Video clip shootout!

[vitualis]

Now, one of our former members who shall remain nameless has written some rather disparaging remarks about me. The issue in question was whether a particular set of encoding methods was better than DivX/XviD at lower bitrates, specifically for Pocket PCs...

To prove his point, he posted two video clips, one in his encoding method (end result is MPEG-1) and the other in XviD with screenshots and then smuggly claimed the superiority of the video quality of his method.

Curiously, to MY eyes, the screenshots didn't show a clear winner at all. The screenshot of one shot obviously of a high motion scene clearly showed the XviD clip to have much fewer artifacts for the foreground. The screenshot of a low motion scene showed the other clip having a cleaner and sharper picture.

Now, as anyone who knows anything about video quality, especially of low bitrate encodings, screenshots don't really mean anything. It is what the thing actually looks like as a video clip that matters. Encoding artifacts in a still frame may not be obvious OR can be very disruptive in the actually video.

Since this person posted both video clips, I had a look at both, and again to MY eyes, the XviD clip looked obviously better! And yet, this person claimed that his clip was superior in quality! Now, I've been around long enough to know that not everyone sees video quality in the same way so I decided to put this decision to a poll.

I've renamed one of the clips as 1.mpg and the other as 2.mpg. One of them is the XviD clip and the other is the unnamed encoding format in MPEG-1.

It is easy to tell them apart if you actually analyse it, but I urge my fellow members to do the visual test FIRST and vote before determining which is which.

--------------------------------------------

What you need for the test:

Firstly, make sure you've downloaded and installed the binaries for the XviD codec: http://www.xvidmovies.com/codec/

Then I suggest that you do the test with the older Windows Media Player. To load it up:

Start --> Run

Then type: mplayer2

Windows Media Player should start up. Then play each video clip in turn.

The video clips are quite small in framesize (320x240) on a modern PC screen so I find it useful to more clearly distinguish between to two clips by viewing them in full screen or at 200%

Even though the XviD clip is renamed with a ".mpg" extension, it should still play just fine (as long as the codec is installed! -- do this first).

Then, vote here!

--------------------------------------------

The two video clips are here:
1.mpg -- http://users.tpg.com.au/mtam/1.mpg
2.mpg -- http://users.tpg.com.au/mtam/2.mpg

--------------------------------------------

Now, I suggest that you don't post in this thread which clip you think is which until after the poll finishes.

We can critique the encoding methods AFTER the poll has finished.

Best regards.

[flaninacupboard]

how long will the poll run for?

[vitualis]

I set the poll to run for a total of 5 days.

Best regards.

[tekkieman]

I set the poll to run for a total of 5 days.

Best regards.

You may need to send a reminder. That's a long time to wait, and then remember to go back and make the comments we're probably dying to make right now.

[vitualis]

4 days left...

Regards.

[stiltman]

In four days it wont even be on the first page anymore.

Why not make it a sticky for the remainder of the time left?

Or I guess people could post needless info like me to keep it up on the list

[BJ_M]

i dont see a clear winner and i didn't check to see which was what type -- for 400k files -- IF you dont blow them up at all .... either would be usable ..

i am not sure what this is even in reference to ...

[BJ_M]

oh -- no wonder both looked the same --

an update

i am watching on 1900 resolution screen and all i see is a small picture --

i blow them up a bit more and i thought both looked bad but now starting to see a difference ... [edit vitualis] clip [/edit vitualis]

, a 3rd option above should be -


"they both look bad and nearly equal"

[stiltman]

I think you need to reread the original post again BJ_M

We can critique the encoding methods AFTER the poll has finished.

[BJ_M]

I think you need to reread the original post again BJ_M

We can critique the encoding methods AFTER the poll has finished.

i dont even know what the encoding methods are - so how could i even critique them ?

i was talking about picture quality ...

i will not even vote

[stiltman]

I think you need to reread the original post again BJ_M

We can critique the encoding methods AFTER the poll has finished.

i dont even know what the encoding methods are - so how could i even critique them ?

i was talking about picture quality ...

i will not even vote

forgot the 8)

Why not vote? You looked at both of them and you surely have an opinion

[BJ_M]

[edit vitualis] clip [/edit vitualis]

[vitualis]

Sorry BJ_M, but I edited one of your posts. I hope that's okay.

I don't want anyone stating on the thread which looks better so that anybody else who votes will have as close to a chance of a non-biased vote as possible.

I agree both clips look like crap...

If you were wondering what this was in reference to... the ex-member in question is kwag here: http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87171&sid=6dbcc5afedf168b51595ec9f331b6921#87171

... doing one of his cross-forum fights (e.g., like the recent doom9 arguments). My original post was here: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=958040#958040

What galls me is that he dares claims that his KVCD clip "beats the crap" out of XviD. Firstly, I think that the XviD clip is clearly superior and secondly, that is a pretty crappily encoded XviD clip. Since he actually posted the clips, I thought I'll let it be voted upon (just to makes sure that he is the delusional one, not me... ).

If you've seen both clips, please vote on the one you think looks better, even if it only vague to your eyes.

Best regards.

[rds_correia]

I wonder what BJ_M had written in his posts that were edited
Don't want to deviate members from the main issue -> quality, but could somebody advise the members than one of the mpg files can be burnt in a CD and be seen through a standalone DVD player? :P
Tell you what -> I won't vote either as you all do know my opinion on this.
Cheers

[flaninacupboard]

Don't want to deviate members from the main issue -> quality,

Then stop talking right there. vitualis already said this is about QUALITY on a POCKET PC.

[BJ_M]

Sorry BJ_M, but I edited one of your posts. I hope that's okay.

I don't want anyone stating on the thread which looks better so that anybody else who votes will have as close to a chance of a non-biased vote as possible.

I agree both clips look like crap...

If you were wondering what this was in reference to... the ex-member in question is kwag here: http://kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87171&sid=6dbcc5afedf168b51595ec9f331b6921#87171

... doing one of his cross-forum fights (e.g., like the recent doom9 arguments). My original post was here: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=958040#958040

What galls me is that he dares claims that his KVCD clip "beats the crap" out of XviD. Firstly, I think that the XviD clip is clearly superior and secondly, that is a pretty crappily encoded XviD clip. Since he actually posted the clips, I thought I'll let it be voted upon (just to makes sure that he is the delusional one, not me... ).

If you've seen both clips, please vote on the one you think looks better, even if it only vague to your eyes.

Best regards.

ok -- no problem ... but the reason i did that is that to me and others -- color and image quality visuals is JUST AS important as detail and clarity ...

and one of them has one and the other has the the other ...


one of them certainly handled motion a lot better though

[fmctm1sw]

Now, one of our former members who shall remain nameless has written some rather disparaging remarks about me. The issue in question was whether a particular set of encoding methods was better than DivX/XviD at lower bitrates,

Gee, I couldn't possibly imagine what this is all about...

[Conquest10]

Ah, the good ol' days. I see we're back to kvcd, kdvd vs. standards again.

[Doramius]

I made my vote and I'm pretty sure I know which one is which. Definite difference when you look at it. I won't state which one is which, but the only thing I can guess that makes them look similar is the person is looking at the clips really small. When I enlarge it, the difference is noticeable immediately.

Which brings me to my next point,......People, don't smoke crack! It impairs your judgement and makes you think low bitrate can be seen clearly and cleanly on a 9' HDTV projection without noticeable improvement over a high bitrate. It's like having 12+ beers to make Disney's 'Newsies' seem like a decent porn video. If you're willing to make yourself look like an a** in public, try out for American Idol. Don't do it here. Otherwise people will burn you as if you were pooping pepperoncinis and jalapenos, which I'm sure it's not a very good feeling.

[vitualis]

2 days left...

Regards.

[flaninacupboard]

im suprised there aren't more votes. i though there were a lot more people interested in this topic...? perhaps they just made more noise than your average user?

[offline]

Well I thought one of the clips was significantly better than the
other. As I have a new divix standalone, I'll try them in that
as well. Both would be un watchable for long periods imho.

[Doramius]

At this point it only looks like 10 people have posted in this thread, and there are 19 votes. So there are quite a few people interested in the subject. But I agree, I would have though more people would have voted in this thread.

[tekkieman]

At this point it only looks like 10 people have posted in this thread, and there are 19 votes. So there are quite a few people interested in the subject. But I agree, I would have though more people would have voted in this thread.

Maybe the other nine did as vitualis asked, and waited to post until the poll was over

[Doramius]

At this point it only looks like 10 people have posted in this thread, and there are 19 votes. So there are quite a few people interested in the subject. But I agree, I would have though more people would have voted in this thread.

Maybe the other nine did as vitualis asked, and waited to post until the poll was over

I didn't post my answer, so I'm not worried any.

[tekkieman]

At this point it only looks like 10 people have posted in this thread, and there are 19 votes. So there are quite a few people interested in the subject. But I agree, I would have though more people would have voted in this thread.

Maybe the other nine did as vitualis asked, and waited to post until the poll was over

I didn't post my answer, so I'm not worried any.

Nor did I......yet!

[vitualis]

1 day left...

Regards.

[Doramius]

Wow 5 days is a long time to burn someone for their stupidity. Most people just burn me within that first hour.

[tekkieman]

1 day left...

Regards.

Yeah, except it's been so long I'll have to go back and look at the clips again. I think I remember which one I picked, just can't remember why.

[vitualis]

Clip 1 = KVCD
Clip 2 = XviD clip

Well, to MY eyes, the XviD clip is clearly superior to the KVCD clip and a majority (though not overwelming majority) of people agree with me.

Since the KVCD clip came from kwag, I can only assume that that is a superbly encoded clip. To me, it looks like crap and is completely unwatchable.

Interestingly, the XviD clip looks like utter crap too though it handles motion and hides obvious artificing much better during playback of the video. I can only assume that kwag is not much of a MPEG-4 user, because MY DivX5 clips for Pocket PC look much better than that at similar or lower average bitrate. If you do a two-pass DivX 5 encode and crop the letterboxing, it can look pretty damn good indeed.

In any case, I still personally feel that DivX/XviD is hugely superior to KVCD/MPEG-1 at ultra-low bitrates (e.g., for Pocket PC), especially if you encode the MPEG-4 correctly and this is proved by kwag's own test.

Regards.