VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 54
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Hello!

    Unlike the slower x265, the divx265 has not persuasive quality for me. What do you think about it? Is it worse than x264 2-pass options?
    Last edited by Stears555; 6th Jul 2014 at 08:44.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Give me a good quality source video file for comparison.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Jul 2014
    Location: Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Here is an ut video file (2GB) here: https://docs.zoho.com/file/mb9ur17b7c07c2e3040b5aa30a3cba4e2f5c3 Try with that! The fruits has a lot of details.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Jul 2014
    Location: Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Wruckler View Post
    Here is an ut video file (2GB) here: https://docs.zoho.com/file/mb9ur17b7c07c2e3040b5aa30a3cba4e2f5c3 Try with that! The fruits has a lot of details.
    Isn't it too long video?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    http://www.dictaphone.atw.hu/divx265.mp4 and http://www.dictaphone.atw.hu/x264.flv


    Divx was coded as "higher quality" x264 was encoded as 2pass "slow"
    Last edited by Stears555; 6th Jul 2014 at 11:20.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    x264 seems better
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Will honestly look at DivX265/2-pass/Psy-RD - give a little indulgence
    Then for approximation > x265/abr/Psy-RD vs x264/abr/Psy-RD ? > http://forum.videohelp.com/showthread.php?t=365014
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    @Stears555,
    Firefox does not want to download your files ... can spread to another place? And do not hesitate to give the originals
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Gravitator View Post
    @Stears555,
    Firefox does not want to download your files ... can spread to another place? And do not hesitate to give the originals
    web browsers usually try to play mp4 files automatically. Do you have a download manager?
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Download Master also does not download! Often faced with european and american sites
    We can not be opened http://www.livejournal.com/ because of terrorist propaganda and slander
    Quote Quote  
  11. vanished El Heggunte's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: Misplaced Childhood
    Search Comp PM
    Also, DECENT web browsers can be configured to *always save* this or that file type

    Even better, why not use a «better-known» filesharing service
    And now that my resistance is futile , you can even use mega.co.nz

    But please keep avoiding oboom like the plague
    Quote Quote  
  12. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Hello!

    Unlike the slower x265, the divx265 has not persuasive quality for me. What do you think about it? Is it worse than x264 2-pass options?
    are you smoking some of that really good budapest source stuff again?

    the title of your thread is "X.264 AVC is better than DIVX265 HEVC. A TEST which proved it.DEAL WITH" which to me suggests that you would be offering some test encodes that supposedly would prove that x264 was better than divx265 and yet your entire opening post is:

    Hello!

    Unlike the slower x265, the divx265 has not persuasive quality for me. What do you think about it? Is it worse than x264 2-pass options?
    so you're asking for opinions? why not do the test encodes that "prove" your beloved x264 is superior to divx265? btw, i hear Jason aka DS aka former lead developer of x264 is single and loves morons, so this may be the big break you were waiting for.

    i hope you two are very happy together.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    i just did a quick encode for you using the Sintel 720p24 lossless trailer as source for you.

    one is divx265 with the "better quality" setting and one os x264, very slow preset and 2 pass. the divx encode was done at 25fps, the 2nd pass of the x264 encode was done at 12fps (remember the first pass is just an analysis pass), to me the x264 encode looks like garbage compared to the source, this is one of those times when to my eyes all the psy-rd optimizations absolutely kill the image, especially in the girl's face and the dragon and the colors in general.

    it should also be noted that the divx encoder undershot the target bit rate of 4mb/s by about 600kb/s and it still produce the better encode, so you DEAL WITH THAT!
    Quote Quote  
  14. and it still produce the better encode, so you DEAL WITH THAT!
    Can you point me to a few scene where one can see that DivX265 (clearly?) produces better quality?

    Doing a quick look, they look nearly identical to me using:
    Code:
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v3 = Subtract(v1, v2).Levels(127, 1, 129, 0, 255)
    StackHorizontal(v1, StackHorizontal(v2,v3))
    for a frame-by-frame comparison.
    But something is off with the coloring it's different for both encodes, might be a labling/decoding problem.
    Also in most of the scenes where you can clearly see the red hair to me it looks better (more detailed) in the x264 encode.
    (btw. funny thing is that I first mislabled the files and nearly posted the exact opposite)

    Cu Selur
    Quote Quote  
  15. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    @Selur:

    using the latest vlc build to evaluate the clips, the old man's beard, to my eyes, looks a lot worse on x264 vs divx, the girls face compared to divx and the original looks horrible and we need to keep in my this is the second slowest setting for x265, that's with all the goodies enabled that people claim gives x264 supernatural capabilities, mb-tree, aq, psy-rd, trellis, psy-trellis, all the b options, all of it and it's a 2 pass encode and it used 600kb/s more bit rate.

    look at the girl's and dragon's face in the original and compare against my test encodes, x264 doesn't come near to divx.

    i also decided to test with -qp 11 which resulted in a bit rate of 4103kbps, as you can see at similar bit rates x264, even with 2 pass and the slowest settings, can't keep up.
    Last edited by deadrats; 6th Jul 2014 at 18:59.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    test clip
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  17. i also decided to test with -qp 11 which resulted in a bit rate of 4103kbps, as you can see at similar bit rates x264, even with 2 pass and the slowest settings, can't keep up.
    Sorry, can't follow you there. You wrote that "it should also be noted that the divx encoder undershot the target bit rate of 4mb/s by about 600kb/s and it still produce the better encode, so you DEAL WITH THAT! ". So if DivX265 is already better, why create an additional encode with a higher bit rate. Doesn't make any sense to me.
    ------------
    to my eyes, looks a lot worse on x264 vs divx, the girls face compared to divx and the original looks horrible
    You mean the attached scene right?
    Converted the scene to lagarigth, using:
    Code:
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    StackHorizontal(v1, v2)
    I also did a lagarith encode using:
    Code:
    LoadPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\AGC.dll")
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).HDRAGC(debug=0).SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).HDRAGC(debug=0).SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    StackHorizontal(v1, v2)
    (with HDRAGC, you can clearly see the problems DivX265 has with smooth backgrounds, but since the is not really visible during normal playback I wouldn't call it a problem)

    To be frank, the main thing that I see there is that the clips use different colors, but I wouldn't dare to try to say that (under normal viewing conditions) one clip looks better than the other in that scene. All differences which jump out to me are due to the colors.

    Regarding: 'people claim gives x264 supernatural capabilities'
    Sorry, but I have never seen any people claiming that, but even if someone did and traumatized you, you could show here that they are wrong and that DivX265 is better.
    Btw. I really hope that H.265 implementation (not only at low bit rates) will beat all H.264 implementations, but to me so far it doesn't seem to be the case atm.


    Cu Selur
    Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Hi Wruckler,
    You know that the kernel / seeds from pits apricots (peaches, plums, cherries and other plants) can cure cancer?
    > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m18y3keyNjY
    > http://www.cytopharmaonline.com/en/
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    I've noticed that 10bit wins on dark video, but he loses the bright scenes (eats bitrate).
    I am confident that the new UHD-BD /12bit (powerful source) strongly improves coding and give the second breath video compression.
    Last edited by Gravitator; 7th Jul 2014 at 07:46.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    sample "deadrats_scene_HDRAGC.avi " - DivX not consider the scene change and get a SHOCK!!!
    A similar problem > Click


    Click image for larger version

Name:	deadrats_scene_HDRAGC.jpg
Views:	234
Size:	503.3 KB
ID:	26204


    @Selur,
    Сan do now to show the class of the frame (I, P, B) and a demonstration now x265 vs DivX ?
    Last edited by Gravitator; 7th Jul 2014 at 10:10.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Why not lay out samples (original, encoded) for analysis? - let developers DivX correct probe error
    Quote Quote  
  22. @Graviator:
    a. Why did you distort the image to 1920x1080 and introduce resizing artifacts?
    b. Did you understand why I wrote '(with HDRAGC, you can clearly see the problems DivX265 has with smooth backgrounds, but since the is not really visible during normal playback I wouldn't call it a problem' ?
    If you see these problems during normal playback you must really have to mis-configured system.
    -> From my point of view it's a mistake to look at these artifacts.

    Сan do now to show the class of the frame (I, P, B)
    You can do it yourself using:
    Code:
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    Import("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\FFMS2.avsi")
    LoadPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ColorMatrix.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).FFInfo().SubTitle("Divx265", x=10, y = 120).ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=100, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).FFInfo().SubTitle("x264", x=10, y = 120).ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=100, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    StackHorizontal(v1, v2)
    and a demonstration now x265 vs DivX ?
    not really interested in comparing x265&DivX265
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    Doing a quick look, they look nearly identical to me using:
    Code:
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v3 = Subtract(v1, v2).Levels(127, 1, 129, 0, 255)
    StackHorizontal(v1, StackHorizontal(v2,v3))
    for a frame-by-frame comparison.
    When I want to compare things like this I interleave the original video, the two encoded videos and the original video again:

    Code:
    v0=ffVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24.y4m", seekmode=0).Subtitle("source")
    v1=ffVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4", seekmode=0).Subtitle("divx265")
    v2=ffVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4", seekmode=0).Subtitle("x264")
    Interleave(v0,v1,v2,v0)
    If you open a script like this in VirtualDub you can use the left/right arrow keys to swap back and froth between frames of the original video and the first encoded video, the first encoded video and the second encoded video, and the second encoded video and the original. Difference become much more obvious than viewing frames side by side, especially if you use a screen magnifier.

    Doing this with the videos provided by deadrats shows that x264 is closer to the original than divx265 in almost every frame. The latter shows loss of most small, low contrast details. Here's an example, 8x point enlargement:

    original:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	orig.png
Views:	25
Size:	49.5 KB
ID:	26205

    divx265:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	divx265.png
Views:	25
Size:	45.1 KB
ID:	26206

    x264:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	x264.png
Views:	25
Size:	47.2 KB
ID:	26207
    Last edited by jagabo; 7th Jul 2014 at 09:22.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Why not lay out samples (original, encoded) for analysis? - let developers DivX correct probe error
    Not sure what you are asking for everything is here in this thread,....

    Source: (mentioned by deadrats in this thread)
    - https://media.xiph.org/video/derf/y4m/sintel_trailer_2k_720p24.y4m
    Reencodes: (posted by deadrats in this thread)
    - http://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/26161-1404666855/sintel_trailer_2k_720p24%20div...%20quality.mp4
    - http://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/26162-1404666855/sintel_trailer_2k_720p24%20x26...202%20pass.mp4
    Compared the scene deadrats mentioned:
    a. using:
    Code:
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    StackHorizontal(v1, v2)
    -> http://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/26186-1404715265/deadrats_scene.avi
    and
    b. using:
    Code:
    LoadPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\AGC.dll")
    LoadCPlugin("G:\Hybrid\avisynthPlugins\ffms2.dll")
    # loading source
    v1 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 divx265 higher quality.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).HDRAGC(debug=0).SubTitle("Divx265").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    v2 = FFVideoSource("sintel_trailer_2k_720p24 x264 very slow 2 pass.mp4").Crop(0,88,1280,544).HDRAGC(debug=0).SubTitle("x264").ShowFrameNumber(x=20, y=40, font="Arial", size=24, text_color=$ff0000)
    StackHorizontal(v1, v2)
    -> http://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/26187-1404715265/deadrats_scene_HDRAGC.avi

    ----

    @jagabo: I agree if you compare to the source frame-by-frame interleave often offers faster insight. I didn't use it since I didn't want to download the source and without the source interleave seemed silly.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2014
    Location: Kazakhstan
    Search Comp PM
    Not sure what you are asking for everything is here in this thread,....
    Now I see what kind of stuff you used to test/comparison.

    Why did you distort the image to 1920x1080 and introduce resizing artifacts?
    I open through the MPC save > open Paint and draw circles.

    sample "deadrats_scene_HDRAGC.avi " - DivX not consider the scene change and get a SHOCK!!!
    (time flies and forgotten) This is the same as my earlier review with a similar remark for DivX > x265 vs DivX
    Last edited by Gravitator; 7th Jul 2014 at 10:12.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    I really hope that H.265 implementation (not only at low bit rates) will beat all H.264 implementations, but to me so far it doesn't seem to be the case atm.
    now this isn't fair at all, the fact of the matter is that with a really high quality source and enough bit rate mpeg-2 will match avc and i would go as far as to say that at SD resolutions mpeg-2 can match avc even at lower bit rate, so long as you use a really good mpeg-2 encoder, like cce or procoder or hanks'.

    h265 will really start pulling away from avc when we start playing around with 4k, in fact let me download an high quality y4m 4k source and run a few UHD tests and post them here.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Come on. Calling me unfair, after I asked you where you think that the sample you provided and encoded was beating x264s output, then looked at the sample and found that DivX265 lacks in quality even in the scene that you selected.

    with a really high quality source and enough bit rate
    different scenario + no clue why you want to talk about mpeg-2 now

    h265 will really start pulling away from avc when we start playing around with 4k, ...
    I hope so. Problem is, at least for me 4k and higher resolutions are not really that interesting atm. since:
    a. there are no quality 4k displays in my price range.
    b. the availability of 4k content isn't that great

    in fact let me download an high quality y4m 4k source and run a few UHD tests and post them here.
    do that and I will spend the time to look at the encodings
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
    The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"

    VideoEnc: x264 core:142 r2409 d6b4e63
    --crf 17 --preset medium --tune film --demuxer raw --input-csp i420 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -o "%(tempvideofile)" -
    encoded 360 frames, 4.88 fps, 7193.93 kb/s, 12.9 MB

    VideoEnc: DivX 265/HEVC Encoder version 1.3.0.74
    -qp 8 -I 5 -fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -i - -o "%(tempvideofile)" -aqo 3 -s %(width)x%(height) -v
    encoded 360 frames, 3.2 fps, 7152.53 kb/s, 12.8 MB

    VideoEnc: x265 HEVC encoder version 1.1+250-1dc27824bde1
    --preset ultrafast --qp 9 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fps) - -o "%(tempvideofile)"
    encoded 360 frames, 3.16 fps, 7238.80 kb/s, 13.0 MB

    Click Image twice to show full resolution
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	snapshot1.png
Views:	38
Size:	10.02 MB
ID:	26247  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	snapshot2.png
Views:	28
Size:	9.65 MB
ID:	26248  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	snapshot3.png
Views:	39
Size:	9.96 MB
ID:	26250  

    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DarrellS View Post
    It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
    The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"

    VideoEnc: x264 core:142 r2409 d6b4e63
    --crf 17 --preset medium --tune film --demuxer raw --input-csp i420 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -o "%(tempvideofile)" -
    encoded 360 frames, 4.88 fps, 7193.93 kb/s, 12.9 MB

    VideoEnc: DivX 265/HEVC Encoder version 1.3.0.74
    -qp 8 -I 5 -fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -i - -o "%(tempvideofile)" -aqo 3 -s %(width)x%(height) -v
    encoded 360 frames, 3.2 fps, 7152.53 kb/s, 12.8 MB

    VideoEnc: x265 HEVC encoder version 1.1+250-1dc27824bde1
    --preset ultrafast --qp 9 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fps) - -o "%(tempvideofile)"
    encoded 360 frames, 3.16 fps, 7238.80 kb/s, 13.0 MB

    Click Image twice to show full resolution

    Your tests are Wrong. You used the worse quality of x.265, a weaker quality settings for x264, and the better quality settings for divx265
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2012
    Location: Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Until this day, there are no real 4K camcorders, due to the lack of good quality hardware HEVC encoder. The visible resolution of an average 4K camcorder is similar to a good quality 1080p camcorder, or it is only a bit slightly better. (4K camcorders produce only 1100 lw/ph visible resolution, a better 1080p handcam produce 1000 lw/ph visible resolution.) Until the appearance of a good real 4K HEVC camcorders, I will not use 4K displays and I will not edit 4K videos.
    Quote Quote