Divx 5.0.2 vs. Picvideo MJPEG - Discuss

[Xtasy2002]

To start off let me tell you that I've heard all the MJPEG/Divx opions and I have read all the posts. But I have yet to see Divx compared directly to MJPEG in any thread. By a large majority I have seen people recommend MJPEG codec as the 2nd best to capture, right behind Huffyuv. I want to discuss that here and find out why. I also want to say that in order to capture Divx as I mention here, you need at least a 1.4 GHZ CPU. I currently have an Athlon 1700+. So you can ignore these results if your computer isn't fast enough to take advantate of it.

Note: This thread isn't about Huffyuv, which I agree is superior to both. However, I don't have enough HD space for Huffyuv considering what I am doing.

OK I can capture to Picvideo MJPEG with it set to quality 19, 4:2:2, 2 fields if over 240. This is what almost all posts refer to as the 'optimal quality' for HD space on the Picvideo codec. I am using version 2.10.0.25. When I record 352x480, PCM Audio 48KHZ, the resulting file is about 100MB/Minute. The CPU usage is around 10-15% max, so it's not very demanding. Definately usable for low end systems. 0 dropped frames on my system.

Now I can capture to Divx 5.0.2 with it set to bitrate 10000, Keyframe interval 10, Max Quantizer 2, Min Quantizer 1, Highest Quality (Slowest). This is the absolute best quality divx can produce. When I record to 352x480, PCM audio 48KHZ (Same settings as used for Picvideo), the resulting file is about 65MB/Minute. The CPU usage is around 80-90% max, so it's VERY demanding. Obviously only a high end user can achieve this. 0 dropped frames on my system.

Now, Divx 5.0.2 that I am using is free, you don't have to buy the pro version to capture. MJPEG costs $18 to capture (Picvideo) or more for Morgan, etc. Divx is cheaper obviously .

Divx is 65MB/Min of capture while Picvideo is 100MB/Min at 352x480. Divx is smaller and takes up less HD space.

But the QUALITY. That is what really threw me off. I am capturing from/watching from Digital Cable. It looks crystal clear. I have the captured video files (Both Divx and MJPEG) streaming on the computer monitor and also on a 27" TV, so I can get right up to it and examine it. When I watch the Divx capture up close, it looks damn near the same exact picture clarity that I got from the Digital Cable original signal. I see only a slight blur when a lot of action is going on. When I watch the MJPEG, you can see the loss even on still scenes. Colors are blurred, and I can tell there's some smoothing going on while other parts of the image are distorted and blended. Most notably clear backgrounds like the sky look washed out.

The same video loss in MJPEG captures were present in an MPG that I encoded through TMPGENC. When I encoded the Divx file, it was still as crisp as the original capture.

So what gives? Has Divx finally introduced a codec that performs better than MJPEG? Does anyone with a fast enough computer, Divx 5.0.2 and MJPEG want to capture with the settings I outlined above, and look at (compare) the resulting video and tell me they don't see what I see? I am curious if I am simply looking at the video wrong, or if the Divx really is clearer than the MJPEG.

At this point, I am at a juncture where I must choose to do all future captures in either Divx or MJPEG.. Everything I read tells me MJPEG is the way to go. But personally I can't see why, it seems Divx at those high settings deliver more clarity at less size. Now I need a second or third opinion for sure?

[easydvd]

I think most of the people are capturing for conversion to VCD or SVCD. That's what everyont uses huffy or mjpeg.

I've done some quick dirty mpeg4 caps at 320x240. If it's something just for pc or to archive, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Xtasy2002]

Well, the end result of my capture is TMPGEnc to DVD. So the same would apply for VCD and SVCD. As far as I can see, the high end Divx looks better both on capture and in the final encoded mpg than does MJPEG?

[easydvd]

AT low resolution I would agree with you. The problems I have are when capping larger than 352x240. Lots of dropped frames, although I'm not running a high end CPU. If your machine can keep up with it at 10mbs and you don't lose too many frames......go with what you like I guess. I do like the idea of only 25 or 30 mb a minute instead of 125 mb per minute

[vhelp]

Xtasy2002,

Some questions please.

Did you say you used 352x480 for BOTH tests ?? divX and MJPEG ??

And, when you were actually viewing the two for comparison, where
they both the same resolution, etc. ??

And, last, since you did say, you viewed both on TV, what was the
method you used, and device ie, TV out, etc.

Note, I read elsewhere on the FORUM that divX 3.11 was THE BEST
for quality. How or have you compared 3.11 vs. 5.0.2 ??
Or, have you over looked or skiped 3.11 altogether ??

Sorry for the multitude of questions, he, he...
I too have ben messing around w/ divX, but I'm using the 3.11
version for 352x240 cap ( just testing, he, he... )

But, as easy said, most people here (myself also) are
mostly doing VCD/SVCD etc. for DVD-to-TV viewing. It's ben my
experience that a TV-OUT card does not display qualit of ANY
source, be it divX, VCD, SVCD, or even an actual DVD movie, oh, even
better. .. an SBIT dvd - looks like crap through my Rage FURY pro's
TV out.

so, when you think divX for comarison, get it out of your head
that VCD/SVCD is better than divX or vis-versa, cause at the moment,
it's a nill issue, since divX can't be played in everyone's DVD player
of today, and there's millions that's ben sold, and 3 of those
are sitting in front of me (all Apex models)

-vhelp

[vhelp]

Xtasy2002,

Also, forgot to ask. . . Do you have any divX samples that you can share
w/ us curious tweakers here ??

I'd be curious to see what you are getting in terms of quality, and file size
doesn't have to be big, like 3MB or less is perfectly fine w/ me

Hope you have some!!

-vhelp

[bpjenn]

I've captured all my home movies (about 20 years of VHS and 8mm) using Divx (5.0.2) at 6000kbps 320x240 through virtualdub and transcode the audio to MP3. Excellent quality and I get no better quality if I capture using huffyuv at 640/720x480 and then transcode to Divx. You can then transcode the Divx video to any ohter format - MPEG1/2, AVI, WMV, Real, etc. with excellent results. The only problem I have had is that editing is not as precise due to keyframes so far apart. You can modify this to a lower setting (50) but the file size will increase slightly. Also, if you capture at 320/352/240 you won't need to deinterlace and you can crop out the overscan area at the bottom during capture. I've done much experminting and this method produces great looking video. Anything below 4000kbps looks horrible with macroblocks.

[vhelp]

bpjenn,

interesting. What kind of soft player are you using (or anyone else) for
your divX files ??

I've ben messing around, and playing/watching in vdub, doubling the size,
that way (testing mostly) and also test viewing them in power dvd and
windvd. powerdvd and windvd both display the color washed out and/or
very bright, and greenishy lookng. I'm not sure what's normal, but for
now, I'll assume that vdub is the normal one who's colors are perfect when
view through this app. I don't have any other app (for divX that is) at the
moment, but I was getting ready to do some searching (google) and see
if I can come up with a couple of SMALL apps, not hungry killer features.
Just so size, fullscreen, widescreen, etc.

bpjenn,
I've use 800kbit and 6000kbits, but I noticed not change in filesize, what
gives? ?
Well, maybe I'm not in the right thread. Sorry if I'm not though.
-vhelp

[Xtasy2002]

Hi

Did you say you used 352x480 for BOTH tests ??

Yes, both were 352x480. On playback both were same resolution also.

And, last, since you did say, you viewed both on TV, what was the
method you used, and device ie, TV out, etc.

They both play as AVI files through Windows Media Player. Using their default codecs. Picvideo mjpeg decompressor and divx decompressor. The video goes to the TV via S-Video out of my Geforce 2 MX. In drivers I have set to dual display, video clone mode. Any video played comes to the TV full screen.

Or, have you over looked or skiped 3.11 altogether ??

Yep I did skip right over it. I only have 5.0.2 installed.

As for TV-Out yes I understand what you are saying. I have several machines. One of them has a plain Geforce 2 MX card, that also happens to have S-Video out. When I connect direct to TV with S-Video cable the image is very nasty and fuzzy. Attribute this to the card being inside of the computer, and as you can imagine all of the electricity going on there causing massive interference with the signal. The one I am using for good video out is Visiontek Xtasy Everything. The video out is located away from the PC in a green break away box. This really does produce a very crisp & clear video signal, there's nothing nearby to cause interference.

it's a nill issue, since divX can't be played in everyone's DVD player of today, and there's millions that's ben sold, and 3 of those
are sitting in front of me (all Apex models)

Yeah, I dunno what the future of stand alone Divx will be. But I am surprised of it's performance in capturing video. Either my eyes or screwy, or it captures better video at high rates than does MJPEG at setting 19, with a smaller file size. That's really what I'm hoping someone else can test and tell me if they see the same thing.

[Xtasy2002]

Hmm for capturing I am using iuVCR. I too notice a poor video quality when using the PowerVCR for capture. I just figured it was my video card or setup.

[vhelp]

Xtasy2002,

ok, thank you for your response(s) it's ben quite interesting so far.

Interesting question, I just did a 1 minute encode (not capture) w/ v3.11
and (music video "The Remedy" nice) and size of 5.2MB

My specs is thus:
* music video from MUCH Music (satalite)
* captured source from DV cam used my DC10+ card (640x480) for this
* imported clip into vdub
* resized to 352x240 for final resolution to divX encode
* turned off audio (cause sound card is acting up w/ distortion only)
* compression, set to divX low motion (high motion is the pits)
* 60keys, 100%crips, 1200bits
* 1 minute encode to divX 3.11 (above specs) = 5.2MB

I'm assuming the powerdvd and windvd are wrong for playing divX files,
as color is washed out and greeny looking.
I'll take your word for it, that the Xtasy card yields better results for your
TV out quality 8)

Thanks for yours and others' replies thus far, and so on.
-vhelp

[vitualis]

DivX is ultimately a presentation codec. It isn't ment for capturing. Obviously, you have a reasonably powerful PC that can pull of both the capturing of the video and real-time encoding. You may still be limited in what resolutions you can capture at though.

MJPEG codecs (including PicVideo) are primarily capture codecs (as well as for intermediate AVI files if you put the setting high enough). They are CPU easy and easy to edit afterwards. However, they do chew up disc space. I can, for example, capture at full frame size (704x576) on my P3 500 MHz PC with PicVideo MJPEG on 20. I wouldn't be able to do anything even vaguely close with DivX.

I personally don't like using PicVideo MJPEG at anything other than 20. I think that you can see the JPEG artifacts fairly clearly even on 19 and it does affect the end result (the MPEG).

PicVideo at 20 is near lossless.

As I've alluded to before, the other reason MJPEG is a good choice for capturing is that the AVI is easy to edit afterwards. If you want to do some effects, editing, cutting, etc., with Premiere, there is no problem at all getting it to work smoothly (as each frame in the AVI is just a separate JPEG). There can be problems with a DivX clip.

As to the cost, the older version of PicVideo's MJPEG codec was free, although they no longer provide it. If you search the forums, you will find another shareware program that automatically installs the older PicVideo MJPEG codec with it fully registered (i.e., no logo). This is completely legal.

I've captured all my home movies (about 20 years of VHS and 8mm) using Divx (5.0.2) at 6000kbps 320x240 ....

@ bpjenn: I would suggest that you will definitely see an improvement in capturing the full vertical resolution (i.e., x480 or x576) as you will be capturing both fields per frame.

As always, if you find a method that works fine for you, there is no need to change! However, if you have the disc space, most people do suggest (and I agree) that you will have better end quality if you capture using HuffyUV or high quality MJPEG, and capturing both fields per frame.

Regards.

[Xtasy2002]

You may still be limited in what resolutions you can capture at though.

You are right about that. I capture at 352x480 and already the XP 1700+ is up to 70-90% CPU usage at times. This is without any audio compression, straight up PCM 44Khz Stereo. I'm sure to capture at say 720x480 one of those new 3GHZ cpu would come in handy. As for capturing DivX with more compression than the settings I listed, also unlikely. The more compression you add, the higher the CPU usage and frames start to drop.

I have read from multiple sources that Picvideo at quality 20 takes up more HD space than does Huffyuv? There's even a chart on the Huffyuv website that highlights the fact. Is this true? If not, what are the space savings between huffyuv capture and mjpeg 20.. I'd test right now, but I'm in the middle of a capture.

The editing with Divx is a problem if the keyframe interval is left to default. It defaults to 300 frames which means you can only cut every 300 frames. Definately that is not precise cutting. If you change keyframe interval to 10, you can get precise cuts and edit it nicely (This is what I've done). If you go even lower to say 5 or 2 you could cut on a fraction of a second.

And BTW yes you CAN d/l showshifter to get a 'free' mjpeg codec. But I wouldn't exactly call it either legal or ethical. It's like taking a jaguar on a test drive, but then stealing the tires off of it and bringing it back on a tow truck saying you didn't like it and don't want it. The guys at Picvideo have a product for sale and they expect $18 if you use it. If you were to buy showshifter the cost of the codec is reflected in the price of the software.

[crahak]

Well, MJPEG is a capture codec, DivX is not. You can still manage to capture with a DivX codec, but it is not as good. MJPEG works great, eases up editing, and is by far my favourite. (for most my captures, huffyuv is just overkill anyways).

bjpenn: I dunno man. It seems like every time I see something by you, it keeps refering to capturing VCD resolutions with DVD like bitrates. That's beyond overkill. Lots of DVD Rips on the web are encoded below 1000kbps and hardly show any blockyness at all, and that, at higher resolutions. If you're seeing huge disgusting ugly and horrible macroblocks at anything lower than 4000kbps at that resolution, then there's definately a problem somewhere.

I still don't know why people spend all these efforts to fight using the same codecs that have been proven before and work well. (mjpeg and huffyuv)

[Xtasy2002]

I still don't know why people spend all these efforts to fight using the same codecs that have been proven before and work well. (mjpeg

It's about quality. If Divx 5.0.2 looks better than MJPEG and has a smaller file size than MJPEG, it's a better codec to capture with. I only want the best, I don't care about following the status quo. If everyone did that, there would be no progress.

If you have a low end system by all means use MJPEG. If you have a powerful CPU and don't use your computer during capture (who does?), MJPEG is a waste of CPU time. You're only using like 15% of your processor for inferior video quality. I'd rather use 85% of my CPU and get near-digital quality through Divx 5.0.2.

PS I have yet to try MJPeg quality 20.. But I still haven't found out if it takes up more HD space than Huffyuv. In that case, why even bother with MJPeg why not just capture direct to Huffyuv which is lossless.

[bpjenn]

Divx IS a great capture codec and IS DVD quality at a high enough bitrate. If you look at the new Windows Media Encoder 9 you will see that high bitrates are used for high quality video.

[bpjenn]

Also, if you capture straight to Divx you don't need to transcode unless you want to reencode the audio, which is recommend to drastically reduce file size-still doesn't take as long as transcoding the video. Since I only have a 800MHZ Pentium III computer I can't capture Divx at 720/640x480 but again my captured video looks great at 6000kbps.

[easydvd]

bpjenn wrote:

If you look at the new Windows Media Encoder 9 you will see that high bitrates are used for high quality video..

I actually would like to try wmv9 but when i downloaded and installed it , crashed EVERY time I tried to encode with it. I was using a GUI that loads avs scripts to it. Found that over at Dooms' place. Got any suggestions as to how I can get it more stable.

BTW......
if any of the mpeg4 formats ever get playable on a standalone.....my money is on wmv. I saw a rumor post on another board that XBox is going to include support for wmv9 in 2003. I'll look around and find the link to post if you'd like

[bpjenn]

I don't know anything about avs scripts. The Windows Media Encoder 9 will accept avi and mpeg1 files. You can even capture through it-you need a lot cpu power for that though. Also, if you have Windows XP, try the new Movie Maker 2 beta. You can create your own profiles with the Windows Media Profile Editor (installed with the Windows Media Encoder) and put them in the Movie Maker Shared/Profiles folder.

[easydvd]

Thnx!!

[vitualis]

And BTW yes you CAN d/l showshifter to get a 'free' mjpeg codec. But I wouldn't exactly call it either legal or ethical. It's like taking a jaguar on a test drive, but then stealing the tires off of it and bringing it back on a tow truck saying you didn't like it and don't want it. The guys at Picvideo have a product for sale and they expect $18 if you use it. If you were to buy showshifter the cost of the codec is reflected in the price of the software.

WHAT???

It is both completely legal and I dare say ethical. The fact that PicVideo no longer gives away the OLDER version of their codec is irrelevant. It would be like saying that it is immoral/illegal for me to use say the free version of TMPGEnc (12a) now that there is a newer non-free version.

If you want to use the OLDER and completely CAPABLE version of the PicVideo MJPEG codec, the only way to get it is through ShowShifter shareware. As far as I'm concerned, you are under no obligation to BUY ShowShifter if you don't actually use it (rather, you are using a piece of free software that comes with it).

Regards.

[Xtasy2002]

Right and they no longer sell the old yet fully CAPABLE 3D Studio Max version 2.5.. So I guess it makes it OK for me to go out and Warez it from the internet. Why should I pay for the new version when I can get the old one for free in IRC?

^ There's always a way to justify stealing something.. Still doesn't mean the arguement is right or moral. Picvideo owns the right to their own MJPeg codec. If they wanted to give one to you for free, they would have it for free on their WEBSITE. They don't.

Why someone would want to rip off an $18 codec is beyond me. Support the company so they can make it better.

[vitualis]

Look, I don't know what twisted ideas that you have, but just because a company no longer supports older versions of their programs does NOT mean that it is WAREZ.

TMPGEnc 12a is no longer available for download from TMPGEnc.net. That does NOT make it WAREZ.

ShowShifter is available as SHAREWARE which means you can still legally distribute it.

Included in this legal piece of shareware is a bit of free software called the PicVideo MJPEG codec -- the older free version to the commercial version now.

PicVideo obviously doesn't support this older free and completely legal version for commercial reasons.

This does not make this warez or illegal or immoral. It is definitely NOT stealing.

Why someone would want to rip off an $18 codec is beyond me. Support the company so they can make it better.

You are not ripping it off. You are not getting the new $18 codec. You are getting the free older codec. For most people, the old one is probably enough.

Microsoft no longer distributes Win98. Does that mean that if I reinstall Win98 on my PC that it is stealing because I didn't go and buy WinXP?

TMPGEnc 12a was a great bit of shareware/freeware. Does it mean that I am STEALING from TMPGEnc.net by using this older version rather than buying the latest one?

I have not suggested ANY impropriety. I have only suggested that there is a completely legal OLDER free version of the now commercial PicVideo MJPEG codec. And BTW, PicVideo DID give the older version of their MJPEG codec for free. They changing the license for the NEWER version does not change the fact that the OLDER version is free.

Your example of WAREZ was completely inappropriate and I suggest that you refrain from posting such poorly considered material in the future.

Regards.

[crahak]

DivX don't give better captures than MJPEG, and it's a pain when it comes down to editing. MJPEG is much better in every way I believe, and if that's not enough for you, then I can only conceive using huffyuv. I think I'd use any codec but DivX to capture... I'm not saying DivX looks bad, this is not the issue, I'm just saying there is better to capture. And whatever anyone says, 6000kbps is beyond overkill at 320x240, even with a souce as clean as a DVD. If you kept the full resolution, it would justified, but at 320x240... No way.

[Xtasy2002]

Lol do me a favor.. Why don't you email Picvideo sales department. Explain to them that you recommend people d/l showshifter shareware, then immediately uninstall it, so they get a free copy of Mjpeg codec. Ask them if they think this is legal and if they have a problem with it. Tell them you recommend everyone on the net does this to avoid paying Picvideo $18.

Post their reply here in entirety and quote it for me so I can see if you're right.

Anyways, this thread has already served it's purpose and is now off topic. Thx to all who responded.

[vitualis]

(1) Of course it is legal. Surely any one who thinks for half a second can see that.
(2) If PicVideo didn't want people using their codec for free, then they shouldn't have released it to the public for free. I in fact use the PicVideo MJPEG codec. I downloaded it from their website for free and they sent me the registration code for free.

Perhaps you still haven't got it into your head that the older PicVideo MJPEG codec is freeware. The newer one is not. What part of this simple concept don't you understand?

Old version = FREEWARE It was released by PicVideo as FREEWARE. You can use the old version for free because it is FREEWARE.

New version = COMMERCIAL. It is released by PicVideo as a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT. You have to pay for it if you want to use it.

Old version is NOT THE SAME as the new version.

Got it yet?

Regards.

[johnnyutah36]

xtasy2002 - I have been looking for a way to get a free copy of the Picvideo codec thank you for telling me how!!!!!!!!!! LMAO

[paulgab]

xtassy2002, i like your idea of using DivX to capture instead of MJPEG. ~100G is just too much for me for a 1min of capture (dont have enough HD space). I have both Morgan & Pic Video codecs and did some comparison with DivX grabs, I cant notice any difference both on the grabs and on the resulting CVDs, viewed on TV (VHS source). One thing I noticed with my DivX capture is audio sync problem. Video is delayed 3~4 secs. Have you encountered the same? If so, appreciate if u can post to me your way out of this probs. TIA!

[vhelp]

evening all.

Ok, ok... I gotta correct myself on a few things here. . .

Ok, first, I found a good divX player, BSPlayer v0.835 (BS)
It's a player I used to use for a long time,but stoped using since I had
PDVD and WDVD. But, for divX stuff, the quality is amazing. Basically,
all this time, I was using vdub. wrong app!! BS will fullscreen and scale
your source w/ very good accuracy. I would recommend (if you ain't got)

now, second, or TV-out viewing, I've found that vdub does an exellent
job. I mean, source looks like source, and NO jaggies on low resolution
stuff, like 352x240 I've ben messing with.

and, finally, third, I too, can capture to divX either 3.11 or 5.0.2
and quality is VERY good. However, on my XP 1700+ I can't do a good
enough 720x480, as my CPU is taxed at 100% (well, my test showed this, all
the while, I had 7 browsers open, dialup, mail-reader, 2 vdubs, BSPlayer
and a few other items, but my CPU was taxed at 100% when dong 720x480
divX capture (using divX as my compressor)
I found that 400 or 640 x480 was only taxing my cpu at 40% w/ 1 to 5
frame drops per 10 minutes of capture time, and less then 900MB for that
10 minutes.
However, I think I'll stick with huffy or uncompressed, as these codecs
prove ZERO blocks in final AVI captures.

I've used PIC a number of times. It's pretty good quality. And, if you
capture to Huffy first, then transcode it to PIC (MJPEG) you'll have some
pretty good quality for encoding, but this varies and is confusing for
final quality gauging, and only done this a few times. Anyways. . .

I've posted a sample divX clip at my vhelp thread (see below) I'll be
updating it w/ a new one, if I can fine some more - have so many good
samples... anyways... divX does look pretty good on my PC monitor, and
if I can figure out the correct resolution combo for final PC play, I'll
have a better comment/opinion of it. Just a matter of time. I'm still
working with it as I write this.

I recommend staying with huffy if you have the harddrive space.
I'll be posting (when I get the chance) a new divX sample, and you can
(if you want to) comment on it. For now, if you havn't D/L'ed my sample,
please do so now, and hopefully, you'll be using BSPlayer as I am, and
see the same quality I see. I'm basing my quaity from BSPlayer's output.
(see link below for sample)

-vhelp
----------------------------
VHELP's Samples ...last 11.16.2002