[TEST] Visual, PSNR, SSIM, VQM tests with RV9, XviD ,DivX, WMV9 ...

[vinouz]

I may seem an idiot, but what means SSIM & VQM ? What are they based on ?

[kilg0r3]

1. @vinouz
you can google can you?
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/n3/video/Default.htm
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~zwang/files/research/ssim/

2.
@sagitaire
could you add the fps or encoding time? And, it would be nie to see if qpel adds something to xvids performance.

3.
what method did the ct magazine use to meseure the codec quality?

[Lefungus]

[Edited]: I need to think before posting

[Sagittaire]

PSNR: high is better quality max = 105
SSIM: high is better quality max = 1
VQM: small is better quality max = 0

Qpel and GMC decrease PSNR and quality test ...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Although this thread has been both informative and useful, and long may it continue to be. For me, it's confirmed that PSNR etc tests are not the diffinative way (or answer) to measuring how good an encode/codec is!

Reading the entire thread, reveals refreshing opinions regarding the codecs used and how we all have different methods and views about quality.

I'm happy that we are not all 'Mini Me' clones with regard to our opinions.

[Sagittaire]

for the eyes tests ... ;-)

~~ Visual Test ~~

Video Encode 576*240 570 Kbps

http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/XviD-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/RV9-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/WMV9-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/Manihi-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/DivX5-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/DivX3-570.rar


Download and compare ...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Thanks Sagittaire,

I downloaded and unpacked the following video only 'visual test' clips: -

RMV9-570kbps (8,939KB or 8.729MB)
Manihi-570kbps (9,008KB or 8.796MB)
XviD-570kbps (9,160KB or 8.945MB)
WMV9-570kbps (9'170KB or 8.955MB)

And this confirms exactly what I've been saying for many months now. Which is when you take the same 'video only' input file and encode at the same bitrate with different codecs, you obtain totally different file sizes!

OK the file size difference may be small (the clip is only 128 seconds long) but if you increase the bitrate setting of the other codecs to match the largest file size (which is always WMV9) then the 'visual' and 'PSNR etc' results will be different again.

This then means, that when you take this anomaly into consideration, the Real Media encode is even better!

[Sagittaire]

a difference in size of 1% does not mean at all profit of 1% of PSNR for example ... make the test ...

and to visually make the difference between an encoding with 565 Kbps or 575 Kbps is impossible ...

The test are right and the small difference in size of encoding do not affect results ...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yes, like I said the file size differences are small.

However, if you encoded the entire Harry Potter 2 DVD (which is 9261 seconds long), you would have a 16.32MB difference between the RMV9 and WMV9 file sizes. Which is 2.6%!

And when encoding at low bitrates it's important to utilize every last MB!

RMV9 still comes out on top.... Karl will be pleased!

Cheers

[Lefungus]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital

However, if you encoded the entire Harry Potter 2 DVD (which is 9261 seconds long), you would have a 16.32MB difference between the RMV9 and WMV9 file sizes. Which is 2.6%!


Why ?
It may as well still have a 1% difference, like the trailers.

[Sagittaire]

2% size difference it's 0.1 dB PSNR difference for my test (with my PSNR graphic) ...

The test are right and the small difference in size of encoding do not affect results and conclusion ...

[temporance]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
Update first post ...

XviD devapi4 test
PSNR, SSIM, VQM test and graph
DivX3 SBC ffvfw with Post-Precessing test

RV9 EHQ ... winner

Sagittaire,
If you're using "HVS-aware" metrics, then IMHO you really should try enabling various codec's psychovisual enhancements. E.g. Manihi's new psychovisual enabled (fast or slow) and xvid's luma masking.

PSNR is just no good for picking up the real improvements that these tools bring.

Edit: I don't know how you find the time to do all these tests and post them here: well done!!! All I manage to do is try a few things, tests, etc and get a general impression of things!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Lefungus

Originally posted by Lefungus
Why ?
It may as well still have a 1% difference, like the trailers.

Please get out your calculator. The difference in file size between the RMV9 encoded trailer and the WMV9 encoded trailer is nearer 2.6%, not 1%.

I like your sig name!

[Sagittaire]

A new test with the trailer "two towers". Desactivate the PP of the WMV9 results as well visual as in the test are much better. The PP of the WMV9 is especially has my effective opinion for bitrates very very weak ...

With this trailer the WMV9 and RV9 EHQ detache largely of the others codecs. The RV9 being most powerful A weak bitrate and the WMV9 for the tops bitrates ...

Kaukuru slightly shows superior in the tests but also visually compared to XviD. But the extreme slowness of DivX for a weak variation on the level of quality gives the advantage to XviD for Iso-MPEG4 codecs ...

Download 715 Kbps trailers what corresponds has a bitrate for a movie of 2H00 on a cdr of 80 min. I awaits your impressions, comments and insults impatiently ... ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Sagittaire
... Download 715 Kbps trailers what corresponds has a bitrate for a movie of 2H00 on a cdr of 80 min...
For newbie coders who require a little more info. Here is a brief list of the 'Bitrate per min per 700MB CD-R'

For 60mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 64kbps. Set the video to 1556kbps
For 60mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 96kbps. Set the video to 1524kbps
For 90mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 64kbps. Set the video to 1016kbps
For 90mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 96kbps. Set the video to 984kbps
For 120mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 64kbps. Set the video to 746kbps
For 120mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 96kbps. Set the video to 714kbps
For 150mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 64kbps. Set the video to 584kbps
For 150mins A/V per CD-R with audio at 96kbps. Set the video to 552kbps

*Mp3 audio at 64kbps does not actually sound that good. 96kbps is generally accepted as being the absolute minimum.

The longest film I have encoded to fit onto a 700MB CD-R is Star Wars 2 at 137mins (in full anamorphic 720x576).

Love it or hate it - DivX still looks better than VHS or S-VHS tape - even at low bitrates!

With regard to DivX Kaukuru it is DivX's finest codec so far. However, this version has even more user settings than previous versions, which in my opinion will confuse many users. And as such cause much argument regarding 'what setting is the best etc to use'!

I've generated many low bitrate tests using all manor of Kaukuru's settings. But at the end of the day I would dump the lot and just set up the codec to write/read MV files - when you do this the encoder 'goes into warp drive'!

[Sagittaire]

Update WMV9 Harry Potter II test with PP desactived ...

[Sgt_Strider]

Hey Saggitaire, I'm wondering have you tried going even higher for the bitrates? I'm talkin about at least 1200 and I'm wondering if you're going to give that a thought?

[temporance]

Kaukuru slightly shows superior in the tests but also visually compared to XviD. But the extreme slowness of DivX for a weak variation on the level of quality gives the advantage to XviD for Iso-MPEG4 codecs ... Just wondering, Saggitaire, why you don't try the codec's psychovisual tools now that you are measuring VQM and SSIM? I for one would be very interested in the results! :)

[superdump]

dev-api-3's lumimasking isn't very good and I would not recommend using it. If you insist on using it only use it during the second pass. dev-api-4's adaptive quantisation is currently very limited and also not very good. I would not recommend using that either. Lefungus is working on something which could be implemented which would make adaptive quantisation much more effective.

Personally I think you should use the settings which produce the best picture quality for a given size. I don't care if you use psychovisual stuff to do that or not.

[Sagittaire]

To make tests has 1200 Kbps is not useful with traditional pixel 1:1. All the codecs are powerful with this bitrate and even DivX3 SBC is very good with this bitrate. MPEG2 VBR starts has to be good in 480*480 if the source is rather compressible ...

On the other hand that could be amusing to make tests into anamorphic pixel 16:11 to 1200 Kbps ...

[CruNcher]

@ Sagittaire

why you dont use Global Motion Compensation for XviD in your theatrical trailer comparesion ?, it would get better result for this kind of content with it. What your testing here btw is the hardest situation for a codec and one that apparently is only given for this kind of trailers and sure RV9 looks nicer in this High Motion Situation @ low bitrates but RV9 stays allways like that because of the inloop filtering (soft washy effect) even in Low Motion Scenes and even @ higher bitrates so you are excepting the lose of detail in every kind of situation where in Mpeg4 you only lose it in High Motion. In a theatrical trailer you notice this lack of detail in this High Motion scenes because their are no Low Motion ones that follow so your eyes adapt to this situation and it looks ugly over time, imo wmv9 is the best solution for this kind of content but the most content people encode here has most the times the same amount off High Motion Low Motion scenes so it should compensate it really well.

[Sirber]

Do you call artefacts (squares, muskito noise, etc) details? I've seen more enjoyable 1 CD movie in RV9/RA which were more detailled, more textured, bigger resolution then it's 1 CD MPEG4 equivalent...

[superdump]

Sirber: Noone considers artifacts to be details. XviD people prefer to have more details and some blocking than a slightly smoothed image and no blocking. RV9 people prefer the opposite and each opinion is perfectly reasonable. I'm an XviD person, but I think RV9 is a very powerful codec and performs better than XviD in a number of cases. For example, the trailers that Sagittaire has tested the codecs on is a tough case for most codecs. As CruNcher says, high motion and a low bitrate do not bode well with MPEG-4 codecs but they can ususally compensate with intelligent rate control and bit allocation when there are low motion scenes within the video also.

I personally think that WMV9 is between XviD and RV9 so if you are looking for something with slightly more detail than RV9 but less blocking than XviD then WMV9 would probably be a wise choice. I don't however think that (note, this opinion is based on PP being disabled) WMV9 maintains more detail than XviD but would be delighted if you could show me some pictures to prove otherwise.

RV9 also seems to be a long way ahead in cartoon encoding, but I will possibly report my findings in this area later.

What I will say is this, I'm glad we have a competitive field with a number of very good codecs. It makes for interesting conversation.

[Sigmatador]

"Do you call artefacts (squares, muskito noise, etc) details?" don't be so annoying :devil:

[Mei]

Personally I think that DivX/XviD are the best because they are not propriatery and that we can use it in MPEG-4 Stream File (.MP4).
Also, buy Terminator 2 Extreme DVD Edition, and see what the Windows Media Video 9 codec can do !
With a resolution of HDTV 1080p Anamorphic (1920x1080 but 1440x816 effective) you can see a real pure image quality... Okay a ~6,5Mbps Bitrate... But it show that WMV9 is really good in high bitrate... Not the case of other MPEG-4 codec...

[Sirber]

"Do you call artefacts (squares, muskito noise, etc) details?" don't be so annoying :devil::D Just bringing some gazoline on the fire... ;)

[midiguy]

Originally posted by superdump
I don't however think that (note, this opinion is based on PP being disabled) WMV9 maintains more detail than XviD but would be delighted if you could show me some pictures to prove otherwise.

I've done quite a bit of testing with both, and have noticed something with wmv9. It can be just as detailed (or sometimes even more detailed) than XviD if the video is encoded very well (if it is very compressible it helps) or if you use a high bitrate. The thing is, once you get to lower bitrates where artifacts (blocking, noise, etc.) are introduced, the two codecs start to behave differently. WMV9 tries to smooth out the artifacts (which is done internally I believe), while XviD won't mind giving you a few blocks here and there to preserve the details. But yeah, for higher bitrate stuff, wmv9 and XviD behave quite similarly (for HDTV resolution material, or very high bitrates, I think WMV9 is the more powerful codec). For lower bitrates (or sources that are very uncompressible), it is really just a matter of preference.

[Sigmatador]

i'm not confident that the wmv9 can't be beaten by the rv9 at HDTV encode, no ?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sigmatador
i'm not confident that the wmv9 can't be beaten by the rv9 at HDTV encode, no ?

I'm quite confident that WMV9 can be beaten by RV9!

I recently carried out some 'video only' trancode tests using the WMV9 high-def (1440x816) Terminator trailer as a source. And I'm happy to say that the 1440x816 RV9 encode looked every bit as good as WMV9 source. And used far less processing power on replay!

My 1440x816 DivX encode was a different story. Although the image looked very good it was far too choppy to be an enjoyable watch.

Cheers

[superdump]

Originally posted by midiguy
I've done quite a bit of testing with both, and have noticed something with wmv9. It can be just as detailed (or sometimes even more detailed) than XviD if the video is encoded very well (if it is very compressible it helps) or if you use a high bitrate. The thing is, once you get to lower bitrates where artifacts (blocking, noise, etc.) are introduced, the two codecs start to behave differently. WMV9 tries to smooth out the artifacts (which is done internally I believe), while XviD won't mind giving you a few blocks here and there to preserve the details. But yeah, for higher bitrate stuff, wmv9 and XviD behave quite similarly (for HDTV resolution material, or very high bitrates, I think WMV9 is the more powerful codec). For lower bitrates (or sources that are very uncompressible), it is really just a matter of preference.

Well said midiguy. I think you've nailed it. :) WMV9 scales incredibly well on high resolution and very high bitrate stuff that few PCs can play back. Lol. I have seen some of these HDTV demo encodes from the microsoft site and they look _awesome_.

Thanks for your post midiguy, you've added a bit of clarity to this very interesting but slightly muddled discussion. :)

[Sigmatador]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I'm quite confident that WMV9 can be beaten by RV9!

I recently carried out some 'video only' trancode tests using the WMV9 high-def (1440x816) Terminator trailer as a source. And I'm happy to say that the 1440x816 RV9 encode looked every bit as good as WMV9 source. And used far less processing power on replay!

My 1440x816 DivX encode was a different story. Although the image looked very good it was far too choppy to be an enjoyable watch.

Cheers


For HDTV, these are two good codec, but RV9 still have better technologies. But, with some few PSNR/SSIM test, with a high compressibility (above 60%) the WMV9 have better results (but not a huge gap) with very high compressibility (above 80%), there's a more noticiable difference (and the xvid have better results than RV9 too, but less than WMV9)

The problem is, such compressibility are very difficult to reach with HDTV resolution, so the RV9 can be a good solution for these encoding.

A word about the wmv9 trailer, yes they look pretty good, but it's only thanks to the high resolution. Look the video with the real resolution (no undersizing, use panscan if you don't have a 22" screen :D ) you can see som very ugly blocks and gradients that a good old 720*yyy mpeg2 doesn't have. So don't forget what we have learned with mpeg-4 codec, a high reolsution is stupid without a high bitrate ^^ (that's why i think the rv9 can beat wmv9 from the same source (not the already wmv9'ed ^^) for HDTV )

[temporance]

Originally posted by superdump
WMV9 scales incredibly well on high resolution and very high bitrate stuff that few PCs can play back. Lol. I have seen some of these HDTV demo encodes from the microsoft site and they look _awesome_.HDTV is nothing special, just a (much) higher resolution that we're used to. Everything else scales (including the bitrate). The only thing that perhaps doesn't scale linearly is motion estimation - a motion that covers 20 pixels/frame at SDTV is going to cover something like 50 pixels/frame at HDTV. So motion estimation is going to be very important at HDTV res.

There are two main reasons why WM9 looks good at HDTV... First that Microsoft have $$$ and connections within the movie industry and so can access super high-quality uncompressed, low frame rate (I saw one demo that had slomo surfing at approx 12fps), noise-free sources for their encodes. So they pick and chose content that makes very nice looking compressed video. Second, they are the first to have a decoder that can smooth out processor load. One reason why xvid HDTV doesn't look so good is that you'd need a Pentuim 4GHz because the decoder CPU load is not well managed by the xvid DS decoder.

So, apart from these factors, there is no reason why we should not think HDTV will be any different from any other video source. More pixels needs more bits, more codec CPU, more RAM bandwidth, better graphics card. But these factors affect all codecs the same - things just scale.

[Sirber]

I guess we can forget H264 HDTV :D. A 320x200 clip barely play on my 2000+...

[Sagittaire]

And Final Test with entrelaced cartoon "Corto Maltes"

http://jfl1974.free.fr/images/PSNR3.gif

~~ Visual Test ~~

Video Encode 576*288 570 Kbps

http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/XviD-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/RV9-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/WMV9-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/Kaukura-570.rar
http://jfl1974.free.fr/Video/DivX3-570.rar


RV9 and WMV9 ars cleary best for this source type. Download and compare.

Conclusion: "XV9" are the best

[Sirber]

Seems WMV9 is quite good at high bitrate. Also, it must be a shock for XviD fans, to get beatten by DivX :D

[Sagittaire]

It's a test with XviD Devapi4 which is much better than XviD Devapi3 of koepi ...

The WMV9 (with PP=<2) is thus really better than XviD Koepi 24/06/03 ...

The WMV9 could appear worse because of the PP which is really too strong with defaut setting (PP=4) ...

DivX Kaukuru and XviD are really very similar for quality ...

Download and compare ...

But RV9 and WMV9 qaulity for low bitrate with anime are unbeatable especially for animate ...

[temporance]

@Saggitaire,

Could you also published the uncompressed source in uncompressed form (say, huffy)? I'd like to try some different settings on various codecs,

Cheers,

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sigmatador
... A word about the wmv9 trailer, yes they look pretty good, but it's only thanks to the high resolution. Look the video with the real resolution (no undersizing, use panscan if you don't have a 22" screen :D ) you can see som very ugly blocks and gradients that a good old 720*yyy mpeg2 doesn't have. So don't forget what we have learned with mpeg-4 codec, a high reolsution is stupid without a high bitrate ^^ (that's why i think the rv9 can beat wmv9 from the same source (not the already wmv9'ed ^^) for HDTV )

I agree with you regarding your 'high resolution' comment. However, I also think that there's very little point for a distributor to supply vast quantities of 'standard resolution' images via the HD platform!

[temporance]

Originally posted by Sirber
Seems WMV9 is quite good at high bitrate. Also, it must be a shock for XviD fans, to get beatten by DivX :D My experiments with VQM and JND (using natural video not anime) indicate the exact opposite of this: that WMV9 is worse than xvid and DivX at high bitrates. I get a "crossover" - WMV9 is better at lower bitrates and worse at higher bitrates. At the point of the crossover, all three codecs are producing pretty mediocre results anyway!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by temporance
My experiments with VQM and JND (using natural video not anime) indicate the exact opposite of this: that WMV9 is worse than xvid and DivX at high bitrates. I get a "crossover" - WMV9 is better at lower bitrates and worse at higher bitrates. At the point of the crossover, all three codecs are producing pretty mediocre results anyway!
I have to agree also.

In my experience, as soon as you begin to generate 720x576 DivX encodes above 950kpbs the 'visual' image looks alot better than WMV9. However, when you get to around 1500-1600kbps, the images look about the same!

[Sagittaire]

WMV9 exemple
"Terminator 2 Extreme DVD Clip" (1080p Anamorphic, 6.8 Mbps, 1:42 min, 91 MB)
BPF = 6800000/(1920 x 1280 x 24) = 0.12
O.12 for very low compressibility source thus it's high resolution but not high relative bitrate ...

MPEG2 exemple
For a MPEG2 source with same bitrate ...
BPF = 6800000/(720 x 576 x 25) = 0.65

With 720*576 and 950 kbps the RV9 EHQ and WMV9 are the best ...
BPF = 950000/(720 x 576 x 25) = 0.09
It's a very small BPF and DivX or XviD can't be the best ...

[Sigmatador]

@Sirber
currently there is no good implementation of the h.264 standard (which is not finalized yet btw). I think rv9 specs are quite closed to the h.264 ones (but i can't affirm it ^^) so let a chance to h.264 (but real networks has a big advance (dunno if it's mean something in english ^^ ))

for my personnal test with rv9 i can't see the différence between a 700mo and a 1400mo ¤_¤ rv9 compress too much, it's the most powerfull for low bitrate, quite good for medium, but too destructive for my eyes at high bitrate (and its 2passvbr is not very good because of the MSL >_<). but for low compressibility, rv9 is unbeatable ^^ (so usefull for akira ^^ )


another good point from Mei, xvid/divx are quite standard ^^ and will sure have hardware decoding everywhere in the futur, i doubt for rv9/wmv9. (i really don't care, i only use my computer ^^, but i'm not alone ;D )


ps: HD become bigger, internet connection too, let's return to the good old mpeg2 8mbit/s :D

[Gaia]

for my personnal test with rv9 i can't see the différence between a 700mo and a 1400mo ¤_¤ rv9 compress too much, it's the most powerfull for low bitrate, quite good for medium, but too destructriv for my eyes at high bitrate

I totally agree with you on this one. I once encoded very high detailed short clip of Matrix with RV9(EHQ enabled) and XviD. For XviD i used 900kbps and 1200 for RV9. XviD clip looked a lot better than RV9. RV9 clip looked far too washed out for me. RV9 is very good codec for low and midium bitrate but it's not my choice for backing up DVD's. Like a lot of people have said it's matter of taste...

Speed(if some codec is just slightly better than others) and editing capabilities are important too.

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by Gaia
RV9 clip looked far too washed out for me
At 1200 kbps RV9 should not look washed out, and I think you must have run into some kind of problem, either with your encoding, or playback. Do you still have your samples so I can take a look?

Co-incidentally I recently encoded a 1200 kbps 704(->860) x 364 ten minute demo with 5.1 sound that was played back on a huge projection screen in a mini-theater prior to a showing of a regular DVD in the same theater. The RV9-EHQ encode looked more detailed than the DVD, with every grain and detail showing.

[Sagittaire]

for the top bitrates (with BPF > 0.25) whole codecs are worth and the differences are weak ...

What makes the power of a codec it is encoding capacity in the weak BPF ...

Conclusion: RV9 EHQ winner

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
WMV9 exemple
"Terminator 2 Extreme DVD Clip" (1080p Anamorphic, 6.8 Mbps, 1:42 min, 91 MB)
BPF = 6800000/(1920 x 1280 x 24) = 0.12
O.12 for very low compressibility source thus it's high resolution but not high relative bitrate ...

This is not correct. The actual pixel frame size of the T2 clip is 1440x816. So 6,800,000 /(1440x816x24 = 28,200,960) = 0.24

Cheers

[Sigmatador]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
for the top bitrates (with BPF > 0.25) whole codecs are worth and the differences are weak ...

What makes the power of a codec it is encoding capacity in the weak BPF ...

Conclusion: RV9 EHQ winner well why all people doesn't store music with ogg@64 :devil: maybe who use mpc@200 are very stupid :devil:
wmv9,ra8,ogg etc... are decently good at 64kbps against mpc (which is horrible ^^), but there's currently no codec who can beat mpc quality 4 (approximately 200-250kbps) (conclusions obtained with a spectrum compare). Well, audio codec is not the point, but it's just to say (illustrate^^), that the winner at extreme low bitrate isn't the winner at all !!


@Karl
i agree with Gaia, do a xvid fixq2 encode (i suppose you know how to config the codec ^^), don't care about the filesize (it may produce something between 1000 and 2000 kbps) and encode the same clip with the same filesize in rv9 (you can higher the resolution if you want, i did it) and the rv9 seems to my eyes more washed like Gaia said.

[Acaila]

well why all people doesn't store music with ogg@64 Because some of us actually like it when that music sounds close to the original... Storing music is for me all about getting transparency, which for me would be MPC @ lvl 5 (around 170 kbps) with my sound equipment.
Speech on the other hand is an entirely different story.

Well, audio codec is not the point, but it's just to say (illustrate^^), that the winner at extreme low bitrate isn't the winner at all !!
I agree, which rules out RV9 or WMV9 as a winner for me, because I would never make a DVD backup at 570 kbps, I want my backups to closely resemble the original.

[Sagittaire]

the RV9 and the WMV9 are better codecs than the Iso-MPEG4 for 570~950 Kbps in all my test and for all types of sources ...

My objective is to put between 90 min and 150 min of video on cdr of 80 min what corresponds to the bitrates selected ...

If you make your ripp with XviD in quant2 this test does not concern you however you will obtain little better quality with the WMV9 with same bitrate ...

I show you only the tests most serious possible that I make and the videos that i encode ... sorry for the fans of XviD ... but my conclusion is RV9 is winner ... that all ... :D

Make test ... :D

[Zhnujm]

@Sagittaire:
I surely dont question your results and the work you put into it, but imho a test should be made with a whole movie, not with some short clips.
Have you already tried encoding a whole movie and look if the results are the same ?