in 30 minutes (compared to the hours of a re-encode to MPEG-4), they won't care about it.

[Nic]

I see what your trying to say, but this is really the wrong forum for it. You see everyone here likes and uses XviD, and its what people want. And XviD wasn't developed for DVD backup, it was developed to create an opensource MPEG-4 codec. Which will be definitely used in the future (if it isnt already ?? ) for streaming/portable devices/etc.

If you want to create DVD-Rs with MPEG-2. great. but this isn't the forum to discuss it. Its all about preference, many here love XviD and wouldn't trade it for lower res MPEG-2 if you paid them. It all a matter of opinion.

But you see im going to close this thread now. Otherwise you'll retort and so will others, and this thread will become a troll's thread. I hope you understand.

-Nic

ps
As hombre pointed out in a PM when I stated: "wouldn't trade it for lower res MPEG-2" I was referring to SVCD of course :)

[Teegedeck]

This is quite interesting actually. We already had this discussion in the 'General' forum, really, some months ago. Outcome was more or less that we (developers and users) devote so much time to this because we're having fun. :D

That aside, within a year, standalone players with the Equator-chipset should be out that by a good chance will be able to play MPEG-4 files with GMC, B-frames and Qpel, so why go back to MPEG2? :cool: In this respect, I'm positive that the current course for XviD won't turn out as a dead-end; MP3-players have become amazingly popular, also.

BTW, I like your idea of optimizing XviD for small res and low bitrates. The fantastic thing about it being open-source is that hopefully some developer/s can pick up that idea and branch-off. I hope someone has time for it, sounds good to me. The only condition is that someone must be found who has fun doing it. The people working on XviD seem to be quite content with the way it's developing now (so am I).

I believe I've summed it up well? OK, time for closing it. Bye!