VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 21 of 21
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    India
    Search Comp PM
    Which has the better compression in terms of quality - XviD or Latest DivX build?
    Quote Quote  
  2. In my personal testing/observations they are about the same.

    DivX encodes a bit faster, and the difference is larger when you have more CPU cores

    h264 offers significantly better compression/quality, especially at low bitrates
    Quote Quote  
  3. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    If you are willing to poke around in the configuration for Xvid then there are those who will tell you it is better than Divx. I use AutoGK, which limits my poking, but with the full version of Divx (they gave it away free for 24 hours when 6 was first released) and a quad core machine, Xvid simply doesn't stand up. Visually there is no difference on my 32" screen, and Divx renders in less than half the time.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    H.264 is awesome but DAMN it is slow ... very slow!

    Having said that it does a much better job than DivX/XviD although I find HD XviD to look really good as well ... much better than the simple profile or Home Theater profile for SD resolutions.

    XVID4PSP has a great HD XviD profile and it is compatible on the Sony PS3 as well as the XboX 360.

    For speed of encoding and image quality I find it looks as nice to my eyes as using H.264 but it doesn't compress as well (much larger file sizes). Well OK maybe I do see the occasional difference with H.264 getting the nod in quality but HD XviD via XVID4PSP looks pretty damn good.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  5. I find Xvid to be slightly better than Divx but the difference isn't really noticeable at normal playback speed. You have to look at enlarged still frames to see the difference. And even then it can be hard to say which is better, just that there are slight differences.

    A the slowest (highest quality) settings the two aren't too different in terms of speed. But at the medium ("Balanced in Divx, General Purpose in Xvid) and fastest settings Divx can be twice as fast as Xvid. The relative difference in speed between the two varies depending on the number of threads/cores used too.

    If you're going to use Xvid and have a multi-core or multi-cpu system be sure to get a multi-threaded build.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Triptonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    If you're going to use Xvid and have a multi-core or multi-cpu system be sure to get a multi-threaded build.
    xvid multithreading is fairly limited though,
    don't go in with high expectations
    "I'll give you five dollars if you let me throw a rock at you"
    Quote Quote  
  7. A quick Xvid encode (720x480 DVD MPEG2, 90 seconds, 23.976 fps, MPEG2Source(), VirtualDub, Fast Recompress, Q6600 CPU) with Motion Search Precision and VHQ Mode at the highest (slowest) settings:

    1 thread: 75 seconds
    2 threads: 49 seconds
    4 threads: 36 seconds

    And for a comparision, the same clip with x264vfw at "default" settings:

    1 thread: 139 seconds
    2 threads: 74 seconds
    4 threads: 39 seconds

    Obviously, x264vfw scales much better.
    Quote Quote  
  8. x264 fastest settings for a particular encode are 1.5x the CPU core count. So for a quad it would be 6 threads. Most x264cli GUI's default to that formula when threads are set to "auto". Not sure if this applies for x264vfw, but I would guess it should

    Sometimes the bottleneck for better scaling is avisynth (at least with x264), which may be aleviated by using avisynth mt (but very buggy). Interestingly using a 64-bit OS nets 5-10% faster speed gain with x264 as well

    I'm surprised xvid scaled respectably in your mini-test jagabo. I don't recall it doing so well in my testing. What version is that?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    You might also look into wmv for another alternative. Granted it has less overall compatibilty in portable players than either xvid or divx but if you can play it you may like the quality as much or more than either of them.

    There is also the wmv hd variety but I haven't played around with that at all so I can't comment on it personally.

    I use a zune and wmv is just fine. I use corel dvd copy 6 and the standard quality wmv setting. I get good looking 2 hour movies at around 500mbs at 320x240.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  10. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by anirban
    Which has the better compression in terms of quality - XviD or Latest DivX build?
    you've already gotten a few responses along with some suggestions for a couple of alternatives to try, allow me to suggest one more, even though it may get me flamed: real media 10.

    i sometimes use it via real producer 11, and i have to say the quality is outstanding and the speed is incredible; on a quad core phenom 9500, with only 80% cpu usage, encoding a 720p ---> 720p at 5000 kbps vbr with 160 kpbs vbr audio, it encodes in faster than real time.

    the only downside is that real's codec is not as widely supported as divx and/or xvid, but then again i would argue that if you want maximum compatibility you should be sticking with h264, as that is the future of video compression.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    x264 fastest settings for a particular encode are 1.5x the CPU core count. So for a quad it would be 6 threads. Most x264cli GUI's default to that formula when threads are set to "auto". Not sure if this applies for x264vfw, but I would guess it should
    I ran tests with 6, 8 and 64 threads and got 36 seconds (compared to 39 seconds with 4) for 6 and 8, a second more with 64. Thanks for that info.

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    I'm surprised xvid scaled respectably in your mini-test jagabo. I don't recall it doing so well in my testing. What version is that?
    It is XviD-1.2.-127-VAQ.exe from http://www.koepi.info/. I find the scaling varies depending on what settings you are using. Even on what source you are compressing. But I usually see in the range I reported. Going more threads than cores used to lock up Xvid but that seems to have been fixed. Speed still doesn't increase with more threads than cores. And obviously, if you are doing a lot of filtering the compression time becomes a smaller portion of the overall encoding time.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    India
    Search Comp PM
    Hmmmmm many replies away from my query...Thanks still
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Triptonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Fast Recompress, Q6600 CPU) with Motion Search Precision and VHQ Mode at the highest (slowest) settings:
    exactly
    "I'll give you five dollars if you let me throw a rock at you"
    Quote Quote  
  14. Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UNREACHABLE
    Search Comp PM
    You should also give a try to VC-1 (the "Hi-Def WMV" that Master Yoda talked about).
    It may look as good as/even better than H264,
    depending on the eye of the beholder of course
    However VC-1 can take ages to encode if your computer is not powerful enough.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Triptonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by anirban
    Hmmmmm many replies away from my query...Thanks still
    seems your query was answered.
    nothing like testing for yourself.


    midzuki pushing m$?
    "I'll give you five dollars if you let me throw a rock at you"
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UNREACHABLE
    Search Comp PM

    45tripp wrote:
    midzuki pushing m$?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Morning all.. Ok, ok.. stupid question.. what command line tool can encode to VC-1 format ?
    (there's the "generics" ffmpeg and mencoder for h264, and the better alternative, x264 cli)

    -vhelp 4907
    Quote Quote  
  18. Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UNREACHABLE
    Search Comp PM
    Hi there again, Mr. vhelp

    AFAIK, only the damn Windows Media Encoder supports command-line encoding
    (via the WMCmd.vbs script, bien entendu). Not that I've ever tried that ---
    --- I still am quite happy with WMNicEnc
    Quote Quote  
  19. I haven't used this, but avs2asf by Kurtnoise might be what you're looking for


    avs2asf
    http://kurtnoise.free.fr/index.php?dir=misc/

    discussion
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=133173&highlight=avs2asf


    wmvmuxer and WMNicEnc are ok for WVC1 if you can tolerate a GUI
    Quote Quote  
  20. Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UNREACHABLE
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks for the update of my KB, Mr. DeathRay
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks for answering my questions, this is great. cant' belive there's still no simple gui for avs2asf, though its a bit confusing to me.. even more so when when a read in the fest few thread (via provided links) about wmv.. should have been avs2vc1. So, who am I ?? .. how am I ?? .. what'tam I.. fooy

    So, perhaps someone will make a non - .NET but win98 friendly gui tool. And now back to our program..

    -vhelp 4910
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!