Interlaced DivX/XviD

[Kika]

Does somebody have experiences with interlaced Encoding using DivX or XviD? I have seen some sample Vids, and they are looking very awefull (my own samples too). Source was DV- and Hi8-Video.

May be there are some special Settings needed?

[Latexxx]

The decoder doesn't have a deinterlacer so you can clearly see the lines that look ugly.

[communist]

XviD supports interlaced material - though you'll have to disable B-frames or some other feature to get it working (you must encode with the Enable Interlacing option).

Anyway you should just deinterlace your stuff before encoding if you're target is to watch the stuff on computer monitors.

[Kika]

Um, i've seen a Matrox Graphics Card with a good and true Interlaced-Output. But only tried it with MPEG2-Videos. Works perfect. So i tested interlaced Encoding with XviD - but like i wrote, i'm not impressed. The Picture-Quality is FAR away from my interlaced MPEG2-Encodings, even on higher Bitrates for the XviD-Version of the Movie.

Deinterlacing isn't a way i want to go. It lowers the Movement-Quality too much.

[communist]

Are you doing CBR-encoding ?
If you want decent quality for MUCH less space you'll have to invest some time/space and do quality based 1 pass or just a 2 pass encode.

[Kika]

No i always use VBR. But like i wrote, even on high Bitrates, the Quality isn't as good as MPEG2 - at the same Bitrate. This Weekend, i tried it again. I turned B-Frames completly off. The result was a bit better, but still not that good as my MPEG2-Encodings.

[Swan]

Kika, your findings are like mine.
A while ago, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46774&highlight=svcd+xvid+standalone, I was involved in a thread in "Capturing Video" forum where a discussion on what encoding format you, as an individual, preferred and why.
Like you, I am only mainly using Mpeg-2, SVCD and nowadays it's all DVD for me.
One poster claimed Xvid beat Mpeg-2 in terms of picture quality on a given format (1 CD) at SVCD-bitrates even on interlaced content and that there were standalone players readily available that would solve the problem on how to output the encoded Xvid-video to a TV without going through the computer's TV-Out.
The standalone issue was and is laughable. I mean, there's the Kiss player and maybe a few more, but Xvid is hardly as universally playable on a standalone as SVCD or DVD.

Anyway, the poster claimed that a 1 hour interlaced TV program would look better on 1 CD when encoded with Xvid compression, as opposed to when encoded to SVCD.
I tested it and the Xvid encoding looked far worse! Much more blocking! No matter if I used VBR 2-pass or CBR. I had to use a much higher bitrate than I use for Mpeg-2 SVCD for it to look acceptable.
And then it didn't fit on one CD of course.

I used the stable Koepi build at the time, as I wanted the Xvid-file to be playable on a standalone (some features are not supported on the Kiss player, as I understand it). I'd love to see anyone do what the poster claimed: beat Mpeg-2 at interlaced encoding, using the same final medium, one 700 MB CD-R.

[Kika]

@Swan

For one hour interlaced Video on one CD i don't use SVCD-Resolution. I use Half-D1, which claims my pretensions (and it's compatible to DVD).

DivX-Stand alones: Nothing for me. Maybe the next but one Generation.
If they build up a Player which is able to play the Full MPEG4-Standard correctly, i will buy one. But know, i don't think it's a good idea to act like a Hardware-Betatester. :devil:

[Swan]

@Kika
I don't put one hour's worth of *interlaced* material on one (SVCD) CD-R either. :)
I rarely go above 40 minutes, depending on the source, I may actually go lower, so I get the maximum allowed bitrate constantly.
But the reason I mentioned 1 hour interlaced video on one CD-R is because the person who argued that Xvid was superior claimed that's what he did: put one hour's worth of interlaced material, full res, on one CD using Xvid compression.. And it supposedly looked better than SVCD.

I've never had much success with 352 x 576. I think video gets to blurry at that resoution and that ruins the viewing pleasure too much for my taste. But in some cases, yes, CVD has looked better than SVCD. Blurrier, yes, but with much less macroblocks visible.
I tested encoding kiddie stuff from the Disney Channel and it looked far nicer as CVD than as SVCD.

[Kika]

But in some cases, yes, CVD has looked better than SVCD. Blurrier, yes, but with much less macroblocks visible.

Yes, that's right. You have to find out by yourself, what you prefer: less Macroblocks with a small loss in Sharpness or more sharpness with more Blocking.

To be serious: I used SVCD only for testing some things. Most of my Videos are Half-D1 or Broadcast-D1 sized.

For my TV-Captures, i mostly use Half-D1 also for some converted DivX-Vids.
Other Convertions are done in 704x576.

The use of XviD was an Experiment to spare Bitrate and looking forward to the future of MPEG4-Stand alones Players, but wasen't successfull.

[Zhnujm]

btw, todays hardware players are not really good for interlaced playback, you have a 50:50 chance to get the right field order. Hit pause/play and you got another chance :rolleyes:

[Kika]

Yeah, that's what i discovered too. :rolleyes:

Show me the first Player which is able to play back full featured MPEG4 (without any "teething troubles") - i will buy it immediately. But this Pre-Beta-tested Stand alones you can buy now... no use (imho).

Kika