I read the codec comparison and...

[midiguy]

...and I have some disagreements. It said that XviD was the most detailed, then DivX5, then WMV9 and RV9, and 3ivx was the least detailed. I agree with all of that except for the wmv9 part. I have done many tests, and I find wmv9 to be as detailed, if not more detailed, than XviD. Even when comparing the screenshots given in the comparison, wmv9, for the most part, looks just as sharp and detailed as XviD, sometimes even sharper. maybe I'm missing something? A good way to compare the screenshots is to open up two applications of m$ paint, and just paste each screenshot into each application, maximize the windows, and just alt+tab. This will layer one over the other and make it easier to compare.

[avih]

so, it's a good thing doom9 decided to post images, such that others will be able to make up their minds on their owns ;)

remember, quality IS subjective. if it looks good enough for you, just go ahead and use it.

btw, fwiw, imho, wmv9 is smoother (and with less details) than xvid in many cases.

[Doom9]

my comments are entirely based on watching the movie, I didn't even look at the screenshots for most of the time writing when writing the comments. If an effect I noticed when watching the movie is also present in the screenshot, fine, I can point it out. If not, I'll still mention it but I guess I've said that ten times over. If you base your opinion only on screenshots you're making a mistake. Clearly, you've done more than that and apparently you like wmv9 more than I or avih do. That is fine with us. Everybody is entitled to have their own opinion after all.

[midiguy]

yeah, that's true. But I am wondering about something. On playback, when you use wmv9 (at least the VCM), you cannot control the post-processing. So maybe the post-processing is making it look smoother on playback, but when you load it into virtualdub and grab a screeny, it might look more detailed because there won't be any filtering on it. Just a thought...

Also, if you don't have the newest (or one of the newer) versions of wmp installed on your system, this will result in really shitty looking playback. You can still use wmp 6.4, but if you want to have good directshow playback, I believe that you will need one of the newer players installed (I just installed wmp 9 series and use 6.4).

But you probably already know this.. so I will shut up now. :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

I have to agree with midiguy,

My 'video only' tests show that WMV9 in both its .wmv and .avi variants is more detailed than XviD or every other codec on test!

However, it's not just a simple matter of selecting the same bitrate speed for each codec and then creating a 2pass file.

All my encodes were created in anamorphic and were also encoded so the output file sizes were the same . Or as near as damm it!

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the encodes - DivX, Xvid, RM9, QuickTime Mp4, WME9 .wmv and WME9 .avi were viewed on a 16:9 (1.77:1) 42" plasma monitor by several co-workers!