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: How is 3ivx ? (Read 7283 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How is 3ivx ?

I've heard that 3ivx produces very good results, but no one seems to use it.  How good is it really?

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #1 –
There are a handful of people that I know that do use it.  But almost all the hardcore encoders that I know all use XviD or DivX and maybe some other codecs such as RV9.  It isn't that 3ivx is terrible, it certainly isn't.  It is just somewhat limited, ie no two pass encoding and no ASP features, qpel,b-frames,gmc.  The next release which will come out on tuesday will feature two pass encoding I am told so this will help.  I suppose if you wanted to do some quick encodes at high bitrates 3ivx might not be a bad solution.  I have 3ivx installed on my computer though because it contains the only mp4 directshow filter that I know of which actually works.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #2 –
The 3ivX video encoder does not produce results as good as DivX or XviD can.  It is not recommended for anything but testing.  I also only use it for its MP4 splitter.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #3 –
the new 3ivx 4.5 is better than DivX and better than xvid.

what's new in version 4.5 :
- keyframe setting
- two pass encoding
- AAC encoder/decoder (HE-AAC, Multichannel)
- media muxer (encode to .mp4 or .mov)
- ...

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #4 –
Well, i wouldn't dare to say it's better. In reality, 3ivx is still a step below them in quality, but it's improving. It's main advantage is some additional features like mpeg4 muxer.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #5 –
Quote
the new 3ivx 4.5 is better than DivX and better than xvid.

I would wait until a new codec test is done at doom9 before I accept that statement. The last test showed some serious issues with 3ivx.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #6 –
From my tests which I've posted on the doom9 forums I've found that 3ivX has indeed hugely improved but is still nowhere near the main contenders. It is however very fast, you may wish to consider this.
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #7 –
Quote
From my tests which I've posted on the doom9 forums I've found that 3ivX has indeed hugely improved but is still nowhere near the main contenders. It is however very fast, you may wish to consider this.

I don't really follow Doom9, would you mind linking your comments there if possible?  I'd love to see them.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #10 –
Quote
And I'm guessing these are them:  http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?thre...20&pagenumber=2

Very interesting and thanks for the info.

Yes indeed. Those are the ones. Thanks Mike.

PSNR is not normally considered a great tool for cross-codec comparisons as different codecs behave differently and the way they behave determines the PSNR. However, when the difference in PSNRs is significant as this the conclusion is quite valid. From What I read on doom9 3ivX doesn't have B-Frames or GMC but it was supposed to have QPel. We later heard from Shitowax on doom9 that the current release does not contain the QPel implementation that has been coded for some reason or other. So its ASP features seem quite limited and this probably contributes to the considerable difference in PSNR. Corrections from 3ivX devs welcome.
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #11 –
3ivx v.4.5 is OK for high bitrates (ie, at LEAST 150 kB/s) but it's terrible below that.  It certainly isn't anywhere as good as XviD 1.0b2 or DivX 5.1.1.  Like everybody else, I use the 3ivx MP4 splitter and ignore the codec because there are much better options for encoding video. 

IMO the 3ivx decoder filter for video isn't as good as Koepi's latest standalone decoder filter for XviD (1.0-pre-beta3).

The best thing to do is create a small test clip that represents your video in microcosm, then encode it using all possible permutations of DivX, XviD, and 3ivX.  I did that, and I use Xvid as a result.  It took an entire weekend, but the video results are worth it.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #12 –
Bonzi + Kl33per


Do you use the 3ivX mp4 splitter and/or decoder?

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #13 –
I use the MP4 splitter.  If you're about to ask about the decoder and how it runs out after 30 days don't worry, just get CoreAAC from RareWares.

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #14 –
hehe.

i think the big deal with 3ivx is that it provides loads more decoding/demuxing options for Xvid

although it doesn't encode the ASP features, it will decode them (at lower quality for my eyes), but the main deal with 3ivx is the splitters.  lots of them.  it's real nice to be able to play quicktime movies in directshow (and hence, avisynth).  it'll split almost all quicktime movies, with the exception of anything with Qdesign Music (aaw, and it's such a good codec too... NOT).  this is good because i no longer need to use VFAPI to get quicktime into avisynth (thus no colourspace conversions)

however, it is a little buggy at times with some files.  mov is a _much_ more sophisticated container than avi.  supports things like VFR and even different codecs in the same video stream...

How is 3ivx ?

Reply #15 –
3ivx has been coming along very nicely. I like 3ivx alot especially since it can be utilized with .mov  & .mp4 but as much as I like it I still have to say that DivX is better. Not insurmountably better but noticeably better.
"And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming." --Edgar Allan Poe, The Raven