...which would collate compression ratios and relative speeds for a variety of music on a variety of systems.
I'm not even sure if that produces repeatable or entirely meaningful results.I held an MPEG-4 encoding "race" on another forum starting in November of 2007 and compiled the results into a long list in descending order of encoding FPS achieved on different systems. The test used the same source file and the same encoding software with the same settings and the same version of the XviD codec on all systems, and the results varied wildly, even between almost identical PCs. I have a feeling that the same may apply here. It would be interesting to see though. smile.gifCheers, Slipstreem.
Not to get off topic, but I think XVid looks attrocious. I prefer H.264 right now as it easily blows it out of the water...
Saying that XviD looks attrocious is like saying that LAME sounds attrocious. At what bitrate? Using what encoding strategy? Most front-ends abuse XviD by defaulting to typically 600Kbps (270MB/hour) in CBR for converting DVD quality source material. That's similar to forcefully restricting LAME to, say, CBR96 and expecting to achieve perceptual transparency from CD quality source material. It ain't gonna happen.
Your vision about video technology is very erroneous. Do you watch DVD resolution at your 60" projection screen extremely HD?If you want to understand what's going on around video compression you should be doom9's member.2-3 years ago there were some Xvid Guru (very respectable people on doom9) but even they admitted that H.264 is superior in all situations.Today x264 has very strong psychovisual optimizations. The best of all H.264 encoders. It preserves even miscellaneous film grain.
You are talking about 1GB per movie. With x264 you will enable to achieve the same or even better quality at 600-700 Mb.http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/?dir=./x264clips here are some examples of x264's professional HD rips 720/1080p at only 2-4 Mbit/s. It's state of art and very very hardly distinguishable from Blu Ray original.
Saying that XviD looks attrocious is like saying that LAME sounds attrocious.
1. MP3 has more compatibility than Xvid. MP3 is playable on everything, while Xvid is still popular but not every player has MPEG-4 ASP support.
2. Bitrates for audio and video are too different. It isn't the same keep MP3 -V 5 60 Mb as to keep one movie at 1 gb.
It isn't correct to compare MP3 vs AAC as Xvid vs H.264. I would say as MPEG-2 and H.264 by compatibility.
Some enough sure prognostics say that Blu ray will completely replace DVD by 2011 year. While there is no sure about AAC.
And price cuts for Blu ray are amazy. There are some BR players around 100-150$.
Quote from: IgorC on 31 January, 2009, 10:47:50 PM1. MP3 has more compatibility than Xvid. MP3 is playable on everything, while Xvid is still popular but not every player has MPEG-4 ASP support.Maybe that depends which country you're in. Almost all standalone DVD players currently on sale in the UK (certainly the budget brands) have native support for DivX, hence XviD. Prices start at around £20.
Also, I've been thinking about your claim of MPEG-2 being satisfactory (sorry if I've misinterpreted you) at a bitrate of between 3 and 4Mbps, and I'm unable to agree with that....