Avi vs. mpeg quality question

[90blackcrx]

How big of a difference is there and will an mpeg file be quicker to burn then an avi file ? Lets just say the quality of an avi file is 10/10 , what would an mpeg file be ???

[lordsmurf]

Question makes no sense.
An MPEG is an MPEG. An AVI is an AVI.

[yoda313]

Hello,
Do you mean how long to AUTHOR a file to become vcd or dvd compliant? That depends on how much you do to it.
Kevin

---As lordsmurf wrote, please clarify what your asking, and post your computer specifications so someone may give you a possible estimate---

[BJ_M]

also there are at least 50 types of avi files -- which do you mean ? they go from crap quality to best and everywhere inbetween..

[wwjd]

More information would be useful. For what it is worth, I prefer working with AVI files when editing and authoring. The files are large but I find it easier and less complicated to cut and trim video/audio. I have run into problems with where I want to cut or trim an mpeg file. I also find that some DVD authoring programs load and preview AVI files a little faster and easier.

I agree with a previous post, rendering time depends alot on what you do the file.

wwjd

[90blackcrx]

I just needed a little comparsion on avi files compare to mpeg files.

[Grimey]

If you're converting from one format to another, then they'll be the same. your output file will be the same or worse quality, but not better.

[thor300]

As said already, so many types of AVI. I use 2 codecs for AVIs; DV and Xvid. DV is huge files with very good quality and is good for editing, while xvid is highly compressed and unsuited for editing but good for squeezing long videos in small files.
If you want as much quality as possible in smallest possible file then Xvid (and DivX) is better than mpeg.
Was any of this useful? Would be easier to answer if you could be more specific.

[vhelp]

Well.., I understood your question. I think. Anyways.

Ok.., assuming from a capture source to an AVI format..

As was indicated, there are many AVI formats. And, depending on which one
you use in your comparison, AND your level of expertise in MPEG encoding,
who knows.

However, in a "generic" sense, if you are talking about a non-format AVI,
such as "uncompressed" AVI, then there is NO CONTEST. AVI will be better
than the MPEG you encode the avi from.
.
Even an MJPEG avi will look better than an MPEG.

If you are talking about a DivX format (that you encoded the avi from) then
the comparisons to an MPEG will depend upon your knowledge between
the two formats, and your encoding techniques

But just remember, that there are two types of AVI forms.

* Containers, and
* non-containers

EDIT:
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Containers are those avi's that "house" another form inside an AVI structure.
Example, divX and XvID for instance, are hacked (MS's old .ASF, which
are another form of MPEG (I think) if memory recalls correctly, though I may be off
I do hope I got that right, or close to it. Anyways..., and the "non" containers are those that are pointers to another format codec container,
such as MJPEG; Huffy; and DV, or better yet, NO codecs (uncompressed)
.
Well, that's how I view AVI's.., there's two forms.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Cheers,
-vhelp

[ZippyP.]

For comparison purposes...

An avi is a wrapper that can use one of many different types of audio and video codecs. Divx avi's are common on the internet because they can be pretty good quality with high compression. An mpeg of the same quality as a Divx file is 2-3 times bigger.

[mpack]

I would quibble with a couple of things you say there...

Even an MJPEG avi will look better than an MPEG.

Not true. At the same bitrate the MPEG is better. Thats why MPEG is the standard and not MJPEG, even though MPEG is much more complicated to do. An MPEG containing only I-frames is virtually identical to MJPEG in practical terms.

Anyways..., and the "non" containers are those that are pointers to another format codec container, such as MJPEG; Huffy; and DV, or better yet, NO codecs (uncompressed)

HuffYUV compression is lossless, ie. the reconstructed pixels should be identical to that of the uncompressed AVI, but occupies a third or quarter of the disk space (and uses only a third or a quarter of the PCI bus bandwidth when capturing, compared to uncompressed).

In practice (and depending on how you configure it) the HuffYUV codec may do color space conversion which would be slightly lossy, though not so you would notice. It most cases the colour space that HuffYUV wants to use is actually the native format of the capture card, so there is no loss whatever relative to what you would get uncompressed.