GKnot vs Nero Recode 2?

[valnar]

Has anyone compared the MP4 output of Nero Recode to a DivX conversion from Gordian Knot? Any reason to switch?

-Robert

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by valnar
Has anyone compared the MP4 output of Nero Recode to a DivX conversion from Gordian Knot? Any reason to switch?

-Robert Well this question is a little unfair. There are many other encoding softwares that offer conversion to DivX, not just GK!

Having said that, the current version of Recode2 is not able to generate encodes that look as good as say a 2pass VBR DivX or XviD for that matter!

But it's early days yet for Recode2 and it's astonishing that it's encodes are as good as they are. Given the speed of the encoding process.

Hope that answers you question?

Cheers

[valnar]

Works for me. I'm suprised I couldn't find a thread making this comparison already, so I had to start my own!

I'll stick with GKnot for now.

-Robert

[Soulhunter]

...so I had to start my own!
Results... ??? :confused:

Bye

[SeeMoreDigital]

The fact that Recode2 does not generate encodes that look as good as DivX is very clear.

I'm lucky because I am able to play both types, using a hardware decoder (my Xcard) and watch the results on an 42" plasma screen!

Normally it's not so easy to spot the differences between codecs, using like for like settings, when viewing encodes on a TV. However, a good 2pass 1CD DivX encode looks a lot better than it's Recode2 counterpart.

I think many members have said as much. Recode2 is still very good though!

Cheers

[bond]

nero digital is a good mpeg-4 codec, but for now i will continue using xvid (i still have to see a codec that clearly outputs better quality than xvid)

doom9 is atm preparing a new version of his codec comparison, lets wait how he judges ND

[Atamido]

Originally posted by bond
doom9 is atm preparing a new version of his codec comparison, lets wait how he judges ND I really do wish that he would consider offering a version of the screenshots in PNG format available via BitTorrent.

[Doom9]

there will be PNG shots. But you really have to blame yourself for the lack of uncompressed images. I offered to send the zipped bitmap archive to someone willing to distribute those files and nobody seems to be interested. Everybody is really quick to condemn jpg shots but when it comes to taking some of the loads on your own shoulder, people conspicuously loose interest. The bmp offer will stand for the upcoming comparison but I won't go looking for volunteers, they have to come to me because I'm not the one who wants something.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Doom9

Roughly how many images are you talking about. And with what kind of file size?

Cheers

[Doom9]

all the images you can see in a comparison ;) The last one had 139 images, size as bitmap and zipped roughly 60 MB.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Doom9
there will be PNG shots. But you really have to blame yourself for the lack of uncompressed images. I offered to send the zipped bitmap archive to someone willing to distribute those files and nobody seems to be interested. Everybody is really quick to condemn jpg shots but when it comes to taking some of the loads on your own shoulder, people conspicuously loose interest. I would have done it but at the time I was feeling to lazy to set it up on a tracker. If you let me know where to get the BMPs from, I would gladly set up a BT download for them.

Also, would it be okay to include an HTML file with the pictures that loads them for viewing just like in the comparison?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
there will be PNG shots. But you really have to blame yourself for the lack of uncompressed images. I offered to send the zipped bitmap archive to someone willing to distribute those files and nobody seems to be interested. Everybody is really quick to condemn jpg shots but when it comes to taking some of the loads on your own shoulder, people conspicuously loose interest. The bmp offer will stand for the upcoming comparison but I won't go looking for volunteers, they have to come to me because I'm not the one who wants something.

I have a tracker up and running on my windows box. But I am not gonna use it much till I get one running on my linux box. I can however put them on my web server for all who want them. 30Gb of space at aproximatly 500Kbps.

[Doom9]

My size estimation was wrong.. actually we're only talking about somewhat above 20 MB.. perhaps 25MB in total for the next comparison.

[ookzDVD]

@valnar,

Take a look at this : NeroDigital Vs DivX Vs XviD !
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/131/5

Still use DivX ? I don't think so! :)

:)

[DevilsChild]

Originally posted by ookzDVD
Take a look at this : NeroDigital Vs DivX Vs XviD !
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/131/5


From that article:

Nero Digital is by far the easiest codec to use. An example we can give here is that Nero Digital automatically crops the movie, for DivX and XViD the user needs to do this himself via VirtualDub.

Apparently the reviewer never heard of Gordian Knot or AutoGK. Recode 2 seems to be more difficult (and expensive) to configure/use than AutoGK.

He also conveniently omits the fact that a "novice" would have a hard time splitting his 1400 MB NeroDigital movie into 2 CD's. Not to mention that you can't use popular DirectShow software players (MPC, PowerDVD) to watch video encoded in NeroDigital...

[bobololo]

Originally posted by DevilsChild
Apparently the reviewer never heard of Gordian Knot or AutoGK. Recode 2 seems to be more difficult (and expensive) to configure/use than AutoGK.

I was just wondering if you have ever tried Recode ? I tried both and IMHO AutoGK is very nice but still not as polished and functional as Recode.


He also conveniently omits the fact that a "novice" would have a hard time splitting his 1400 MB NeroDigital movie into 2 CD's. Not to mention that you can't use popular DirectShow software players (MPC, PowerDVD) to watch video encoded in NeroDigital...

Yeah, the 2 CDs encode it's not very straight forward for now, but this will be improved in future release. And BTW, you *can* play ND with any DS player (you just don't have access to chapters / subtitles).

[len0x]

Originally posted by ookzDVD
Take a look at this : NeroDigital Vs DivX Vs XviD !
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/131/5


This review made me laugh really hard. :)
I mean an average reader of this forum is able to smell something fishy with no probs. If reviewer is competent enough in video encoding then the only explanation I have for such disaster would be: he was paid by Ahead :) Sad thing though - that kind of reviews is often considered very good by newbie internet society...

P.S. someone mentioned that Recode 2 is more polished product that AutoGK. I do agree with that (without even trying Recode). But doesn't this strike you: AutoGK which is made in some spare time with almost like a hobby approach is successfully competing against large commercial products? Sometimes I wonder what would be the outcome of me putting full time effort into such product...

[Doom9]

actually.. AutoGK looks pretty darned great to me. It's even simpler than Recode and I sort of trust it more because I know what is going on behind the scenes and which programs are used.

And don't worry, my codec comparison will be done before New Year unless something really bad happens. I have written 3 out of 5 pages and we're setting up the entire image changer / zoomer thing right now.

[Koepi]

LOL - if you look at the images in that "comparison" you'll easily spot in the first 3 images that he compares _different_ frames. That's really an amateur at work.
Fine with me, use ND, but don't complain if you don't get that "great quality" which has been promised :)

Regards
Koepi

[ookzDVD]

@forum,

Honestly I didn't look the picture of the codec comparison,
just read the article. I just want to pass it to forum to
judge it since Doom9 doesn't release the new codec comparison yet :)

--Back to topic,
For me AutoGK just a little bit better, Necode 2 will be better
if they will allow to encode the ripped DVD which saved on HD,
rather than direct encoding from the DVD-ROM.

From the visual result point of view, I think NeroDigital is just
a new baby compared with DivX and XviD which already grow up :)
But I believe Ahead will not sit back and relax, they will improve
the next release. :)

Thank you.

[Doom9]

But I believe Ahead will not sit back and relax, they will improve the next release.I think bobololo already mentioned it in another thread.. since ND is supposed to work on CE devices (recording, not only playback) there are limits to improvement.. it can never become as complex as XviD for instance (and try the new XviD beta in turbo mode.. it's pretty fast).

@Koepi: I know why I'm the only poor schmuck to actually do so many screenshots.. it's a major pain in the ass to get them all right because you can never get the framenumbers to match.. I spent my time switching between screenshots to determine if two shots are really from the same frame. This is especially hard if there are no distinctive features on screen.. then switching is your only option and obviously this takes quite a bit of time. But then again I believe that if you want to do something, you gotta do it right.

[Isibaar]

Originally posted by ookzDVD
@valnar,

Take a look at this : NeroDigital Vs DivX Vs XviD !
http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/131/5

Still use DivX ? I don't think so! :)

:)

Sorry for not replying straight on topic but this 'review' reads just too odd to not comment on it. There are several things that seem very strange to me (but please note that my opinion is of course also not objective and also that I've never used NeroDigital myself so far):

Well, it already has been observed that the screenshots shown haven't even been taken at the same time positions which renders most screenshots rather useless.

Also, as the author of this review stated, default settings were used for the codecs. In case of XviD Beta2 this means just basic settings only, especially: _no_ b-frames, no vhq, no chroma motion etc. While there is essentially nothing wrong in testing with default settings, it can result in an unfair competition (comparing a codec with b-frames enabled vs. one with b-frames disabled). BTW: In XviD Beta3, the defaults have changed and b-frames as well as vhq and chroma motion are now switched on by default.

Very strange is also the information about the encoding speeds: Well, my first thought was: 'give me numbers!'. But instead we only have strange and very broad statements: 'needed about the same time', 'took around' etc. Also afaik NeroDigital achieves different encoding speeds in first- and second-pass, so the 2x 1.5h calculation might be wrong. But note: I don't know this for sure. What I do know however is that XviD with Beta2 default settings (remember: all advanced options switched off) is _never_ 5 times slower than NeroDigital (or as slow as DivX to put it that way). Never ever! So what's written about encoding speeds in this review is obviously just utterly wrong, it's even that far off any realistic values that I begin to wonder if the reviewer actually encoded anything with XviD at all.

And last but not least all videos were decoded with Nero ShowTime which makes me assume that the NeroDigital decoder was used to play back all the videos. However as we all know, you then can't guarantee to achieve the same quality as if the videos had been played back using their own decoders (also nothing is said about postprocessing settings used in the review).

Don't get me wrong: This does not mean that Nero Digital couldn't be a really great codec - it only means that I think that this review is just too flawed to draw any conclusions from it at all. So now I'm just eagerly waiting for doom9's new codec comparison ;-)

[bond]

hm i dont really care if people use gknot or recode2, if they use xvid, divx5 or ND as long as they use mpeg-4 and not this crappy m$ wm9 stuff, which billy boy wants to tell us is so superior...

btw i use gknot and xvid. why? because it meets my needs best, gknot for the basic avs script and as bitrate calculator, xvid cause in my tests it preserved more details than ND

[len0x]

Originally posted by bond
hm i dont really care if people use gknot or recode2, if they use xvid, divx5 or ND as long as they use mpeg-4 and not this crappy m$ wm9 stuff, which billy boy wants to tell us is so superior...


Well, one has to careful. M$ probably never wanted to make direct money on the codec itself, whereas it's almost primary goal for ND looks like (not from the end user probably, but via them for sure). So not all mpeg4 solutions are equal :)

[len0x]

Originally posted by Doom9
actually.. AutoGK looks pretty darned great to me. It's even simpler than Recode and I sort of trust it more because I know what is going on behind the scenes and which programs are used.


Correct, no doubt about functionality and simplicity. By "polished" personally I meant general impression which commercial software should always have (plus less number of bugs ideally :) )

[bond]

Originally posted by len0x
Well, one has to careful. M$ probably never wanted to make direct money on the codec itselfhm i wouldnt say that, their priliminary goal is to get people use their codecs (audio and video)
cause only than they can think about earning money with other things...

whereas it's almost primary goal for ND looks like (not from the end user probably, but via them for sure). So not all mpeg4 solutions are equalwell, for me the problem is not that someone wants to sell his stuff, the problem is that a non-standard codec, if widely used, will give m$ a quasi monopoly situation (well thats their business policy, they always try to achieve that, thats also the reason, i guess, why they stopped the development on their mpeg-4 codec too...)
wheares ahead cant achieve such a position with a mpeg-4 codec, as its an standard open for everyone to develop competitor products. because of that ahead can not directly earn money because of other mpeg-4 implementations (like hardware players, etc...) in contrary to m$, which can control as good as everything that is done with their codecs

as i already wrote in another thread:
"as long as m$ doesnt clearly provide better quality than exisiting mpeg-4 implementations, i wouldnt even consider thinking about supporting m$ codecs just a little bit (not to speak about their business policies, we all know and love)..."

but thats a little bit off topic (tough i hope you will never support m$'s codecs in gknot) :D

[len0x]

Originally posted by bond

well, for me the problem is not that someone wants to sell his stuff, the problem is that a non-standard codec, if widely used, will give m$ a quasi monopoly situation (well thats their business policy, they always try to achieve that, thats also the reason, i guess, why they stopped the development on their mpeg-4 codec too...)
wheares ahead cant achieve such a position with a mpeg-4 codec, as its an standard open for everyone to develop competitor products. because of that ahead can not directly earn money because of other mpeg-4 implementations (like hardware players, etc...) in contrary to m$, which can control as good as everything that is done with their codecs


On the contrary I don't care about non-standard parts as long they can be used in a generic way (i.e. VFW support for me). So for me M$ codec is 100 times better than ND simply because of that. You know why ND is not VFW codec ? They just don't want others to build solutions based on their technology (it's understandable though). So all this MPEG4 stuff is just a shield to promote very closed standard imho...

Originally posted by bond

but thats a little bit off topic (tough i hope you will never support m$'s codecs in gknot) :D

they would have to pay me for that :)

[bond]

Originally posted by len0x
On the contrary I don't care about non-standard parts as long they can be used in a generic way (i.e. VFW support for me). So for me M$ codec is 100 times better than ND simply because of that. You know why ND is not VFW codec ? They just don't want others to build solutions based on their technology (it's understandable though). So all this MPEG4 stuff is just a shield to promote very closed standard imho...than i have to tell you that you get a dshow encoder filter when installing recode2, which you can use however you want

the main reason why they dont release a vfw codec is imho more that this interface is too old to support the mp4 container (without running into troubles with dummy or delay frames caused by b-frames)
dshow is better in that matter (tough i am not sure that if they really want people to use the dshow encoder without recode :D )

simply ask the matroska guys what they think about vfw, its not really suitable to handle things newer codecs or containers can do (the most popular example are the troubles with b-frames)...

but of course every company will try to seperate itself from the competitiors (ie look at aheads dshow decoders) but they have less possibilities than if mpeg-4 were a closed standard, cause if they exaggerate people will simply use 3ivx' dshow filters or xvid or whatever...

but all-in-all if their codecs are really that good (like aheads aac codec) people will try to find a way to wrap the functions up somehow, like it is already possible to use aheads aac codec in besweet...

they would have to pay me for that :) :D

[len0x]

Originally posted by bond
than i have to tell you that you get a dshow encoder filter when installing recode2, which you can use however you want


I know that, but tell me how this is gonna help me make my videos in VDub(Mod) which is by far the most used video tool on earth now :)
Looks like very smart move from them: "we're totally open and it's not our fault some tools doesn't support DS" :D

[bond]

Originally posted by len0x
I know that, but tell me how this is gonna help me make my videos in VDub(Mod) which is by far the most used video tool on earth now :)yeah exactly imo there is no way around vdm, dshow is also not suitable for things like splitting etc afaik

but as doom9s comparison, like my tests, showed that xvid preserves more details than ND i will use xvid anyways :D