Review of XVID codec

[Bernix]

Hi all,
pity one can't react in review of software, but on other hand is it good.
Just confused with this review
It mentioned give codec more bitrate and it will be superb. And it is better than x264 or x265. I think only way to compare these codecs is to use lossless intra only compression on same videos. I believe these comparison exist xvid, x264 and x265.
What is said in review seems to me as nonsense. Because it means that lossless HEIF or HEIC or BPG is bigger than lossless jpeg. Almost nonsense lossless jpeg. I know, what is reviewer try to say probably, that xvid is less aggressive codec, but the way he said it is completely wrong from my POV.
And last

Give xvid enough bit rate and the output is very pleasing.

Same logic we can use for true lossless codecs like UT, HuffYUV, or Lagarith.
Any reference for lossless comparison of xvid vs x264 vs x265 are really appreciated.

Bernix

[sneaker]

It mentioned give codec more bitrate and it will be superb.

That is true of most codecs. With enough bitrate the picture becomes transparent to the viewer. It doesn't get any "transparenter". Early Blu-Rays used MPEG-2...

I would still not use XviD as it was never as mature as x264. x264 can achieve better compression/quality at a faster speed than XviD. Only reason to use XviD is to feed 15 year old DVD players from China...

[Bernix]

Hi Sneaker,
you are right and I agree with this and it is common sense. But I don't agree with x264 is blurry and so on what was in review. The main thing that I am interested in is to prove (which imply from review) that lossless xvid has lower bitrate than lossless x264 or x265. It wasn't said, but it imply from review.

Bernix

[sneaker]

What's stopping you from doing a comparison? Get a grainy sample and encode with XviD and x264...



Great waste of time for a random review that didn't even provide any proof.