DivX Pro Codec - Fusion Beta Release [Archive]

LordRPI

8th January 2005, 02:02

In the last month and a half since the last alpha release of the DivX Plasma codec, the DivX team has been working long hours in ironing out the alpha-ness and are pleased to officially announce that Fusion has begun. The DivX Pro Fusion (IntertialConfinement) codec marks the first beta release in the series and fixes many of the previous issues reported with Plasma.

Check out the full announcement at DivX Labs (http://labs.divx.com/archives/000045.html) for the beta download and be sure to leave your feedback in the newly-revamped Beta Release Forum (http://forums.divx.com/eve/ubb.x?a=frm&s=782106&f=911101651)

DigitAl56K

8th January 2005, 02:30

.. and this time it actually works! I encoded over four hours of content with this build last night ;)

I recommend you avoid the Psychovis right now, we're looking into a small problem there. Aside from that, jump right in and keep us posted of your results.

nicco

8th January 2005, 14:13

Problems with GMC:
http://img101.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img101&image=fusion7bt.jpg
My little test:

1)original
2)XVID_2pass@1750-1B-mot.search:6-VHQ:4-trellisON-GMC-MPEG
3)XVID_2pass@1750-1B-mot.search:6-VHQ:4-trellisON-GMC-h263
4)DivxFUSION_2pass(better-insane)@1750Kbps-1B-h263opt.-psvOFF
5)NeroAVC_2pass@1750kbps-1B-deblock:-2-psvOFF-other options ON

postprocessingON (auto)

SeeMoreDigital

8th January 2005, 21:40

I think the problem with GMC might be this: -

http://img45.exs.cx/img45/1507/divxfusion2wpgmc0hq.gif

What do some of you guys think?

Cheers

DigitAl56K

8th January 2005, 23:35

Thanks nicco, I'll log that one so someone can look at it.

Can you tell me a little more about the frequency? Do you see this immediately on turning on GMC, is it rare? Does it only happen on keyframes?

Also: Is this the DivX decoder or a third-party decoder? Does it happen with both?

SeeMoreDigital

8th January 2005, 23:50

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
Thanks nicco, I'll log that one so someone can look at it.

Can you tell me a little more about the frequency? Do you see this immediately on turning on GMC, is it rare? Does it only happen on keyframes?

Also: Is this the DivX decoder or a third-party decoder? Does it happen with both? I've tried your GMC encodes with DivX, NeroDigital, XviD, FFDshow filters and VLC player... And they are all b0rked I'm afraid :eek:

All players/filters tested after having generated encodes in 1pass and 2pass mode. With or without B-VOP and using all current speed modes!

Cheers

DigitAl56K

8th January 2005, 23:53

Thanks SeeMoreDigital, much appreciated! :)

kolak

9th January 2005, 00:13

I made some comparison to and AVC (in Nero Digital) encoder clearly won. There are a big differents espacialy in very motion scenes.I noticed that divx6 has better quality in static scene and keeps more detail than divx5. I didn't have any problems with stability.

nicco

9th January 2005, 00:33

SMD already answered for me :)
I have 2 new question:
1-In Vdub under codec list I have Divx Fusion (working) and Divx Fusion YV12 (not working), what is the lat one?
2-I can not access at decoder config. dialog

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 01:08

Originally posted by nicco
SMD already answered for me :)
I have 2 new question:
1-In Vdub under codec list I have Divx Fusion (working) and Divx Fusion YV12 (not working), what is the lat one?

It's a pass-through for YV12 video. It was there before, you just didn't see it in the compressors list.

2-I can not access at decoder config. dialog

It's not there in this beta, we hope to have a new beta with this soon. For now the decoder is doing full deblocking, no deringing.

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 01:11

Originally posted by kolak
I made some comparison to and AVC (in Nero Digital) encoder clearly won. There are a big differents espacialy in very motion scenes.

I've also looked at this AVC codec. It's nice, but 3.5-4x slower than DivX at encoding HD content, requires a better CPU for playback, and won't work on DivX Certified devices (and probably not many other devices for some time). I think that this is a little off-topic for this particular thread though :)

I noticed that divx6 has better quality in static scene and keeps more detail than divx5. I didn't have any problems with stability.

It has substantially better quality than DivX 5 (we're currently seeing roughly 20-40% improvement depending on bitrate and we're still in development).

9th January 2005, 01:20

In a few months...

"Sigma Designs' SMP860 series supports AVC, WMV9, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 at 1920x1080 30p"

Will have a fight (a fair one!) in the standalone MPEG4 ASP & AVC zone :D .

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 01:33

Chips vs devices on the market in volume are two different things.

Take it to a new thread now please, this thread is for the Fusion beta :)

dragongodz

9th January 2005, 03:18

is the settings button back working in the standard vfw window with this release ? not everyone uses or tests on virtualdub.

Subwars

9th January 2005, 03:31

hey guys i've just downloaded the new fusion beta and was going thru all the settings but i can't see any check for saving log file for multipass is this just done automaticly now or is it not doing it at all and just wasting any pass after 2???

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 04:18

Originally posted by dragongodz
is the settings button back working in the standard vfw window with this release ? not everyone uses or tests on virtualdub.

Yes, it should be working. If it isn't, please list the specific application and version of the application you are experiencing problems with.

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 04:18

Originally posted by Subwars
hey guys i've just downloaded the new fusion beta and was going thru all the settings but i can't see any check for saving log file for multipass is this just done automaticly now or is it not doing it at all and just wasting any pass after 2???

The log is now written to the working folder specified in the Settings window/on the CLI.

Subwars

9th January 2005, 04:30

ok i've never really played with them settings before just left them as there defaults i'm looking at it now i can see in the manual cli (-bvn1 3000000 -vbv 9708400,6291456,4718592 -b 1 -nf -profile=4) i can't see anything that to me would mean to write and update logs but i'm just guessing that a couple of them are like -b 1 i'm guessing it's the b frames set to on ect but i'm not 100% sure

what is it that doing the logs in there or what string am i having to add in there for it to??

allso if it counts to anything i'm using gk 33.1

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 04:34

Default working directory is C:\DivX and will not appear on the CLI.

If you change the working directory in the settings window the new working directory will appear on the CLI as:

-dir <path>

There is a known-issue in this beta that if you enter an invalid path and begin encoding the encoder will crash, so be careful! It is best to use the "Browse" button on the Settings window for this reason. :)

Subwars

9th January 2005, 04:39

fair enough thats showing that the working folder is changed but not saying if the log files are being updated or not inbetween pass's

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 04:49

The log files will be updated.

If you are concerned, open the map.log file and you will see at the top of the file:

passes <passes done>

Subwars

9th January 2005, 04:51

good stuff thx

LordIntruder

9th January 2005, 06:48

Hi,

Thanks for the work. Cheers. :)

Have just installed and tested the baby. Works fine to me. Just to indicate to people some figures about the speed encoding they can expect, I took an AVI I encoded some months ago (25 fps - 608 x 448) and I took only around one minute of this movie (1704 frames to be exact) and reencoded at the same bitrate (no filter, no resize, only a single and useless reencode). I opened the AVI with VirtualDubMod 1.5.10.1, Fast recompress, I selected my 1704 frames scene and I prepared in the batch different passes with different options (Bframes: Adaptative Single Consecutive ON, H263 Optimized, Modulation: Low Motion 0.1), here are the results on my Athlon XP 2400+, 1Gb RAM:

1704 frames reencoded - 608 x 448

Insane quality

1 pass = 2,8 fps (12h50)
2 pass = 3,8 fps (9h30)

Extreme quality

1 pass = 4,6 fps (7h50)
2 pass = 6,5 fps (5h30)

Better quality

1 pass = 6,8 fps (5h20)
2 pass = 8,7 fps (4h10)

Balanced quality

1 pass = 11,4 fps (3h10)
2 pass = 12,5 fps (2h50)

Xvid 1.0.3 quality (VHQ4, Search 6, GMC, Adaptative Quantization, Chroma motion and Chroma Optimizer enabled)

1 pass = 24 fps (1h30)
2 pass = 10 fps (3h35)

What is the number inside the brackets? Just a figure to let you know what time it would take to encode a full 90min length movie (130.000 frames) at the speed calculated before. Well, better not to be in a hurry in insane mode!! :D :D

Visually speaking, "Better" is much better than "Balanced" so unless you have a very slow PC, "Better" is the minimum to use. Between "Better" and "Extreme" I can see some improvements. And as I would have bet I can see no difference between "Extreme" and "Insane" (well I don't find my magnifying glass so maybe I would have seen a better looking pixel in the upper right corner :D ). With my speed if I want quality I will select "Extreme" and if I'm in a hurry I'll select "Better". "Insane" reminds me an old mode in 5.1: the well-known "Slowest". My eyes couldn't see any differences between a 2 "Slow" passes and a 2 "Slowest" passes. I guess it is going to be the same here. So unless to have a very fast processor (3Ghz mini), I think that "Extreme" is the best choice with 2 passes in this mode to get a very good quality.

Of course this is just a very quick test on a very short clip. It is just here to give a quick idea. I will dig deeper and encode a full movie in "extreme" and in "insane" to see if I can really see any differences or not.

Unfortunately I don't have any old 5.1 clip to compare with this release. If you people have old 5.1 Slow or Slowest encodes It would be great to know if you see improvements with "Extreme" or "Insane"? I class "Extreme" to be the new "Slow" and "Insane" to be the new "Slowest".

To me I think the greatest improvement that could happens to Divx would be to really increase the encoding speed. Divx still lacks on that department. The other next thing I'm highly interested of is the integrated subtitles and menu functionality. I thought it would have been available with this beta. I really wonder what it will looks like, how it works, etc...

DigitAl56K

9th January 2005, 07:05

Originally posted by LordIntruder
Hi,

Thanks for the work. Cheers. :)

On behalf of the team, you're most welcome, and thanks for helping us test it!

Visually speaking, "Better" is much better than "Balanced" so unless you have a very slow PC, "Better" is the minimum to use. Between "Better" and "Extreme" I can see some improvements. And as I would have bet I can see no difference between "Extreme" and "Insane" (well I don't find my magnifying glass so maybe I would have seen a better looking pixel in the upper right corner :D ).

A good reflection of the encoding modes is shown in the chart that we published on DivX Labs with this release:
http://labs.divx.com/archives/TESTFusion.gif

While the chart changes slightly with each incremental development, it does give a good approximation of compression/quality.

With my speed if I want quality I will select "Extreme" and if I'm in a hurry I'll select "Better". "Insane" reminds me an old mode in 5.1: the well-known "Slowest". My eyes couldn't see any differences between a 2 "Slow" passes and a 2 "Slowest" passes. I guess it is going to be the same here. So unless to have a very fast processor (3Ghz mini), I think that "Extreme" is the best choice with 2 passes in this mode to get a very good quality.

My personal preference with this build is, like you, Extreme + H.263 Optimized quantization.

Unfortunately I don't have any old 5.1 clip to compare with this release. If you people have old 5.1 Slow or Slowest encodes It would be great to know if you see improvements with "Extreme" or "Insane"? I class "Extreme" to be the new "Slow" and "Insane" to be the new "Slowest".

Mapping is very difficult because Fusion produces *substantially* better quality than DivX 5, and where there is equivelent quality Fusion is in general faster, but a very rough *conceptual* mapping might be:

5.2.1 Fast/Std = Balanced
5.2.1 Slow = Better quality
5.1.1 Slowest: Extreme mode
All tweaks enabled (new mode): Insane mode

Again, the best visual reference is the chart posted on Labs, linked above.

To me I think the greatest improvement that could happens to Divx would be to really increase the encoding speed. Divx still lacks on that department. The other next thing I'm highly interested of is the integrated subtitles and menu functionality. I thought it would have been available with this beta. I really wonder what it will looks like, how it works, etc...

Performance enhancements will come when the core features are complete and fully tested. You will notice that since we first released our Plasma alphas we've made a lot of progress! As far as subtitles etc. are concerned stay tuned to DivX Labs for more information... ;)

nicco

9th January 2005, 10:57

The other next thing I'm highly interested of is the integrated subtitles and menu functionality.
Yes, I'm interested too, I'd just like to know if you plain to support pre-existing dvd menus or you will develop a tool to build small personalized menus?

peteag

9th January 2005, 11:14

Why does the new fusion release uses such a stupid descriptions for their quality/performance boxes? Insane, Extreme, Better, Best, Balanced, Fastest a.s.o.
Every innocent user who want's to backup his dvd will take the insane mode, because it's placed below Extreme. But then he will be disappointed: 2-4 fps. This is not the DivX you were talking about a year ago. And Xvid with all his features is extremely faster than yours. Fact! It just made more progress in a very short time!!!

What about just "Fast-Medium-Best" or "Low-Medium-High". I'm sorry, but when a divx-team member says: "My personal preference with this build is, like you, Extreme + H.263 Optimized quantization" the product isn't realy developed.

I've tested the new Fusion beta and wasn't able to see some realy great improvements over the 5.2.1 release. But I must protect the divx-team, when I say, that ASP isn't comparably to AVC (and that is just in a very early stage = Nero Digital etc.).

So I love it to see that an open standard like asp is absolutely exhausted until the development of a successor will begin. And, well this is the truth, XviD is even better in every source I used for my encodings - every. Two years ago I used just DivX but since there are so many others and better codecs out, I didn't used it anyway. But would like to - when it's better than you just even state ...

Pete

riggits

9th January 2005, 13:04

Originally posted by peteag
Why does the new fusion release uses such a stupid descriptions for their quality/performance boxes? Insane, Extreme, Better, Best, Balanced, Fastest a.s.o.
Every innocent user who want's to backup his dvd will take the insane mode, because it's placed below Extreme. But then he will be disappointed: 2-4 fps. This is not the DivX you were talking about a year ago. And Xvid with all his features is extremely faster than yours. Fact! It just made more progress in a very short time!!!

Dear Petri,
This is not the 'compare XviD encoding speed to new DivX beta codec speed' thread. You will find your thread continued here. (http://urinalpoop.org/philosophy/rationale/)
If you bothered to read ANY of this, you would know that Fusion is a beta release. BETA, for your information, means unfinished and currently in testing. It's not the finished product. That means it's not done yet. When the product is not done, sometimes things are not exactly as they will be presented upon completion of the project. Capite?

What about just "Fast-Medium-Best" or "Low-Medium-High". I'm sorry, but when a divx-team member says: "My personal preference with this build is, like you, Extreme + H.263 Optimized quantization" the product isn't realy developed.
[...]

BETA. Dig it, baby.

So I love it to see that an open standard like asp is absolutely exhausted until the development of a successor will begin. And, well this is the truth, XviD is even better in every source I used for my encodings - every. Two years ago I used just DivX but since there are so many others and better codecs out, I didn't used it anyway. But would like to - when it's better than you just even state ...

Pete [/B]
Nice to hear you use XviD. Why post that here? There are other forums better suited to your comments, check here. (http://www.ratemypoo.com/ratemy/poo)
Read the thread. Test Fusion. Give feedback. It's easy.

Sorry to all for the OT. I'm testing Fusion right now, will post results soon* as regards standalone compatibility.
Thanks! :D

*'soon' means 'whenever encoding finishes, which might be tomorrow or the next day... stay tuned :D'

peteag

9th January 2005, 13:14

I did some tests 5 minutes ago. I've tested XviD 1.1 (Nic 14/12), NeroDigital (ASP) and DivXFusion (actual). Everything without QPel (because Fusions isn't checkable), no GMC (because Fusions made the whole video pink ;-) ), insane mode, VHQ4, full motion search, B-Frames (multi), trellis, 4mv, vhq b-frames, psychovisual ... a.s.o.

Please ask me for detailed descriptions.

My source was the first chapter of FINDING NEMO (PAL Version) @ 942 kbps.
Let's look at the speed. Okay, Fusion is in a very early beta stage, so the speed may be increased.

Fusion = 5fps (1Pass + 2Pass)
ND = 23fps (1Pass + 2Pass)
XviD = 25fps (1Pass + 2Pass)

Lets look at quality. Every contestant had his own power. Fusion I liked with his smooth picture clarity without showing that much blocks, but ND was some step further because it's not showing that much blocks but kept the video crisp and clear in every situation. Very cool. XviD I disliked in the beginning when the ocean appears and it seemed to be a swimming texture. But in closeups and all the scenes after the ocean's appearing the video got good crisp and clear, but ND was not to be struck.

My winner. NeroDigital. Yes I know, this sounds a little bit confusing to myself too, but the video-quality of ND was the best I've tested so far. I'll keep on testing this source but it's unfair to test with QPel what Fusion doesn't have at the moment. The MPEG4-standard is equiped with gmc, qpel a.s.o. and so every mpeg4-codec should be tested with these settings and not just 2 of 3.

If some codec tends to be more smooth or washed out because a one more feature is checked, the feature isn't realy finished. That's my opinion.

to riggits: I know this is not a comparison thread but what about discussion a new beta codec without trying it? I believe DivX's aim isn't to stay behind XviD and other codecs which are somewhat better than it. So every comparison is a stimulus for the team to correct there bugs. And I say it again right now. I would use DivX very well, but it's not the best which it was a long time ago. So all posts without sentences like "F***ing DivX" or something should be a kick for the programmers and help them to find their bugs.

Pete

jggimi

9th January 2005, 17:09

It saddens me to make this announcement:Forum rules will be enforced with no further warning. A number of respondents have crossed the line of Rules 3, 4, and 11. Rule 4 is the most important.This is a forum for discussion of issues related to DivX encoding.

This thread was started by DivXNetworks to discuss their Beta release. They are hoping to receive constructive input from the user community.

You may prefer other codecs. That's fine. But replying to a Beta issue in this thread by recommending an alternative codec is an inappropriate response, and will be treated as such.

You may wish to compare this codec to other codecs. Thats fine. But do so in a constructive and objective manner. To date, some of you have done so, but unfortunately, others have not. I refer you to Doom9's Codec Comparisons (http://www.doom9.org/codec-comparisons.htm) for lessons in objective analysis.

bond

9th January 2005, 18:28

is it true that dxn worked on their gmc implementation and now supports 2 warppoints? the changelog doesnt mention this...

or is it a failure in mpeg4modifier?

SeeMoreDigital

9th January 2005, 18:28

Hi DivX guys,

As some of you know I like to generate my encode tests at full DVD resolutions. And today was no exception!

Today I concentrated on seeing how well DivX Fusion would perform in basic Mpeg4 SP mode using the "Insane Quality" mode over 2 passes!

I tried various tweaks, using Scene Change, Noise Reduction and Psychovisual Enhancements options but I'm finding it difficult to see where the improvements are!

After generating several encodes at 625Kbps, here's a still from the best looking one I was able to generate (which is very similar to previous releases): -

http://img55.exs.cx/img55/3004/divx3oa.jpg

And by contrast, here's a still from XviD at the same bitrate: -

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/4149/xvid7jq.jpg

As you can see the two images look very different. But it's the same story throughout the entire 6 minute 17 second encode!

Whatever I do I can't make DivX get anywhere close to XviD in terms of quality and speed. And XviD is only set to "default".

Although this is just a over simplified test, I'm confused as to how XviD's default settings can generate images that look so different to DivX Fusion!

Cheers

peteag

9th January 2005, 18:28

I understand the forum-rules. I'm sorry for anything against them.

Well, I have a question to DigitAL56k. What about the qpel implemetation? Will it be renewed in the next beta-release or is it just taken away because of some issues? Well the press said the codec might be reworked from the ground.

b0b0b0b

9th January 2005, 18:29

just started my 1st encode. love the video encode feedback window.

Sagittaire

9th January 2005, 19:47

In my metric test (Average or Overall PSNR, SSIM, VQM) DivX fusion is never better than WMV9 or XviD.

XviD (VHQ4, VHQ for bframe, trelli, bframe 2/1.50/0.00 with GMC, Qpel & AQ desactived) are always very better than DivX with exactly the same setting (Insame, H263 optimized, multibframe with GMC, Qpel & psy desactived) and same decodeur (DivX, XviD or ffdshow) in Q2~Q4 interval quantizer for DivX5 ...

How DXN can affirm that?

http://labs.divx.com/archives/TESTFusion.gif

... :confused:

DivX HD offer the same quality than WMV9 HD with half bitrate... :confused:

Marketing ... marketing ... marketing ... lol

riggits

9th January 2005, 21:53

OK, I'm not quite done the second pass (of three) and I have an observation already. I did a compression test (100% of target sample) with AutoGK 1.85 beta (I realize it doesn't officially support Fusion) and received:

Compressibility percentage is: 269612.50 <---(seems QUITE high, probably AutoGK barfing somewhere?)
Speed was: 2.03

Actual results will probably be ready in 36 hours. Source DVD is Aerotroopers, which is a really awful CG kids' movie.

SeeMoreDigital

9th January 2005, 22:07

Originally posted by bond
is it true that dxn worked on their gmc implementation and now supports 2 warppoints? the changelog doesnt mention this...

or is it a failure in mpeg4modifier? I think it's got to be a DivX Fusion problem.... Because you can't play the encode correctly using any DSdec filter or media player!

Cheers

nicco

9th January 2005, 23:59

@SMD
Your shots are so different!
I made some tests and I don't have this kind of high difference between Divx and Xvid! (you can look at my previous link for example)
Did you try to encode at a higher bitrate?

CiNcH

10th January 2005, 00:44

DivX 5.2.1's GMC is also a 2-warp-point according to MPEG4 Modifier. It is a problem in combination with rate-distortion optimized motion estimation (Performance/Quality) modes.

I have already reported the problem in Plasma Codec here:
http://forums.divx.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=782106&f=911101651&m=557101302

SeeMoreDigital

10th January 2005, 00:45

Originally posted by nicco
Did you try to encode at a higher bitrate? That's not the point I've ever been trying to make!

A couple of years ago I decided to see "how low you could go" at generating Mpeg4 in SP mode using full DVD resolutions.

I started with DivX5.0.1 in default mode (but onviously without B-VOP) and after steadily "decreasing" the bit-rate found a limit where macro-blocks began to appear. I then tested other Mpeg4 codecs (XviD and 3ivx to begin with) using the same method and quickly discovered that some of them could encode at far lower bitrates than DivX before macro-blocking!

Personally I think this encoding method raises some interesting issues. Not least, because if you can't get the basic Mpeg4/SP part of the codec working to it's maximum performance level "first". I find it difficult to understand how adding ASP features is not going to help with the codecs overall efficiency!

As with most things, the foundation has to sound before you can build on top of it. And add extra levels!

Cheers

LordRPI

10th January 2005, 01:01

@SMD

Would it be possible to get the samples of the Fusion and XviD clips just as you provided for the AOTC AVC sample you did the other day? If you don't want to host it, PM me and I could arrange something else. It's really strange that the difference is that high and I would really like to see why Fusion is performing like that.

DigitAl56K

10th January 2005, 01:15

SMD: That definately looks as if you have encountered a bug.

Can you give us a little information on your system specs and the CLI you used (e.g. for the 1st/nth pass)?

peteag: Optimizations will come a little later, we are still in development, but thank you for your comments. I also notice you ran your test with Psy on, we are recommending for this beta that you avoid Psy in the Fusion codec.

jggimi: Thanks for keeping us all on track :)

SeeMoreDigital

10th January 2005, 01:17

Hi David,

If you send me a mailing address I will be happy to post you a CD containing the source together with some of my DivX SP and XviD encodes!

It may take me a couple of days to sift through my old test disc's for some of the older DivX and XviD build encodes but I'll see what I can come up with.... If not I will generate them again!

Cheers

LordRPI

10th January 2005, 01:30

Thanks SMD,

Are these DivX SP encodes you speak about fusion or even plasma? I would be most interested in those. Check your PM's for my addy. If I could get a hold of those small clips soon by any chance over the net, that would be great.

LiFe

10th January 2005, 01:37

Did anyone actually look at:
http://labs.divx.com/archives/TESTFusion.gif

I'll assume you've mixed the Y and X axis up, because as it stands it makes absolutely no sense.

It just shows steady increase of PSNR at different bitrates.

Isn't it supposted to show PSNR at a steady increase of bitrate?

LiFe.

708145

10th January 2005, 01:43

They use *relative* bitrates.

bis besser,
T0B1A5

SeeMoreDigital

10th January 2005, 01:44

Originally posted by LordRPI
Thanks SMD,

Are these DivX SP encodes you speak about fusion or even plasma? I would be most interested in those. Check your PM's for my addy. If I could get a hold of those small clips soon by any chance over the net, that would be great. Each encode runs to around 30MB, so I'm afraid I will have to post them!

I will do it as soon as I can...

...I may shout my opinions around quite a bit, but I am always happy to help anybody and everybody if I can ;)

Cheers

LordRPI

10th January 2005, 01:54

@SMD

DXN remembers me for that... Fall-Winter 2k1 to be exact ;)

(british thing perhaps? Complain about everything but then willing to help?)

SeeMoreDigital

10th January 2005, 02:06

Originally posted by LordRPI
@SMD

DXN remembers me for that... Fall-Winter 2k1 to be exact ;)

(british thing perhaps? Complain about everything but then willing to help?) LOL... Is that why Alistair is over there too?

Cheers

DigitAl56K

10th January 2005, 02:58

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
LOL... Is that why Alistair is over there too?

Cheers

I don't complain, I provide "constructive criticism" ;)

SMD: We can probably hook you up with an FTP account if you're willing to upload to us - LMK :)

SeeMoreDigital

10th January 2005, 03:27

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
I don't complain, I provide "constructive criticism" ;)

SMD: We can probably hook you up with an FTP account if you're willing to upload to us - LMK :) Dispite having a 750K "always on" connection, I'm only able to upload at 128K. And as I host part of my web site on my home PC, bandwidth is pretty limited.

If you can't wait, you could always conduct some tests of your own using the same PAL DVD source as me. It's Star Wars 2, chapter 41 ;)

Cheers

IgorC

10th January 2005, 05:49

problem with YV12 codec (fusion pack)
image of *.avs was rotated 180º. there is no problem in Vdub, but when playing *.avs in MPC

and *.avs in Recode2 (Nero AVC) ,etc. So I had to uninstalled fusion codec. Before I had

Helix YV12 codecs.

fusion version.
some minor visual impovements. but video is still so smooth, maybe less visual artefacts but

it´s mean less details. It would be good if divx 6.0 will keep details as Xvid or even better.(I undesrtand that´s topic is FUSION BETA)
700 kbits
Xvid 1.1 (2pass): max. quality options + custom Matrix EQM ULR rev 2
http://img94.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img94&image=2passxvid700ulr1ln.jpg

Divx Fusion (3pass.each insane Q.) : MPEG cuant (I tried to keep the details).
http://img108.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img108&image=3passdivxfus700nopsycompeg3ri.jpg

Source : http://img92.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img92&image=avsoriginal640x4804ht.jpg

the same result in test with options for DivX devices.

is there any need to 3d pass? will 2 passes at insane quality be enough for 98-99 % possible quality.

gldblade

10th January 2005, 07:33

I'll assume you've mixed the Y and X axis up, because as it stands it makes absolutely no sense.

It just shows steady increase of PSNR at different bitrates.

Isn't it supposted to show PSNR at a steady increase of bitrate? The graph is indeed very confusing, but its right. What its showing is that different DivX modes requires different bitrates to achieve the same PSNR. For example, in order to reach the PSNR of 50 db in clip Q01, DivX Fusion Insane requires ~88 kbps, while DivX 5.2.1 Fast requires ~106 kbps. As you can see, different DivX modes require different bitrates to achieve the same PSNR.

What doesn't make sense about the graph is that they decide to connect the dots between the different clips. You can't interpolate between the dots like that, what would such an interpolation mean? This connection of the dots leads to confusing conclusions. For example, examining the curve for XviD Motion 6 Trellis On, the graph implies that it takes a smaller bitrate to acheive a PSNR of 50 db than to acheive a PSNR of 37 db.

stephanV

10th January 2005, 09:48

Originally posted by gldblade
The graph is indeed very confusing, but its right. What its showing is that different DivX modes requires different bitrates to achieve the same PSNR. For example, in order to reach the PSNR of 50 db in clip Q01, DivX Fusion Insane requires ~88 kbps, while DivX 5.2.1 Fast requires ~106 kbps. As you can see, different DivX modes require different bitrates to achieve the same PSNR.

The bitrates there are relative, not absolute. So, according to the graph, DivX in extreme mode, Q01, needs about 90% of the bit rate Xvid with no trellis on uses. DivX balanced needs about 102% of XviDs bitrate.

What doesn't make sense about the graph is that they decide to connect the dots between the different clips. You can't interpolate between the dots like that, what would such an interpolation mean? This connection of the dots leads to confusing conclusions. For example, examining the curve for XviD Motion 6 Trellis On, the graph implies that it takes a smaller bitrate to acheive a PSNR of 50 db than to acheive a PSNR of 37 db.

Again it is a relative bitrate not an absolute one. The Q value does not stand for different clips, but for the constant quant value used in the encoding. Therefor some interpolation is allowed. There is however an error in the interpolation and is that they have decided to make a smooth line out of it, while there seems to be no mathematical principle for the correlation. It is very difficult to predict what happens between for example point Q=3 and Q=2. In such cases drawing straight lines between the points is better as you only can determine the general trend of the line. Not how it actually is.

nicco

10th January 2005, 10:53

SMD
That's not the point I've ever been trying to make!

A couple of years ago I decided to see "how low you could go" at generating Mpeg4 in SP mode using full DVD resolutions.

Ok!:)

dragongodz

10th January 2005, 10:57

DVDx 2.3 and Tmpgenc 2.5(avi output) both can now set settings with this version. the last beta they couldnt of course.

quick 1 pass tests.
Tmpgenc, feedback window disabled, encodes fine.
DVDx, feedback window disabled, encodes fine but takes nearly 30 seconds to start encoding. other codecs including older Divx 5 versions do not have this problem.

enable feedback window will crash both Tmpgenc and DVDx.

tested on Athlon XP 2400+, Windows XP SP1.

billou2k

10th January 2005, 16:48

I've done some tests with Fusion and interlaced content but it looks broken for me. (progressive content works ok). The encoding process works fine (looking at the expanded feedback window, everything looks fine) the problem just happens during the decoding.
The errors on playback look like blocks are not refreshed properly. I'm using the DivX Decoder not ffdshow and virtual dub confirms the decompressor is DivX Fusion.
Did anyone notice the same problem?

DigitAl56K

10th January 2005, 18:09

Originally posted by dragongodz
DVDx 2.3 and Tmpgenc 2.5(avi output) both can now set settings with this version. the last beta they couldnt of course.

enable feedback window will crash both Tmpgenc and DVDx.

tested on Athlon XP 2400+, Windows XP SP1.

Thanks for the report.

I can't duplicate this on TMPGEnc-2.524.63.181-Free, the Feedback window works for me. Did you configure the codec form TMPGEnc before you began encoding the first time?

I can duplicate with DVDx, but only when YV12 colorspace is used. If I switch to RGB everything works perfectly. I am suspicious that this is actually a defect in DVDx, because I remember a similar problem being reported over at the DivX.com forums some time back where the solution was to switch the output to RGB mode. I'll log it in our QA system and see what our engineers make of it.

dragongodz

11th January 2005, 01:13

TMPGEnc-2.524.63.181-Free, the Feedback window works for me. Did you configure the codec form TMPGEnc before you began encoding the first time?
i used 2.521 so i will update to the latest version later and check against that aswell. and of course i configured the codec first.

I can duplicate with DVDx, but only when YV12 colorspace is used. If I switch to RGB everything works perfectly
YV12 is broken and no codec will work with it, thats been known for a long time. i tested with both RGB and YUY2 which work with Divx 5.0 to 5.21 fine.

I am suspicious that this is actually a defect in DVDx
no offense but thats pure bullsh*t. the fact that DVDx can use Divx 5.0-5.21, Xvid, VP6 etc etc etc fine should tell you it is not DVDx thats the problem.

I'll log it in our QA system and see what our engineers make of it.
you may want to tell them to look at the dvdx/AVI_LIB/avi_lib.cpp file.

oh and you may want to look at the names in the DVDx window when you start it. :D

dragongodz

11th January 2005, 11:15

first i think i know the 30 second delay problem. the data for that is coming off a crappy old work/data hd while the other tests were froma newer/better hd. the old hd is showing signs of age and some things are copying full speed while others are going at varied speed.

the real issue however is another story. i downloaded the Tmpgenc version you mentioned and it suffers the exact same problem. encodes fine with disabled feedback window, freezes up with feedback window enabled. i even got around to testing it with virtualdub 1.5.10 and same thing. yes freeze with feedback window enabled.

so it is definatly the feedback window my system does not like since disabling this enabled all the programs to encode. it does not even start to be drawn etc before freezing the application(and infact slowing windows down to a crawl in the process).

so some system info which may or may not help.

Athlon XP 2400+, 256mb ddr ram
Windows XP SP1, directx 9.0c
installed software includes, visual studio 6 + SP5, directx sdk 8.1, windows sdk, intel c++ compiler 8.0

let me know if there is anything else you want to know or if you want me to test a debug version etc.

SeeMoreDigital

11th January 2005, 12:52

DivX guys,

Can any of you confirm why your "direct-show" decoder filter (v5.3.0.1453) has soared up in size to 781KB?

Cheers

AsTimeGoesBy

20th January 2005, 16:54

Interesting posts here!
So i also like to make some test samples so see how DivX Pro Fusion Codec (http://labs.divx.com/archives/000045.html) works for my belongs comapred to the recently released Xvid 1.1b (http://www.koepi.org/xvid.shtml).
However i have so me small questions i haven't found any answer by searching the web. - Would be nice if somebody could please spend some ssconds to post some answers.

- Psychvisual Effects: Masking mainly only for Anime or Comics, right!? I'm sure i have readt about this anywhere but i wasn't able to find it again....:(

- After installing the Divx Fuison pac kI couldn't find any configuration tab/window to control the post-processing level. - Is there any at all?
As i have experienced till now i guess there is any post-processing on DivX files but i'm not sure how and if that also woarks on Xvid files.

- In VirtualDubMod the 'DivX YV12 codec' is not available!? - Wouldn't that improve speed when using AviSynth?

billou2k

20th January 2005, 17:01

Sorry to bother you again with that
but it seems that the encoding of interlaced content is messed up in Fusion.
All the decoders have tried show the same faulty video (misplaced blocks)
Nobody got any info on that?

LordIntruder

21st January 2005, 17:14

Originally posted by AsTimeGoesBy

- In VirtualDubMod the 'DivX YV12 codec' is not available!? - Wouldn't that improve speed when using AviSynth?

Forgot to mention that last time. I also noticed that immediately within VDM. There are two lines:

- Divx Fusion Codec
- Divx Fusion YV12 Codec

The second choice give me an error in the format restrictions window at the right. I'm not alone to get that, good point :D .

--

billou2k: I assume you use the interlace option within the codec? I have just make a test on an interlaced DVD source using a deinterlace filter and avisynth and the result is perfect. Provide more details on what you have done, what settings you choose and if you use an AVS, copy paste it here.

stephanV

21st January 2005, 17:18

The YV12 codec is for decoding YV12, it does not encode to DivX or anything :)

MacAddict

21st January 2005, 17:37

Before I install this on my HTPC...can anyone tell me if the settings dialog is actually resizeable now? On lower resolution screens the dialog box is massive in length and the buttons at the bottom are cut off.

LordRPI

21st January 2005, 17:38

Doesn't look like it is yet :(

billou2k

21st January 2005, 20:16

I'm encoding some shorts sequences from TV, I'm storing them as YUV uncompressed AVIs. They are PAL (720x576) pure interlaced and they appear properly in VDUB.
I set up Divx Fusion (Build1453) as
unconstrained,
Extreme quality
Adaptive multiple cons. B frames (but I tried single and no B frames)
no GMC
noise red. off
psycho enh. off
interlace: preserve TFF
h.263 (tried h.263 optimised)
1 pass 2000 kbps

And this gives blocks moving all around and producing really weird effects...

Oh and I've made some progress!
Changing the codec performance to "Balanced" solved the problem!
And "Better quality" causes the same problems as "Extreme quality".

What's the difference between balance and Better quality and extreme quality that could cause such a problem?