More DivX 5.2 vs. XviD 1.0.1

[Jeff Mott]

This was originally posted at forums.divx.com

http://24.92.252.163/DivX52_XviD101_Compare.zip

"Aside from the usual comparison, one observation I found particularly interesting is that DivX's MPEG quantization retains less detail than DivX's H.263."

[len0x]

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
"Aside from the usual comparison, one observation I found particularly interesting is that DivX's MPEG quantization retains less detail than DivX's H.263."

I'd say MPEG quant mode is broken in 5.2... be warned :)

[digitalman]

In the DivX guide, they state that you should not use the MPEG quantization, unless your bitrate is extremely high. They state that the DivX H.263 quantization is fine tuned for both low and high bitrates, and will give you the best results.

[len0x]

Originally posted by digitalman
In the DivX guide, they state that you should not use the MPEG quantization, unless your bitrate is extremely high.

i.e. publicly admit they couldn't get it to work properly as in XviD (its all written in MPEG4 standard, how hard can it be? :) )

[Jeff Mott]

its all written in MPEG4 standard, how hard can it be?The DivX codec continues to become more proprietary. Perhaps some of these MPEG-4 tools are not even fully compatable with the DivX codec anymore.

[stephanV]

@Jeff Mott:
on what findings do you base those statements?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Jeff Mott
The DivX codec continues to become more proprietary. Perhaps some of these MPEG-4 tools are not even fully compatable with the DivX codec anymore. Agreed

In my opinion 3ivX's codec does a better job with MPEG quantization than DivX's :)

I'm finding it harder and harder to fathom what DXN's goals are :confused:. One thing's for sure, it does not appear to be providing a codec that can generate the best looking Mpeg4 encodes - With or without B-VOP and all the other ASP tools...

...maybe it's time for DXN to go back to basics ;)


Just my 2 cents

[Jeff Mott]

@Jeff Mott:
on what findings do you base those statements?None whatsoever. Pure speculation.

[stephanV]

ah nice... perhaps Real isnt MPEG4 compliant too... oh wait!

[Jeff Mott]

I didn't just pull the idea out of my butt. We already know that Quarter Pixel is not compatable with DivX's slow mode. If we assume they they did indeed implement the MPEG matrix correctly then it seems plausable that this is another MPEG-4 tool that is not quite compatable with the DivX codec. At least that's how I rationalized it for myself at the time. ;)

[stephanV]

but that doesnt mean its proprietary... that would be the case if e.g. XviD wouldnt be able to decode a DivX video anymore, because the bitstream has changed so much. MPEG4 doesnt really give any guarantees about quality, only just what the bitstream should look like. :)