Looks like Divx 5.1 is Released!

[LordIntruder]

Now I wonder how this possible bug has passed the validation. Whether they don't know about it, odd as some discussions went along about it and if they know about this bug it would be great to indicate it on the "what's new" page or, as you propose, to popup a warning message that under some circumstances you can get a strange result.

By the way I made a test D (see higher for Test A, B & C). I also forgot to mention that my modulation bitrate was set to zero. Usually I prefer to set it to 0.1

Test D:
-------

1st Pass: Slowest, BFrames, GMC, PSY Slow, no MV --> 174min
2nd Pass: Slowest, BFrames, GMC, PSY Slow, no MV --> 174min
------
Total: 348min


Well it's a bit better than test B which is similar but use MV file. A bit better when you watch very carefully.

I look at test A, B & D again today and they are really really close. I even notice today that on some areas test A is a bit better than test B!! However I can say we have a sharper image on test B but it is very hard to notice, you have to watch carefully and very close to the screen and you never watch a movie like that.

In conclusion I continue to use test A adjustements for my future encodes, no need to increase the encoding time by selecting the ones used in test B or D, you only see small differences at 20cm from the screen. That tests are for slow-motion movies. For fast-motion it may change and using slowest for all passes may increase quality. Tests have to be done.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi LordIntruder
In conclusion I continue to use test A adjustements for my future encodes, no need to increase the encoding time by selecting the ones used in test B or D, you only see small differences at 20cm from the screen. That tests are for slow-motion movies. For fast-motion it may change and using slowest for all passes may increase quality. Tests have to be done. I have come to much the same conclusion!

With all available DivX settings, I would have thought that using 'slow' and 'slowest' modes, would have revealed far greater and apparent differences to an encode. As it happens, the differences are rather minor and almost totally lost when viewed on a hardware player!

On the other hand, if you were to use WMV9 VCM (at around 760kbps) and encode the same clip using the 'Slowest' and 'Second Slowest' modes. You see 'stark' differences between the encodes, especially with respect to the background movement areas, which become very much more stable and engaging. Unlike DivX....... Shame!

Cheers

[DigitAl56K]

I tend to disagree with that, particularly at lower bitrates Slow and Slowest modes can offer quite strong differences, although when viewing on a hardware player/tv setup its pretty difficult to spot artifacting in any case.

Note that Slow PV is less intense than Fast PV.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
I tend to disagree with that, particularly at lower bitrates Slow and Slowest modes can offer quite strong differences, although when viewing on a hardware player/tv setup its pretty difficult to spot artifacting in any case.

Note that Slow PV is less intense than Fast PV.
Well, here's one for the DivX web site 'suggestion's box! Why not have some short 'low 750kbps' test encodes on the DivX web site (using the same source in PAL and NTSC), using various 2pass VBR encoding settings.

I am sure this would be a big help for some of 'us' end users. As we would have something to gauge our encodes by!

Cheers

[Zep]

Test D:
-------

1st Pass: Slowest, BFrames, GMC, PSY Slow, no MV --> 174min
2nd Pass: Slowest, BFrames, GMC, PSY Slow, no MV --> 174min
------
Total: 348min




how come you did not turn on MV?

If 1st Pass you use slowest (as you did) then you can use the MV file
for 2nd Pass and save tons of time. That is why the time is 174 minutes
for each pass. Your first pass should be set to Standard and leave the
rest alone. Please post the times then


Anway the problem comes when using MV when you do

1st Pass: Standard, MV
2nd Pass: Slowest, MV

which then uses the low grade MV data made on the 1st Pass set at standard.


at least this is how it works here in my tests :)



It would be great if you also did the tests with MV on both passes too and posted
it here. That second pass should be much faster and still same quality since
1st pass will be done in slowest. Which brings up a question...


which is better for speed and/or quality


1st Pass: Standard, no MV
2nd Pass: Slowest, no MV

or

1st Pass: Slowest, MV
2nd Pass: Slowest, MV


I guess I need to do some tests huh :D


thx


Zephead

[LordIntruder]

Note that Slow PV is less intense than Fast PV.

What do you mean by that DigitAl56K? I didn't make deep test on PV but on those I did I was unable to see any difference between fast and slow PV. As Divx state that slow PV allow to avoid macroblock or such, I prefer to use this one.

If you have made some tests in that area I should be very interested to read your conclusion if any. :)

Thanks.

@Zep:

Please read the entire thread. Also In my last post I stated:

"By the way I made a test D (see higher for Test A, B & C).

That means that in an earlier post I made some others tests and what you request have already be done. :sly:

[Zep]

@Zep:

Please read the entire thread. Also In my last post I stated:

"

That means that in an earlier post I made some others tests and what you request have already be done. :sly:


You missed my point which was that test D it moot because no one should
or will ever use those test D settings and comparing them to ABC is IMHO
a waste of time since ABC will be used and D will not.



Also you never tested (call it test E and another not used setting)

1st Pass: Slowest, MV
2nd Pass: Standard, MV

which you should do if you truly feel test D is not a waste of time
and you enjoy testing interestingly off track settings :)

[Assault]

@ Zep

I think you didn't read the first page of this thread where Acaila posted that when you use MV in both passes the performance settings of the first pass get used during the second pass. So your test E would give you the same results as test B. ;)
Furthermore I don't think test D is useless because it delivers the best possible quality. People with fast machines will use those settings.

Assault

[Owen]

Bitrate control for one pass real time capture is brocken.(STILL)
It seems to be stuck at 4000kb. Encoding 720x576 PAL in Home Theater Profile (no Qpel)gives about 5Gigabytes per hour. Regardless of bitrate setting.
Quality is very good, but at that bitrate it had better be.
I reported the same problem with the beta release.
5 Gig per hour is just ridiculous. I am after 2Gigabytes per hour and DVD qualiy.
Will this ever get fixed?

Regards,

Owen

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Owen,

Although I don't capture to DivX myself. I'm absolutly staggered that this fault has not been corrected!

What with all the other problems that are being written about DivX 5.1.0 I don't think it will be very long before DivX 5.1.1 comes out!

Let hope it's sooner than later.

Cheers

[Ravendark]

Originally posted by Sumster
Hi... did anybody notice a difference with the decoder of Divx 5.1 vs. Kaukura? I have an Athlon 1800+, and I could use full post-processing (ie. both at MAX) before with only about 30-50% CPU usage. With Divx 5.1, I'm at 100% with ultra-choppy playback... not sure if there is some other issue at play. Even with automatic post-processing at full, it uses 80-90% with choppiness.

-Sumster

Something is going wrong I think.
I am working on a T-bird 1.2 and at full post-processing I am using 80% of cpu...

[temporance]

Originally posted by Owen
Bitrate control for one pass real time capture is brocken.(STILL)
It seems to be stuck at 4000kb. Encoding 720x576 PAL in Home Theater Profile (no Qpel)gives about 5Gigabytes per hour. Regardless of bitrate setting.I've never seen this bug in single pass bitrate mode. Filesize is pretty accurate, especially with longer (1+ hours) clips.

What application are you using for the capture? Do you also see this bug when using the same DivX settings in other apps?

[SeeMoreDigital]

temporance makes a good point!

It could well be a problem at your end.

Try doing some caps with an application such as MediaPlayer Classic

Sorry I can't be anymore help. I personally use an ADS 2.0 for capturing direct to Mpeg2 at around 6000-9000 kbps. If there's anything worth keeping I rencode to a 2pass DivX file later!

Cheers Owen

[Subwars]

@zep

you should try reading the whole post before you start making comments and end up making a fool of yourself :stupid:


@LordIntruder

thanks for your work on them tests it's helped me and i'm sure alot of other people as well


i've done a few tests myself different ways with a 1.8 celron clocked to 2.1 and with 5.0.5 i get around 25 fps... but with divx 5.1 on standard and pv & b-frames turned off i can get around 10 fps... but on slowest it gets down to 1-2 fps so even if your just to use that slowest on say the 4th pass the last one... that 1 last pass is gonna take like an entire day just by itself... so is it really worth all that extra time.. how about it just being on standard you say that it's still better on standard then 5.0.5 maybe that could be the way to go without each rip taking days and still get an improvment over 5.0.5... not that i recon it's bad anyway the quality

[zag2me]

Originally posted by midi
Speaking for myself and everyone I know personally (college crowd, I guess), none of us care in the slightest about hardware players. A computer is pretty much a necessity in today's world, a hardware MPEG4 player is a rarity.

I would much prefer DivX Networks worked towards making the best computer codec possible rather than worry about this. Monitors are in general much higher quality than TV, but most decent video cards and laptops come with video out anyway if you really need to display on one.

You are joking right?

In the near future every new dvd player will be able to play mp4 and people will begin to "look back at the days" when people actually watched video content on those teenie weenie computer monitor screens, or actually had to turn on their computer to watch a video. This new codec is a step in the right direction for hardware player playback.

Just to add to this, I have done a number of encodes for my K|I|S|S dp-500 in divx5.1 and the quality is outstanding.

[Sirber]

My computer screen is far more detailled than my TV. Also, Who'll buy a hardware player with 2 codec included while a computer can play them all?

[bond]

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
Also, QPel (as far as I know) is currently unsupported in combination with Slow/Slowest modes. As Acaila suggested, encoding will proceed as if you had selected Standard mode should you attempt to combine these two options.seems like dxn tries everything to get people away of advanced codec features like qpel (which is really a great feature!)
also where is my beloved original 2-pass in divx5.1???

[zag2me]

Originally posted by Sirber
My computer screen is far more detailled than my TV. Also, Who'll buy a hardware player with 2 codec included while a computer can play them all?

-People who want silence
-People who dont own a computer
-People who want to watch a movie in their living rooms
-People who want a playback device that is small and looks good
-People who cant afford a computer
-People who want a nice remote
-People who dont want to spend days configuring a device
-People who dont want to buy an operating system

LOL:D got a bit carried away there, but I see the market for hardware players exploading in the near future. Kiss have sold 1/4 million units already. I like the way this new version of divx stays in the MP4 standards, they obviously realise that hardware players are the way forward for this kind of technology.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nice one zag2me.

Have I mentioned before that Sigma Xcard users can now playback and view WMV9 .wmv files on their TV's with JovePlayer..... I did oh well!

But hang onto your hats Mr JP recently held a poll asking users if they wanted RV9 and QuickTime capability too!

I know it's still a PC device but my computers in another room and I am able to talk to it via snazzy remote. I don't even have to swich on a PC monitor to access the files!

Cheers

[Sirber]

Originally posted by zag2me
-People who want silence: water cooling
-People who dont own a computer: does that exist?
-People who want to watch a movie in their living rooms: Tv-Out
-People who want a playback device that is small and looks good: HTPC
-People who cant afford a computer: Duron aren't expensives
-People who want a nice remote: MPC handle remote control
-People who dont want to spend days configuring a device: Windows is plug and play
-People who dont want to buy an operating system: Linux is always fun :D

just kidding :D

[Lord_KiRon]

And people who want to use divx pro should visit warez link removed by moderator

[commando]

Originally posted by Lord_KiRon
And people who want to use divx pro should visit (warez link removed by moderator)

Whoever wrote the scrolling page should be shot.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I hear quite a lot of people are waiting for the Philips DVD 737 'stand alone' to arrive. And why not when it has a chipset that promises this: -

"Philips has announced that its DVD+R/RW reference design now can be integrated with the pnx1300 and pnx1500 Nexperia™ media processors. The pnx1300 and pnx1500 have support for Ethernet, DivX, MPEG4, H.263 H.264, RealVideo, Windows Media 9, MP3 Pro, Dolby Pro Logic 2, Dolby Digital and JPEG2000 making the platform very flexible for the manufacturers."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that just about covers everything!

Cheers

[Sirber]

Cool!!!!!

I want that!!! Hum... does it supports Matroska?

[Lord_KiRon]

Originally posted by commando
Whoever wrote the scrolling page should be shot.

(Warez discussion removed by moderator)

[deXtoRious]

(Warez discussion removed by moderator)

[jggimi]

6) No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature, asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated. Thread closed.

[jggimi]

Thread reopened at the request of SeeMoreDigital and Sirber.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Blimey! Thanks jggimi. Thanks Sirber.

And I thought the most power I ever had was pushing the 'wait' button on a street crossing!

We better start posting something useful here now.

Thanks again

[Sirber]

Thanks jggimi :D

[amango]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I hear quite a lot of people are waiting for the Philips DVD 737 'stand alone' to arrive. And why not when it has a chipset that promises this: -

"Philips has announced that its DVD+R/RW reference design now can be integrated with the pnx1300 and pnx1500 Nexperia™ media processors. The pnx1300 and pnx1500 have support for Ethernet, DivX, MPEG4, H.263 H.264, RealVideo, Windows Media 9, MP3 Pro, Dolby Pro Logic 2, Dolby Digital and JPEG2000 making the platform very flexible for the manufacturers."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that just about covers everything!

Cheers

You are wrong. The Phillips DVD 737 use an chipset from ESS, which is build also in very cheap DIVX players you can get for 99 Euro in Germany (Yamada DVX 6000/6100 for example). The new pnx-chipset is a new chipset from Phillips, but there are no products yet available.

[temporance]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
"Philips has announced that its DVD+R/RW reference design now can be integrated with the pnx1300 and pnx1500 Nexperia™ media processors. The pnx1300 and pnx1500 have support for Ethernet, DivX, MPEG4, H.263 H.264, RealVideo, Windows Media 9, MP3 Pro, Dolby Pro Logic 2, Dolby Digital and JPEG2000 making the platform very flexible for the manufacturers."I'm not excited about this yet. Just sounds like a very powerful (read "expensive") media processor. And manufacturers will have to pay all the licensing fees for each of these standards. (very expensive). So, I can't really see this being successful. Just look at Philips' track record with the Trimedia ;).

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yes,

It's all got pretty confusing now with regard to the Philips DVD 737. Even some of the Philips reps don't know what's happening with this product.

There are even rumours that the reason why the product is so long coming is because some people within Philips would prefer to use there own chip and not the ESS. So who knows, we may see the same badged player with different chipset in it!

Either way, the Nexperia chip will end up in standalone DVD players soon.

So it may be worth waiting to see what does happens!

Don't you just love cutting edge technology!

Cheers

[Sirber]

if this append, I'Ll be in heven :D. But, what kind of container does it supports?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
if this append, I'Ll be in heven :D. But, what kind of container does it supports? I think it's a little too early to say at the moment.

However with the correct firmware upgrades there's no reason why it should'nt support just about any container, as the chip looks like it will be able to support just about any codec!

Cheers

[Sirber]

Maybe it's a CPU with software codecs, like RCA Lyra HDD :)

[DaveQB]

the new "slowest' with DivX 5.1 sounds like XviD on max quality settings (VHQ-4, moton search 6 - ultra high etc)

1-2 FPS encoding sounds bout right.

i have to back midi and siber in a way.

a top quality codec regardless of spec's would be great!!
i watch all movies on my PC and on occasions run it through the main living rooms big TV for family viewing.

Never owned a stand alone DVD player and have no intentions to buy one.

must be just me :D

so in conclusion guys... DivX5.1 is the best DivX5 ever released ??

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by DaveQB
... Never owned a stand alone DVD player and have no intentions to buy one... must be just me :D Well last week I moved my standalone DVD player to another room for the kids to watch. I now use a DVD rom drive (which is connected to my 'Media PC' via USB 2.0), to watch all my movies.

Works really great. Better than expected!

Cheers

[Owen]

Ok people, I have tested Divx5.1 1 pass in Vdub and it obeys the rate control setting as expected.
But it does not obey rate control setting during real time capture using FlyDS.
I get 4Mbit encodes no matter what the setting.

What is going on here?

Regards,

Owen

[rivers]

decided to upgrade to 5.1 from 5.02, and after 2h or reading, understanding & testing there's still a thing in my head that need answer:

why 5.1 with perf setting to *standard* is still slower than 5.02 in slowest? and i mean a 2-pass with MV and every option turned off.

1st pass 5.1 mv: AVG 20fps
2nd pass 5.1 mv: AVG 25fps

with 5.02 was something near 20-25 for the first pass, and 35-40 for the second...

system: p4 3.00GHz, ddr400

tnx in advance

[DaveQB]

my understanding its encoding alot better; the final quality is alot better.

Encoding more the quality of XviD. I went from 25-40FRP with DivX 5.0.2 to 1-2 FPS with XviD, but quality alot better.

What i mean is that since they are now able to attain a better quality (and thus longer encode times) the settings needed to be scaled or adjusted to accomodate.

A bit like how all average size drinks are XL and not MEDIUM like they ahould.

[hhsg]

I have the same problem with you, i'm using VVCR to capture
version 5.0.4 has the same problem
we should report this bug to DivX support, and wait


Originally posted by Owen
Ok people, I have tested Divx5.1 1 pass in Vdub and it obeys the rate control setting as expected.
But it does not obey rate control setting during real time capture using FlyDS.
I get 4Mbit encodes no matter what the setting.

What is going on here?

Regards,

Owen

[Laz]

This may haved already been answered, but what quality setting do I use if I want divx 5.0.5 style results..
I used to be able to encode at 35+ fps but now tiwh 5.1 I can only encode at a max of about 15 on the 'standard' setting...

Anyone able to help me out?

Thanks in advance.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Laz
This may haved already been answered, but what quality setting do I use if I want divx 5.0.5 style results..
I used to be able to encode at 35+ fps but now tiwh 5.1 I can only encode at a max of about 15 on the 'standard' setting...

Anyone able to help me out?

Thanks in advance. Hi Laz.

First try using 'standard' for both passes. And make sure you disable the 'feedback window' and uncheck 'GMC'.

Depending on the bitrate you use, you could also uncheck 'Bi-Di' and the disable 'PSY' settings too. If you then enable and create 'MV log files' you will find your first pass to be as fast as DivX 5.0.5 and your second pass will encode 'very' quickly indeed!

Well worth a try, if you want speed!

Cheers

[Laz]

Thanks for the quick reply :)

I'm not really after speed, I'm just curious to know why its encoding 1/3 of the speed it usually does....

But Yeh, both passes are on 'standard', but I can't remember if those other settings were enabled or not.. (I'm doing the encode ATM)

The feedback window is open, but I've disabled the preview thing, and that seems to have helped a tiny bit...

Is there anywhere I could find optimum settings for Bi directional encdoing and the psycho vis enhancements for particular bitrates?

Usually around the 600-1200kbps mark..


thanks again :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Laz
...Is there anywhere I could find optimum settings for Bi directional encdoing and the psycho vis enhancements for particular bitrates?

Usually around the 600-1200kbps mark.. That's always an interesting question but not really all that easy to answer! This is because everybody sees an image differently!

In my experience I don't bother with either Bi-Di, PSY or GMC when encoding above 1500kbps!

That said, if you are generating encodes for viewing on a TV monitor (instead of PC monitor) you could get with a lesser bitrate. But it all depends on the frame size you encode to!

My personal interest is in generating 720x576/480 anamorphic encodes that can fit onto a single CD-R for viewing on a TV. And as I've got a burner that will allow me to burn onto 800MB CD-Rs. This is the file size I aim for.

Cheers

[Laz]

I see...

Well anyway I tried an encode using the fastest settings and Its still bog slow @ 15fps..