Does Xvid have better quality Divx when one compares...

[magomago]

...it on a megabyte to megabyte basis? I normally use Gknot for all my needs and I noticed in .28 that it has an option for Xvid encodes. I have the encoder and a few fansubs in Xvid but beyond that I haven't paid much attention (though it is the Divx of the Linux community kinda) it till now. I usually do my rips at 30 minutes for 350 megabytes and I was wondering if I could increase quality by doing Xvid

[kaitsuburi]

I think you are likely to get a lot of YES-es by posting here :D To really convince yourself though, grab one of the recent builds, read the guides in the sticky, make an encode and see the difference...

I love the flexibility and quality XviD offers and I don't think I'll be going back to DivX.

-kaitsuburi

[Kyo]

magomago what is DivX?, a bread brand??? ;)

[N_F]

Depends on who you ask. I'm sorry to say I prefer DivX to XviD, at least so far.

As has already been suggested, the only way to really tell is to make some tests by yourself.

[mf]

XviD is better than DivX in the fact that you can make an XviD encode look like a DivX encode, but not the other way around :p. With a nice blurry DCTFilter() and h.263 quant, Motion search at 4 or 5, you're guaranteed to get that same brilliant quality DivX offers. However, if you use XviD's special features it'll look much better :D.

[N_F]

Originally posted by mf
With a nice blurry DCTFilter() and h.263 quant, Motion search at 4 or 5, you're guaranteed to get that same brilliant quality DivX offers. :D.

lol! :D

[magomago]

Then since its a consensus that quality is better, is it more involved? I use Linux and I know there are differences in both O/Ss and while Windows is easier if you can take the time and learn some Linux commands a Linux user will quickly prefer Linux to the 'doze. Though I'm not in Linux mainly cause my software modem doesn't have new 2.4.20-8 but is it the same with Divx and Xvid?

Is Divx easier to Use, but Xvid can acheive better results providing the fact that someone messes around with the .txt files (And I must admit that I just use Gknot and have been able to completely avoid all these problems that other people experience while ripping anime such as f'ed up ending credits) and spends time changing settings? Becuase I dno't have that much time to adjust the settings for each movie, or spend a few hours to tweak it all..but is it more of startup issue?

To use the car do I just turn the key, or must I inspect the car completely to assure it will run fine and then turn the key.

Obvoiusly the first method is easier, but you derive more satisfaction from the second method

[Sirber]

Video compression is 95% in Windows I think... or emulated :)

[BoNz1]

With a nice blurry DCTFilter() and h.263 quant, Motion search at 4 or 5, you're guaranteed to get that same brilliant quality DivX offers.

Hey, I have used DCTfilter and h263 quants on a number of very poor blocky dvd transfers lately with great success, but using xvid of course. :p But, I know what you mean divx does have a tendency to blur waay to much, 5.04 doesn't as much but still a bit too much for my liking.

[mf]

Originally posted by magomago
Becuase I dno't have that much time to adjust the settings for each movie, or spend a few hours to tweak it all..but is it more of startup issue?

To use the car do I just turn the key, or must I inspect the car completely to assure it will run fine and then turn the key.

It's really a setup thing. For a nice anology, you need to adjust the seat to be comfortable, adjust the mirrors, set the air intake to the right season setting, and for every time you start the car you need to adjust the choke so it runs optimally :). XviD defaults already are great, but some advanced features aren't enabled. The tough part in this is that some features don't work together and that some things give better results than others. In my experience, you only need to set generic settings once, and after that just use your common sense to tune an encode to a particular movie/input clip.
My "defaults" that I set are usually:
Quant H.263
Motion Precision 6
VHQ 1
Qpel, chroma motion
Max B-frames 4
B-frame ratio 150
B-frame threshold 100
Chroma optimizer on.

And then depending on your target size (1cd, 2cd), source material (high motion, low motion, grainy film, blurriness), you can adjust some specific settings like Qpel or b-frames. That's just fine-tuning and shouldn't take long to figure out well.
After this you'll have the fastest custom car there is, even though not everybody likes the brand :D.

[sungey]

in terms of ease of use ... its like how mf said ... learn abit about xvid/divx .. get familiar and both of them will be easy to use lol.

about quality .. its hard to say which one is clearly better .. "better" has a subjective definition.

1) If you watch/compare the video like 1-2 inch from the screen :P , you can see DivX5 is abit blurry but smooth and xvid is sharper but has some ringing near the sharp edges (like those in anime).

2) if you watch like 2 feet or more from the screen, there isnt alot of difference except Divx5 looks smoother. xvid is better imo.

3) if you see frame by frame in vdub, you can see some weird blue color things in the divx5 video whenever you jump from keyframe to keyframe.

4) if you compare the fades in divx5 and xvid. Divx5 handle fades better imo.

[bobby8798]

I think XviD is SHARPER than DivX, and it retains a lot more DETAIL.

BUT, XviD is extremely POOR when it comes to dark scenes, dark objects, and dark backgrounds. You can use the luma filter to smooth it out, but all the details will wash away. The luma filter will be perfect for intro and credits.

XviD also has a very Grainy look to it, while DivX is smoother, and does not have the grainy image that is so prevalent to XviD.

Overall, it just comes down to personal preference.

If you use both XviD and DivX, use DivX for darker movies, and use XviD for bright, outdoor movies.

[Prettz]

Originally posted by bobby8798
XviD also has a very Grainy look to it, while DivX is smoother, and does not have the grainy image that is so prevalent to XviD.

Overall, it just comes down to personal preference.

If you use both XviD and DivX, use DivX for darker movies, and use XviD for bright, outdoor movies.
Usually when xvid (and divx3) is grainy that means it's trying to preserve detail. Keep in mind that if the codec doesn't have enough bits to spare for certain parts of the picture with detailed textures to it, it might allow seemingly random DCT noise to approximate the details; and a lot of times when viewed from a good distance away your eyes don't even notice that you're seeing noise and not detail. Sometimes (certainly not always) having random noise in there looks a lot better than having it smoothed out.
I agree though that xvid still has some problems to iron out with dark scenes and fades.

In my opinion divx5 really isn't that useful when you can either adjust xvid to match divx5's behavior, but with more control and more advanced features. Xvid's basic features are just easy to use (and a lot more intuitive) than divx5's, and if you don't want to bother with the more complicated features you don't have to, although you can't possibly get the best possible encode for size or quality if you completely ignore them.
Or if you want the best looking picture for a tiny filesize, forgetting about trying to preserve tiny details, you can use one of Real Networks' codecs. IMHO Real Video G2 is the one of the best possible codecs you can use for very simple animation like South Park and Space Ghost. I haven't tried RV9 but I've heard that it's great for those kind of tasks.

[mf]

Don't use lumimasking, I've never had problems with dark scenes.

[zulu]

Originally posted by mf
Don't use lumimasking, I've never had problems with dark scenes.
i guess he was he was talking about luma _filter_ not lumimasking.
but never mind, i too misunderstood it when i read the post the first time :D

[mf]

Originally posted by zulu
i guess he was he was talking about luma _filter_ not lumimasking.
but never mind, i too misunderstood it when i read the post the first time :D
Well really the only thing in my knowledge that could cause dark scenes to look bad is lumimasking.

[sungey]

Originally posted by bobby8798
I think XviD is SHARPER than DivX, and it retains a lot more DETAIL.

BUT, XviD is extremely POOR when it comes to dark scenes, dark objects, and dark backgrounds. You can use the luma filter to smooth it out, but all the details will wash away. The luma filter will be perfect for intro and credits.



Agree, in my experience, xvid is poor in compressing dark scenes with _edges_ like those seen in animes. i always compare between the filtered vble lossless and the xvid encode and it seems alot of noises just appear out of nowhere around the lines (same thing happens with constant quant 2). If the dark scene has less sharp edges, the scene looks good. in bright scene, xvid looks great.

[Rober2D2]

I have experienced some problem with dark scenes in films where there is much action, and much changes in luminosity. Dark scenes tend to be very blocky and look realy horrible. A good example is Goldfinger, where there is a very dark scene at the beginning. To decrease this effect you may play with the 2nd pass tunning.

- High bitrate scenes: High, about 40% (So that highbitrate bits are used for dark scenes)
- Low bitrate scenes: Low, about 10% (Normally this happens if there are few dark scenes ammong lots of bright scenes)
- Payback Delay: Decrease this. About 25 ms help much in this case (Don't ask me why)

[crusty]

mf:
Well really the only thing in my knowledge that could cause dark scenes to look bad is lumimasking.

I agree totally. Xvid with lumi masking on makes dark parts of some scenes look like crap. This is even at 1100-1300 bitrate.

Prettz:
Usually when xvid (and divx3) is grainy that means it's trying to preserve detail.

Indeed. But divx3 gets blocky really fast. I hardly think it's a good idea to compare those two. It's like comparing a WWII plane to a F-18.
I really like the sharpness of xvid, but in divx you can compensate by using a sharpening filter like asharp or unfilter in avisynth.

sungey:
in terms of ease of use ... its like how mf said ... learn abit about xvid/divx .. get familiar and both of them will be easy to use lol.

I find xvid has the same problem as many opensource projects: lack of documentation.
Sure, you can read in the forum about certain options, but there are simply too many builds out there with different effects to get a clear picture on the proper effects of certain settings:
-things that work in one build can be broken in the next build
-some features can't be combined
-while there are defaults, to get anything more out of the non-default settings you have to lurk in the forum for at least three months or so. You can hardly call that proper documentation.
And sure, you can say 'stick with the defaults' but then you could just as well use divx.

I strongly recommend the release of another (semi-)official stable build. It's been six months now since we've seen the latest stable build from Koepi and there has been a lot of work done on the codec since, but support is chaotic. This is not to say I don't appreciate the work done, but it needs to be understandable to the user as well, and not just the experienced xvid compressionists.

To get back to the divx/xvid issue I would also say that divx 5.05 has a new great tool with EKG. Because it's much easier and straightforward than xvids statsreader I think it's going to be a great improvement. You now can very easily adjust bad looking scenes by giving them some more bits. I'm not too excited about the profiles tho, they're completely useless to me. And while xvid in theory offers greater flexibility and quality than divx, it is MUCH harder to learn how to use the options to the full extent. And with EKG divx now has a (potentially) great new tool and is much easier to get into.

magomago:
I usually do my rips at 30 minutes for 350 megabytes and I was wondering if I could increase quality by doing Xvid

That's pretty damn big. Xvid is notably better than divx at much lower bitrates than that. At the bitrates you're talking about I doubt you would see much difference, unless you encode at really high resolutions.(like HDTV)

You also state that you use Gknot for your encodes. I suggest you first try to learn how to use avisynth and virtualdub(mod) a bit more. You can get really great improvements in your encodes by doing so, and you will learn a lot about encoding. Gknot is a great tool and I still use it for stuff like cropping, compression test en avs-creation, but you can improve your results a lot if you take it from there.

Does Xvid have better quality Divx when one compares it on a megabyte to megabyte basis?

I'd say the proper question would be on a bitrate basis, because the differences at 800 kbps would be much more pronounced than at 1300 kbps. Same goes for xvid and rv9 at 400 kbps and 800 kbps.

I hope this clears things up a bit for you....:D

[mf]

Originally posted by crusty
Indeed. But divx3 gets blocky really fast. I hardly think it's a good idea to compare those two. It's like comparing a WWII plane to a F-18.

Not really. DivX3 was way ahead of its time and it took XviD quite a while to catch up. Frankly, DXN's DivX (4/5/whatever), has never really caught up with DivX3.
I find xvid has the same problem as many opensource projects: lack of documentation.
Sure, you can read in the forum about certain options, but there are simply too many builds out there with different effects to get a clear picture on the proper effects of certain settings:
-things that work in one build can be broken in the next build
-some features can't be combined
-while there are defaults, to get anything more out of the non-default settings you have to lurk in the forum for at least three months or so. You can hardly call that proper documentation.
And sure, you can say 'stick with the defaults' but then you could just as well use divx.

What would you prefer to have our devels do, use up precious time writing documentation for n00bs that's simply out here already, or use it to code more and better kickass features ? I think it's better to have the n00bs use DivX and be laughed at by the whole community :D.

[crusty]

What would you prefer to have our devels do, use up precious time writing documentation for n00bs that's simply out here already

That's exactly the point. It's not out there. Only if you spend 6+ hours a week on this forum you will get some incling of what xvid can do for you. Do YOU find that proper documentation ? I don't.

I think it's better to have the n00bs use DivX and be laughed at by the whole community

You mean the xvid community. And those n00bs get out some pretty good results as well with divx.

I have worked with divx 3, divx 4, divx 5 and several xvid builds and I can tell you two things:
-Divx 5 is WAY better than divx 3.
-Xvid simply lacks a central place for documentation, other than this forum. (which means the documentation is spread out over thousands of posts and very often only available in the form of a discussion)

It's like I said: If you want to tell people to stick with the defaults they might as well use divx. And if you really want to find documentation for all the xvid options you need a serious amount of spare time on your hands.

And even then, the most heard reply to the question 'will option x improve quality/compressibility/less noise/etc' is "try it out".
That's not much more intelligent than giving a new army recruit a gun and telling him: "the enemy is over there. Go over there and kill them".
See what I'm getting at?
Calling people n00bs just because they don't live in this forum is kinda snobbish in my point of view. Try to look at it from their side.

[mf]

Originally posted by crusty
That's exactly the point. It's not out there. Only if you spend 6+ hours a week on this forum you will get some incling of what xvid can do for you. Do YOU find that proper documentation ? I don't.

It is out here. Use the search button and search for what you need.



You mean the xvid community. And those n00bs get out some pretty good results as well with divx.

I have worked with divx 3, divx 4, divx 5 and several xvid builds and I can tell you two things:
-Divx 5 is WAY better than divx 3.

*suppresses boisterous laughter*
You're not serious, right? If you think DivX 5 is that much better you should try RV9, it'll give you even better results, rofl.

-Xvid simply lacks a central place for documentation, other than this forum. (which means the documentation is spread out over thousands of posts and very often only available in the form of a discussion)

See above. This forum has its own search function.

It's like I said: If you want to tell people to stick with the defaults they might as well use divx. And if you really want to find documentation for all the xvid options you need a serious amount of spare time on your hands.

The XviD settings are pure logic. As a beginner, you can best just download a Koepi build and look at the tooltips (the little help thingies that pop up when you hover over a feature, yes xvid has those) to see if you like a feature or not. There is a good enough explanation to see whether something will have a positive or negative impact on your encode.

And even then, the most heard reply to the question 'will option x improve quality/compressibility/less noise/etc' is "try it out".
That's not much more intelligent than giving a new army recruit a gun and telling him: "the enemy is over there. Go over there and kill them".

Not really. That is if someone hasn't tried it out. If someone has, they're most likely to reply with something like "from my experience when I encoded *blah* it slightly increased ringing in motion but it really looks much better now", or "when I tested this feature there was a *something* PSNR gain". And google will be glad to explain to everyone who doesn't know what PSNR is.

See what I'm getting at?
Calling people n00bs just because they don't live in this forum is kinda snobbish in my point of view. Try to look at it from their side.
n00bs have the perfect ability to learn by themselves (which is what I did, and got a perfect first nandub rip), and not to be reliant on asking stupid questions. If a) someone hasn't asked it before, then b) it will be written down in a guide somewhere. I have asked some pretty stupid questions in the past, but at least I did thorough research and asked only when I absolutely couldn't find it anywhere else. Nowadays I'm too lazy for that though O;)

[kilg0r3]

I have got an idea!

Not that I have the time at the moment, but what about starting an Xvid Documentation Project. Up to now, there where always single people who once in a while tried to write a guide. If we get, let's say, four or more heads together the effort should not be too great.
However, I am aware of the problem , that there might arise a war of the best settings in this group. But well, communication anyways communication skills must be trained somehow ... :)

Hum, hum, I think I will ask freind of mine who does technical documentation. If he'd like to to lend a hand in organizing things. Could take a while though becuase he is very bussy atm.

[sysKin]

Let me just tell you that I completely disagree with mf. Doom9 forum is not part of xvid, it's not xvid documentation. It's not mentioned in any xvid files/gui. Moreover, having any internet connection is not required to use xvid. Using the search button requires to be on-line while doing the seach, which is not that simple to some/most people (I couldn't do that).
Ah, and tooltips are crappy (yeah, I really think so... look at Qpel tooltip and tell me what is the effect of qpel at anything).

BTW, I think that 'try it out yourself' might be very safe, and definitely is very true, but is similar to 'go and invent a wheel if you need it". Effect of _most_ options can be easly explained...

Originally posted by kilg0r3
Not that I have the time at the moment, but what about starting an Xvid Documentation Project. Up to now, there where always single people who once in a while tried to write a guide. If we get, let's say, four or more heads together the effort should not be too great.
However, I am aware of the problem , that there might arise a war of the best settings in this group. But well, communication anyways communication skills must be trained somehow ... :)
I volunteer to write some technical stuff. :)

Radek

[N_F]

@sysKin - Your post makes me smile (in a good way :)).

I'd volounteer to help out with the documentation, but I've just recently started using XviD on a regular basis so I don't feel qualified. You have a good start with the .chm (I think) file that comes with XviD, only thing is it needs to be ~5 times bigger :)

[Nic]

Surely the Q&A at the top of this forum gives the newbie everything they need. Yes it might be a lot of reading, but it does link to the most important posts when using XviD.

@sysKin: If you could write up more specific help that would help everyone im sure :)

Cheers,
-Nic

[crusty]

mf:
It is out here. Use the search button and search for what you need.
See above. This forum has its own search function.

You're still not getting the point really....
The search will more often than not direct you to a discussion where A says 'this works better with settings xy and yz' and B says 'well I don't get that effect' or C says 'It makes my rip look worse'.
Only a few posts will give you something substantial to work with.
And to find those you have to read through hundreds of posts... even if you DO use the search function.
People are right when they say this forum is a community, and a great one at that. But it doesn't work well as a documentation.

You're not serious, right? If you think DivX 5 is that much better you should try RV9, it'll give you even better results, rofl.

Always willing to try a new codec :)
I guess we just differ on this, probably forever....

The XviD settings are pure logic.
Yes, if they work correctly. That's why I think there should be a new stable build....because an option that is fixed in one unstable build can be broken again in the other.
But fortunately xvid 1.0 is supposedly just around the corner.
Xvid is basically still in beta...

Not really. That is if someone hasn't tried it out. If someone has, they're most likely to reply with something like "from my experience when I encoded *blah* it slightly increased ringing in motion but it really looks much better now", or "when I tested this feature there was a *something* PSNR gain". And google will be glad to explain to everyone who doesn't know what PSNR is.

Well unfortunately not every thread is that constructive.
And you know just as well that PSNR is an artificial quality assesment.
You just keep on telling me to use the search function or to ask dr. Google. And like I said before, that's a pretty thin excuse for lack of documentation.

n00bs have the perfect ability to learn by themselves (which is what I did, and got a perfect first nandub rip), and not to be reliant on asking stupid questions.

I agree with you that n00bs can learn by themselves..after we've all been that anytime. And they should also read the guides first before asking ANY questions.
And for myself, I have bad luck in that:
- I'm a perfectionist. I HATE blocks and I LOVE sharpness
- I started working on both xvid and divx 3 with some really hard to encode movies.
Nowadays I'm too lazy for that though O;)
LOL :D
@KilG0r3, SysKin, and N_F:
Well that's the spirit ! :) :)
I volunteer to make some effort to make any technical stuff you guys write more readable and easy to absorb for newbies.
I've written guides before, and I've got plenty of experience in making stuff intelligible to completely clueless people :cool:
Perhaps we should start a new thread called:
'Volunteers for Xvid documentation project wanted!'
@Nic:
Great!
If I might make a suggestion: the curve compression and alternate curve settings lack a proper documentation. Not just in explaining what the settings do, but also on what type of movie material (dark/light low/high motion etc) those settings are best used.
They are much more enigmatic than stuff like chroma motion, B-frames and Lumi-masking.

[TheXung]

Originally posted by crusty
-Xvid simply lacks a central place for documentation, other than this forum. (which means the documentation is spread out over thousands of posts and very often only available in the form of a discussion)


Just read the developers mailing list. There aren't but a few posts a day.

[mf]

Originally posted by crusty
You're still not getting the point really....
The search will more often than not direct you to a discussion where A says 'this works better with settings xy and yz' and B says 'well I don't get that effect' or C says 'It makes my rip look worse'.
Only a few posts will give you something substantial to work with.
And to find those you have to read through hundreds of posts... even if you DO use the search function.
People are right when they say this forum is a community, and a great one at that. But it doesn't work well as a documentation.
Searching works fine for me :confused:?

Well unfortunately not every thread is that constructive.
And you know just as well that PSNR is an artificial quality assesment.
I don't like PSNR either, it doesn't tell anything about subjective quality. It's just that it can be a good indication of the effects of a feature.

- I'm a perfectionist. I HATE blocks and I LOVE sharpness

I SERIOUSLY doubt that, if you say "DivX5 is better than DivX3". SERIOUSLY.

[Nic]

TheXung: What were you expecting to find? It is however one of the best places to read about the very latest features.

@Crusty: I think we should perhaps remove alt-curve from the userinterface. There is a lot of information on it here, but its just too complex for almost everyone ;) (and can ruin an encode)

-Nic

[kilg0r3]

Originally posted by Nic
I think we should perhaps remove alt-curve from the userinterface.[/B]

No, please don't. I don't pretend being able to distinguish the different aggression types. Still, I feel that AltCC is a nice tool to give the encode some more bits in places where they are needed. This works aspecially well together with Nitrogene's Stats Analyzer.

If you want to be on the safe side, include warning in the tool tips or on the AltCC page.

[Nic]

You begin to see our problem though. We leave it in, and basic users dont understand the options and feel confused. We remove it and advanced users wonder where their great flexible options have gone. Maybe we should go the DivX way and hide the advanced options (but then enough people complained about that too).

It's a difficult trade off.

-Nic

[Acaila]

How about splitting the GUI into two parts:

1) Basic Settings
- mostly checkboxes to enable/disable things: QPel, GMC, B-frames, MPEG/H263 decision, general quant range, etc.

2) Advanced Settings
- everything to tune the basic settings, i.e. AltCC, B-frames ratio/offset, quant ranges, custom matrices, seperate I/P/B quant ranges, etc.

That way using the Basic Settings gives you plenty of control and easy to understand settings (a la DivX), and if you really want maximum control you can always adjust things with the Advanced Settings.

The current Advanced Settings windows give you access to ALL settings, which are too many for the average Joe in my opinion.

[mf]

Originally posted by Acaila
How about splitting the GUI into two parts:

1) Basic Settings
- mostly checkboxes to enable/disable things: QPel, GMC, B-frames, MPEG/H263 decision, general quant range, etc.

2) Advanced Settings
- everything to tune the basic settings, i.e. AltCC, B-frames ratio/offset, quant ranges, custom matrices, seperate I/P/B quant ranges, etc.

That way using the Basic Settings gives you plenty of control and easy to understand settings (a la DivX), and if you really want maximum control you can always adjust things with the Advanced Settings.

The current Advanced Settings windows give you access to ALL settings, which are too many for the average Joe in my opinion.

We've been thinking about this for dev-api-4 for longer already. Talk to pete :).

[crusty]

TheXung:
Just read the developers mailing list. There aren't but a few posts a day
Is it online on a webpage or is it mail-only...I'm not a developer..apart from developing a pain in the back now and then.:D

mf:Searching works fine for me ?

Certainly you have to agree that some posts are simply incredibly big and timecostly to follow...take for instance the ffvfw thread and the ffdshow development thread.
And every new build gets a thread that can be seriously cumbersome to read. A search won't really save you from spending up to three hours reading just one thread. Certainly you (or somebody else) have to agree on that.

I don't like PSNR either, it doesn't tell anything about subjective quality. It's just that it can be a good indication of the effects of a feature.



I agree. But PSNR can change significantly with the use of some options (B-frames spring to mind) without a significant subjective quality drop.
I wonder if it would be possible to build a program that assesses (too many sss in there? I don't know) the quality of a certain clip by trying to look at it trough human eyes (i.e. the known psychovisual model). Say a sort of reverse-psychovisual-enhancement-checker.
Psychovisual enhancements are based on a model of the human visual system, so certainly it would be possible to use that model to qualify a picture. It would probably be a bitchload of work, but I think in theory it would be possible.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that, if you say "DivX5 is better than DivX3". SERIOUSLY.

Lol :)
Really, honestly: I've been encoding both with xvid and divx 5.02 (only switched to 5.05 TODAY) and I must say that the only time stuff gets blocky with divx 5 it also stays blocky with xvid. No exceptions.
One big difference is offcourse the divx 5=soft/xvid=sharp point, which certainly is true, but I find that slight sharpening by Unfilter(3,3) or (5,5) can do miracles on divx 5. I also prefer lanczos resizing any day unless I HAVE to go for low bitrate.
You can make xvid look like divx and divx look like xvid ANY DAY, at least on the sharpness difference. Well maybe that's a bit over the top, but they can get pretty close really...
And I find divx 5 really does look better than divx 3. Mind you, I'm always using B-frames on divx 5. And Ogg vorbis and Ogm whenever possible...(gonna give AAC a try soon).
BTW, I must say that the tooltips on the latest xvid builds have improved on clarity.

NIC:
I think we should perhaps remove alt-curve from the userinterface. There is a lot of information on it here, but its just too complex for almost everyone (and can ruin an encode)

KilG0r3:
No, please don't. I don't pretend being able to distinguish the different aggression types. Still, I feel that AltCC is a nice tool to give the encode some more bits in places where they are needed.

I agree, they should stay in there, even with a warning that they are far more advanced than the 'normal' options like Qpel and B-frames.
I also think this is one of the fields of possible options where proper, clear documentation can make a BIG difference. Even when hiding it in an 'dangerous options' submenu there still should be documentation on it. I think Acaila's proposal is a great idea.

And like I said, I'm happy to participate in writing new documentation.:)

[mf]

Originally posted by crusty
TheXung:

Is it online on a webpage or is it mail-only...I'm not a developer..apart from developing a pain in the back now and then.:D
You can find it on gmane (http://gmane.org).

One big difference is offcourse the divx 5=soft/xvid=sharp point, which certainly is true, but I find that slight sharpening by Unfilter(3,3) or (5,5) can do miracles on divx 5. I also prefer lanczos resizing any day unless I HAVE to go for low bitrate.
You can make xvid look like divx and divx look like xvid ANY DAY, at least on the sharpness difference. Well maybe that's a bit over the top, but they can get pretty close really...

Sharpening destroys the picture. After blurring it might be just as sharp, but not as clear. In XviD you have the choice.

And I find divx 5 really does look better than divx 3. Mind you, I'm always using B-frames on divx 5. And Ogg vorbis and Ogm whenever possible...(gonna give AAC a try soon).

DivX's features are laughable. Max 1 consecutive b-frame, useless GMC (ok XviD's GMC is pretty useless too but at least it's less useless than DivX's). Should I mention the DivX playback logo or is that a punch below the belt?

I agree, they should stay in there, even with a warning that they are far more advanced than the 'normal' options like Qpel and B-frames.
I also think this is one of the fields of possible options where proper, clear documentation can make a BIG difference. Even when hiding it in an 'dangerous options' submenu there still should be documentation on it. I think Acaila's proposal is a great idea.
I'll quote myself :p:
Originally posted by me :D
We've been thinking about this for dev-api-4 for longer already. Talk to pete :).
WHERE "pete" == "suxendrol" ;)

[crusty]

DivX's features are laughable. Max 1 consecutive b-frame, useless GMC (ok XviD's GMC is pretty useless too but at least it's less useless than DivX's).
Lol...well atleast Divx B-frames worked before xvid B-frames did. But I agree that xvid's B-frames probably are better now.
I have no idea why they didn't improve on that in Divx.

Should I mention the DivX playback logo or is that a punch below the belt?
Logo? What logo? :confused:

[Acaila]

Orininally posted by mf
I'll quote myself :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me
We've been thinking about this for dev-api-4 for longer already. Talk to pete .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHERE "pete" == "suxendrol"
I knew that :). Posted it to the mailinglist instead, that way everyone can see it :D.

Originally posted by crysty
Logo? What logo?The logo can fortunately be disabled from within the decoder configuration.

[mf]

Originally posted by crusty
Logo? What logo? :confused:
This logo:
Originally posted on DivX.com (http://www.divx.com/divx/divx_win_versions.php)
DivX Decoder verification logo. There is a new semi-transparent DivX Logo that will appear by default for a few seconds any time you use the DivX decoder to watch a DivX video. This instantly lets you know you're watching a true DivX® video. You can turn the display of the logo on or off in the codec properties dialog.

Not mentioning the ridiculousness of such a "feature", I think they have better things to do.

[crusty]

Well I've never seen it really....it must be VERY transparent. :D :D

[TheXung]

Lets make this clear, the Q&A is sufficient for any noob. What you want is to be updated about what new features are and do. http://list.xvid.org/pipermail/xvid-devel/

Once read, the CVS comments become clear as well. Which you can find on the cvs page or umaniac's log.


What's also interesting is that you can read the entire xvid forums, particularly the encoder forum dating back two years to when Mike originally started this project. There are only 8 pages of threads. You can see the progression of the codec in the comments, decisions made, ideas thought of and tried. You also see when people got on board and what contributions they made. I don't know what goes on in those forums today given the presence of the mailing list, but I think discussion has dwindled down to what you find at divx.com

[TNM]

Wow, another thread comparing DivX and XviD... I still remebered the thread comparing XviD and Nandub SBC started by DJBobo a while back :D

Anyway, I agree with mf and others that XviD looks better than DivX overall. DivX 3 is blocky and DivX 5 is too smooth that it looks blurry... The main drawback of XviD I found is that it tends to create blocks on fast moving smoke or cloud scenes... About the artifacts on dark scenes caused by XviD, I think we can use avs filter ColorYUY2 to get rid of them...

[sungey]

hmm i really like the idea of a complete manual for XviD ... it should be useful for most people. It will also make discussion between new users and advanced users easy. Information on the forum is mixed up between personal opinions/preferences and facts. Not to mention inaccurate facts too. So a well organised manual as an addition to the sticky is a good idea.

[crusty]

TheXung:
Lets make this clear, the Q&A is sufficient for any noob.
Well if noobs agreed with you they wouldn't stay with divx now would they ?
Just because YOU think it's enough documentation doesn't mean THEY think it's enough documentation. After all, you're no noob anymore.

What you want is to be updated about what new features are and do. http://list.xvid.org/pipermail/xvid-devel/

For people who just get into xvid any option could be new or could have been implemented ages ago. They don't know, so following a development mailinglist is hardly a substitute for proper documentation.

BTW:The files there are incorrectly stated as being gzipped, which they aren't. Also, most of the content is header. That certainly doesn't improve readabilty.

What's also interesting is that you can read the entire xvid forums, particularly the encoder forum dating back two years to when Mike originally started this project. There are only 8 pages of threads. You can see the progression of the codec in the comments, decisions made, ideas thought of and tried. You also see when people got on board and what contributions they made.

Found it and will check into it from time to time.
But 'only 8 pages of threads' is a very BIG 'only'...
Again the point for not being proper documentation.

Wow, another thread comparing DivX and XviD...
Well, I think most of us here will agree that Xvid is much more technologically advanced than Divx and certainly has much more options to tweak an encode. What I find to be the main problem is the lack of proper documentation to explain all the tweakable settings.
Sure, a lot of people in this forum find the available forum threads proper documentation, but those are either the developers themselves or people who have been reading this forum for quite a while.
It seems as if there is a complete schism of perspective here:
On the one hand we have developers and xvid-guru's, who have been in this and related forums for quite some time,
and on the other hand we have the people trying to use the codec for the first time, or trying to step over from divx.
What the developers and guru's are basically telling them to do is:
either stick with the defaults and live with not a whole lot more options as divx,
Or:
Look at all the threads in the forum for months and then try to devise your own image of what xvid is supposedly capable of.
The developers and guru's are used to doing that themselves, so they think nothing of it to suggest it to new users and scoff them if they then ask stupid questions. After all, it's 'all in the forum. Use the search'. Like I said before, searching a forum has it's limits.
Now on the other hand the users are curious about this new codec that is supposedly much better than what they have right now. Offcourse all the developers and guru's are insisting on this, and in this case certainly with every right.
But when the new users then learn that they have to live in this forum for a month before getting even remotely close to having an idea what all the non-default settings do, can you then blame them for sticking to divx? Or asking stupid questions ?
And certainly many stupid questions can be answered by using the search function, but if you take away those I think you will still end up with a whole lot of questions.

I know this comparison is not completely fair in that it paints an overly black and white picture, which in truth offcourse is more of continuous grayscale spectrum. But the overall impression remains.
And I'm not trying to get into any divx vs xvid war or any other sort of flamewar, I'm trying to make a point here. A point that will be quite interesting as well to all those developers that are tired of answering stupid newbie questions:

Would you still get the same amount of stupid questions asked if there really WAS proper documentation?

And wouldn't it take you less time as now to answer the remaining stupid questions with a short and friendly meant 'RTFM' ??

Just something to think about when you're releasing a new build and then think with a sigh 'damn, I have to document it....barf.'

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by crusty

Would you still get the same amount of stupid questions asked if there really WAS proper documentation?
Well, it depends on how you understand the term 'documentation'. In contrast to its 'predecessor' OpenDivX, there aren't any undocumented functions in XviD. Every programmer that wants to take part in the project will find every function properly explained.

What you're asking for, on the other hand, is an explanation on what settings to use for this XviD thing in everyday encoding. But fact is, most of the developers are ignorant of that themselves; they're only interested in coding, not in encoding.

We're here to test it out for them and us. So you can only put the blame on us fellow users. ;) Please bear with us, we're only testing all the time ourselves. What makes guides, or documentation or what you want to call it, even less useful is XviD's rapid development. Sorry to say that, what was true today may not be tomorrow.

Basically, as soon as something turns out to be a safe bet, it goes into the 'default' settings. So, load the 'defaults' and play it safe, there's no offense in that suggestion, it's the sane thing to do. Only if you have fun experimenting deviate from them.

Hope you enjoy it, take care.

P.S.

Perhaps you'd like to hear which 'tick-able' features are generally considered 'worthwile' even if not everyone would necessarily call them 'safe'. (Could be found out by browsing the forum, too...:D
It's B-frames (maybe 3 or 4 of them...whatever), VHQ-modes (4 gives most bitrate-saving) and chroma-motion. Quarterpel is a matter of taste. See? That wasn't such a lot of mysterious information, and it wouldn't have been hard to find that out, yourself, right? XviD isn't all that user-unfriendly. :)

[TheXung]

Originally posted by crusty
Well if noobs agreed with you they wouldn't stay with divx now would they ?
Just because YOU think it's enough documentation doesn't mean THEY think it's enough documentation. After all, you're no noob anymore.

Well no amount of documentation is ever sufficient for all noobs. Just look at all the pointless questions ask over in the forums at divx.com. Yeah lots of noob questions despite the gui friendliness and nice packaging. The only difference is that there are more people over there to answer questions and no Koepi ready to pounce on any repeats. Noobs stay with divx because that's where their questions get answered.


Originally posted by crusty
BTW:The files there are incorrectly stated as being gzipped, which they aren't. Also, most of the content is header. That certainly doesn't improve readabilty.

If you wanted readability, why not use the thread tree, since that's what it does; parse the headers.

[crusty]

Teegedeck:Well, it depends on how you understand the term 'documentation'. In contrast ...............interested in coding, not in encoding.
Yes, you're right.
What makes guides, or documentation or what you want to call it, even less useful is XviD's rapid development.
So true, there can be several builds in a single week with both brilliant new options or with options that completely break an encode. I certainly don't underappreciate the hard work done by all the programmers out here....they're shaping the future of mpeg4 encoding.

I completely agree with you that we're basically all testing here.
But even then I still think some of the settings could benefit from a less mathematical and more down-to-earth explanation.
Stuff like B-frames, type of quantizer, psychovisuals, grayscale, interlaced and sorts are pretty easy to understand. But stuff like bitrate payback, alt-cc settings , aggression and b-frame ratios very often have little or no real-world explanation. I know I'm certainly not the only one having trouble comprehending them.
I have the notion that if people understand these options better we could be much more certain and precise in our testing.
For instance if one option only has a mathematical explanation, we often see people not understanding them simply limit their testing to:
'I tried it out on clip X and it made my filesize bigger/smaller and looked beautiful/like crap.'
While if a proper, real world explanation would say this or that option are supposed to work better on fast motion clips, or is supposed to work at scene changes, we could be actually be focusing on much more specific tests.
And then we would not only make better rips but improve testing feedback as well as a side-effect. :)
Because documentation often is vague, testing is vague as well.

I basically can see only good points in a full documentation of all the settings, even though they may be broken in one build or don't mix with certain options in another.

@your PS:
I know, I know... but some caveats:
B-frames have only been working properly for the past few months and in some builds will turn of other options (can't recall if it was GMC or modulated quant).
Even sysKin states in the http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47381 thread that there are still bugs, as of march 1.
Some people reported artifacts using VHQ-modes higher than 2. Have recent builds fixed this ? I used either mode 1 or 2 for safety.
On the subject of Qpel: the discussion of Qpel, mentioned in the Q&A Sticky, is a prime example of something that's being explained in a rather difficult to understand mathematical way. And even then they don't get to a real conclusion. :D
Qpel, motion search precision, VHQ, and GMC are all supposed to do something on motion compensation, but apart from GMC the precise difference eludes me really. I know both GMC and Qpel eat bits even if they don't help, but after that things get REALLY complicated.:(
See? That wasn't such a lot of mysterious information, and it wouldn't have been hard to find that out, yourself, right?
Well I guess I already did and found out to much :D
A lot of the discussions about certain options either raised too much doubt at it's stability/usefullness or just came up short of a conclusion. Only some of them improved my understanding, the rest just increased my confusion.

I'll skip into the Qpel thread and try to get some clarity.

[crusty]

TheXung:
Noobs stay with divx because that's where their questions get answered.

Well, I consider it a BAD thing that they don't get their questions answered here. Don't you?
:)

And for the real newbie questions like 'what's an avi?' or 'what's a codec?' we still have the newbie forum, right ? The moderators will move or close any thread that doesn't belong here, so atleast the questions will be about xvid.

If you wanted readability, why not use the thread tree, since that's what it does; parse the headers.

I prefer to read them offline. It's on the internet, so you have to click, wait some seconds, then read just one question, click again, wait some more, read the answer consisting of no more than two lines, click again, wait some more....you get the idea.
I find reading online mailing list this way to be a serious pain in the butt. It's very slow, tedious and generally not very helpful.
It's gonna take me probably at least a day to read them all, if not more.

[TheXung]

Originally posted by crusty
Well, I consider it a BAD thing that they don't get their questions answered here. Don't you?
:)

Hey, I don't run the forum. But the point is, better documentation isn't going to stop the newbie questions no matter how good it's made. This is because many people don't read documentation carefully enough before they start asking. Maybe there should be a newbie xvid forum and a tester forum. That still doesn't solve the problem of less people around to answer the questions.

I mean heck nandub is just as if not more unfriendly as xvid. Where are the cries of poor documentation? What happened? someone made GKnot and all was settled.

But then again, explain to me why loading the defaults isn't good enough for a newbie. It's good enough for me usually.

[crusty]

That still doesn't solve the problem of less people around to answer the questions.

Well, you might have a point there...this forum isn't exactly low volume tho.

But then again, explain to me why loading the defaults isn't good enough for a newbie. It's good enough for me usually.

Well I think there's not that big a difference really between xvid and divx if you don't take advantage of xvid's advanced settings, like the use of chroma motion, more than 1 B-frame, VHQ, different quantization types, matrices, etc.
In my view only the much sharper image really stands out, but often you pay for that with mosquito noise.

Offcourse my experience is limited to about 2 1/2 months working with xvid, and I apparently used a real difficult movie as my first xvid rip, which needed HUGE amounts of filtering and tweaking.
I sort of unknowingly threw myself of into the deep end, and ended up not being too happy about the defaults. Mind you, B-frames where still buggy and both VHQ and Chroma motion are brand new developments.
If I would have tried Dark City or The Cell as my first xvid rip I'd probably be less critical about the defaults, but hey, it happens. :)