confused with quality differences

[Subwars]

now first of all i'm in no way putting down dvdrb or cce or anything i'm just wondering what people think cause i don't get it

first off i have only done a couple of rips with dvdrb i am very new to this program i'm an old divx ripper only recently gotten a dvdburner, but anyway i have been comparing some rips done with dvdrb 3 pass's, against dvd2one or other quick rip programs

now i havn't been doing little movies i've done lord of the rings and the new starwars trillogy box set all big movies starwars being around 7.5-8 gb for just the movie alone, as to make sure i can really see a difference in quality hopefully

now i've done rips with both dvd2one and with dvdrb and compared both against themselves and the original and i really cannot tell the difference between any, dvd2one rips looks just as good as the dvdrb rip which personal doesn't make sence how can a 15min quick rip compare anywhere near a 3 pass cce sp rip that suspose to be the king of converting programs :confused:

[jptheripper]

I have done the same movies with the same tools

rebuilder, in my mind, blows d2one away

Look at the results, after burnign to rw, on a television, not on a computer monitor.

I personally use a 46" toshiba tv, and can definately see the results.

On a 27 inch tv or smaller you might never see a difference

[Subwars]

ok then fair enough the quality is definatly there but just doesn't really show as greatly on smaller sized screens as it will on a tele the side of a building wall :P just kidding but man thats a nice sized tele :eek:

well if you can say you've done and can see better quality on your et setup i'll use dvdrb may not be able to see the results as much now but maydo in the future:D

[Sayitpunk]

I don't see how anybody can FAIL to see the difference even on a 16" screen.:eek:

On really large (three hour plus) movies dvd2one and the rest slaughter the video quality, absolutely:rolleyes:

CCE/DVD-RB will (if done correctly) make a really good job of these movies with three passes. I have done Apocalypse Now Redux and to my eyes the video quality is fantastic, bearing close comparison with the original.

The same movie done with DVD2ONE is ruined and unwatchable.

I am wondering if your background is DivX, then maybe you are now immune to artifacts and blocks and no longer see them:D as to me the differences are like night and day.

[Subwars]

ummm only 150+ movies in divx :(

[DK]

I am wondering if your background is DivX, then maybe you are now immune to artifacts and blocks and no longer see them

and i am wondering if you ever spent time properly using divx

because if you did, you should have noticed it is very well possible

[Subwars]

whats very well possible exactly

[VamPYR]

I use RB+CCE (2pass or 4pass if low bitrate) for most of my project, sometimes, if im short of time, i'll use
nero recode2, the different for me is RB+CCE more detail, and recode2 (advance analysing+high quality mode) less detail and the image look more soften, flatten & blocky during high action scenes. Most of my encoding was base on Fullscreen source and ac3-2.0 only, some over 2hrs.

i had a question: did widescreen movie will give better encoding result than Fullscreen movie? did fullscreen source, after encoding, the quality drop are much visible than widescreen source? since widescreen movie are much narrow (when view in normal tv or pc monitor) (i dont have a widescreen TV to compare it). i've saw some 2hrs dvd (4.7G/NTSC/Telecine/Progressive/16:9 WS) included dts(768kbps/607MB)& ac3-5.1(384kbps/360MB)and the main movie size was 3,902MB, result in a very good quality (picture look sharp and detail, no blocky during high action scenes).
thanks.

[jorel]

Originally posted by Sayitpunk
I am wondering if your background is DivX, then maybe you are now immune to artifacts and blocks and no longer see them:D as to me the differences are like night and day. great phrase or better...more than a phrase...it's true. :D

Originally posted by DK
and i am wondering if you ever spent time properly using divx

because if you did, you should have noticed it is very well possible hum....i agree because you have one computer, lots of dlls, plugins, players to adjust aspect radio and thousands artefacts, the whole team around the world to help...and more.
seems one big mechanism to see beautiful blocks in pcs.
but to watch that divx in tvs is another history! :rolleyes: ;)

[Sayitpunk]

@DK

and i am wondering if you ever spent time properly using divx, because if you did, you should have noticed it is very well possible

Yes, I have used DivX/Mpeg4 BUT I usually find when people turn to this format, It's with file size as the top priority and video quality often comes in second (sometimes third).

At the same time, I observe that for users on DVD forums (this one in particular) final video quality is paramount.

We can argue the merits of MPEG2 Vs MPEG4 all night, BUT when somebody claims the output of DVD2ONE is no/little different from that of DVD-RB/CCE, questions have to be asked (like are you serious?)

[DK]

so now you're trying to argue that divx must be bad because everyone (?) goes for too little final filesize/bitrate?

this has as little to do with the initial problem as dvd2one's quality will be able to equal that of a decent encoder (ala cce, quenc etc)

[jptheripper]

dvd2one, dvdshrink, dvd95copy, are all transcoders. In general, they can be decent to very good, but have the potential to be very bad

Cce is an encoder. It is good to excellent nearly always
There are times you will see minimal difference, there are times you will see a huge difference.

It is my opinion that cce will always beat d2one

If the quality, in your opinion, is not better or is not worth the effort, feel free not to use rebuilder.

Most if not all on this board will disagree with you based on experience, however

[dragongodz]

great phrase or better...more than a phrase...it's true.
jorel - no it is not true. i can show you old encodes i have done that look just as good as dvd. it all depends on what bitrate etc you use. besides the fact it was just plain ignorant and insulting.

Sayitpunk - you have no idea what anyone elses encodes look like so please think about that before saying they are immune to artifacts and blocks.

It is my opinion that cce will always beat d2one
sorry but that is not true, or at least an incomplete statement. transcoders can actually look better when only a small amount of reduction is required. so if your target is say 95%(just for example) of the original size then a transcoder can look better because it will actually stay closer to the original stream(modifying only small amounts) and a fair amount may indeed be the original stream. for heavy reduction then encoding will 99.99%(there is always the exception to the rule) of the time look much much better.

i must also add that dvd2one is considered by many to be one of the weakest transcoders. go find the tests at the official dvdshrink forum where a blind test was done with dvd2one, dvdshrink and instantcopy with Lord Of The Rings. :)

[jptheripper]

quote:
-----------------------------------------

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
It is my opinion that cce will always beat d2one
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------


sorry but that is not true, or at least an incomplete statement.

------------------------------


you didnt just tell my my opinion (my personal thought) is wrong b/c it differs with yours, did you?

i said it was my OPINION b/c it is just that. If i had stated it as fact, that would be different


in the future, please read, comprehend, then comment

[dragongodz]

you didnt just tell my my opinion (my personal thought) is wrong b/c it differs with yours, did you?
well excuse me for not putting IMHO before it. i did not just say you are wrong. i gave detailed reasons why that may not be the case all the time.

in the future, please read, comprehend, then comment
in the present, get off your high horse and follow your own advice. :D

[Trahald]

This thread has gotten a bit off-topic (as 'whats the best..' and their derivatives do) please keep the discussion civil.

[jptheripper]

yeah sorry about that, i tend to get defensive when told my opinion on a subjkective matter is not true.

Personally, i have yet to find an instance, ever, where a transcoder provided a better quality product than an encoder.

At minimal levels (i.e. 1-2%) reduction this difference is so little that i do use transcoders, however, as a cost(time)-benefit decision

Additionally, ,if you are cutting that little, i find it easier to simply cut something with dvdremake to make room.

[jorel]

Originally posted by dragongodz
jorel - no it is not true. i can show you old encodes i have done that look just as good as dvd. it all depends on what bitrate etc you use. besides the fact it was just plain ignorant and insulting.


don't use words against me cos i show the TRUE.to got good result to watch divx you need a COMPUTER!!!you need the whole team(members around the world doing craps encodes to try to correct things all the time), lots of dlls, good players and a FAST --> COMPUTER, with great memory, good grafic card,etc,etc... to watch good (well, more or less, not so good) divx, WHEN you don't have blocks or audio issues as sincro for example and if you know what you're doing.
--->what is insult or ignorance? my 32 years work with images and audio? i know what i encode and WHY i encode.i never like divx and if you want i can post LOTS of prooves,not only opinions.
divx is one simple "fever" that will dissapear faster, nothing more...is like mp3: more or less quality in short space, nothing more!
..now please, don't start to blame me if my opinoion is different of your opinion.if i post something wrong--> please, correct me!
differents opinions not means ignorance but don't accept the others reasons and arguments(that show the true)IS ignorance!
sorry but ....this is true!
no rash my friend,don't blame me,right?
post your opinion about trancodes or encodes, not against people, they can have his opinions and you as wise guy show your arguments and change his mind posting prooves!
best regards!

[dragongodz]

to got good result to watch divx you need a COMPUTER!!
huh ? who said you didnt ? of course you do but that is irrelevant to the point.

what is insult or ignorance? my 32 years work with images and audio?
try rereading what i typed. i was commenting on this statement
I am wondering if your background is DivX, then maybe you are now immune to artifacts and blocks and no longer see them
which is ignorant, rude, insulting and not true. which is what i was saying to you about the statement.

differents opinions not means ignorance but don't accept the others reasons and arguments(that show the true)IS ignorance!
of course which is why DK and i both said that if you encode with a sutably high bitrate you do NOT get blocks etc with divx. try encoding at constant quant 1 sometime and see how blocky that looks. so saying if someone encodes with divx they must be immune to blocks and artifacts is not correct.

post your opinion about trancodes or encodes, not against people, they can have his opinions and you as wise guy show your arguments and change his mind posting prooves!
i wasnt the one who made anything personal. i infact gave detail to my points. if someone doesnt want to believe that or test it for themselves thats up to them.

there is no point for me posting here again. people will believe what they want and prefer what they see as better. so lets leave it at that.

[jorel]

humm. i saw what you mean.(excuse what i misunderstood my friend)
:)
come on ,you're a Quenc developer, know more details about divx comparing with mpeg2 better than me and choose divx? i can't trust!why?
everybody understood and know that to watch divx we need a computer with lots of details but seems that all forget that to watch xvcds or better, Kvcds like i do you can play in standalones ....for me seems in the minimal "smart", this is the point.new standalones can now play some divx but we will need new firmwares from time to time, for vcds,svcds and kvcds(720x480 like i do)you don't need a computer and new firmwares.what you get in 2 medias i got better in 2 kvcds 720x480...think about it...it's logical and don't need tests...i can play in all computers that run soft(run in one old pentium 200mmx, 16mbram but any divx can't do that) and in standalones.......don't seems better? try to do one using dvd2svcd and tell us using 720x576(pal land?..or better, G standard land?).you can use high bitrates in mp2 like 192 and including that sound will be better than the "normal" 128 or less that everybody choose for divx cdrs!
i will that nobody came here talking that xvcds are out of standards cos all divx don't have any standard, they are made with resolutions and bitrates "as the taste of the client", or better,
do that all possible and impossible to get result...forget standards and get your divx.....seems a law for something without standards! and the result is the same: more or less to watch in a BIG computers with 15 or 17 monitor, poor sound, paying high $$$ to watch your movies in pc(how much you pay for your pc?),
-->not in an standalone plugged in big tv with amazing sound and more(lots)of details!


this is cool!?!? :rolleyes: :p

no, this is fact, not opinion!!! ;)

[DK]

everybody understood and know that to watch divx we need a computer with lots of details

hmm, that's no longer comnpletely true


standalone dvd player with mpeg-4 capability are becoming more and more popular

mine plays divx(3/4/5) + latest xvid just fine with one or two audio streams and with or w/out subs

this does not mean i still use mpeg-4 for my conversion, which i dont

i prefer a decent dvd backup but after all i want to play my old files without any hassle because well done mpeg-4 files still do look good

[jorel]

@ DK,
you have old divx encodes right? then i understand(well,i try to)why you got a standalone that can play divx, but i can't trust that you're still encoding divx if adjusting d2s,dvd-rb or any other mpeg2 prog/encoder to do your new encodes. seems that you don't saw that details:
Originally posted by jorel
new standalones can now play some divx but we will need new firmwares from time to time, for vcds,svcds and kvcds(720x480 like i do)you don't need a computer and new firmwares.what you get in 2 medias i got better in 2 kvcds 720x480...think about it...it's logical and don't need tests... ;)
old divx to play in your standalone with special features i can understand but why do new divx encodes if you can do xvcds(kvcds like i do)that can play in all new models without special features that will need upgrade the firmwares ?!?!
when new standalones will need firmware in the future to play mpeg2?
this is what i don't understand....i can accept cos you have old divx but for news i don't understand.....but i can agree with your taste(but still "sounds" strange).
don't need to ask about subs problems playing divx in your standalone, need?(if you use subs you know what i'm talking)
:)

@ all:
can we all show arguments without build problems...this is the way that i learn....changing informations, arguments and tests! can we?
;)

[TheSeeker]

Man why are u so passionately against divx? Yes your right it does require a little faster computer to use. But as for me, Im just amazed at the compression algorithms involved with divx. I mean think about the bitrates we usually see here with mpeg2 encoding. 3500 kbps is alright quality right? But not fantastic. With a divx encode if you were to use a bitrate of 3500 you would get fantastic quality absolutely near perfect. Thats not to say there arent SOME downfalls to divx but I personally am amazed by it. As for you saying there are no standards for divx. That is dead wrong. IF you have ever used divx 5.0 or later you would know that they include different sets of settings that you can use to make them compatible with mpeg4 devices (like set top players that can do mpeg4 decoding). And also your arguements about crappy sound are also invalid. YOu said that with kvcd you can get great video quality and audio quality on 2 cd's right? Well with divx I can do the same. I can get darn nice video quality with 5.1 ac3 dolby digital sound on two cd's. Really though. I think alot of people like divx because you can get darn good quality at minimal file size. But I usually watched almost all of my divx on my computer. Every now and again I would hook my computer up to my tv but mostly just watched on my computer. IF you want something to watch on your tv then encoding to dvd is really the smartest way to go. At least in my opinion.

[dragongodz]

a thread that just doesnt want to die ? :)

ok i see i have to clear up some misconceptions.

come on ,you're a Quenc developer, know more details about divx comparing with mpeg2 better than me and choose divx? i can't trust!why?
no i was not advocating divx or anything else just disagreeing with the blanket statement
I am wondering if your background is DivX, then maybe you are now immune to artifacts and blocks and no longer see them
that implies that all divx encodes no matter what or how done are blocky and have artifacts. that simply is not true which is easily proven by encoding at constant quant 1.

also yes i do occasionally do avi encodes(with xvid actually) but thats for things i only intend to watch on my pc and want very small. for playback on standalone i do dvd because i do not, and have no desire or need, to own a dvd player that plays divx aswell.

not in an standalone plugged in big tv
the statement above says nothing about playback on tv simply that all divx encodes are blocky etc etc etc.

[Rockas]

Am I missing something here?:confused:
I just don't get the point... this better than that... than better than this... you are discussing the sex of the angels, guys!?!?!?

well let me sey something to all of you

I got backups on divx (123 to be exactly) and I got backups made on DVD (231 to be exactly) do you want to know something?

I got divx that are )perfect (seen on TV with my standalone player - some of them with 2 audio tracks, all of them with .srt subtitles) and I got some (very few) that looks like crap (c'est la vie - maybe they look bad 'cause they were the first I've made :p )

The majority of my DVD backups are just great but I gop some crappy too (can't remember the method I used on all of them :()

I even got some DVD made from the perfect divx I own and they look just perfect too...

So what's to discuss?!!? Everybody knows that there are good things and bad things on all the methods, encoders, software, whatever :)

just keep it UP and please... everyone should respect everyone.

[jorel]

Originally posted by TheSeeker
Man why are u so passionately against divx? Yes your right it does require a little faster computer to use. But as for me, Im just amazed at the compression algorithms involved with divx. I mean think ..... At least in my opinion.

no no....you messed everything. someone(dragon?) wrote that with 2 cds have good quality and i that with 2 kvcds i get BETTER! don't mess what i wrote...read what is wroten, i can't answer your imagination!!!
i don't wrote that i do using max 3500!!!
i do using 720x480 with max 8000 burning my kvcds as xvcds.
you NEVEWR saw something like that!!!
the remainder that you wrote is ireelevant cos i'm answering your imagination.if you read what i wrote and why i wrote answering someone else you will understand. but don' t mess my words.
i don't wrote that divx is crap, i wrote that i can do better using same space without crazy resolutions and i don't need big computers to see my results, only a single standalone and one good tv...do you understood the difference now???????
re- read all again!
best regards but....read what is wroten and ask!!!
now post one sample of your "cool" divx and i will see what and how you did and in what resolution using what "miracle" way to watch blocks...
can you post a sample?...don't make me laugh!
:D

edited, removing big quote.
but i'm still waiting a sample!
:p

[dragongodz]

someone(dragon?) wrote that with 2 cds have good quality and i that with 2 kvcds i get BETTER!
no actually it was not me.

now post one sample of your "cool" divx and i will see what and how you did and in what resolution using what "miracle" way to watch blocks...
can you post a sample?...don't make me laugh!
jorel thats being rude and uncalled for. its one things to ask to see a sample its another to use comments like "don't make me laugh!" until you have seen a sample. even then just saying you still think your kvcd looks better would be preferable than that sort of comment.

[jorel]

oh sorry Dragon, was without bad intentions,was kidding ,i can swear.
excuse my poor words.sometimes i don't use the right words and post strange transmissions but i idea is really see and catch the best.
maybe(i will) that you remember me in the first releases of QuEnc where i posted my opinions and i'm still secure that encoding as xvcds is really better.i stay all day long testing everything that i can and i'm always asking here and in lots of forum to do the right thing.trust me, i don't like nothing with more or less quality, you know that only need to remember where we posted in the same thread together.

well, i can change to : "don't make me cry" (kidding again but seems more real) :p
and yes was not you that posted about 2 cds,was in another thread, another person and i was in doubt if was you!
;)

but serious, i really want to see good samples from who knows what to do it cos all divx that i saw was horrible and as i can understand your and the arguments from others here, it can be very cool.maybe and of course is really possible that all divx that i saw in the last ~3 years was did for who never knew what was doing.
i really want oto see one good sample with all details posted: bitrate used, resolution,etc,etc...details are in the "soul" of the job!
can anyone post a good sample please?

best regards Dragon!
:)

[jorel]

Originally posted by DK
hmm, that's no longer comnpletely true


standalone dvd player with mpeg-4 capability are becoming more and more popular

mine plays divx(3/4/5) + latest xvid just fine with one or two audio streams and with or w/out subs

this does not mean i still use mpeg-4 for my conversion, which i dont

i prefer a decent dvd backup but after all i want to play my old files without any hassle because well done mpeg-4 files still do look good this is what i was trying to show you DK:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85858
you will need fromtime to time upgrades for firmwares,but don't need to see something like this Sample (http://www.jltoca.uaivip.com.br/AVSEQ01.m1v.cut.2.mpg) that mpeg1 have 1 minute, 9,59Mb size and is easy to calculate how much time you can put in one single cdr with this resolution/quality and play in standalones without upgrade firmwares AND in single computers with short memory size and slow cpu speed. is perfect? of course not but can divx play in standalones using this resolution(that is standadrd)and get this quality? this is the point! and this is the worse that i got. ;)

if you want i can post samples with dvd resolutions too(720*480)and you will see how can be better the quality, but i know that you can feel only watching this sample.

now i need to ask one thing that -->i really don't know cos i never did:
can we get this quality from divx using this resolution and play in standalones ?
thanks in advance!
:)

[DK]

hmm, maybe i'm dumb, but i do not see what that single posting "shows"

1)
i do not need to flash my sap every now and then - it simply works and plays files with divx3,4 and 5, old and new xvid, mpg burned to cd/dvd and of course vcd/svcd/dvd

2)
your sample is ~1 min and ~10mb in size WITHOUT sound

creating an 1min xvid file with ~10mb in size leads to a better looking file than your sample
(i did run a testconversion with the very same tr1 sequence)

[jorel]

Originally posted by DK
hmm, maybe i'm dumb, but i do not see what that single posting "shows"

1)
i do not need to flash my sap every now and then - it simply works and plays files with divx3,4 and 5, old and new xvid, mpg burned to cd/dvd and of course vcd/svcd/dvd

2)
your sample is ~1 min and ~10mb in size WITHOUT sound

creating an 1min xvid file with ~10mb in size leads to a better looking file than your sample
(i did run a testconversion with the very same tr1 sequence)
you're not dumb,you only forgot to post that the sample is very cool!!!
:D you never saw something like that, right?
this "single" sample show that it can be played in standalones cos have standard resolution, great compression, very cool quality,--->no blocks and lots of things that divx don't give you. so one divx with that attributs and post. i will download and burn in cd-r to remove my doubts if it can be played in any standalone, including your "special" that will need future firmwares upgrades. ! but please, do with this quality, is the worse that i get in my encodes! :cool:

numerical answers:
1- ok do not need to flash your NOW but in next future with new divx versions....always! :D

2- do you want with sound? to listen the quality or to do calculations about the final size? to calculate using the sample posted you can find it easy ,right?
no problems, i post with sound later! ;)

3- (you forgot the numeric sequence) 1 minute with xvid with 10 mb size? yeah it's easy! but with better looking with that resolution? swear? :p (kidding)... and i can burn in cd-r and play in all standalones? :sly:
-->that is the hard part, or better, impossible part and the real problem, right? :p

in the end...where is your sample? mine i have a long time, and you? is doing now?....i can wait!
thanks!

;)

[DK]

my testsample had the same resolution as your sample - properly cropped of course (704 x 304) and it looked less noisy/grainy

[jorel]

Originally posted by DK
my testsample had the same resolution as your sample - properly cropped of course (704 x 304) and it looked less noisy/grainy

had?? why "had" ? don't have no more? ah 704*304 id one "strange" resolution for standards....if i do something like this "miraculous" resolution, i get better result but where i could play it? in a "special" standalone(don't forget about firmwares) or in powerfull computer?

resume:
you got less noise in 704*304 that have more resolution compare with my sample? ...what is that!?!? "seems" logical don't you think.:p more resolution, more quality :rolleyes: but -->need more size,you (again) "forgot" importants details
is out of standard, or better with divx we can "imaginate" the ar cos in the computer, the players adjust everything needed we can forget standards and say good bye to every standard parameter and logical, right?

sorry, don't seems "smart" for my taste....
i still don't saw any sample that can be compared in quality but with parameters too, that can be burned and played in "everywhere"....:rolleyes:

is sufficient don't you think? i'm not against the taste of who encode divx, i only don't understand one hard work did with strange parameters to play only in "special places" .

this is different! i can't talk more about that details and never will encode any divx....it's not my taste alone, is "some kind of ratiocination" that don't let me do things like that to "don't loose time" with ilogicals codifications that takes me to one prision with short resources, and not like the way i do that give me quality and freedom to watch in "everywhere" ..from simple computers to any standalone that every child can watch without need to learn how to use a big computer to watch a single movie...got the idea? is some king of logic and good taste that don't let me do things like that!

i will that someone could change my mind to encode xvid/divx but....seems impossible,... i can't see any advantage!

if you have good divx/xvid samples, post here.. i can download to watch(in pc only, of course..you know the reasons)!

best regards DK