x.264 or XviD?

[kidcash]

I have read over and over about people debating over these 2 codecs, they simply say one is better than the other, but wont it depend on the type of Video?

Which codec should I use for the following types of Video.

1. Anime/Cartoons, Basically Video that doesn't have much detail.
2. High Motion Video, Such as sport.
3. High Detail Video, example a documentary with close up's on small insects or plants.

Thanks

[Baldrick]

Don't you mean divx or xvid?

H264 / x264 should be better at everything if you use it correctly. It works well for everything from hd material to portable video. But you need need a powerful computer to decode HD h264 well.

[kidcash]

Yeah h.264/x.264 does take longer to encode than xvid, but yes I am comparing h.264/x.264 and xvid. I just want to know which one suits what types of video best, or is x.264 better for all purposes? Thats what I'm trying to find out.

Thanks.

[evol4pm]

AVI and MP4 are just file containers, and they have nothing to do with video quality or speed.
for example, xvid and divx are similar technology that's wrapped within the AVI container. and Nero Digital and Apple's formats are usually in MP4.

The key of performance is the file formats in these file containers.
H.264/X.264/Nero Digital are mpeg4 part 10, a newer mpeg4 technology, and they are better than xvid/divx in quality, which is based on mpeg4 part 2.

However, you are right, to get better quality video, h.264 usually takes more cpu power and more time to encode than xvid/divx.

Yet, if you are talking about HD video, i believe MP4 might have slightly advantage as AVI has a size limit!

[whaT2k]

Where does WMV fall in?
Which mpeg is this based on?
What's VC-1?
thanks

[jagabo]

WMV is a container like AVI and MP4. VC-1 is Microsoft's video codec that's often used in WMV.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/vc1techoverview.aspx

WMV, Windows Media Video, is also the name of the whole environment including the container, codec, API, etc.

[jman98]

X.264/H.264 should, in theory, beat Divx/Xvid at ALL types of encoding. However, the bad news is that X.264/H.264 playback requires a lot of CPU. If you are talking about DVD resolutions, then you should be able to play these back OK. If you have 720p resolution video encoded with X.264/H.264, then a dual core CPU can play it OK and and older single core CPU equivalent to 3 GHz or better might be able to play it OK. If you have 1080p resolution video, then you will need the very fastest dual core CPU on the market and that still might not be enough. Honestly, it's probably going to take those brand new quad core CPUs before you find something that can play 1080p X.264/H.264 video without stuttering.

So while X.264/H.264 offers excellent quality, the bad news is that you may not be able to play it back. The hardware hasn't caught up with the software in terms of most people's PCs being able to play these back without problems.

With regards to whaT2k's question, I would put WMV in between Divx/Xvid and X.264/H.264 but WMV can offer truly excellent results that almost are as good as X.264/H.264. Xvid/Divx at a high enough bit rate can also give excellent results, but X.264/H.264 have some features that Xvid/Divx lack that should lead to better video. If you want to play videos back without problems on a less than state of the art PC, you have no choice - you must use Xvid/Divx or WMV.

[2Dogs]

In fact the situation is not as dire with H.264 playback as many people make out.

Without the right separate video card, or even the very latest onboard graphics, you will indeed need a fairly decent dual core (C2D or Athlon X2) cpu to play back HD H.264 video.

Many recent video cards handle much of the H.264 encoding load on playback, however, so if you have one of those, even a modest recent cpu will be fine. For standard DVD resolution video, most modern pcs should be fine.

You may notice that the playback controls in, say, Media Player Classic, for example, may be a bit "laggier" than they are for the DVD video, perhaps reflecting the greater load on your system.

When playing standard resolution DVD video on my ntebook, Media Player Classic typically shows 6% cpu usage in task manager. By contrast, playing the same video transcoded to DivX, Xvid or H.264 will use 12% to 20%.

When you are encoding video to H.264, however, it's best to have the fastest pc available. Otherwise you need to set up some batch processing overnight. The encoding speed will depend hugely on what profile you choose, however. Using one of the faster profiles will result in encoding speed as good as encoding to DivX or Xvid, but still achieve better quality. One contributory factor to this increased quality (or higher compression for similar quality) is the ability to use more compressible AC3 audio - DivX and Xvid use MP3 audio. My fastest H.264 encodes have been at just over real time, whilst "Insane Quality" settings take ten times as long!

For me, what's missing at the present time is a way to encode a home video, with menus and chapters, to H.264, retaining the menus and chapters. I believe using the MKV container can allow you to have chapter points, but not sure if there is any way to have menus yet.

[wolf2009]

Well my Laptop IBM R51

Intel Centrino 1.5 Ghz , 512 MB RAM , onboard graphics chipset can playback 720p fine , without stuttering . So i prefer H.264 .

And all the videos i have encoded , Divx/Xvid never comes close to H.264 in terms of quality .

[2Dogs]

Hi Wolf2009,

good to hear you're getting decent results.

What programs are you using, and what if any profiles?

I'm still getting to grips with MeGUI and trying out Sharktooth's profiles.

[wolf2009]

Hi Wolf2009,

good to hear you're getting decent results.

What programs are you using, and what if any profiles?

I'm still getting to grips with MeGUI and trying out Sharktooth's profiles.

Hi 2Dogs ,

Ok , i'm using Megui ( which is no.1 for encoding for me after trying ALL, yes all the H.264 encoding software ) . Yes i use Sharktooth's profiles .

usually HQ-Slowest profile coz quality matters over time for me . usually i modify the profile to my needs , like the reference frames and stuff. but most of the other stuff in the profile is good enough .

[jman98]

In fact the situation is not as dire with H.264 playback as many people make out.

Without the right separate video card, or even the very latest onboard graphics, you will indeed need a fairly decent dual core (C2D or Athlon X2) cpu to play back HD H.264 video.

Many recent video cards handle much of the H.264 encoding load on playback, however, so if you have one of those, even a modest recent cpu will be fine. For standard DVD resolution video, most modern pcs should be fine.

If you have a video card that uses the PCI Express slot, this is probably true. If you have another type of video card, it's probably not true.

I have seen Xvid encodes that rival H.264. I've even seen WMV encodes that do so. I'm not suggesting that every encode with these codecs is as good as H.264, but you can get very good results from both. You'll just need higher bit rates to get them from Xvid/Divx.

[Topher5000]

For a couple of years now, I've been making xvids from my dvds using AutoGK. I recently watched a tv episode that was an x.264 (or is it h.264?) encode that I got from the net. I was really impressed with the pq. The colours seemed more saturated.
I tried meGUI, but I just didn't understand what to do. I think my problem is that I'm trying to convert vobs ripped with DVD Decrypter, not mpeg2 files.
I tried AutoMKV but the quality stank, probably because, again, I don't know what settings to use.
I'm going to try Ripbot & was wondering if it would automatically load the subsequent vobs, or just the one I select. Is there something I need to do with the vobs first? Should DVD Decrypter be set for IFO mode or file mode?
Thanks for any help.

[Valnar]

In fact the situation is not as dire with H.264 playback as many people make out.

Without the right separate video card, or even the very latest onboard graphics, you will indeed need a fairly decent dual core (C2D or Athlon X2) cpu to play back HD H.264 video.

Many recent video cards handle much of the H.264 encoding load on playback, however, so if you have one of those, even a modest recent cpu will be fine. For standard DVD resolution video, most modern pcs should be fine.

At the moment there is a bug in X.264 and the only hardware accelerated codec by Cyberlink/PowerDVD. I'm not sure who is at fault, but it's my understanding other H.264 encoders work fine. Which brings up another question. What's the next best thing (or perhaps better in this case) to X.264?

-Robert

[DarrellS]

It's my experience that x264 doesn't offer better quality, it offers the same quality at a smaller file size. Just like XviD offers a smaller file size than DivX and WMV offers smaller file size than XviD.

I have really been impressed with both HD-DivX and WMV-HD and honestly don't know what the big craze is about H264. It costs the comsumer out the butt to use this format and it is useless to the consumer that can't afford to use it.

[wolf2009]

At the moment there is a bug in X.264 and the only hardware accelerated codec by Cyberlink/PowerDVD. I'm not sure who is at fault, but it's my understanding other H.264 encoders work fine. Which brings up another question. What's the next best thing (or perhaps better in this case) to X.264?

-Robert

Wat bug in x264 r u talking about ?

[Valnar]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=907393

[wolf2009]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=907393

first u should be clear about the difference between H.264 and x264 b4 u go on spreading incorrect information .

H.264 is the codec while x264 is the encoder for producing H.264 video . And the bug u r talking about is about decoding H.264 video with hardware acceleration from Nvidia 8500 with Power DVD in vista . That bug is due to the Power DVD and Nvidia , it is not due to H.264 .

There r many other H.264 decoders other than Power DVD's decoder which work fine and dont have that bug .

[Valnar]

It's my understanding the bug is with X.264's version of H.264 only. It may not say in that thread specifically, but others I've read. Yes, it probably is more Cyberlink's fault.

Robert

[wolf2009]

It's my understanding the bug is with X.264's version of H.264 only. It may not say in that thread specifically, but others I've read. Yes, it probably is more Cyberlink's fault.

Robert

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059

H.264 is not the same as x264 .

[Valnar]

H.264 is not the same as x264 .

No kidding.

[wolf2009]

H.264 is not the same as x264 .

No kidding.

hmm, wats that supposed to mean ?

[impreza666]

What if i have a HD x264 or HD h264 file and want to play back on a stand alone dvd/divx player? How can i do this and not loose any quality?

Thanks

[jagabo]

Most Divx/DVD players won't play HD or h.264. You'll have to downsize and convert to Divx/Xvid or standard MPEG2 for DVD. Quality will suffer.

[DarrellS]

Most Divx/DVD players won't play HD or h.264. You'll have to downsize and convert to Divx/Xvid or standard MPEG2 for DVD. Quality will suffer.

This really bums me out since I'm finding all kinds of HD-Divx files. You'd think if Toshiba can make a $99 HD-DVD player that Philips or somebody could build a $99 dollar HD-Divx (with WMV-HD support) player.

I guess they figure nobody would waste their money on Blueray and HD-DVD if they could play high definition divx, xvid and wmv on a stand alone DVD player.

I saw a Pioneer player for $100 that will play all three formats but no high resolution files.

[jagabo]

The players I've heard of that support HD Divx:

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/multimedia/
http://www.tvixbox.com/
http://www.z500series.com/
http://www.ziova.com/products.php

Some of these are limited to 720p Divx and some are just now introducing players with h.264 support. And they can get pretty expensive. Better to just use a PC.

[impreza666]

i have a divx player that supports 1080p, at least there is a setting on it for that. it is a RCA DRC285. or how about PS3, will that work?

i want to watch these HD movies.

[jagabo]

i have a divx player that supports 1080p, at least there is a setting on it for that.

It supports 1080p as an output format (upsizing for HDTV). I'm pretty sure it does not support 1080p, or any other HD, sources.

[DarrellS]

i have a divx player that supports 1080p, at least there is a setting on it for that. it is a RCA DRC285. or how about PS3, will that work?

i want to watch these HD movies.

It will upconvert DVD resolution to 1080P but will not play high resolution files.

I did see a D-Link DSM-510 HD media player at Fry's for $19 after rebate ($119). Newegg has this same player for $174.

I don't believe it supports H-264 but it does support Windows 2000.

Also, I noticed that Buffalo has lost a lawsuit to the people who own the patent for wireless LAN technology and have stopped offering their players until an appeal is heard. This could affect every company that offers wireless media players or anything else that uses this technology.

[impreza666]

here is another question. do you guys know of any good HTPCs? i want something to connect to my 42 hdtv 1080p.