what is better divx or xvid???

[ChillBill]

After I d/l a large mpeg, I like to convert it to a divx to save space on my hd. My question is: what do you guys think is the best codec to use to get the best quality of the clip in the smallest size?

Does divx allow me to keep a higher quality in a smaller size file, xvid, or what?

Please, any opinions would be appreciated, even if its not a codec i mentioned.

Thanx,
Chill

[zero_net]

Ive downloaded some Xvids,
quality sucked big time compared to DivX.

maybe it was just encoded crappy, i dont know, only download couple of thme

[tompearson]

ppl reckon the latest DivX 5 codec is excellent at compressing files. Personally i disagree with the previous post, all the Xvid files i have downloaded and converted were fantastic quality and even when reconverted to DivX 4.12 and re encoded still retained suberb quality.

I suspect the clue is what bitrate you compress at, although probably other ppl have different views. Why not compress a similar portion of each and compare them?

Good luck Tom

[Sosua]

XVID is a very good quality codex but it is a pain in the nek if you want to make VCD or SVCD out of them. Look at the forum and you will found hundreds of post from people having problem converting to VCD or SVCD. Very often it is a SINC problem or Jerkey playback.

[wee haggis]

I find that generally speaking XVID's are much better than any DIVX Ive aquired.
Its also easier to encode (no need to extract audio as WAV....just feed it into TMPGenc and ....hey presto!...no jerkyness or sync problems)

[DivXExpert]

They are both very good. It really depends on who is encoding it. XviD is slower, to achive good quality, you have to optimize it for that video, and you have to know XviD inside out. DivX is not as high quality, but is so much easier, mainly because there is not as much to configure. DivX 5 has comparable quality to XviD, DivX 5 is faster, easier. XviD is higher quality if you are an expert.

I use DivX 3.11. Nandub. That really requires alot of configuring, but I feel that it retains the highest quality, if you know what you are doing. And I can't stand XviD's speed. I will wait till XivD is speed optimized.

[FulciLives]

Hello

The general belief seems to lean toward Xvid having slightly better quality. However, the higher the bitrate, the less the difference is ... to the point that I doubt the human eye can really tell the difference.

I have never encoded with Xvid because it simply seems to be too much of a pain-in-the-ass to be honest. I've gotten pretty good at encoding with DivX using Gordian Knot. There is an excellent guide to Gordian Knot on the doom9 website. I suggest you download it and follow the guide. Just make sure you don't compress everything TOO much. There is a mentality in the Xvid/DivX community to fit an entire movie on a single CD-R disc. Most of the time you cannot achieve DVD like quality doing that. It is best to encode to the size of 2 CD-R discs and split the movie up that way (or save it on a DVD-R disc in which case you can easily fit 2-4 movies per disc).

I've been very happy with the DVD material that I've backed up to DivX and I can't wait for more stand alone DVD players to come out that support DivX playback. Right now there is only one such model that I know of but it is expensive and has to be imported (I am in the USA) but I understand that by the end of this year there should be at least a couple of USA models that will playback DivX. Once stand alone DVD players start to support the format I figure it will become VERY popular as the quality can be excellent (with a high enough bitrate) and encoding time is faster than doing mpeg2 with TMPGEnc. As far as DVD back-up is concerned I think it is best suited for backing up dual layer DVD discs which now either have to be split up over 2 DVD-R discs or compressed to fit on a single DVD-R disc. With DivX (even at a very high bitrate) you should be able to easy fit 2 if not more movies per DVD-R disc even if the original was on a dual layer DVD.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

*** EDIT ***
I want to point out that if you use MP3 sound then you can use GORDIAN KNOT to do that and mux it in with the video. However if you want to use AC-3 sound it is best to disable the audio processing in GORDIAN KNOT and then mux the DivX avi video file with the AC-3 audio file using AVIMux which, like GORDIAN KNOT, can be downloaded from the doom9 website. Many people claim that AVIMux works better with AC-3 than using GORDIAN KNOT (which uses NANDUB to do the AC-3 muxing). By the way, when I do a MP3 audio track I always use 192kbps for optimal sound. If you need to conserve your bitrate you can try 160kbps but going lower than that will degrade the audio too much in my opinion (i.e., don't use the popular 128kbps rate for audio ... it is much too low!)

[DivXExpert]

You cannot get DVD quality with any MPEG-4 codec. Right now. No matter how high the bitrate. DivX or XviD at codec saturation, does not look as good as a DVD. MPEG-4 was not designed with high quality in mind, it was not optimized for extreamly high bitrates. MPEG-2 is better for high bitrates. The compression ratio is less, but it is higher quality at higher bitrates.

Like MPEG-4 looks beautiful at 900kb/s compared to MPEG-2 at 900kb/s
MPEG-2 looks beautiful at 10000kb/s compared to MPEG-4 at 10000kb/s

MPEG-4 is made for lower bitrates.
MPEG-2 for higher.

[FulciLives]

You cannot get DVD quality with any MPEG-4 codec. Right now. No matter how high the bitrate. DivX or XviD at codec saturation, does not look as good as a DVD. MPEG-4 was not designed with high quality in mind, it was not optimized for extreamly high bitrates. MPEG-2 is better for high bitrates. The compression ratio is less, but it is higher quality at higher bitrates.

Like MPEG-4 looks beautiful at 900kb/s compared to MPEG-2 at 900kb/s
MPEG-2 looks beautiful at 10000kb/s compared to MPEG-4 at 10000kb/s

MPEG-4 is made for lower bitrates.
MPEG-2 for higher.

I completely DISAGREE that you CANNOT achieve DVD quality with an MPEG-4 codec such as DivX or Xvid. The quality at high bitrates will be VERY near that of DVD quality. So much so that it will be VERY difficult to tell the difference unless you are using a VERY large display (such as a 40" plus television). Even then the differences will be minimal (assuming you use a high enough bit-rate).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[DivXExpert]

Compare a 10000kb/s DivX. To a 10000kb/s MPEG-2, 1280x1024. Both encoded properly, viewed on a 21" computer moniter, you will see a difference.

Make sure your source is good, before you encode. Rendered probably. So that it is noiseless.

MPEG-4 codecs become saturated much before MPEG-2 does. Always. Just the way the standard is. MPEG-4 was made with internet streaming in mind. Not HighDef, like MPEG-2. Trust me.

[FulciLives]

Compare a 10000kb/s DivX. To a 10000kb/s MPEG-2, 1280x1024. Both encoded properly, viewed on a 21" computer moniter, you will see a difference.

Make sure your source is good, before you encode. Rendered probably. So that it is noiseless.

MPEG-4 codecs become saturated much before MPEG-2 does. Always. Just the way the standard is. MPEG-4 was made with internet streaming in mind. Not HighDef, like MPEG-2. Trust me.

HUH ?!?!?!

First of all a mpeg2 DVD complaint file cannot have a combined (video and audio) bitrate above 9800kbps and it is a good idea to not push the video part over 8000kbps. Also a mpeg2 DVD complaint video file must have a resolution of either 720x480 (for NTSC) or 720x576 (for PAL).

So, in short, you are freakin' clueless.

Bye!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[negon]

I agree with DivXExpert on this one in that MPEG2 is better at higher bitrates. However, I have seen MPEG-4 do pretty darn good to achieve near-DVD quality. I use 1600x1200, 17" LCD and i've seen some awesome DivX that looked close to DVD quality.

[negon]

FulciLives, last I checked he didn't mention a single thing about "DVD compliant mpeg2". He simply said MPEG2 at a high bitrate.

[FulciLives]

FulciLives, last I checked he didn't mention a single thing about "DVD compliant mpeg2". He simply said MPEG2 at a high bitrate.

Well until a new recordable disc format (blue ray perhaps) comes out that supports higher than current DVD resolutions and/or bitrates THEN what is the POINT of making a non-complaint mpeg2 video file with a resolution and/or bitrate that won't work with the DVD format that we have NOW.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[negon]

The point he was making wasn't whether the MPEG2 was DVD compliant or not. He was simply showing that at a higher bitrate the MPEG2 is better than MPEG4, which it is. Arguing that it isn't DVD compliant is just stupid when that isn't the point he was making.

[FulciLives]

The point he was making wasn't whether the MPEG2 was DVD compliant or not. He was simply showing that at a higher bitrate the MPEG2 is better than MPEG4, which it is. Arguing that it isn't DVD compliant is just stupid when that isn't the point he was making.

His point has no place in a dialog about what MPEG-4 format someone should use to encode a mpeg file (obviously either mpeg1 or mpeg2) to MPEG-4 (either DivX or Xvid) in hopes of making a smaller file while still retaining relative quality.

After all that was the original post.

The whole issue is useless really since no one encodes at a resolution above 720x480/576 with a bitrate over 8000kbps for mpeg2. The only format that supports that right now is the D Theater VHS format by JVC and you don't see any software encoders for that, now do you?

The comment was ill placed in this particular instance and doesn't really help the original poster at all.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[DivXExpert]

Have you ever heard of SATELLITE? Satellite used bitrates WAY over 9800kb/s. At WAY higher resolutions.

And it IS compliant. Just not to DVD standards. The world doesn't revolve around DVD. That is not the only standard.

[DivXExpert]

His point has no place in a dialog about what MPEG-4 format someone should use to encode a mpeg file (obviously either mpeg1 or mpeg2) to MPEG-4 (either DivX or Xvid) in hopes of making a smaller file while still retaining relative quality.

Why not? The subject of obtaining DVD quality with MPEG-4, was brought up not by me. But you. I was only pointing out that it was false.

[FulciLives]

His point has no place in a dialog about what MPEG-4 format someone should use to encode a mpeg file (obviously either mpeg1 or mpeg2) to MPEG-4 (either DivX or Xvid) in hopes of making a smaller file while still retaining relative quality.

Why not? The subject of obtaining DVD quality with MPEG-4, was brought up not by me. But you. I was only pointing out that it was false.

This is becomming rather pointless as we obviously don't agree and the thread is starting to get way off topic.

END OF TRANSMISSION

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[ViperJPB]

To be honest this whole conversation cracks me up! Divx is great for low bitrate backups of "higher" quality material. Mpeg2 is a far better codec for hi-resolution and high bitrate material. The point in using Divx is to make a smaller file size for ease of use. The point of the Mpeg2 standard is to set up a codec in which material can be brought into a digital realm without major loss. Mpeg 2 is used in every broadcast you receive from any satellite network and will soon be the case in cable as well. The format of the content can be at any rez and any bitrate! DLP projection theatres will use Mpeg2 as the source for HD,2K, and 4K film resolution material. The DVD compliant concern is ludicrous if you are not putting it back on the DVD. The point was made that Mpeg2 is a higher quality codec that supports higher color depths up into the 16bit floating depth with no resolution cap or bitrate cap. (And no that has nothing to due with 32bit blah blah of computer monitors).

[majkol]

I find that generally speaking XVID's are much better than any DIVX Ive aquired.
Its also easier to encode (no need to extract audio as WAV....just feed it into TMPGenc and ....hey presto!...no jerkyness or sync problems)

please enlighten me... how do i convert XVID to SVCD WITHOUT jerkyness????


THANK YOU