Are people still using DiVX3.11a ? If so why?

[oddball]

When better codecs are out there which can now be played on stand alone players.

[ppera2]

Yes, many people still bother with it.
Why? They often say that Xvid is crap, misses colors, and DivX 5 is even bigger sh*t.

What I think is that they: are lazy to try newer things, they love longer encoding times, they love to fight against sh*t :D

[bilu]

Encoding in Nandub seems to me (never used it, but check Doom9 guides) like an arcane art, something like "real men have hair on the chest, smell bad from the armpits and use Nandub" :D

Encoding is faster, image is crispier, but you have tons of parameters to adjust and the famous anti-sh*t problem.

I've seen some encodes that should have been treated with the anti-sh*t parameter, they had a purple floating much like XVID when using non-MOD 16 resolutions. It really sucked :rolleyes:

IMHO the difference in quality between a good Nandub ripping and an average XVID encoding does not worth the trouble of encoding again with the anti-sh*t. At least XVID is predictable :sly:


But this is an opinion of a non-Nandub encoder.


Bilu

[Tommy Carrot]

I've never used Nandub, i'm an Xvid fan myself, but i can understand the old-skool encoders too.;) With nandub, you can still create encodings quality-wise comparable with the never codecs, and IMHO the divx3 artifacts are more acceptable than the divx4/5 or xvid artifacts.

[NeVeRLiFt]

I have a PC in my livingroom thats my TIVO and I use TV-out to watch movies on my TV ;)

Nandub kicks ass still and can more than hold its own :cool:


Edit:
Hell so can Fairuse :D
http://fairuse.releaseme.org/fu.html

[ppera2]

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt
I have a PC in my livingroom thats my TIVO and I use TV-out to watch movies on my TV ;)

Nandub kicks ass still and can more than hold its own :cool:
....



Watching movies via TV-out is something what is very related to this thread :confused:

Can you say something constructive instead 'kicks ass' and similar 'informative' things?

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by ppera2
Watching movies via TV-out is something what is very related to this thread :confused:

Can you say something constructive instead 'kicks ass' and similar 'informative' things?

Why?

IMHO and for me and my skills Nandub and Fairuse can more than hold their own in making great looking high quality 1cd rips :sly:

You dont like it? Dont use it :p

[U977]

Hi,

Acceptable artifacts? DivX3.11a produces the worste artifacts I've ever seen. Sometimes, a whole part of the image is completely filled of big blocks during few seconds. No, I don't think that DivX3.11a produces acceptable artifacts.

But I like its level of details, and also the good compression rate.

However, since XviD became what it is now, I replaced DivX3.11a by XviD.
And I replaced DivX5 as well (maybe not completely yet, but it's on the way: XviD has some very interesting advantages. I admit I still have worries about possible problems due to development status, though. But as some people say here, the latest alpha version were/are more stable than some commercial codecs)).

The last time I used DivX3.11a, I used it for some anime movies. It produces very good results with them, a lot better than DivX5 (from my own experiences with anime movies). Only when not getting artifacts, though. Hopefully, I was lucky enough to rarely get artifacts, but I could not avoid them every time.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by U977
Hi,

Acceptable artifacts? DivX3.11a produces the worste artifacts I've ever seen. Sometimes, a whole part of the image is completely filled of big blocks during few seconds. No, I don't think that DivX3.11a produces acceptable artifacts.

But I like its level of details, and also the good compression rate.

However, since XviD became what it is now, I replaced DivX3.11a by XviD.
And I replaced DivX5 as well (maybe not completely yet, but right now, because of some probs I encountered with DivX 5...).

The mast time I used DivX3.11a, I used it for some anime movies. It produces very good results with them, a lot better than DivX5 (from my own experiences with anime movies). Only when not getting artifacts, though. Hopefully, I was lucky enough to rarely get artifacts, but I could not avoid them every time.


If Nandub or Fairuse is used right and with Nandub using the right settings for the job.... you will not have large micro-blocks.
You will have damn near perfect quality 1cd rips ;)

Bottom line is you can make nice quality encodes with alot codec's now and each person has their own right to choose what they want.
Newer is not always better :sly:

Most people that dog Nandub and DivX3.11a never learned how to use it, and to see the quality it can produce is easy as hell.
First visit here....
http://www.doom9.org/codec-comparisons.htm

Next go and download some ViTE, DEiTY, DiAMOND releases and look how good there releases where when using Nandub, and look at how good they are now using XviD ;)

[U977]

Nandub never reached its final state, and is stuck with existing bugs. DivX3.11a won't evolve much either.

I've read the codec comparison too.
NeVeRLiFt, you surely are a lot better with Nandub than I am, but this is for a good reason taht I won't be better with Nandub: I don't think it's worth to spend time to learn a tool which is freezed with bugs, when you have other codecs that produce at least the same quality level as DivX3.11a can.

And I maintain what I said about DivX3.11a: it's the only codec that I know with wich you can produce very good quality, but happen to have a huge artifact at some point in the movie. From my own experience, with other codecs, either you have a very good quality, or you don't. There is not such situation with a very good quality but a big artifact.
Of course this is based from my own tests and experience. I may not have met the "bad" cases :-)

[NeVeRLiFt]

Well I like Nic's 30/03/03 build and I'm impressed with the quality a simple 1pass encode can have with it not to mention how good 2pass is. Just XviD has become really slow IMHO.

[U977]

Agreed about the speed of XviD encoding, depending on your settings of course.

Since I'm away from home from 6 am to 7pm due to work, I don't mind having my comp encoding a single movie during the whole day, if needed :-) That's usually what I do: one movie at maximum per day.

My current XviD settings allow an encoding rate between 8 and 14 fps on my AMD 2000+.

While it was around 30 FPS for DivX5 (GMC and B frame on, Qpel not enabled, slowest encoding speed), but I was disappointed by the DivX5.05 results (big filesizes for still average quality). I've been told that original 2 passes mode is better than multipasses mode and that I should try this to get better results.

[ppera2]

Well, discussion started to be interesting.
As I see, people which still use DivX 3.11 have simple methode against artifacts: they simple use smaller res - often too small, similar to VCD, like 512x208 pixels . That's pitty, and calling it 'damn perfect quality' is ridiculous.

Neverlift mentioned here some 'releases' :) I saw 'work' of those 'groups'. I can say that they make it very bad: bad IVTC, bad AR and similar errors are very often. Some rips are so bad, that I even think that it is made with purpose, to divert people from dl. such things.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by ppera2
Well, discussion started to be interesting.
As I see, people which still use DivX 3.11 have simple methode against artifacts: they simple use smaller res - often too small, similar to VCD, like 512x208 pixels . That's pitty, and calling it 'damn perfect quality' is ridiculous.

Neverlift mentioned here some 'releases' :) I saw 'work' of those 'groups'. I can say that they make it very bad: bad IVTC, bad AR and similar errors are very often. Some rips are so bad, that I even think that it is made with purpose, to divert people from dl. such things.

LoL

You must really love to hate Nandub to talk so much crap :rolleyes:

So 640x272 is small... or 512x384?






:cool:

[Nic]

edit: (Sorry, didnt realise neverlift had already been striked for this before posting my warning)

[Koepi]

*whistle* I just couldn't resist, sorry :angry:

[cult]

É watched some of my old 3.11 encodes with nd from the old days.Some of them arent good so I reencoded again with xvid+ac3(they were with mp3).But some of them are really good.They are crispy with no artifacts and good colors and so I decided to keep them.Imho 3.11+nd is really good if you know what to do but cant get the same compression as with xvid for example.WIth nd I personaly couldnt get 1cd encode of a 4:3 movie while with xvid I am able

[Doom9]

looks to me like a flamebait. Why do people who prefer one codec over the other have to justify their decision? In a democratic environment they don't.. everybody is entitled to their own opinion and that's just it. I'm going going to flame anyone even if he/she uses a codec that I think is useless because in their eyes, things might just look differently.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt
LoL
You must really love to hate Nandub to talk so much crap :rolleyes:

So 640x272 is small... or 512x384?

:cool:

I usually don't hate software, even don't hate people...

I talk what I seen. I used Nandub in 2001 much, and was satisfied with it. I never made so low res. encodings, rather go to more CD when movie is too long.

End of crap... Cheers, and have a nice day :)

[ppera2]

One thong more: there is a 'urban legend' about that those artifacts (or shit, by Nandub terminology) happen only when encoding with AMD cpu's, and never with Intel.
As I remember, here were some posts which confirmed that Intel owners had artifacts too. Can someone confirm it?

To clear some things here: picture quality is good usually by DivX 3.11 encodings. Couple things are what made me to start using other codecs: shit happens :) , slow speed and too much noise in dark scenes (it stays for other codecs too, but here is worst by me - best methode against is to make those scenes or whole video lighter, but it's not really good methode).

[Doom9]

at the time I was a betatester of Nandub I had a P3 550, and my very first full length movie already had artifacts... only a single one and I even recall the frame in which it was but it most definitely has nothing to do with the cpu maker.

[bilu]

I'm curious if those warez release groups around the web who seem to use Nandub all the time got the hang of it and how.

Was it a lot of time having to set different parameters for each movie?

Or trying again and again and again a way to avoid the shit problem?

Or maybe there is some 1337 h4X0r secret around ... :D

I really have no idea how frequent the "anti-shit" problem is, I only tried a sort of SBC once in Vidomi. :rolleyes:

Just for curiosity, can anyone tell us if that problem is at least predictable? And can you allways deal with it?

Maybe I'm going OT, but I'd like to know how unpredictable this codec really is.


Best regards,
Bilu

[ppera2]

Some experiences by me: shit happens usually by resolutions over 300 vert., by slow motion scenes. Bitrate is not relevant, it happens by lower and by higher (>1500 kbps) too.

I had one case when it occured by fast motion: Terminal Velocity, in scen where red sportcar falls down from plane. It screwed up by very high bitrates too, so finally I encoded that 5 sec. long part with keyframe ratio 1:1.

[U977]

I'm curious to know if shit predictable, too.

I could not find special common points between scenes that caused the artifact problem, and that makes them different of the scenes that do not cause any problem at all.

But I suppose there is a way to predict them?

[int 21h]

Originally posted by bilu
I'm curious if those warez release groups around the web who seem to use Nandub all the time got the hang of it and how.

Was it a lot of time having to set different parameters for each movie?


All of the first releases in SBC were from VCDVaULT itself (the group who sponsored the development of the process in the first place). Then SBC was released on a limited basis to friends of vV (Diamond, etc.), and they learned directly from me, myth, and nando on how to use it. ViTE was formed from originally vV members, so its obvious where their knowledge comes from. After that it was alot of trial and error for most of them, and constant questions on certain things from all of them.

That being said, its worth noting that most release groups are migrating towards XviD, and either use it now exclusively or at least on a limited basis.

What release groups use should not influence your own decisions to exercise your FairUse rights, and you should definitely not follow their examples on how to break existing copyright laws, that only takes you to one of two places. Litigation or Prison.

[bilu]

@int 21h

You made some good points there :)

Do you have an opinion about the predictability of the "anti-shit" problem?


Bilu

[int 21h]

Its some sort of isolated corruption problem that occurs from the realtime debugging like process of Nandub. Its obviously a bug that with enough time could be eliminated, but it would require some changes to the methods that Nandub uses to interface with the DivX codec.

Its an inherently unstable process because of what the program is doing.

[ppera2]

I would not agree about that it's Nandub problem. Bug is in codec, and occurs when it's used without Nandub too. To predict when it will occur we would know more about bug itself, but it will probably never be detected precisely - MS will not certainly bother with it.

What is really predictable: we will have in future better codecs than any today's, so I would not waste much time about all this DivX 3.11 problem.

[Ramirez]

I made my first ever divx 3.11 rip just a few weeks ago :),it was "The Green mile",(FairUse\2x700mb) I was amazed by the quality of the resulted rip, so extremely detailed and sharp, I couldn't spot any serious artifacts going on, and what I liked most is the way SBC handles static objects like walls, doors, shiny floors, any wooden objects,its absolutely brilliant!!,IMO divx 3.11 is still very much competitive, and I wouldn't bury it yet.

[bilu]

Originally posted by ppera2
I would not agree about that it's Nandub problem. Bug is in codec, and occurs when it's used without Nandub too.

Where else did you found this problem?

Bilu

[ppera2]

Artifacts occured when encoded with Flask, TmpGenc, V Dub...
(TmpGenc can encode AVI too, just to note...)

[redeemer-dk]

what i've experienced is that the "shit" comes when there are high contrasts. For example, the white text on the black background in the start of Don't Say A Word.

[MasterYoshidino]

3.11 is a 'been there, done that' sorta codec
Since it uses RGB to compress, it will NEVER be as good as the YV12 codecs DivX 5 / XviD .
That is why DIV3 / MSMPG 4v3 will never look as good as the other codecs, background issues, ghosting, lower image quality even at DRF2.
I am suprised that some still bother with an outdated codec that can not compress at the DVD native colorspacing YV12.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by MasterYoshidino
3.11 is a 'been there, done that' sorta codec
Since it uses RGB to compress, it will NEVER be as good as the YV12 codecs DivX 5 / XviD .
That is why DIV3 / MSMPG 4v3 will never look as good as the other codecs, background issues, ghosting, lower image quality even at DRF2.
I am suprised that some still bother with an outdated codec that can not compress at the DVD native colorspacing YV12.

AFAIK divx3 uses YV12 too internally. That's another thing it cannot accept YV12 as imput. But that affects more to speed than quality. Quality is mainly affected by the ME, and imo divx3 has got a good one.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

"shit"?
what's that?

i'm using divx3 only on my capturings on all sorts of resolutions and never saw any.........(perhaps encoder needs some noise to work correctly like sansgrip and poptones teach..hehe)

on the original question the answer might be:
"because some people tried a bunch of other codecs too,but have found divx3 to be far more reliable as they didn't saw any problems with it and found more than 2 visualy anoying things in every other codec"......

ohh,and btw. d9,how's "aspect 1.1" working?
(lol!)

/ivo

[Ookami]

Hasn't this whole Divx 3.11 ;-) stuff been discussed to death when the codec was something special?

I remember many threads on the old ezboard or even more way back on Oleg's old forums...

In short, my findings:

-The "macroblock" errors et al had *nothing* to do with the CPU vendor! I can afirm that I had errors (from the mentioned to the freeze frames) with my Intel and AMD CPU based PCs

-I found out that the errors were only consistend (in my case) with bad hardware, certain beta versions of certain programs etc. etc. Example, when I had a defective RAM (in the starters, when all other applications worked ok), the Divx encodings were quite full of "freeze frames", "shit" (TM) etc. In my usage, certain programs (like mentioned), had more problems with the same source as other programs (of course the settings were the same and the hardware was ok :rolleyes: )

-The errors are not, like ppera2 said, bound to one application, on the contrary it's related to the codec, hasn't this been prooved by fu2k when he changed certain things in the codec and FairUse had no problem at all (altough people noticed this before that, anyway)?

-The V2 version of the MS codec had less problems (or no at all), IIRC

I had much more findings, but, I've forgot most of it, wich I've noticed when I was writing these lines, just hope that I didn't mixed up something, as I'm not using Divx ;-) for quite some long time, I don't bother too much, but enough to make a posting with my opinions...

@MasterYoshindo

I really don't understand when people think of DVD transcoding as the only thing in video. Example, I don't remember when I last time did a DVD backup anyway.

@^^-+I4004+-^^

Good for you.

Yes, MS beta V3 codec based codecs are so reliable that most people stoped using it. And that comes from a person who used it since summer 99, a bit longer than most out there. Even alpha codecs like Xvid can cope easily with the reliability from Divx ;-) . Isn't reliable MS software a oxymoron (the Linux people are gonna love me for this sentence)? ;-)

Whatever, when Divx ;-) first came out many people were backing up their DVDs with the Fast motion codec, and were satisfied with the "quality", I'm the last one who would say something against it
;-) .

Seriously, the main advantage of vanilla Divx ;-) is that it has not advanced settings at all, so people are really fast becoming "pros" :D . Wonder how many of the Divx ;-) "pros" could explain how the codec works and wich of the 3 settings are affecting what :rolleyes: . Not to mention the leet "best Nandub preset" pro's. And what about those who use n filters when comparing codecs (see the infamous Divx ;-) vs. Xvid threads)? Everyone has an opinion, if it's based on faith, wrong testings or valid testings is quite another story.

Even on a board like this were people are quite technicly versed, I've learned that such things are more of a personal preference than anything else, so...

Eh, very long posting, I'm probably nostalgic.

Cheers,

Mijo.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>Yes, MS beta V3 codec based codecs are so reliable that most people stoped using it.


they did?then i wonder why are they tested alongside many newer codecs still.......i believe on this web too....(so who won the test,divx3 or the xvid....)

>Even alpha codecs like Xvid can cope easily with the reliability from Divx ;-)


in my case quite the opposite and i have posted a blunt video example of xvid failing to do the job (a while ago...)
in fact,i have seen the same problems on high motion scenes (moto race) with xvid as with divx4 (telling us something about the roots..heh)
none of this with divx3.....so what should be preffered?
for my material it's still divx3 for above mentioned reasons...

ms-mpeg4v2?
well,it's in the game too,but it's not so widespread as 3..
(although ffdshow solves that,but i must admit i never did v2 vs. v3 test...probably because v3 caused me no problems so far)
it can be steered through ndub too,so that's a plus....

so i haven't seen any real problems with it,but i have come across some nasty things on other folks stuff....
bare in mind that this is capturer talking and only prog's that he used/uses for encoding are vdub and nandub.....

if xvid solved those bugs on motion,i would jump the train...as xvid mpeg quant is sharper than divx3....

[Teegedeck]

I'm sad that everytime you try to use it, XviD plagues you with exotic bugs that no other user has ever experienced. The codec just doesn't seem to like you.

What can I say? DivX;-) is such a very nice codec; enjoy it. Maybe it just suits you well and is the best codec for what you're doing? Hearing about DivX;-) makes me feel all warm and nostalgically. Keep it up! :cool:

[Dark-Cracker]

does someone have tested the divx3 provided by ffvfw ?
i have made. some tests and there is no shitframe of course and the pnsr is near of the divx3 same encode. of course there is less options to configure but it still keep a lot of details (and sometimes produce macroblocks :) ). it's perhaps the solution while nandub was not updated, and yv12 it fully supported.

Bye.

[mf]

Aah, the wonders of DivX3. I'm feeling like the ctw.cc days again. Let me make this clear. I will never again put up with the shit from DivX3. Hours spent into writing .ecf files, no. XviD is that much better. I love it.

[pavelinka]

i've been using all of the video codecs mentioned above and i must say that nandub is still very good with using DivX 3.11a compare to nowadays video codecs like Xvid and DivX. it's still the fastest video compression tool on my P4 2.8GHz. it really is a pain in the ass when it comes to setting up but if U use it for a couple of projects of yours U will become pretty comfortable with it and becouse of the speed of encoding U can kinda experiment with all the settings and run the projects over again until U figure out how the whole thingy works. i think that Xvid and DivX are actually turning its compression algorithms to Nandub in some points only in more user friendly way. the latest Xvid builds make my computer unusable for a half or sometimes for an entire day when setup to the extreme quality not to say the latest DivX 5.1 build that is even more time consuming codec. nandub has its job done in a few hours in perfect quality.

[Tuning]

I'm still using divx3.11 even in this era of New A/V CoDecs.And don't think i didnot use DivX 5.05 and Xvid.(Sorry Sirber i haven't tried real media).
First of all i must say the fastest relatively good quality encodes are produced by DivX 3.11a===>U can rip 2:30 movie in less than 7 hrs.(Anti shit Off).And if u r using GK the things r easy again.U don't need to configure anything related to codec properties as there is nothing in options tab!:D .Thus u can easily rip the movie allto gether in 8hrs in >1GHz Machine.

But if quality is concerned no codec is better thanXvid.(But u have more options to slowdown:D ).
U get better quality to DivX3.11a when using DivX 5.05(not DivX 5.1 bcoz i don't have it!:p),but again takes more time and ofcourse it has more options.
Thus this is the strategy I'm following:
First see ur purchased DVD and if u like it verymuch go on using Xvid,Otherwise if it is boring and u still need a rip go for DivX 3.11. and make an easy rip :D .If u want this to compress in old fashion (sigle CD rip :p ) use DivX 5.05.

[Sirber]

"But if quality is concerned no codec is better thanXvid."

Quality is based on tastes, and IMHO it's not XviD that deliver the best (and not RV9 also).

[ppera2]

pavelinka, Tuning:

I'm very surprised that you claim that DivX 3.11 is fastest codec, especially with P4...
It's first time that I see something like that in last 2 years. I'm afraid that your settings with DivX 5.xx and Xvid are pretty wrong - maybe too much unnecessary thing turned on?

On P4, DivX 5.xx must work at least 70% faster than DivX 3.11 because of SSE2 optimizations. You will not see probably so big increase, because codec doesn't runs alone - there is Mpeg2 decoding, resize etc.

Even on Athlon systems DivX 5.x and Xvid are faster for some 10-20%.
This stays for slowest speed/quality setting by them. Average 2 pass encoding of DVD to DivX 5.05 takes 1.5x time of movie on Athlon XP 1700 & good MB.

[Tommy Carrot]

The new trend is using VHQ modes (i believe slowest mode in Divx 5.1 doing the same as VHQ modes in xvid), which is a heavy hit to the performance. The quality gain is not so obvious imo, and without it, the new codecs are faster than 3.11.

[Beastie Boy]

Regardless of your views on DivX 3.11, with it Nandub brought about the single biggest jump in MPEG4 encoding that there has been and possibly ever will be. We are all forever in debt to Nando (vV_nn) for his work as this raised the bar and set the targets for all who followed. DivX 3.11 is crap. DivX 3.11 with Nandub is great, and it doesn't have to be so hard with GKnot.

Whatever happened to Nando? He is still missed.

Cheers, Beastie.

[temporance]

Regardless of your views on DivX 3.11, with it Nandub brought about the single biggest jump in MPEG4 encoding that there has been and possibly ever will be. We are all forever in debt to Nando (vV_nn) for his work as this raised the bar and set the targets for all who followed.Whilst respecting the hard work involved, these developments were nothing revolutionary and we are not in debt to Nando. The academic and commercial world was there first - there were papers and commercial MPEG-2 products available that used these techniques 5-10 years ago. Nandub was the first (and probably only) app to bring more sophisticated rate control to a hacked core codec.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by temporance
Whilst respecting the hard work involved, these developments were nothing revolutionary and we are not in debt to Nando. The academic and commercial world was there first - there were papers and commercial MPEG-2 products available that used these techniques 5-10 years ago. Nandub was the first (and probably only) app to bring more sophisticated rate control to a hacked core codec.

Well in that case, the papers and techniques in the commercial encoders were nothing revolutionary because there were information system theories that provided the answers nearly 20+ years ago. (i.e. DCT processing, Ahmed, Natarajan, and Rao 1974, Huffman Code, Huffman 1952, not too forget the very base work on Uniform Quantization by Max 1960, and Paez and Glisson in 1972.

[Tuning]

@Sirber
Quality is based on tastes, and IMHO it's not XviD that deliver the best (and not RV9 also).
On my own tests[15 DVD rips]Xvid consistently produced good quality results,even in single CD rips.[Motion search :6 Ultra high-Quantization Type :H.263-VHQMode:4 Wide Search-Use Chroma Motion-B frames nil]

@ ppera2
surprised that you claim that DivX 3.11 is fastest codec, especially with P4...
I also own a P4 1.4 Ghz machine.To all my experience using DivX3.11a with antishit off the encoding rate is better than with other codecs.I don't know what the encoding speed if antishit on,as i never used it.
I have tried the same movie with same resolution in all the three CoDecs.The setting was this:
1.DivX3.11-[anti shit off][Around 20-23.5fps in both passes]
2.Xvid(latest build)-.[Motion search :5 very high-Quantization Type :MPEG-VHQMode:0 Off-B frames nil][Around 17-21fps in both passes]
3DivX 5.05-[MV-Psychovisual Off-slow/slowest-and all other the default settings]
[Around 18-22fps]
Any one can try and find themselves which is faster in these settings.

Edit:

I think all of u have never looked in to Doom9's codec shoot out.
Here is a link www.doom9.org/codecs-103-1.htm#setup.And the encoding rate he got in his tests:
Note that the values are averaged over the two passes where applicable.


________________
Codec | Speed
----------------
3ivX |51.54 fps
SBC |46.62 fps
DivX5 |40.65 fps
RV9 |33.27 fps
XviD |21.66 fps
WMV9 |17.43 fps
----------------



This is stats of may 10,2003.After this we have new Xvid binary and DivX 5.1.The Xvid has certainly made some speed/Quality improvements but not to overcome the encoding speed of DivX3.11a.And obviously everybody knows the speed of DivX 5.1 to be slow even in the std mode than its previous release.



:) - Tuning

[temporance]

Originally posted by int 21h
Well in that case, the papers and techniques in the commercial encoders were nothing revolutionary because there were information system theories that provided the answers nearly 20+ years ago. (i.e. DCT processing, Ahmed, Natarajan, and Rao 1974, Huffman Code, Huffman 1952, not too forget the very base work on Uniform Quantization by Max 1960, and Paez and Glisson in 1972. Agreed but we were talking about the extra features as introduced by Nandub - the implementation of multipass encoding. This feature is a lot younger.