Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 ASP

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th June 2021, 23:36   #1  |  Link
GAP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 133
Is XVID still used?

I know that there are people who had moved to greener pastures but are there still users who still used this codec? Or should I just say my eulogy before moving on to more advanced encoders?
GAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2021, 00:18   #2  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 10,877
Apparently so,
quite often, in this [where this is posted, ie MPEG-4 ASP] forum, there are way - way more forum visitors than anywhere else on the D9,
so yes, ASP/XVID/DIVX is still quite popular, but I cannot say nor understand why.

EDIT:
Right now, in forum "MPEG-4 AVC / H.264" there are 10 Viewing,
in this MPEG-4 ASP forum, there are 87 Viewing, it beats me why it is still so popular,
especially given the very significant quality difference for a given filesize.
[I guess many still use hardware players from pre-Android era].
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 18th June 2021 at 11:55.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2021, 19:05   #3  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
Right now, in forum "MPEG-4 AVC / H.264" there are 10 Viewing,
in this MPEG-4 ASP forum, there are 87 Viewing, it beats me why it is still so popular
It's probably not so much the codec that's popular, but a new post/thread in the ASP forum isn't too common, so maybe the forum equivalent of rubber-necking was causing some temporary congestion.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2022, 16:13   #4  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessS View Post
Apparently so,
quite often, in this [where this is posted, ie MPEG-4 ASP] forum, there are way - way more forum visitors than anywhere else on the D9,
so yes, ASP/XVID/DIVX is still quite popular, but I cannot say nor understand why.
Lots of car DVD players and lots of small TVs with integrated DVD players out there which support MPEG4 ASP but without support for H.264, and which still serve their owners faithfully. So, most people in this situation will download the H.264 version (usually MP4 or MKV) for their big screen TVs and the AVI file for those other devices. With a 30Mbit connection, downloading the AVI file takes like 3 minutes (disclaimer: I am talking about legal downloads yadda yadda).

Last edited by kurkosdr; 11th August 2022 at 18:59.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th June 2021, 16:02   #5  |  Link
Liisachan
李姗倩 Lǐ Shān Qin
 
Liisachan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,337
I use Xvid as a quick way to get the list of scene-change frames (as the list of keyframes). Keyframes from x264 are not so simple as those used in Xvid (a scene-change may not be a keyframe). The list is then used to programmatically detect subtitle end-time overruns (bleed) and underruns, start-time overruns and underruns.

I also use Xvid for test-encoding and checking when typesetting a moving sign, because it's quicker. For similar reasons, I sometimes use Xvid.avi for typesetting in general, rather than e.g. using x264.mkv via ffms2.dll. Xvid is quicker and not using much memory.

Although, personally I no longer use Xvid as the codec for final encoding, it's still convenient for me for various purposes. There are many countries in the world, and some people are still using older CPU for various reasons. Such users may prefer Xvid.avi, as newer codecs might be too CPU-intensive for them.
Liisachan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2021, 14:50   #6  |  Link
GAP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 133
I used to XVID a lot in my encodes until I learned of better methods and even then I did not change that easily. I am slowly transitioning to other codecs for my encodes but I still have a fondness of XVID due to low disk space and general ease-of-use. I used it for my encodes in the past but I am starting to move on to other encoders as I want to "keep up with the times."

Quote:
Although, personally I no longer use Xvid as the codec for final encoding, it's still convenient for me for various purposes. There are many countries in the world, and some people are still using older CPU for various reasons. Such users may prefer Xvid.avi, as newer codecs might be too CPU-intensive for them.
Sad but true. Unfortunately I did not own high end, super advanced computers for gaming and recently editing but they were competent for me to at use programs like Virtualdub, PowerDirector, Resolve, etc. at least.
GAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2021, 19:21   #7  |  Link
StainlessS
HeartlessS Usurer
 
StainlessS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 10,877
Right now 19 in AVC forum and 67 in ASP forum, nearly always the same.
A few months ago [maybe] PoisonDeathRay pointed out something like 650 online in ASP forum, its uncanny

EDIT: OK, maybe more than a couple of months ago [2018]
Quote:
Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
what's going on here ? There are about 1000 users on when I took this (right now), and ~60% are viewing mpeg4-asp ??

EDIT: I'm guessin' that they all just curious to see what everybody else is lookin' at.
EDIT: Arh, you already said that.
Quote:
forum equivalent of rubber-necking
__________________
I sometimes post sober.
StainlessS@MediaFire ::: AND/OR ::: StainlessS@SendSpace

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities", but how many of them are infinitely bigger ???

Last edited by StainlessS; 19th June 2021 at 19:29.
StainlessS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2021, 20:42   #8  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,734
That's odd... but hey, apparently there are still people using it for... compatibility purposes?
I don't know...
Besides, I thought MPEG-2 was far more common than Xvid, not just for DVDs that are still being produced for some odd reason, but also for all the SD 480i or 576i TV channels out there that are still on air and also HD/FULL HD standards like XDCAM which just don't wanna die...
It feels weird to talk about these things in 2021, but hey, they're still a thing...
FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2022, 16:35   #9  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
That's odd... but hey, apparently there are still people using it for... compatibility purposes?
I don't know...
Besides, I thought MPEG-2 was far more common than Xvid, not just for DVDs that are still being produced for some odd reason, but also for all the SD 480i or 576i TV channels out there that are still on air and also HD/FULL HD standards like XDCAM which just don't wanna die...
It feels weird to talk about these things in 2021, but hey, they're still a thing...
MPEG-2 is still big in the world of broadcasting due to all those SD receivers out there (and the reluctance of governments to tell the owners of such receivers it's time to move on). For example, in the UK there is a grand total of 8 HD channels, a couple of H.264 SD channels, and several dozen MPEG-2 SD channels that are broadcast at a very low bitrate and with lots of artifacts. I am talking about major channels that people actually watch that are only broadcast in crappy MPEG-2 SD.

However, MPEG-2 was never big on the internet, due to the fact it can only do widescreen at 720x480/576 resolution in its most common form (DVD-Video), which in turn forces high bitrates (together with the usual inefficiency of MPEG-2). And let's be real, nobody wants a file with mediocre SD video that weighs 4 frickin' gigabytes at minimum. So, MPEG4 ASP in AVI (aka Divx/Xvid) is the lowest common denominator on the internet. Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small and it plays even on most non-H.264 standalone players. Of course, it's always a good idea to also provide an H.264 version of the content.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 11th August 2022 at 19:00.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2022, 19:48   #10  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
However, MPEG-2 was never big on the internet, due to the fact it can only do widescreen at 720x480/576 resolution in its most common form (DVD-Video), which in turn forces high bitrates (together with the usual inefficiency of MPEG-2). And let's be real, nobody wants a file with mediocre SD video that weighs 4 frickin' gigabytes at minimum. So, MPEG4 ASP in AVI (aka Divx/Xvid) is the lowest common denominator on the internet. Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small and it plays even on most non-H.264 standalone players. Of course, it's always a good idea to also provide an H.264 version of the content.
1. Necro
2. Mpeg-2 and Mpeg-4 ASP are not far apart in regards to compression efficiency if both encoder employ the same strategies. Mpeg-4 having the edge obviously.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2022, 13:44   #11  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwill View Post
1. Necro
2. Mpeg-2 and Mpeg-4 ASP are not far apart in regards to compression efficiency if both encoder employ the same strategies. Mpeg-4 having the edge obviously.
1. Don't care.
2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 13th August 2022 at 13:49.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2022, 18:48   #12  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.
Actually you are wrong.

In the case of MPEG-2 DVD or DTV the 720x756/480 or 'D1' pixel frame size is always encoded along with either 4:3 or 16:9 DAR (ie: aspect ratio signalling). It is never distributed at 1:1...
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2022, 21:27   #13  |  Link
rwill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurkosdr View Post
1. Don't care.
2. As previously said, the problem with MPEG-2 is that, in its most common form (DVD-Video), it forces you to use 720x756/480 resolution if you want widescreen. This means you are looking at a 4GB file at minimum for an ordinary movie.
Isnt most Divx/Xvid content on the internet derived from DVD ? I remember it was in the year ~2000. That just came about with people starting to re-encoding DVDs with the hacked Divx 3.11 Alpha codec in resolutions like 640x360. People could have used some Mpeg-2 encoder too but there was no one available for free I guess. MP3 started off the same, with some hacked Fraunhofer encoder and Napster. Ah, piracy... "Sure it looks bad, but at least it's small". Mpeg-2 video could have done this as well, SVCD being one popular standard.
rwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2021, 21:39   #14  |  Link
Liisachan
李姗倩 Lǐ Shān Qin
 
Liisachan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,337
It's not uncommon for a subbing group to do double or triple releases - the same content both as HD x264 and as SD xvid, for example. Which means, significantly many people still prefer xvid versions. I don't really know why, but I know this as a fact first hand - the download count may be like 2:1 or 3:1. (I suspect some of them are "file collectors", getting both versions "just in case").

Xvid may not be better in visual quality but it does have its forte. It's lightweight, tried and tested, player-side is always ready. Have you ever tried for example x264 with output color space 422 or 444 or even RGB? I don't think player-side is always ready yet if you use not-so-common options. Of course that does not mean newer codecs are bad - they're good and loved. But do we have to disrespect xvid just because we use newer codecs? Like, MP3 is still popular, even though there are Vorbis, AAC, Opus.
Liisachan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2021, 00:03   #15  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liisachan View Post
It's not uncommon for a subbing group to do double or triple releases - the same content both as HD x264 and as SD xvid, for example.
True, I've seen fansubbers do that a lot...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Liisachan View Post
Xvid may not be better in visual quality but it does have its forte. It's lightweight, tried and tested, player-side is always ready. Have you ever tried for example x264 with output color space 422 or 444 or even RGB? I don't think player-side is always ready yet if you use not-so-common options.
Well, long time ago if you were using something like --ref 16, --me esa --subme 11 --preset placebo and reverse upscale to 1280x720 with 4:4:4 10bit, it was really hard to play 'cause it would have been CPU only with no GPU hardware acceleration and pretty heavy for the CPUs we had at the time, but nowadays we no longer live in an era in which 4c/8th Intel i7 were priced as gold, they could barely bear the load and AMD CPUs were not really usable... I mean, we've come a long way since then...
Still, I understand the "legacy" thing and the fact that most groups have been doing SD releases in Xvid since... well... forever and they're still doing it, so... fair enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liisachan View Post
Of course that does not mean newer codecs are bad - they're good and loved. But do we have to disrespect xvid just because we use newer codecs? Like, MP3 is still popular, even though there are Vorbis, AAC, Opus.
MP3 is a different thing: it's so bad that even MPEG actually begged users to please stop using it a few years ago. I mean, it was ok for primitive devices, portable MP3 players I used to use when I was a young lad and I was going to school, listening with crappy old earphones, but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone and I would love to see MP3 die once and for all. It's a crappy codec with a crappy psychoacustic model based on the filterbank polyphase that just has to die and has no meaningful use case in the modern world...

Last edited by FranceBB; 20th June 2021 at 00:06.
FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2021, 13:52   #16  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
MP3 is a different thing: it's so bad that even MPEG actually begged users to please stop using it a few years ago. I mean, it was ok for primitive devices, portable MP3 players I used to use when I was a young lad and I was going to school, listening with crappy old earphones, but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone and I would love to see MP3 die once and for all. It's a crappy codec with a crappy psychoacustic model based on the filterbank polyphase that just has to die and has no meaningful use case in the modern world...
Today's youth.... no idea how good they have it.
When I was young and going to school, my portable music player looked very much like this:



Mind you that's way more fancy than the one I owned because FM radio didn't exist and the Cue function was, if I remember correctly, a manually implemented feature involving holding the play button half way down while fast-forwarding and hoping it wouldn't end in tears. The only psychoacoustic model I was aware of when I went to school involved a portable player's lack of Dolby B to make pre-recorded cassettes sound brighter.
Ahhh... how I fondly remember performing regular maintenance on my player's storage medium with a hexadecimal pencil.



Seriously though....
The folks at hydrogen audio are confident the LAME MP3 encoder is transparent using the default VBR mode, despite MP3's limitations,
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.ph...coder_settings
which makes me happy because my current MP3 player doesn't support AAC and a quick google indicates Cowon's latest players still don't support it. I assume they've decided to save themselves the licence fee.

You've inspired me to start a new thread on portable players though, as I'm considering the possibility of contemplating upgrading mine, but rather than sidetrack this thread any further I'll start a new one in the General forum.

Last edited by hello_hello; 21st June 2021 at 14:52.
hello_hello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2021, 22:15   #17  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone...
Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!

The adoption of DAB+ (HE-AAC) has been very slow and sloppy here, primarily due to the quantity of early DAB radio adoptees who's devices don't support DAB+...
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |

Last edited by SeeMoreDigital; 21st June 2021 at 22:18.
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2021, 12:53   #18  |  Link
FranceBB
Broadcast Encoder
 
FranceBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!
OMG! MP2?! Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
The adoption of DAB+ (HE-AAC) has been very slow and sloppy here, primarily due to the quantity of early DAB radio adoptees who's devices don't support DAB+...
I see...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
Today's youth.... no idea how good they have it.
When I was young and going to school, my portable music player looked very much like this:


LOL "portable" xD

Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
Mind you that's way more fancy than the one I owned because FM radio didn't exist and the Cue function was, if I remember correctly, a manually implemented feature involving holding the play button half way down while fast-forwarding and hoping it wouldn't end in tears.
FM didn't exist? (O_O)
Wow... I think about FM as something that has always been there... You guys must have been amazed by the sound quality when you moved from LW and MW to AM and FM ehehehehehehe


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
H.264 hardware decode is utterly commonplace on any device shipped in the last decade.
Exactly, which is why I find very odd the fact that some devices still don't have it...

I mean, we're here talking about H.266 VVC getting ready soon-ish and there are people still encoding in XVID... It definitely makes you wonder...
FranceBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2021, 17:18   #19  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
Here in the UK all BBC radio stations and many major commercial radio stations still use basic DAB (MPEG-1 Layer 2)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
OMG! MP2?! Really?
Actually... all 'first generation' DAB is MP2
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2022, 16:48   #20  |  Link
kurkosdr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post
MP3 is a different thing: it's so bad that even MPEG actually begged users to please stop using it a few years ago. I mean, it was ok for primitive devices, portable MP3 players I used to use when I was a young lad and I was going to school, listening with crappy old earphones, but I mean, nowadays AAC is widely supported everywhere: smartphones, cars, stereos etc. It's so supported that it's the de facto standard for DAB and DAB+, so I would very much like AAC to be adopted by everyone and I would love to see MP3 die once and for all. It's a crappy codec with a crappy psychoacustic model based on the filterbank polyphase that just has to die and has no meaningful use case in the modern world...
Nope, MPEG didn't actually say anything of the sort, a patent pool responsible for licensing the patents essential to MP3 did because the patents had just expired.

Also, the problem with MP3 is not quality but space. A bitrate of 320Kbps with a good encoder can give a result that easily covers most audio setups out there, but with M4A (aka AAC-LC) you could get the same result with 192kbps. And let's be real, "golden ears" will use FLAC anyway. The real problem is that MP3 players without M4A support are still being made today, and there are lots of car MP3 players out there without M4A support that can't be easily upgraded, so most people will download the MP3 and maybe the FLAC version and call it a day.

Last edited by kurkosdr; 11th August 2022 at 18:46.
kurkosdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.