x.264 or XviD?

[impreza666]

i just want something that i can watch x264 on my HDTV.

[impreza666]

or h264

[jagabo]

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.

Wow! I thought I would get one just to play around with it. But the $100 rebate requires you buy a new VIIV PC along with it.

[edDV]

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.

Understand what you have. It is a standard def player that upscales at the output. It has no HD playback capability. If you want a HD Divx player, get one of these.
http://www.divx.com/products/hw/browse.php?c=7

[DarrellS]

But the $100 rebate requires you buy a new VIIV PC along with it.

Ouch, I missed that part.

I'm looking at HD Tuner cards right now. Would like to replace my ATI AIW 7500 before everything goes digital but none of the new ATI's support Windows 2000 and I'm not in the market for a new computer or operating system. The one I have works pretty well.

[AlexGrim]

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 .

This is what i use, and you cannot tell the difference between the avi, and the ORIGINAL DVD. I only rip high quality video, and i usually use 2200kbps, which --on average, give you a file size ~= 1GB/hr || 500MB/30mins || 250MB/15mins. Some movies --for example very wide screen versions-- will not even reach that size. You cannot rip a good xvid without knowing what the settings are to be used for. If you just use some program to transcode, or you are not using TWO PASS encoding, then you are wasting your time, and disk space. If you want to make your 1.5bg (hour and a half) movie into a 1gb movie, you can simply scale the screen a tad bit smaller, and lower the bitrate just a little bit, and when you are done, you will still have a very good looking video, and a much smaller size. I recommend you use a line like this:

mencoder "Silent Hill.vob" \
-vf yadif,crop=720:362:0:56,scale=720:368 \
-aspect 2.21 -force-avi-aspect 2.21 \
-ofps 25 \
-oac mp3lame -lameopts cbr:br=128 \
-ovc xvid -xvidencopts
bitrate=2200:chroma_opt:vhq=4:bvhq=1:quant_type=mpeg:max_bframes=1:aspect=2.21:profile=dxnhtpal:pass=1
\
-passlogfile log.log \
-ffourcc DIVX;
-o /dev/null ;

I don't know why most of you rip for 700MB when you can just burn multiple HIGH quality 1.5GB movies to a single DVD disk, and watch them...

Also, one of you said that h.264 is a codec. It is not; it is a standard; x264 is a codec. A codec is an implementation of a standard.

XviD is not far behind x264 in terms of file SIZE and COMPRESSION, and they are pretty much EQUAL in terms of QUALITY, but that depends on YOU knowing what settings to use.

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.

For the ORIGINAL QUESTION, which i do not believe was properly recognized and addressed:
For Anime: Use Xvid, with the "cartoon" mode selected. Also, you can use more b-frames than normal (maybe about 4, since it is a cartoon). x264 has no equivalent option.
For Action: Use Xvid with the "max_bframes=1chroma_opt:vhq=4:bvhq=1:" option (actually, you can copy the settings that i pasted above), or, you can use x264 with the "frameref=4" option (going above 4 makes the movie take more CPU to play back), or you can use all of these options: bitrate=2200ubq=9artitions=all:8x8dct:me=umh:frameref=4:bframes=1:b _pyramid:weight_b:turbo=1:trellis=2.
For Detail: Use Xvid with the "max_bframes=2:chroma_opt:vhq=3" option, or you can use 264 with all of these options: bitrate=2000ubq=8artitions=all:8x8dct:me=umh:frameref=3:bframes=2:b _pyramid:weight_b:turbo=1:trellis=2

ALWAYS USE 2 PASSES!

And remember, as far as the decision between codecs, it really is only a MINOR storage space gain to use x264, so Xvid is the better choice, because of TWO reasons:
(1) 264 takes TWO TIMES MORE CPU to decode and play
(2) Many manufacturers make DivX/XviD compatible devices now, and at a very modest price. If you want a x264 compatible device, you will be paying a LOT more.

XviD is what i would use if you EVER plan on watching your videos on ANYTHING that is NOT a super fast PC. One very important point to remember when encoding to Xvid is to ALWAYS use the profile option and the ffourcc flag, so that is will be compatible with almost ALL players (look in my Xvid command at the top). I made the mistake of encoding 48 DVD full of movies, for a friend (~=200 movies, two weeks of work!), and NONE of them would play correctly because i did not enforce a profile and ffourcc code. I had to RE ENCODE EVERY ONE OF THEM. Lessons not to be forgotten...

Any way, here are the definitive places to go for answers:
http://myroladex.com/?action=BrowseAllBookmarks&eid=0234191001226316329&category=Audio+-+Video
http://myroladex.com/?action=BrowseAllBookmarks&eid=0205899001227494561&category=Audio+-+Video

READ THEM BOTH.

Also, i have a question for you guys. If someone (ok, me) actually sat down and tried to write a program that you can use very easily to do this task, while keeping the options VERY simple (ex: "High, Medium, or Low Quality?"), would you guys actually use it? I do not know if i could easily write a program that would work with windows, though (i'm a Linux guy...), but it's an idea, i guess...

[jagabo]

I don't know why we're digging up this old thread but...

If you don't need a file of a specific size just use single pass constant quality encoding. You always get the quality you specify, exactly the right bitrate, and it's faster than 2-pass VBR.

[AlexGrim]

No. That is very very inefficient. It wastes space, and the quality is not as acute because it does not have the statistics from a previous pass to know how to prepare for each frame. It just dumps a bunch of bits at the task, whether they are necessary or not.

Quality will SUFFER because some scenes need MORE bits that the quantizer will give them.
Size will suffer (even if it is not the most important factor for you), because some scenes need much LESS bits that the quantizer will use on it.

Always use two pass. The patience will pay off. Always.
Also, if you know enough about the options, you can disable MOST of the options during the first pass, and then enable them for the second pass, or just use "turbo" for the first pass, and the first pass will be twice as fast, and the resulting file will lose almost no quality at all.

Always use two pass. Always...

[jagabo]

No, arbitrarily choosing 2200 kbps will waste space or starve the encoder depending on the particular movie, frame size, frame rate, etc.

[AlexGrim]

No, it will NOT. Read the manual. If you choose a bitrate higher than is necessary, then it will not be completely used up, as it will only use what IS necessary, out of the allocated amount.

As a perfect example, Silent Hill, Widescreen version:
Given: 2200kbps;
Duration: 2 hours (+ maybe 3 or 5 minutes);
Size should be: 2GB (2hr*60+5=125, *60=7500, *2200/8=2,062,500 bytes -- 2gb.
Actual size: 1.6GB


Also, another tip, for those of you who aim to keep very high quality videos:
You may have noticed that the videos file's width and height are not correct. This is because the video is ANAMORPHIC, and for a good reason; DO NOT RESIZE/SCALE!
There are two reasons for this:
(1) The correct width, after resizing, for most movies is 854. Almost ALL DVD players can only support an video resolution up to 720 wide, and so your video will not be playable if you resize it to the correct width.
(2) You will add to the file's size, because more pixels are needed to enlarge the width. You can use the "-aspect", or the "-force-avi-aspect" option to use the correct aspect ratio when playing back. Many video players, like vlc, ignore this setting, and will play the file at its physical size, but you can go into the menu for vlc and select "Video>Aspect" to select the correct playback aspect.
(3) You will elongate the encoding time (but not by too much), because it has to create new pixels, and scale existing stuff, etc.

[DarrellS]

I'm looking at HD Tuner cards right now. Would like to replace my ATI AIW 7500 before everything goes digital but none of the new ATI's support Windows 2000 and I'm not in the market for a new computer or operating system. The one I have works pretty well.

Strange how things work out. One month after posting this, my motherboard fried and I had to build a new PC and install a different operationg system to run the Q6600.

[poisondeathray]

LOL nice thread revival...This must be the zillionth time this topic has been discussed

This is what i use, and you cannot tell the difference between the avi, and the ORIGINAL DVD. I only rip high quality video, and i usually use 2200kbps, which --on average, give you a file size ~= 1GB/hr || 500MB/30mins || 250MB/15mins.

You must be using lower quality sources like DVD, because there is no way ~2200kbps avg. bitrate will give you equivalent quality with a high quality source like blu-ray or high bitrate HD camcorder videos resized to a SD frame size. And even if you did achieve this, the difference is x264 will achieve the same or better quality earlier (ie. transparency to the original source at a lower bitrate).

x264 is a codec.

Wrong. x264 is an encoder

XviD is not far behind x264 in terms of file SIZE and COMPRESSION, and they are pretty much EQUAL in terms of QUALITY

Assuming you know what settings to use, this statement too, is wrong. They are NOT equal in quality at a given bitrate. You obviously haven't used a recent x264 build, or are unfamiliar with the settings. x264 offers better compression, probably 10-30% on average. The difference is FAR greater at lower bitrates, the largest reason is because XviD lacks deblocking.

If you've used XviD enough you will know where it isn't very good

1) At low bitrates scenarios (e.g. streaming videos, embedding in websites)
2) Complex layered scenarios, with fore & aft detail
3) Action scenarios
4) Lowly lit scenarios (dark movies)

You sometimes get more than 100% better compression by using x264. I'll be glad to show you examples if you want. At the same bitrate it offers the same or better quality 99.99% of the time.

Once criticism of older x264 builds (over a year ago, about the age of this thread that was brought back LOL), tended to oversmooth details. This is not the case anymore, there are several minor patches commited each week, and major ones like AQ, psy-trellis, psy-rdo committed every few months. There is active development on x264, none on XviD. The only development on XviD has been a port from x264, the VAQ patch which is poorly implmented in XviD.

While I do agree with the comments on slower encoding times, limited interoperability, and more CPU usage for encode & decode, this is not a reason to stick with inferior technology. I don't know why you are advocating the use of XviD. It's like persisting to use your VHS when DVD's had been introduced.

x264 has very good multithreaded scaling, so it's performance with more cores is increases linearly almost 1:1 (it's closer to 0.9:1). XviD MT's scaling is very poor, it hardly scales at all beyond 2 cores. Why is this important? Quad cores are very affordable now. On my dual socket quad system, x264 is almost the same speed as XviD, depending on the settings used. In fact, I can make it faster with a slight overclock, and it has same or better quality. The new core i7's have 4 logical and 4 physical cores which makes 8 cores easily accessible to the consumer. Conceivably there will be a point where the average desktop will be faster than XviD with x264 because of this scaling.

The state of interoperabiliity is quickly changing too. PS3's, Xbox360's, Ipods, Iphones, dozens of portable media players now support h264 playback. Do they cost more? Yes, but many people already have them. The new WD media player introduced recently can play 1080p. It only costs a bit over ~$100. I don't have to explain why a movie looks better 1080p than at 480p. Why stick to old SD resolution when much better quality can be had that is affordable to many people? Guess what the next generation DivX is based on? Guess what all their certified devices will support?

For playback, even 5 year old P4's can playback h264 SD material smoothly. It's only when you get to higher resolutions and bitrates that playback becomes an issue. So if you are talking DVDrips, this argument to use XviD on this reason is weak. Furthermore, with a $50 graphics card you can playback full 1080p h264 at 25Mbps bitrates smoothly

For the OP:

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.

These are precisely the situations where using x264 would superior to XviD. Smooth cartoons compress very well, and you can often use much lower bitrate with x264 to achieve transparency, but by using XviD you would get pixellation at those rates. For high motion, such sports, you will get pixellation with XviD unless you use excessively high bitrates, not so with x264. And the 3rd scenario, high detail (e.g. from a high quality source like BBC's Planet Earth blu-ray) - although I wouldn't have included it with the list 2 years ago, the detail preservation of recent x264 builds is phenominal compared to XviD, even at low bitrates. Again, I'd be glad to show you head to head comparisons.

If you choose a bitrate higher than is necessary, then it will not be completely used up, as it will only use what IS necessary, out of the allocated amount.

This is basically saying XviD rate control is broken. It almost always undersizes. Are you are suggesting on blu-ray or HD encodes that it is using only what is necessary? I can prove this: Even setting an arbitrarly low bitrate for that source it undersizes ! It should be using the full bitrate limit (and much more) on these HQ encodes, but it does not. It ends up looking very bad. For projects that need a definite size, you almost never get what you ask for in terms of size, or you have to do several encodes to get the correct results.

Your comments regarding 2pass vs. 1pass may apply to XviD, but they do not apply to x264. The 1pass quantizer mode of XviD is not the same as the 1pass quality (not quantizer) CRF mode of x264. XviD does not have an equivalent CRF (constant quality) mode.

[jagabo]

XviD lacks deblocking.

Actually, Xvid has playback deblocking and deringing options. They just doesn't work very well.

[poisondeathray]

Actually, Xvid has playback deblocking and deringing options. They just doesn't work very well.

For playback... I would argue you could use any postprocessing on playback, including avisynth filters - so xvid deblocking is not intrinsic to the encoding

[AlexGrim]

poisondeathray, i would mostly agree with the low bitrate scenario; BUT, with high bitrate scenarious i do not. With 2200kbps i encoded "I Spy" with x264 and XviD. x264 had a slightly larger size than xvid, and the quality was EVER SO SLIGHLTY better; i had to really stare closely when the video was maximized to notice any difference.

As for devices that support one or the other, google will be your proof. Try to find a DVD player that supports h246. The few that you find are expensive, and even then, they are hard to find. Try to find a xvid supported dvd player; there are many of them, and they are cheap. I just bought one as a christmas gift, which is WHY i had to start looking for one, and started comparing codecs, and experimenting with them.

I will agree that avc (h.264) is all together a 'better' video standard than asp (divx, etc), but the cost, in terms of Money for the playback device (DVD Player), in terms of encoding time, and in terms of system usage (rapeage) on playback does not warrant or justify its exclusive use. Again, this is referring to high quality dvd rips. I would not even consider using a low bitrate for anything, which is the only time that the pros from using avc would outweigh the cons from using avc.

I DO, however, believe that someday, maybe soon, this will change, and avc will require about the same amount of resources on playback as xvid, and dvd players will affordably support it.

And for the argument about encoding time being scalable with 264, and not so with xvid:
(1) Threaded encoding with 264 does loose a little psnr when it is finished, but i believe that you already alluded to that.
(2) The comparison that you made was not quite fair to xvid, because: It is normal to have more than one video that you need to encode. Instead of threading a video with xvid, you can simply run 2 SEPARATE processes, which encode 2 SEPARATE videos, at the same time. This will cause the first process to run under cpu1, and the second process will run under cpu2. This will have the same encoding time as if you tried to thread the single video's process, and then did it again for the next video, EXCEPT that doing it like i do will not loose any psnr.

Also, last night i came up with an even BETTER and FASTER way than that to encode my 400+ dvds to xvid:
Open your terminal (or cmd if you use windows) and paste in the FIRST PASS's command, and run it. Now, open ANOTHER terminal and paste in the SECOND PASS's command, and run it. The first pass can write to the log/statistics file faster than the second pass can encode from it, so it always stays ahead. This will run the pass1 under cpu1 and pass2 under cpu2, which is almost the same thing as threading, except that this is a little faster, and you do not loose any psnr. This is a faster way, even if you only have to encode 1 video.

Also, if you really want to get down and dirty with mass encoding, you can create and empty text doc, and paste the commands to the first passes of a BUNCH of movies, and then save it as pass1.sh, then do a separate document for the second pass, and call it pass2.sh. Then open one terminal and type "sh pass1.sh" and open another terminal and type "sh pass2.sh", and then go to bed, or to the mall, or get laid, or something, because it's going to be a while, depending on the number of movies you are encoding. I've had some run for 3 days. The norm for me is 24hrs.

Also, most of us already own a dual core machine, but most of us cannot afford to run out and buy a new quad core when it isn't really necessary.

As for the settings that i use for x264 and for xvid, they are:
-x264encopts bitrate=2000ubq=8artitions=all:8x8dct:me=umh:frameref=3:bframes=2:b _pyramid:weight_b:turbo=1:trellis=2

-xvidencopts bitrate=2200:chroma_opt:vhq=4:bvhq=1:quant_type=mp eg:max_bframes=1:aspect=2.21rofile=dxnhtpalass=1


Also, i believe that you alluded to a hdd player for under 100$ which was avc compatible? If so, give me the link, and if it really pans out, i will buy it promptly, and maybe even switch to 264.
Also, what are the settings that you use for avc encoding that give YOU grate/high quality results, without frying your processor on playback?

Thanx.

[poisondeathray]

poisondeathray, i would mostly agree with the low bitrate scenario; BUT, with high bitrate scenarious i do not. With 2200kbps i encoded "I Spy" with x264 and XviD. x264 had a slightly larger size than xvid, and the quality was EVER SO SLIGHLTY better; i had to really stare closely when the video was maximized to notice any difference.

That's entirely my point. You might need 2200kbps using XviD to make it look good, but you might only need 1600kbps, for example for the same image quality using x264 encoder. That doesn't even address XviD's deficiencies in dark scenes, high motion scenes, and layered scenes. You can use a high bitrate (for that source and frame size) and still get pixellation. E.g. encode any movie with a night sky and lightning and you will see what I mean.

Also, i believe that you alluded to a hdd player for under 100$ which was avc compatible? If so, give me the link, and if it really pans out, i will buy it promptly, and maybe even switch to 264.

I agree with your statements on the current state of device support. I was merely suggesting that state is changing very rapidly. Here is the link to the $100 (free shipping) WD media player @ NewEgg (there is also a thread discussing it here)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136325

As for other players, look up Popcorn Hour and Tivx which are fairly common and have models in different price ranges.

I realize that there are many factors that go into this decision, but if you are going to bother compressing video at all to begin with - whether it be plain DVD, camcorder clips, blu-ray or whatever - you might as well go with better compression. The fact that more players support h264, and that DivX7 is strongly behind it suggests to me it is more "futureproof." To be honest, I don't even compress blu-ray or DVD's anymore. HD space is much more affordable. IMO DVD will be a dead format shortly and it's days are numbered. You can't even buy a standard def TV anymore...The 4.3GB or 8.5GB hardlimit is too small, and it's absolutely worse if you limit yourself to XviD.

The comparison that you made was not quite fair to xvid, because: It is normal to have more than one video that you need to encode. Instead of threading a video with xvid, you can simply run 2 SEPARATE processes, which encode 2 SEPARATE videos, at the same time. This will cause the first process to run under cpu1, and the second process will run under cpu2. This will have the same encoding time as if you tried to thread the single video's process, and then did it again for the next video, EXCEPT that doing it like i do will not loose any psnr.

PSNR is a poor measurement for quality. Quality is a subjective attribute. When you are watching a movie, you don't watch the PSNR. I can show you examples where PSNR would predict better quality, but the eyes say something entirely different. Even so, the difference running with 1 thread vs. n threads is negligible. Furthermore, x264 is clearly better than XviD in this regard, many, many tests officially published and otherwise have proven this time and time again.

Also, what are the settings that you use for avc encoding that give YOU grate/high quality results, without frying your processor on playback?

My general settings for XviD are similar to yours, but you cannot generalize settings to the same extent with x264. You have far greater control over many more parameters so that can optimize your encodes and it entirely depends on the source. Settings are very different for cartoons vs. CGI, vs. textured scenes, for example

[AlexGrim]

I've actually come across that wd player before, and it is nice, but it doesn't seem to include the ability to use an INTERNAL HDD. The reason that i am looking for one is because i'm sending it to a friend over seas who does not even own a computer. So, i have to fill it up before i send it. A HDD player that supports 264 and mkv is > 200$. I spent a few hours looking, and that was the best deal that i could find; whereas one that supports XviD is only 25$; huge difference. But i probably will not buy it anyway, because it doesn't support the mkv wrapper.

I will most likely buy the one for 200$, and then buy a 500GB HDD, then fill it up with movies and send it. The only thing that i cannot make up my mind on, is XviD or 264, for FUTURE use.

I do not believe that XviD development is dead, but i do agree that 264 will be improving more and more with time. Right now, it is like we are at a crossroads, where there are pros and cons with both decisions, and there are penalties with both decisions. And I never meant to convey the idea that i was against 264; only that it may not be practical at this time, unless you really do have the money to upgrade your system and buy the newer/better hdd players. Either way, it is still a very tough decision.

For example, my desktop is AMD 64, x2 (Dual Core) 4800+, which is pretty damned good, and i have 2gb of memory; but when i play back an h264 movie, it stutters (with vlc, but it is not as bad if i use mplayer), and the cpu usage is very high (even on my 4800 x2!). One thing that i did notice that helps, is if i lower "frameref" to 4, instead of 9. But when you are also using cpu intensive desktop effects (compiz, etc), and doing other background tasks (like encoding more movies), that is when the stuttering is really too bad to be worth watching.

Anyway, what options would you normally use for a standard Adam Sandler type movie (ex: Grandma's boy, Anger management, Big daddy, etc), with x264.

Oh, and i do agree with LOW DETAIL SCENES; 264 IS better than XviD. As a matter of fact, when i transcoded "I Spy", the resulting x264 version was BETTER than the original DVD. XviD was close, but on the dark scenes, and low detail scenes, there was noticeable difference.

Oh yeah, since you seem to be fairly experienced with 264 (and i am actually pretty new to BOTH), i wanted to see if you might know the answer to something that i'm having trouble finding:
With XviD, you have "profiles" which you can specify to ensure the file will be compatible with most devices that support that profile, and there is a profile option that you can include in your xvidencopts. I cannot find the equivalent for 264, but have heard others referring to it. I read the mplayer manual and encoding guide several times, but still cannot find this option for 264. Do you know if it exists, and if so, what the syntax is?

[Alexstarfire]

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.

My 900 Mhz Celeron laptop can handle 720p h.264 just fine. Ohhh, and it's only got Intel integrated graphics. h264 isn't that bad of a power hog as people make it out to be. Pretty much any dual core, except the atom chips perhaps, computer should be able to handle 1080p video just fine.

[stiltman]

Yes, and I bet technology has changed since November 2008