Better format to encode to: MPEG2 or DivX/AVI?

[Grunberg]

I have a bunch of old home movies I will be editing and encoding to a new format. What would you say is the better format to save to...MPEG 2 or DivX/AVI?

Any advice is apprech. Thanks!

[mats.hogberg]

For what purposes? In what format are they now?

/Mats

[Grunberg]

I believe they're in MPG2 format right now...on the DVD+R's I got them on. And the purpose is to edit the videos (smaller for space) to my liking, and burn them back out onto my own collection.

Just wondering what would be advantageous between MPEG2 and DivX for videos that were taken two decades ago. I've done research, but still puzzled. Any help would be great... !

[mats.hogberg]

You're aware of that neither mpeg2 nor divx are particularly good formats to make edits in?
And that every format conversion will reduce quality?
If all you will do is cut parts out, stick to mpeg, use a dedicated mpeg editor like Womble or VideoReDo that doesn't reencode.

/Mats

[Grunberg]

Yes, I'm definitely aware of those things, and all I need to do is edits. Somebody recommended MPEG Video Wizard also, but I'm still confused how I know whether the software saves the video or re-encodes it.

[SingSing]

I agreed. Do all the editing, then convert to the format you want if it is needed, so your material only suffered conversion loss once.

I bet ten years from now I still can find tools to work on my old MPG2, but most likley not on the divx( too many changes).

[jagabo]

Womble MPEG Video Wizard is a "smart" MPEG editor. It only reencodes when it needs to -- the GOPs you cut. MPEG encoding is done in Groups Of Pictures, GOPs, where the first frame contains the full image (like a JPG file) and the rest contain only the changes from frame to frame. GOPs are typically 12 to 15 frames.

[Grunberg]

Awesome! So you're saying, typically when you save a video in MPEG Video Wizard (by pushing the "record" button)...it is merely saving the video?

[PuzZLeR]

I've done research, but still puzzled. Any help would be great... !

Be puzzled no more, the PuzZLeR is here! :P Would an opinion from a Mod at the DivX forums help here?

We're talking likely family stuff, personal memories, etc that need future-proofing. Then I'd say stick to MPEG-2 for 4 reasons.

1. MPEG-2 is MUCH easier to edit than DivX.

2. MPEG-2 is the incumbent format they're in now, and you retain quality. And I too agree that Womble is an amazing editor and will preserve (almost) all the original quality - so cut/join/etc away and Womble will only encode a few frames near where you did the edits. Nothing more. Quality preserved.

3. MPEG-2, a standard, has better future-proofing. It will be around at least another few decades and DivX is proprietary and now looking to change formats. (Speculation after the acquisition...)

4 MPEG-2 has better compatibility. Virtually anything that plays DivX also plays MPEG-2, but not in reverse. (EDIT: This #4 now reads correctly after I made a necessary edit. )

DivX is a wonderful format, and the advantage would be better compression if that is important to you (more video in the same space) - but you'd lose some compatibility, and at least a little quality. However if compression is important to you then yes, use DivX. However keep in mind, DivX will be going through changes now that they've acquired MainConcept, and the direction they're heading in, and the whole video world is heading in, is H.264.

I love DivX and H.264, but, at least for today, refuse to delete any MPEG-2 source that has family stuff and memories. (Just me.)

My opinion? Keep them in MPEG-2, edit with Womble, and when the time is right in a few years, you can always compress them to H.264, at least as a backup, when this next standard hits prime time.

[PuzZLeR]

Awesome! So you're saying, typically when you save a video in MPEG Video Wizard (by pushing the "record" button)...it is merely saving the video?

Yes. It will only re-encode the few frames where you made edits. Hit "Detail" and where there's red in the picture of the stream is the only area it will change your video.

[Grunberg]

WOW! Puzzler, this is the wealth of information I was looking for, and it definitely opens up some doors. Thanks for your knowledge. Thanks a BUNCH!

[jagabo]

Grunberg, I generally agree with PuzZLeR's post but wanted to expand on a few issues:

1. MPEG-2 is MUCH easier to edit than DivX.

In general this is true. But Divx can be encoded with short GOPs just like MPEG 2. This can make it just as easy to edit -- with the right tools (AviDemux, VirtualDub, etc). But long GOPs are one of the reasons Divx gets better compression.

2. MPEG-2 is the incumbent format they're in now, and you retain quality. And I too agree that Womble is an amazing editor and will preserve (almost) all the original quality - so cut/join/etc away and Womble will only encode a few frames near where you did the edits. Nothing more. Quality preserved.

Agreed. If your files are already in MPEG 2 format and you don't need to make them smaller (other than cutting out unwanted portions) you should leave them MPEG 2. Encoding to any lossy format will involve some loss of quality.

3. MPEG-2, a standard, has better future-proofing. It will be around at least another few decades and DivX is proprietary and now looking to change formats. (Speculation after the acquisition...)

Divx is an implementation of the MPEG 4 Part 2 standard (AKA ASP or Advanced Simple Profile) -- a standard from the same people that publish the MPEG 2 standard. That said, MPEG 2 is a much more widely implemented standard.

h.264 is the MPEG 4 Part 10 specification (AKA AVC or Advanced Video Coding) -- again from the same group. I think Divx, the company, has been planning a h.264 encoder (whatever they may call it) for some time and the Mainconcept acquisition was simply fortuitous.

h.264 probably does have more of a future than Divx/Xvid because it has been adapted by a lot of big players: HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, many Sattellite broadcasters, Apple, etc. I think ASP was skipped over because of its association with piracy and its limited advantages over MPEG 2.

The .AVI container is an implementation of the more general RIFF standard. It was abandoned by Microsoft (for a more proprietary standard) and later extended by the OpenDML Committee. The .DIVX container is an extension of the AVI/OpenDML standard.

4 MPEG-2 has better compatibility. Virtually anything that plays MPEG-2 also plays DivX, but not in reverse.

I think this is stated backwards. All DVD players will play MPEG 2 (VOB files are MPEG 2 with additional data) but most don't play Divx AVI files. But almost all players (software and hardware) that will play Divx will also play MPEG2.

[PuzZLeR]

Hey Jagabo, thanks for the feedback. Will comment on yours, starting with the last item:

4 MPEG-2 has better compatibility. Virtually anything that plays MPEG-2 also plays DivX, but not in reverse.

I think this is stated backwards. All DVD players will play MPEG 2 (VOB files are MPEG 2 with additional data) but most don't play Divx AVI files. But almost all players (software and hardware) that will play Divx will also play MPEG2.

Yes indeed, thanks for the correction. I went back and made an edit on the original post (must have been tired...) To restate, I have never seen anything that plays DivX, whether it be software or hardware, that does not play one form of MPEG-2 or another (.mpg, .vob, TS, etc.). So if it's just a container of MPEG-2, it can always easily be remuxed losslessly to be compatible with the app/device at any rate.

1. MPEG-2 is MUCH easier to edit than DivX.

In general this is true. But Divx can be encoded with short GOPs just like MPEG 2. This can make it just as easy to edit -- with the right tools (AviDemux, VirtualDub, etc). But long GOPs are one of the reasons Divx gets better compression.

Well said. However, in a way, it's also kind of like saying that Babe Ruth/Wayne Gretzky wouldn't be great players if they didn't hit homeruns/score goals. If you encode DivX, particularly with quantizers, with shorter GOPS, or even shorter key frame intervals (for VirtualDub to "cut more accurately"), etc., then the advantages of DivX wouldn't be as so and you'd be better off with MPEG-2. But in terms of theory, you're absolutely correct.

2. MPEG-2 is the incumbent format they're in now, and you retain quality. And I too agree that Womble is an amazing editor and will preserve (almost) all the original quality - so cut/join/etc away and Womble will only encode a few frames near where you did the edits. Nothing more. Quality preserved.

Agreed. If your files are already in MPEG 2 format and you don't need to make them smaller (other than cutting out unwanted portions) you should leave them MPEG 2. Encoding to any lossy format will involve some loss of quality.

To restate for Grunberg, this was nothing against using DivX - if the files were in DivX format I would recommend the reverse to be true in keeping them in DivX format (although edits would be tougher, depending on the stream, even with a tool like VirtualDub). Going DivX->MPEG-2 would also be lossy.

One more:

Divx is an implementation of the MPEG 4 Part 2 standard (AKA ASP or Advanced Simple Profile) -- a standard from the same people that publish the MPEG 2 standard.

Almost true. Although DivX is considered MPEG-4 Part 2, at least commercially, technically DivX is really only based on MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP and based on the H.263 standard from the ITU, unlike MPEG-4 ISO which is MPEG-4 Part 2 ASP. This is due to the fact that DivX at the outset started off as a hack of the standard and a hack of ASP and H.263, and a hack of ASF, shoved streams with MP3 into an .avi (abnormally) and took off with that. This format is also further confusing in that ASP and H.263 are not synonymous either unlike AVC and H.264 which actually are. In my opinion, the whole MPEG-4 Part 2/H.263/etc gig had good intentions in attempting to introduce "better video formats", but it never was really "together", had serious technical imperfections, and other than the fact that it only really became popular with piracy it will, in the long run, be looked at as merely the stepping stone that gave birth to more solid formats like H.264/AVC.

Moral of the story to Grunberg either way: I think most of us agree you stick with MPEG-2 for your content, at least for today...

[theewizard]

5 discs, 10 discs or a 100 discs

for just a few discs, edit the mpegs and save the edited files, with NO recoding, chning the compression format to avi, won't make that much difference in the long run, going from 5 discs to (2) discs with avis is a lot work for nothing, whats a few (3) discs in all that you have stacked up

well there will be slight recoding if your run them thru some filters for cleaning, but just keep them in mpeg2

[RabidDog]

If they are really old they might be in vcd mpeg1 format. just to confuse you. Why bother tho, as hard discs are cheaper faster and bigger, blank dvd's are very cheap and coming up you can burn 25/50gb of stuff to one blu ray disc. Most of the progs that can edit mpeg2 can also edit Mpeg1 .
They might even be in svcd or possibly Cvd (don't even go there)

[PuzZLeR]

Yes, the need to compress video isn't as important anymore as were the days when DivX first came out and we desired a fit for one movie/CD, etc. (at "decent" quality). MPEG-1 was even worse - blocks, blocks, blocks - all in the name of smaller files to fit into our "huge" 1GB hard drives then... ughh.

Hard drives and discs are getting bigger, cheaper, more reliable and more available all the time now. Why sacrifice valuable quality anymore?

I do use H.264 today, but that's only because I like to de-interlace lots of video, and if I have to re-encode, why not just use the smaller version of it instead?

When DivX came out, the mindset was: get as much quality as possible, sacrificing "unimportant details" to squeeze it down.

But now, the H.264 thinking isn't about gimmicks that create smaller sizes - it's about much more quality in the same larger size.

The storage mindset is now changing, that's for sure.