best xvid settings for high quality

[dirtyharry61]

i am quite experienced in ripping dvds to xvid avis.
however, i have the sneaking suspicion that i might be able to get better quality out of my encodings.

i usually use bit rates around 2000 and i am not at all concerned with compatibility issues, since i play all my movies on my computer only.
i am always using the latest xvid encoder from xvid.org and i always use 2-pass encodings.
i am not very concerned with file sizes. 1.5GB - 2GB for a 90min dvd rip is fine with me.

can somebody pls point me to a guide that uses the recent xvid encoder (i can find plenty guides from 2004-2007 but they seem outdated)?

thanks in advance!

[mh2360]

There are still only a few settings with XviD which affect quality in any major way, and most guides will tell you the same thing:

Search Mode Precision = 6.
VHQ mode = 4.
Use Chroma Motion = Checked.
Tellis Quantization = Checked.
Quantization Type = MPEG.

I'm not sure how much B-Frames affect quality, but the usual amount is 1 or 2. There are one or two other minor tweaks as well.

To be honest, XviD is becoming a little dated, H.264 seems to be the codec of choice nowadays. You may even find you get better results using x264 at a basic setting than you would from XviD at a high quality setting. Another reason to use H.264 is that most containers (MP4, MKV) allow you to keep the DVDs recodes in their anamorphic state, eliminating the need to resize.

[poisondeathray]

Preprocessing / filtering can play a large role in final quality as well

[dirtyharry61]

thanks guys.

i have just tried virtualdub with x264vfw and i like what i see.
it takes about twice as long to process but the result is worth it.

i think i'll stick with that one for now.

[jagabo]

i always use 2-pass encodings.

2-pass encoding doesn't guaranty quality. It only guaranties you get the best quality for the selected bitrate (and all the other settings). Using single pass target quantizer encoding guaranties quality. With a quantizer of 2 you will get frames that are nearly identical to the source. At 3 there will be a little macroblocking but it won't really be noticeable at normal playback speeds.

In short, with 2-pass encoding you select the bitrate and the encoder delivers whatever quality it can for that bitrate. With target quantizer encoding you select the quality and the encoder uses whatever bitrate is necessary to deliver that quality.

[neomaine]

Now, with x264, you'll find similar good quality to file size with single pass with a level of 18 to 20. At least that's what I experienced using 2/3 with divx/xvid.

[jagabo]

Also, with x264 try using the VeryFast preset.

[mh2360]

x264 is very good, but with so many settings it is tempting to simply set everything to "full", when in fact all you are doing is slowing down your encoding significantly for no perceptable gain in quality. I have to put my hand up and admit to doing that sometimes.

There are plenty of guides and "wikis" which tell you what each setting does, but there are very few which go into detail about how much affect settings such as --subme, --merange and --trellis actually have on quality.

I suppose it's up to the individual to find a quality/speed balance they are happy with.

[neomaine]

I've always used something like Handbrake or Xvid4PSP to create my h264 so it uses x264. I don't think the x264vfw is very up to date last I heard.

[El Heggunte]

I don't think the x264vfw is very up to date last I heard.

Latest VfW front-end for x264 is r1947

komisar.gin.by/

[neomaine]

I hadn't circled back on x264vfw because it had a spell of not being updated. Looks like they got back on the trail:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/x264vfw/files/

Thanks for the update...

[budwzr]

2-pass encoding doesn't guaranty quality. It only guaranties you get the best quality for the selected bitrate (and all the other settings). Using single pass target quantizer encoding guaranties quality. With a quantizer of 2 you will get frames that are nearly identical to the source.

This is an extremely valuable point, and worth elaborating on. Target size or bitrate encoding throws out the baby with the bathwater.

Trying to figure out the perfect bitrate for each encode has no benefit except reducing file size, and what are you going to do, watch a whole movie in realtime to check for artifacts? That's ridiculous.

With 1TB portable hard drives under $100, there's no reason to be concerned with filesize. Quality, without waste, should be the focus.

I use AutoGK 75% quality (default) because the documentation specifically points out that anything higher gives minimal benefit. I don't know what Xvid Quantizer number this corresponds to, but it's probably in the 2-4 range.

And don't forget that AGK CAN produce an upscaled HD encode, and the results are fantastic.

[manono]

I use AutoGK 75% quality (default) because the documentation specifically points out that anything higher gives minimal benefit. I don't know what Xvid Quantizer number this corresponds to, but it's probably in the 2-4 range.

75% is a bit under average quant 3. And since I made the recommendation to len0x (the AutoGK developer) of having the 75% be the default and since I wrote that part of the tutorial which says there's not much point in going over about 80%, I doubly appreciate your comment. Thanks.

[jagabo]

When I was doing a lot of Xvid encoding I used target quantizer 3 most of the time. That was a good compromise of quality (very slight macroblocking if you look at enlarged still frames with the deblocking filter turned off) and file size. A few things I would encoded at q=2 when I wanted especially good quality.

I usually use x264 with CRF=18 these days.

[budwzr]

Yeah, you guys did a great job with AutoGK, and it's definitely a world-class program. Many thanks to you, Manono, and all the other contributors out there, we sure do appreciate your work.

[Registered55]

CRF=18 is a bit much, too far i would say..... 20 from DVD source, 21 from Bluray..... x264 use to need CRF 18 about 2-3 years ago, but not any more.

[jagabo]

It still needs CRF 18 as far as I'm concerned.

[Registered55]

fare enough, there was a guy who said on another forum several months ago that CRF 15 is a must, we should all do what we feel is best, just wanted to mention to you like i did to him (as did many others) that CRF under 20 is entering the overkill range. (perhaps on a 80+ inch screen CRF 18 may just pay off) LOL

[jagabo]

Yes, the OP should run his own tests and see what he's happy with.

[trodas]

I must say that I failed to integrate the x264 into VirtualDub. Anyone could give me a hand...?

And these options: http://komisar.gin.by/gui/index.html
...do look overhelmingly complex to me :-O

[Adithya]

I usually encode XViD this these settings (call me insane, but the results are eyewatering)

5 bframes
Quarter Pixel checked
Motion search precision -6 Ultrahigh
VHQ Mode - 4 Wide Search
Trellis checked
VHQ for bframes checked