High Quality MPG to XviD?

[Mdoodm1000]

Okay, so lately I've been recording some TV programs with my OTA HDTV tuner, and the quality is great! But, the resulting file is a 7GB MPG. So, I've been using AutoGK to convert them to a 350MB XviD file. The quality isn't bad, but when I compare it to the scene release of the same program, it is much lower quality. Is there any way I could achieve the same quality as the scene release while still maintaining the 350mb file size? Thanks in advance.

[zoobie]

Looks like you're trying to save space so the quality will probably suffer...
x.264/mp4 is probably worth a look
tripling the Xvid bitrate to 1gb worth a look
maybe buy a couple of 1-2 tb HDD's to remedy the space prob (one for backup)
then you could keep the original mpg...or not

[Xpenguin17]

A 350MB H.264 rip is way higher quality than XviD.

[PuzZLeR]

Unless the MPEG-2 source is encoded with a ridiculously overkill high bitrate to begin with you can expect significant quality loss at such low file sizes.

And this line says it all to me:

The quality isn't bad, but when I compare it to the scene release of the same program, it is much lower quality.

You are correct indeed. But it's amazing how much expectation is put into MPEG-4 based codecs like Xvid and x264. I mean, don't get me wrong, they compress great, and to amazingly very low bitrates like x264 can achieve, but the quality is never really any good IMO. It's "watchable", yes, and saves lots of space, where MPEG-2 would be horrendous at that size. But at higher bitrates, and for serious high quality video projects, they really don't do much better than MPEG-2. (In fact, I personally like the MPEG-2 encodes much better at that level.)

My point is that if you're to use such codecs with the objective of decreasing file size tremendously you should expect "watchable" results, which is what they can promise solidly. They will not deliver high quality at, like, 20% of the high quality MPEG-2 source bitrate.

High expectations are the root of all disappointments.

[jagabo]

Inverse Telecine. Use a smaller frame size. Maybe a little noise reduction. All those things will reduce the bitrate requirement.

[Xpenguin17]

You are correct indeed. But it's amazing how much expectation is put into MPEG-4 based codecs like Xvid and x264. I mean, don't get me wrong, they compress great, and to amazingly very low bitrates like x264 can achieve, but the quality is never really any good IMO. It's "watchable", yes, and saves lots of space, where MPEG-2 would be horrendous at that size. But at higher bitrates, and for serious high quality video projects, they really don't do much better than MPEG-2. (In fact, I personally like the MPEG-2 encodes much better at that level.)

My point is that if you're to use such codecs with the objective of decreasing file size tremendously you should expect "watchable" results, which is what they can promise solidly. They will not deliver high quality at, like, 20% of the high quality MPEG-2 source bitrate.

High expectations are the root of all disappointments.

You're stupid.

[jman98]

You're stupid.

Actually, the stupid person is YOU. You said earlier:

A 350MB H.264 rip is way higher quality than XviD.

You don't know what "rip" means. And it does NOT mean what you think it does. Ripping means to copy from CD or DVD to a hard disk. That is it. It does NOT mean to encode to any format. As lordsmurf said here once in what is one of my all time favorite quotes in a thread, rip does not mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Just try going to a sandwich shop and asking them to "rip" you a sandwich (thanks to lordsmurf for that comment too). Before you start calling people stupid you better be sure that you know what you are talking about and you do not.

[Chris K]

You are correct indeed. But it's amazing how much expectation is put into MPEG-4 based codecs like Xvid and x264. I mean, don't get me wrong, they compress great, and to amazingly very low bitrates like x264 can achieve, but the quality is never really any good IMO. It's "watchable", yes, and saves lots of space, where MPEG-2 would be horrendous at that size. But at higher bitrates, and for serious high quality video projects, they really don't do much better than MPEG-2. (In fact, I personally like the MPEG-2 encodes much better at that level.)

My point is that if you're to use such codecs with the objective of decreasing file size tremendously you should expect "watchable" results, which is what they can promise solidly. They will not deliver high quality at, like, 20% of the high quality MPEG-2 source bitrate.

High expectations are the root of all disappointments.

You're stupid.

No, he isn't

Did you ever looked at the smearing and blurring x264 does at low bitrates. E.g. look at the details in relatively flat areas. They are all lost. For low bitrates I would even prefer xvid (at a somewhat higher bitrate) because that keeps the details.

Ok, at high bitrates x264 will probably beat mpeg2.

[mr270368]

A 350MB H.264 rip is way higher quality than XviD.

Thats great for all you jagoff pirate torrent clowns!

Dickhead

[Xpenguin17]

Given that I've been a DVD/Blu-ray ripper for 2 years, I know what the **** a rip is. A "rip" (copy as you say) from a DVD transcoded to XviD would be an XviD rip; ergo, a rip from the DVD now in XviD. Get it? Probably should've said "encode," instead. Whatever.

Bottom line is that MPEG-2 is never better quality than H264 at any bitrate under any circumstance. Don't feed misleading shit to noobs.

and for serious high quality video projects, they really don't do much better than MPEG-2

[Xpenguin17]

No, he isn't

Did you ever looked at the smearing and blurring x264 does at low bitrates. E.g. look at the details in relatively flat areas. They are all lost. For low bitrates I would even prefer xvid (at a somewhat higher bitrate) because that keeps the details.

Ok, at high bitrates x264 will probably beat mpeg2.

...

Allright, I'll give you a day to save yourself from making a retard outta yourself in the future. Do a comparison. Compress a clip with x264 and XviD at the exact same bitrate. Try both high and low bitrates. Then come and tell me if XviD's severe cumstain still looks awesome.

[Chris K]

Allright, I'll give you a day to save yourself from making a retard outta yourself in the future. Do a comparison. Compress a clip with x264 and XviD at the exact same bitrate. Try both high and low bitrates. Then come and tell me if XviD's severe cumstain still looks awesome.

We were talking about low bitrates. And didn't I say "xvid at a somewhat higher bitrate" ?

At low bitrates, x264 has to do a lot of deblocking at the decoding process, that's why the smearing. You can't get back what isn't there.

[manono]

So, I've been using AutoGK to convert them to a 350MB XviD file. The quality isn't bad, but when I compare it to the scene release of the same program, it is much lower quality. Is there any way I could achieve the same quality as the scene release while still maintaining the 350mb file size? Thanks in advance.

Post the AutoGK log so we can see what you did or did not do. However, since AutoGK is an all-in-one encoding program, although a good one, anyone with a little bit of knowledge doing it manually can do a better job.

[Xpenguin17]

Even without deblocking, it will retain better quality at the same low bitrate. H264 is a more advanced algorithm altogether.

[manono]

Sorry, I messed up the original post when trying to get part of it for a new post.

[Chris K]

Even without deblocking, it will retain better quality at the same low bitrate. H264 is a more advanced algorithm altogether.

Use FFdshow for decoding and set deblocking to off. It will look awefull.

Aside from the fact that mpeg2 isn't meant for low bitrates, mpeg2 and xvid are "honest" encoders. Trying to do all they can to keep details (not easy with high compression encoders). At low bitrates, x264 uses a big bunch of tricks to give the impression it looks good.

You shouldn't compare x264 with xvid but x264 with your source.

[poisondeathray]

So you're saying that if you take a DVD source and reencode it to H.264 at any bitrate you choose, the H.264 encode will look better than the source? Are you sure about that?

I think he means the same generation i.e:

DVD=>MPEG2
vs
DVD=>h.264

At any equivalent bitrate, h.264 will look better. He probably assumes you are using a decent h.264 implementation and settings. Because the JM h.264 Reference Encoder, or using baseline settings for ipod for example, can certainly make h.264 look worse than xvid

Back to the original topic, there are other possible explanations. How did you do the capture? What format (I re-read the OP and it says 7GB MPG, which I am assuming is MPEG2). If your source was markedly worse starting quality than the "scene" people then no XviD settings or workflow will get you similar quality, eg. if they captured uncompressed.

[Xpenguin17]

So you're saying that if you take a DVD source and reencode it to H.264 at any bitrate you choose, the H.264 encode will look better than the source? Are you sure about that?

You know damn well that ain't what I'm saying. Puzzler told the OP that x264 is only marginally better than MPEG-2 at high bitrates (or the other way around, whichever) implying that he should re-encode with MPEG-2 to a somewhat lower bitrate -- perhaps cut the 7 GB down to 4.7 and burn to a DVD.

Two whole years? You don't say? Yep, I'm impressed.

I feel sorry for anyone releasing/downloading before 2 years ago. DVD quality already sucks capital ass let alone a smaller, shittier quality rip that takes 4-12 hours to transfer when a DVD retail store is just 10 minutes from your house for only a $1.50. In fact, I don't believe in digital video at all if you really want somethin' to think about.

Chris K, I compare both outputs to the source. Even without deblocking, H.264 will still be higher quality than XviD.

[manono]

Bottom line is that MPEG-2 is never better quality than H264 at any bitrate under any circumstance. Don't feed misleading shit to noobs.

Yeah, but let's go over your original quotation again. Even if I'm reencoding to MPEG-2 from, say, a very high quality Hi-Def source, only a true fanboy would say I could use any bitrate I wanted and under all possible scenarios the H.264 encode would look better. I think I'd take the MPEG-2 side of that encoding competition. Maybe, even after all your two long years of encoding experience, you still haven't learned to produce top quality MPEG-2 encodes.

[Xpenguin17]

Okay, obviously you think I'm an outright bullshitter. So it comes down to this if you wanna prove it to yourself:

1. Find a pure source, e.g. record from a game with ultra-real graphics or download the source code of the CGI movie "Do Elephants Dream" as I hear it's publicly available.

2. Do comparisons.

3. Post screenshots.

[MysticE]

Unless the MPEG-2 source is encoded with a ridiculously overkill high bitrate to begin with you can expect significant quality loss at such low file sizes.

And this line says it all to me:

The quality isn't bad, but when I compare it to the scene release of the same program, it is much lower quality.

You are correct indeed. But it's amazing how much expectation is put into MPEG-4 based codecs like Xvid and x264....

That one line does say it all. Somehow this thread has got side tracked.


The OP's HD source to 350MB Xvid conversions do not look as good as those upped by the 'Scene' of what appears to be the same type of source to the same sized Xvid.

Is there any way I could achieve the same quality as the scene release while still maintaining the 350mb file size?

Seems like a valid question. I figured I'd be able to glean a few tips from the responses to improve my own Xvid conversions. Xvid is what I want, as I play them on my Philips. That other codecs are better is irrelevant.

To the OP give Xvid4PSP a shot. It has quite a few Denoise/Sharpen options available plus the ability to tweak the script.

[Mdoodm1000]

For whoever asked, the quality of the original file is much better than the scene release, but the compressed AVI that AutoGK created is worse. Here are some screen caps.
Original MPEG-2 File:

Scene release XviD:

AutoGK compressed XviD:

Any suggestions on how I could achieve the same quality as the scene release while maintaining the 350mb size and XviD format? Thanks in advance.

[jagabo]

Open your source video in VirtualDub. Add the following filters:

Deinterlace -> Discard field 1
Resize -> Lanczos3 624x352

Encode with Xvid, 2-pass VBR. That will leave you with slightly off colors since your HD source is rec.709 and VirtualDub will assume rec.601. But I suspect your scene download has the same problem.

Your HD snapshot with these filters:



I can't say exactly what will happen from there with Xvid encoding. But at least you'll be starting with a clean, sharp source.

[poisondeathray]

You're assuming that the "scene" is using the same source as you.

A 7GB MPEG2 for a 1hr show with commercials (44min after editing out commercials), assuming 192kbps AC3 audio, will give you about 15-16Mbps video bitrate for a 1920x1080 (1088) source. That's not a lot for MPEG2. If you used a higher bitrate or recorded uncompressed (which I suspect they are) you would see your source would be significantly crisper, and the subsequent encode would be better

Also manono asked for you to post the logfile...examining that might help with more suggestions

[Mdoodm1000]

You're assuming that the "scene" is using the same source as you.

A 7GB MPEG2 for a 1hr show with commercials (44min after editing out commercials), assuming 192kbps AC3 audio, will give you about 15-16Mbps video bitrate for a 1920x1080 (1088) source. That's not a lot for MPEG2. If you used a higher bitrate or recorded uncompressed (which I suspect they are) you would see your source would be significantly crisper, and the subsequent encode would be better

Also manono asked for you to post the logfile...examining that might help with more suggestions

I'm recording in the highest quality that my TV tuner software will allow me. Here is my AutoGK log:

[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] AutoGK 2.55
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] OS: WinXP (5.1.2600).2
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Job started.
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Input file: C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\Americas.Got.Talent.Edit.mpg
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Output file: C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\Americas.Got.Talent.S04E14.HD TV.XviD.avi
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Output codec: XviD
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Audio 1: Audio Stream 1 AC3
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Subtitles: none
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Format: AVI
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Target size: 350Mb
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Custom resolution settings: fixed width of 624 pixels
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Audio 1 settings: VBR MP3 with average bitrate: 128Kbps
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Standalone support enabled: ESS
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Started encoding.
[8/5/2009 10:44:43 PM] Demuxing and indexing.
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Processing file: C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\Americas.Got.Talent.Edit.mpg
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Source resolution: 1920x1080
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Found NTSC source.
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Source aspect ratio: 16:9
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Color correction enabled.
[8/5/2009 10:46:51 PM] Analyzing source.
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Source has percentage of interlacing in motion areas: 87.02
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Source has percentage of telecined patterns: 1.44
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Source has percentage of progressive patterns: 6.80
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Source has percentage of interlaced patterns: 91.76
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Source is considered to be interlaced.
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Output will contain 76000 frames
[8/5/2009 10:54:17 PM] Decoding audio.
[8/5/2009 10:55:39 PM] Normalizing audio.
[8/5/2009 10:55:58 PM] Encoding audio.
[8/5/2009 11:00:00 PM] Using VAQ in XviD
[8/5/2009 11:00:00 PM] Audio1 size: 36,213,480 bytes (34.54 Mb)
[8/5/2009 11:00:04 PM] Overhead: 3,040,000 bytes (2.90 Mb)
[8/5/2009 11:00:04 PM] Video size: 327,748,120 bytes (312.56 Mb)
[8/5/2009 11:00:04 PM] Running compressibility test.
[8/5/2009 11:00:04 PM] Writing the following script to C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\agk_tmp\Americas.Got.Talent.S 04E14.HDTV.XviD_comptest.avs
================================================== =========
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\DGMPGDec\DGDecode.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\autocrop.dl l")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\ColorMatrix .dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\RemoveGrain SSE3.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\leakkerneld eint.dll")

movie = mpeg2source("C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\agk_tmp\Americas.Got.Talent.S 04E14.HDTV.XviD.d2v")
cropclip = autocrop(movie,mode=0,wmultof=4,hmultof=4,samples= 10,aspect=0,threshold=34,samplestartframe=0,leftad d=0,rightadd=0,topadd=0,bottomadd=0)
fixed_aspect = 1
c_width = width(cropclip)
c_height = round(height(cropclip) / fixed_aspect)
input_par = float(c_width)/float(c_height)
input_par = (input_par > 1.4) || (input_par < 1.25) ? input_par : (4.0/3.0)
out_width = 624
out_height = round(float(out_width) / input_par)
hmod = out_height - (floor(out_height / 16 ) * 16)
out_height = (hmod > 4) ? (out_height + (16 - hmod)) : (out_height - hmod)
new_aspect = (float(out_width) / float(out_height)) / fixed_aspect
LeakKernelDeInt(movie,order=1,sharp=true)
autocrop(mode=0,wmultof=4,hmultof=4,samples=10,asp ect=new_aspect,threshold=34,samplestartframe=0,lef tadd=0,rightadd=0,topadd=0,bottomadd=0)
LanczosResize(out_width,out_height)
RemoveGrain(mode=2)
ColorMatrix("Rec.709->Rec.601",opt=0,hints=false,threads=0)
SelectRangeEvery(300,15)
================================================== =========
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Duration was: 8 minutes 3 seconds
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Speed was: 7.85 fps.
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Compressibility percentage is: 44.36
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Using softer resizer.
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Chosen resolution is: 624x352 ( AR: 1.77 )
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Predicted comptest value is: 46.84%
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Running first pass.
[8/5/2009 11:08:08 PM] Writing the following script to C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\agk_tmp\Americas.Got.Talent.S 04E14.HDTV.XviD_movie.avs
================================================== =========
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\DGMPGDec\DGDecode.d ll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\autocrop.dl l")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\ColorMatrix .dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\RemoveGrain SSE3.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\AutoGK\filters\leakkerneld eint.dll")

movie = mpeg2source("C:\Documents and Settings\Matt\My Documents\My Videos\Capture\Video\agk_tmp\Americas.Got.Talent.S 04E14.HDTV.XviD.d2v")
cropclip = autocrop(movie,mode=0,wmultof=4,hmultof=4,samples= 10,aspect=0,threshold=34,samplestartframe=0,leftad d=0,rightadd=0,topadd=0,bottomadd=0)
fixed_aspect = 1
c_width = width(cropclip)
c_height = round(height(cropclip) / fixed_aspect)
input_par = float(c_width)/float(c_height)
input_par = (input_par > 1.4) || (input_par < 1.25) ? input_par : (4.0/3.0)
out_width = 624
out_height = round(float(out_width) / input_par)
hmod = out_height - (floor(out_height / 16 ) * 16)
out_height = (hmod > 4) ? (out_height + (16 - hmod)) : (out_height - hmod)
new_aspect = (float(out_width) / float(out_height)) / fixed_aspect
LeakKernelDeInt(movie,order=1,sharp=true)
autocrop(mode=0,wmultof=4,hmultof=4,samples=10,asp ect=new_aspect,threshold=34,samplestartframe=0,lef tadd=0,rightadd=0,topadd=0,bottomadd=0)
BicubicResize(out_width,out_height,0,0.5)
RemoveGrain(mode=2)
ColorMatrix("Rec.709->Rec.601",opt=0,hints=false,threads=0)
================================================== =========
[8/6/2009 12:29:01 AM] Duration was: 1 hour, 20 minutes 52 seconds
[8/6/2009 12:29:01 AM] Speed was: 15.66 fps.
[8/6/2009 12:29:01 AM] Expected quality of first pass size: 46.25%
[8/6/2009 12:29:01 AM] Running second pass.
[8/6/2009 2:12:37 AM] Duration was: 1 hour, 43 minutes 30 seconds
[8/6/2009 2:12:37 AM] Speed was: 12.24 fps.
[8/6/2009 2:12:37 AM] Job finished. Total time: 3 hours 27 minutes 53 seconds

[manono]

You forced a width of 624. Maybe you were trying to mimic the "scene" release, but as a result the quality percentage isn't all that high:

8/6/2009 12:29:01 AM] Expected quality of first pass size: 46.25%

The only filtering that AutoGK does is the very mild RemoveGrain(mode=2). The sceners may have filtered it in other ways to help improve the compressibility of the encode. There's no real way to tell. 46% isn't all that high and might lead to macroblocking in complex scenes, and to mosquito noise and other kinds of too-low bitrate artifacts as well. Remedies within AutoGK would include letting AutoGK choose the resolution (keep it on Auto Width) and/or a larger filesize. Either that or learn some AviSynth so you can do other kinds of filtering yourself.

MysticE suggested trying XviD4PSP which isn't a bad idea as there are a number of available filters. But XviD4PSP also has a bit of a learning curve, unlike AutoGK which anyone can use with no prior knowledge or skill at all.

[jagabo]

LeakKernelDeInt(movie,order=1,sharp=true) is probably responsible for some of the loss of sharpness. It makes mistakes when motions are very small, like in the sample shot. Subsequent resizing would then blur the small comb artifacts together.