about xvid and hardware player

[civitos]

hi everybody

first, apologize for poor english.

I think that the Open Source software is a beautiful thing, but I must say my opinion About Xvid and a strategic mistake that it could take to a marginalization of this software open source.

The introduction on market of hardware player able to reproduce both Dvd and Mpeg4 is a reality and of such fact the Xvid developers must consider.

If using the Encoder to reproduce film about personal computer was normal up to now, many people wanted now to use the Encoder to see the film so as several comfort on the television set or their home theater set.

It is natural in this background, imo, that the Xvid developers' choices are oriented not only by the search of the quality as abstract (as in an aboratory) but also oriented by hardware technology, user desiderata and their evolution.

if the answer to the requests of who asks an (optoinal) greater simplicity and safe to Encode by Xvid For hardware Player ditches "uses Divx! you are too stupid for Xvid" I think that Xvid will be used within few time only by a very narrow number of super Fans".

this would be a big failure for Xvid and his developers. Doing Open Source software is a technological operation of freedom, progress and democracy which must not remain for fews, it must be opened to the greater possible number of beneficiaries and pick up their demands also to satisfy them when they seem stupid.

so I ask Xvid developers that, thinking to everybody, consider chances and limits about the hardware Player, accepting needs of who wants to use Xvid to create his own Mpeg4 quality film to be looked with satisfaction in his lounge.

Thanks in advance

[gircobain]

Ever heard of AutoGK? :rolleyes:

[civitos]

Originally posted by gircobain
Ever heard of AutoGK? :rolleyes:

I don't want to light a flame (but it's not kind reply a question with another question): i know autogk and anyway I don't want talk about it now).

My post it's strategic and resume: it's a goal for xvid's team become and mantain de facto standard/leadership in encoding mpeg4 software?

If the answer at this question is "yes" (i think so) they have to think about growing diffusion of hardware player and their capabilities.

bye

[gircobain]

Originally posted by civitos
My post it's strategic and resume: it's a goal for xvid's team become and mantain de facto standard/leadership in encoding mpeg4 software?

If the answer at this question is "yes" (i think so) they have to think about growing diffusion of hardware player and their capabilities.

I would have to disagree on that
XviD began as a project with educational purposes mostly
The fact that it has become the most prominent mpeg4 asp codec is due to its standout quality
Your point may be legitimate, but for those who want best standalone compatibility, there is AutoGK already, which main goal is standalone compatibility

[pelle412]

It isn't the XviD developer's fault that some standalone players only function within the DivX home theatre profile. This profile is tied to the inferior DivX codec. If you read the available information it is quite easy to use XviD and be able to create standalone compatible movies.

The manufacturers of standalone players / chipsets would be better off focusing on creating MPEG-4 ASP (Advanced Simple Profile) compliant chipsets. This way it will work with any codec that also adheres to the MPEG-4 standard.

[celtic_druid]

I don't see the problem anyway. Start XviD, select the DivX Home Theatre Profile (DXN HT PAL/NTSC) and encode. How is that any different to DivX? Without profiles DivX can also create stuff that some standalones won't touch.

[civitos]

To Celtic Druid: right, but my xvid 1.0.3 doesnt support dxn profile, but i think this is minor problem, i've to look for any beta version.

to pelle412:
xvid developer's mistake could be don't understand that people that buy standalone player dvd-mpeg4 (with their computational capabilities less than pc) is growing up day by day and their issue is not encode to obtain "absolute better quality" but encode to obtain "the better quality my player+my tv can give me".

i disagree that i'ts quite easy use xvid+virtualdub, or autogk, to obtain a file .avi manipulating bitrate and other parameters safe to be read in a standalone machine. My experience say it's difficult.
I complain that Xvid does not offer any clear information as obtain films equivalent to the Divx 5.0.

I agree that chipset industry have to reach mpeg4 asp full support, but today this is far from reality and the market is full of machine which does'nt support qpel or support global motion compensation 1 warp only, and this is a "de facto" standard, and more, like or unlike, this machine offer full compatibility to a "divx certification" that i agree divx invents itself (xxx bitrate and xxx peak)but joined with diffusion of these machine that certification it's starting to become the real de facto standard for mpeg4 video.

So in the interest of xvid project xvid himself had to evaluate this reality and not to ignore.


to gircobain:
autogk does'nt talk about standalone compatibility and does'nt offer any useful parameters (imo).


A little question to xvid guru:
you dictate that GMC 1 warp it's useless, so your algoritm simple discard it (i've read). So i think: but divx + industry engineers are completely fools to implement GMC 1 warp (as first step i think)in their algoritm (if GMC is really useless they are) or probably GMC 3 warp is better than GMC 1 warp but GMC 1 warp is better than no GMC?

Separating coding diffucult from logical what's your opinion about above and about implements 1 warp GMC in xvid as option?

[celtic_druid]

Your argument was that XviD dev's weren't doing anything about standalones. So ok, 1.0.3 isn't so good, but cvs head has had VBV, DXN HT, etc. support for some time and it will be in official 1.1 releases.

If that isn't doing something then I don't know what is.

Also due to the open source nature of XviD I was able to do a VFW front in with a profile designed for MTK based players. If people are willing to do some tests then it would be possible to add profiles to suit all current players rather than sticking to a limited DXN profile.

Guess the problem is though that alot of people don't know what chipset their player uses. Hell check out the car classifieds... a lot of people don't even know what car they drive.

[civitos]

celtic druid, i like very much your word.

I am not expert in video/audio compression, but in my experience success is not for the *better* solution but for *most popular* (and free) solution.

I can say many item

Vhs vs other standards: Vhs is poor than other but his diffusion in american people, thanks to sex video :-), make his worldwide victory against others

Windows platform vs Ibm os/2 platform:
Earlier Windows versions were poor than other platform (Ibm Os/2, Apple, and so on). Probably Windows is now not better than Linux and others, but Windows family wins, in the past, in the present, probably in the future also, thanks to his strong diffusion and tools availability.

windows explorer vs netscape
same arguments

and so on

So i think that Xvid can join quality,specialistic experimental and educational parameters, with many a sample for configuration for growing people who buy an hardware player to consolidate his leadership in mpeg4 encoders.

i agree that many people don't know what kind of engine there in his own machine..., but i know (and don't exitate to strong correct me if i am not rigth) that worldwide market harwdare player are based onto two-three chipset model.
If you evaluate market distribution you will notice that three Chipset cover the almost totality of the market.

I think that define and install into xvid three set of configuration each for one chipset, as sample modifiable by user at his choice and risk it's better choice.

i will start another post about gmc 1 warp to obtain by xvid guru their opinion explained about.

I will be available to test configuration for kiss-based player and 1 warp gmc, if you ask me.

[Koepi]

use the search before complaining or creating a thread about 1 point gmc. We discussed it to death already.

[civitos]

yes, i will do. but what about insert it into faq? it's a good candidate.

[Sharktooth]

Even if you follow the divx HT profile you get GMC disabled and since 1 WP is useless and offers no benefits at all (in other words, it's better using standard frame type instead) i can't see the reason to include that question in the FAQ.
GMC is a no-no for standalones (even if some of them can decode 1WP, it gives no benefits) and xvid/nerodigital 3WP-GMC is far better than divx implementation (at least it does something!).

[civitos]

Even if you follow the divx HT profile you get GMC disabled

Right, but i think it's to assure safe encode to divx certification for very very dummies people, since GMC it's not a must to gain divx certification, only recommended.

According to moderator I will read search result before reply about 1 warp point GMC.

I take your opinion about 1 Warp gmc is useless (and my player i'm not sure that support 1 warp gmc and i'm sure that not support 3warp gmc), but in my mind i take my opinion (3 warp gmc better than 1 warp gmc but 1 warp gmc better than nothing, give user the choice everytime it's possible make user satisfied)


i can't see the reason to include that question in the FAQ.

I'newbie for this forum and I respect you, but generally FAQ i'ts standard place to post every common topic to reduce traffic and waste time.
If i find a clear and exhaustive topic in Faq i don't start topic about.

Hi everybody.

[Koepi]

1 wp gmc is useless. It can't catch motion where b-frames save already more bits on.

There is no hardware player supporting 3 wp gmc currently to my knowledge. So don't use GMC for standalone compatibility.

[civitos]

thanks, now i've consciousness to make rigth choice and don't have any loss not using GMC for my hardware since i will buy a 3warp point capable, when will be.

A question: when stable version 1.3 ?
or
may i install on the same computer 1.0.3 and 1.3 beta using virtualdubmod to encode by 1.0.3 and 1.3?

[BigDid]

Originally posted by celtic_druid
...Also due to the open source nature of XviD I was able to do a VFW front in with a profile designed for MTK based players. If people are willing to do some tests then it would be possible to add profiles to suit all current players rather than sticking to a limited DXN profile...
@Celtic_Druid
I have 1 positive feed-back about the MTK profile (dunno if it's the standard one -MTK PAL- or the special one -MTK SECAM-) the tester just manage to tell me his tests were positive before the forum went down (unite-video) that was 2 days ago... For myself I don't have stuttering material atm to test, maybe if you start a thread there will be more volunteers and/or more infos to share :)

@Civitos
Some infos about the Xvid1.1 profiles compatible with standalones here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87550


@All
Happy new year :cool:

Did

[Sharktooth]

Dont confuse Xvid versions with the Extra Detail Profile public test thing (that's a sort of "customized version" of xvid).
Latest versions are Xvid 1.0.3 (released around the 20th of december - stable version) and Xvid 1.1 (still not released and under development, but there are several "pre-release" binaries around).
The Extra detail profile "custom" version 1.3 is based on xvid 1.1.