Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality? (Read 9390 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

i guess there's no big difference between these two at high bitrates but is one better than the other?

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #1 –
'Which one is better?'-questions seem pretty pointless to me. Why don't you try it yourself?

After all, you want to know what looks better to your eyes.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #2 –
i would expect xvid too look slightly sharper (using the MPEG quant.matrix on xvid) than divx5 on the dvd sources....

try it and tell us if this is correct....

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #3 –
Quote
After all, you want to know what looks better to your eyes.


my question actually included other factors than just end result but maybe it wasnt formulated properly.

anyway i gave it a try yesterday night, these are the results:

-i ripped a 3.7g dvd
-autoGK encoded source to xvid 100% quality (1.0 rc3) and latest divx 5 100% quality

---> xvid avi ended up 2.61 gig after a 2h17min encoding time
---> divx avi ended up 2.33 gig after a 1h25min encoding time

both movie files look pretty similar but i'd say divx tends to be slightly better, clearer pictures...
i'll try other movies...

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #4 –
the end result depends a lot also on what decoder filters you're using.

divx postprocesses by default, xvid does not, so you wont see blocking artefacts in divx even if they exist.

ffdshow decodes both types the same, and has nice and configurable (and exhaustive) postprocessing settings

not to mention the slew of other decoders out there.

if you want to compare meaningfully, try installing ffdshow (it's faster anyway, so you wont be doing a bad thing) and playing both in some directshow based player. (WMP, media player classic, zoomplayer, etc,etcetcetc)

[edit]

with that said, i'm slightly partisan on this issue - i don't believe in divx at all.  they closed an opensource project, and they put ads on your machine.  in addition they don't allow rigourous control over quality or flexible playback options.  DXN in my opinion is an example of 31337ism turned cynical.

currently i'd go with xvid both on quality and principal (i cannot vouch for quality as i haven't touched divx since 5.0.3), but given a footy season or two it looks like ffvfw will be up there as well.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #5 –
BTW, 100% quality - equivalent quantizer=2, I guess - mean next to nothing. Select a different custom quantization matrix in XviD and you'll get different filesizes and a different look. HVS-best-picture matrix will beat the standard matrix at about the same filesize at quant=2; SixOfNine at quant=3 will beat both beforementioned at quant=2 - while producing bigger filesize. There practically isn't an upper limit to quality (that's why I said 100% is a figure that doesn't mean much); it all depends on how much space you're willing to sacrifice.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #7 –
Quote
urrently i'd go with xvid both on quality and principal (i cannot vouch for quality as i haven't touched divx since 5.0.3), but given a footy season or two it looks like ffvfw will be up there as well


i tried encoding final fantasy, both divx and xvid 100%. here again file size difference is kinda big, and xvid shows artifacts (2-3 seconds in a couple of scenes when the girl is dreaming and robots fight her in the desert).
i'm no genius, i dont wanna spend hours tweaking xvid for best quality for each movie like others do. xvid probably has better quality but if it really has, quality has be constant and configuration a bit easier.
i'm amazed by the results i get with autogk and divx so far...

Quote
divx postprocesses by default, xvid does not, so you wont see blocking artefacts in divx even if they exist.


sounds kinda weird to me. i wont see artifacts even if they exist.... does it mean a decoder can correct encoding artifacts? are you sure?


im encoding many dvd with divx 100%, only a few with xvid. size with divx averages 2 gig per movie which is cool.
i think im gonna stick with divx waiting for xvid to unleash its true power in future releases maybe.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #8 –
Quote
sounds kinda weird to me. i wont see artifacts even if they exist.... does it mean a decoder can correct encoding artifacts? are you sure?

Decoders like ffdshow don't correct artifacts, however they use sufisticated filters to mask them out.

Furthermore, this thread is very much turning into the other one i4004 linked to before.  holkie, please read that thread before asking any more questions.  If you still have questions, by all means ask.  However, if this topic continues in it's current matter it will be closed.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #9 –
If all persons involved like 'techie-talk' it can be fun, but as it is... It's OK to use the codec one feels comfortable with.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #10 –
Quote
Furthermore, this thread is very much turning into the other one i4004 linked to before. holkie, please read that thread before asking any more questions. If you still have questions, by all means ask.


i did read the other thread, thanks. however any topic, even similar, can lead to different discussion and opinion. thats what discussions are for...

Quote
However, if this topic continues in it's current matter it will be closed.


now I understand why Ha is getting less and less visited/interesting lately; if this is the mood here now...
ya, give me a warning and call my dad, he'll sure punish me 

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #11 –
I think you merely misunderstand the nature of forums like this one. HA is after all a forum for technically-minded people.

If you don't understand something, like you stated in the mentioned thread, a good reaction would be to read until you do understand it. If you don't like doing that but rather want "the configuration to be a bit easier" you are well-advised to make this your #1 priority. Look for a very user-friendly commercial package with paid support.

I don't think HA ever called itself a helpdesk and whining never gained anyone sympathy.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #12 –
again i disagree with tg;this forum (and every other forum) is for PEOPLE period

holkie,regarding the postprocessing;i think you can turn off divx5's post processing too(if you're using divx5 decoder and not ffdshow...)..i'm sure you know how to access dshow decoder on playback..if you don't , then say so,and i'll explain it....

you could also try(to make the comparison fair) ffdshow to decode both videos....

there's another possibility;load videos to 2 instances of vdub and find suspicious scenes on both and compare(the stuff in vdub window shouldn't be post procesed at all,as it's not even using dshow decoder)

i hope that'll help you to conclude which one you like better...after that,you will know which codec to use....

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #13 –
Quote
again i disagree with tg;this forum (and every other forum) is for PEOPLE period

So are universities. But no-one complains about all that scientific talk there. At the fish-market you talk about fish, at a techie-forum you talk about technical stuff. Otherwise we could start selling fish right now

Anyway, holkie has definitely a problem with is encode because at quant=2 artefacts are pretty unlikely. But neither he nor we are very interested in investigating deeper into that problem if he doesn't show some will to cooperate, are we? As you've said, we had that before.

So let him just stick to what he liked best from the start. DivX is a good codec, nothing wrong with it.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #14 –
Quote
Otherwise we could start selling fish right now

good idea!
i'm hungry and i havent ate fish for a longest time... 

anywayi proposed a way for him to be sure what's he watching,so at least he'll know if divx5 also has artefacts but covers them with PP....

and then;everybody knows divx5 is easier to use than xvid,as it's ment to be that way:simple....

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #15 –
1. this thread isnt quite similar to the other you mentioned cos this one COMPARES 2 codecs at same quality level. the other thread

2. just let me compare two quotes that let me think quite a bit...

Quote
But neither he nor we are very interested in investigating deeper into that problem if he doesn't show some will to cooperate, are we?


but earlier...

Quote
However, if this topic continues in it's current matter it will be closed.


yeah, sure I am not willing to cooperate, i am just whining in this forum... blablabla...
forget about it...

3. this forum's called quality forum and not TECHINICAL forum. if you have a problem with it, rename it and people like me wont post here anymore.


been around here for more than three years but i really find it sux here now, sorry guys...

ps: i4004, i use k-lite codec pack and i use ffdshow to decode, autogk might have screwed things up badly cos there are clearly artifacts. it might be a problematic  sample for xvid cos each time the ground of the desert shows artifacts and can be rendered at all (blocks).

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #16 –
There is nothing wrong with your original topic.  While it's related to the other topic, it asks a different question and therefore a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion.  However, the last few posts have started covering the same material previously covered.  However I see no need for us to repeat outselves.

Again, I just want to stress, comparing DivX at 100% versus XviD at 100% is fine, getting off topic and repeating previously stated information is not.

To get back on topic...

I'm not sure why you encode at 100%.  I do know however that I used to do it to back up my movies to DVD's.  DivX at 100% always seemed to produce really nice results and I never saw any artifacts in the video that weren't already in the source material (i.e. the DVD).  I can't really speak for XviD because I've only ever done 'normal' encodes (eg. trying to make HD-TV captures fit on CD's).  DivX is a fine codec, and if you're intent on encoding at 100% then I don't see any reason why you couldn't use DivX (unless XviD is faster, haven't done any comparisons).  Based on your test encode above, DivX seems to have everything in its favour (speed and filesize) however this probably couldn't be considered conclusive.  Like you said, you probably need to test more movies.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #17 –
Quote
i use k-lite codec pack

Get rid of that bloody codec pack (if you can) and install the proper XviD codec. And get your downloads and download-links from doom9's in the future.

Only use 'official' XviD builds; look for them in the FAQ at doom9's XviD forum.

And: There's no need to call it 'technical' - this is HA.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #18 –
Missed that, I agree, codec packs are evil.  They have a tendency to screw things up and usually install codecs that are aren't needed. All you really need is DivX/XviD, ffdshow and AC3Filter if you mux AC3 audio.  Then pretty much everything can be played back through Media Player Classic.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #19 –
k-lite codec pack is fine and has some really good extras (incl. wmpc). i also use it for its divx install is clean (no adware). k-lite codec pack is not evil for people who take time to select the items they want to install... for instance, i never installed xvid with k-lite, their latest release still includes xvid rc 1 or 2. i installed xvid seperately. by the way i used xvid rc3 for my tests.

the reason why i used 100% is that it's great for backup/hd based media center. for very long i tried to find out which target size would good for my backup but i quickly realized that too many factors will make such a goal impossible to reach (dark picture, length, quality of original mpeg2...). either too low or too high, target size is too hard to define! each movie is different, each encode ends up in a different way. for instance, i have "alien" whose quality is excellent at 1.6 gig (with ac3) but raiders of the lost arch is way over 3 gig... sure, in some way, it is predictable but why bother?

i originally started this thread wondering wether or not i missed something important in my choice for divx... and yes, i find all this discussion about details in xvid config pointless 

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #20 –
Well DivX is definately easy to use/configure.  Go for it if that s what you want.

Xvid 100% or divX 100% quality?

Reply #21 –
Quote
Well DivX is definately easy to use/configure. Go for it if that s what you want.


in case of a 100% quality encode, yes, i expect a codec to be easy to configure!