XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

Postby SephirothJenova » Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:28 pm

Can someone list the pluses and minuses for each? I'm trying to find the best video quality for my new video. I know that the new craze is XviD, but my computer can play MPEG much easier than it. Which is the better distribution method?

Sephiroth
<a href="http://www.rockmanvortex.com/sephiroth">Existentialism Studios</a>
User avatar
SephirothJenova
 
Joined: 05 Jun 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA

Postby post-it » Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:41 pm

WOW . . T_T

I'll give it a shot ^^;;;; . . stick with Mpeg-1 if your machine can play it best ^^

Xvid and Mpeg-2 are more like DVD encodes - you need a LOT of Processor power for these to look and play correctly ^^
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Ashyukun » Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:34 am

There's a lot of debate over this, and it really comes down to personal preference- what works best for you.

MPEG-1- older standard, been around for a while. I believe even my wife's cell phone can play MPEG-1 files, so just about anything under the sun these days can play them. They take comparatively little processor power, but may not look as good for the compression ratio you get. Can be played back natively on almost any OS in existence. A well-encoded, decently-high bitrate MPEG-1 is my personal preference for online distribution and other situations where smaller files are necessary.

XviD- 'derivative' of sorts of DivX. Generally considered, I believe, to yield better picture quality for the file-size than MPEG-1 (though I occasionally disagree with this). It is more processor intensive than MPEG-1, and also is less common on computers- a decent number of people will have to download a new codec to play it back. I've heard XviD/DivX on Macs has gotten considerably easier, but not as easy as would be nice.

MPEG-2- Intended for purposes such as DVDs, with extremely high bitrate and, as such, quality. Many contests that take digital submissions prefer them in DVD-quality setting MPEG-2 format. A well-encoded MPEG-2 should look pretty damn close to your original DVD/HuffYUV source files. MPEG-2s are less practical as a distribution method when it comes to downloading, because they are usually several times larger (at least) than their XviD/MPEG-1 counterparts. The con submission MPEG-2 of WLtFO, for example, was around 160MB. If you drop the size down to distro size (352x240 or the likes), the filesize gets more reasonable- but it still tends to be larger than MPEG-1.

It's my personal opinion that MPEG-1 is the best method for distroing files, simply because just about any computer manufactured in the last 10 years or so can play it back fairly well without any special drivers or downloads.
Bob 'Ash' Babcock
Electric Leech Productions
User avatar
Ashyukun
Medicinal Leech
 
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Location: KY

Postby Tab. » Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:56 pm

oh, why phade, why did you have to delete all of those hatter threads.
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

Postby the Black Monarch » Sun Jul 13, 2003 12:37 pm

MPEG-1: Lowest quality for bitrate, highest compatibility (as the other guy pointed out, they can be played on fricking cellphones). It is designed for resolutions 352x240 or lower, and therefore doesn't look too good at higher resolutions (and 352x240 looks like crap when full-screened anyway)

MPEG-2: An improved version of MPEG-1, it has higher quality for bitrate than MPEG-1 at any resolution higher than 352x240. However, since it is not as old, less stuff can play it back.

MPEG-4: Including such flavors as DivX and XviD, this provides the highest quality per bitrate of any option (again, assuming a decent enough resolution). I can take DVD source footage, which is 10 Mbits/sec MPEG-2, and turn it into an even better-looking DivX file at 1/5 the bitrate. However, you have to download each different flavor in order to play back files encoded with that flavor, and I'd be surprised if you could find a .mpg or .mpeg file that was actually encoded with the MPEG-4 standard.

Personally, my hero is DivX, because I like files with big resolutions and most people who download videos have a DivX decoder anyway.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby Tab. » Sun Jul 13, 2003 12:54 pm

black monarch speaks the truth :|
but mpeg 4's official container format is .mp4 and some day in the future it will supposedly have the kind of support mpeg 1 does now.
Some day everyone will have one ISO mpeg 4 decoder that can play back xvid, divx, 3ivx, and any other compatible mpeg 4 stream. Some day, like when HDTV becomes mainstream..
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

Postby post-it » Sun Jul 13, 2003 1:25 pm

T_T . . HDTV and 3ivx in the same sentence . . T_T . . you guy's are scaring me!!!!
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Ashyukun » Sun Jul 13, 2003 6:38 pm

the Black Monarch wrote: I can take DVD source footage, which is 10 Mbits/sec MPEG-2, and turn it into an even better-looking DivX file at 1/5 the bitrate.


Um, unfortunately I'd have to say (and I think even Tab should agree with this...) that you physically can't do that... if you are using a DVD for source footage, you cannot really make anything done to it look better than the original, at least from a mathematical perspective. Were you working off the original footage, before it was MPEG2-encoded from the DVD- then I'd consider it possible. Of course 'better-looking' is a rather subjective term.

When everyone's computer can play back (both in terms of having the decoder inherently and having the power to actually play it back), then I'll consider switching to an MPEG-4/DivX/XviD solution for my distribution encodes. Until then, I'll happily use MPEG-1, and everyone else can happily use whatever they like best. 8)
Bob 'Ash' Babcock
Electric Leech Productions
User avatar
Ashyukun
Medicinal Leech
 
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Location: KY

Postby the Black Monarch » Sun Jul 13, 2003 7:28 pm

Ashyukun wrote:Um, unfortunately I'd have to say (and I think even Tab should agree with this...) that you physically can't do that...


All hail the power of Virtualdub's Convolution Matrix. Ooh. Convolution-y!

OK, I was exaggerating about 1/5 the bitrate. But I can still make DivX encodes that look better than the DVD footage they came from, and at a lesser bitrate than the DVD.

Ashyukun wrote:Were you working off the original footage, before it was MPEG2-encoded from the DVD


Oh god, I wish...
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby Tab. » Sun Jul 13, 2003 7:51 pm

I let that slip because in the case of like the tenchi oavs or saber J something like deen does really make it look better than the original. Sometimes DVD sources really suck and post processing/filtering can work miracles.
As for 1/5th of 10mbps being true or false, 2mbps is usually pretty close to saturated at least with xvid :|
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

Postby the Black Monarch » Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:52 pm

But if you're doing a two-pass encode, you can't set XviD to 2mbits/sec :?
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby Tab. » Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:56 pm

why not? I know I can :|
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

Re: XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

Postby dwchang » Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:21 pm

SephirothJenova wrote:Can someone list the pluses and minuses for each? I'm trying to find the best video quality for my new video. I know that the new craze is XviD, but my computer can play MPEG much easier than it. Which is the better distribution method?

Sephiroth
<a href="http://www.rockmanvortex.com/sephiroth">Existentialism Studios</a>


People have already stated the pluses and minuses of the compression types, but to answer in more broad terms:

MPEG-1: Online Distribution. Reason: Compatibility. Almost every computer under the sun can play them. The point for distribution is for people to play them right?

MPEG-2: Mainly for yourself and contests. Pick this when quality matters. Never distro this. Not all computers can play MPEG-2 without stalling or de-syncing things.

XviD: Many choose this since it has a good mix in both filesize and quality (for the given filesize). At the same time, people will have to download the XviD codec to play (with MPEG-1 they don't). At the same time, within the .org I'm sure quite a few people have the XviD codec so perhaps "Compatability" is a moot point.

I'd suggest going MPEG-1 or XviD (with a preference on MPEG-1).
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Quu » Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:27 pm

here is a sad fact of life for all the MPEG-4 philes...

MPEG-4 tops out at 10 megabits per second... the spec does not allow for more

I will agreee that at sub 2 megabit per second bitrates MPEG-4 is vasly superior to MPEG-2... at 3-6 its debatable... 7+ MPEG-2 begins to pull ahead... and at 16-24 MPEG-2 simplely is beautiful and blows away MPEG-4 at its maximum quality settings.

MPEG-2 is sevearly flexible... 4:2:2 colour is possible with MPEG-2... its one of the profiles...

you have to understand why each was made...

MPEG-1 was meant and targeted for the early hardware cd players... VCD is the genisis of MPEG-1 and its purpose in life really. It is targeted at 1.12 megabits per second... and for VERY simple hardware... this is back when a 386 was top of the line... 486 was about to come out...

MPEG-2 was meant for higher bitrate digital media... like DVDs and hard drives, so was meant to be flexible and scalable. It was desiend for dedicated hardware... and made very little limits on its structure or its capability... this was meant to be a growable format... one aimed at ever increasing processor power and bandwidth

MPEG-3 was meant for DVB (Digital Video Broadcasts) and was disbanded when they found that everything they wanted to do couple be folded into MPEG-2 by adding another profile... (.mp3 is MPEG-1 Layer-3 Audio)

MPEG-4 was meant for internet and bandwidth restricted uses. it encompases FAR more than just a video and audio codecs... it also suports flash like interactivity, sprite graphics, and mesh 3d maps... it was meant for the interactive internet

And i love how you say that you are getting higher quality from dvds than the dvd its self... you are getting better percieved qualtiy... no matter the filters that you use... no matter how pretty you may think it is... you are also losing details and other things that only the oroginal master has... it is IMPOSSIBLE to get higher quality than the master file... in your case the lossy mpeg-2.... what you can talk about is an increase in perceptual quality.... but claming that your mpeg-4's are higher quality than the dvd sources is not possible... claming that they are perceptually higher quality is...
User avatar
Quu
 
Joined: 26 Dec 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Tab. » Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:57 pm

actually, the mpeg 4 spec in it's higher profiles allows for much greater than 10mbps quu :\ there's even a lossless portion somewhere in the spec. Mpeg 4 started as a low bandwidth codec but the spec has grown to encompass the whole spectrum of bitrates and resolutions. I had the same discussion with hatter 4 months ago.
As far as filtering and quality, quality is subjective. I'm not talking about getting a mathematically more exact picture than on the DVD. I'm talking about smoothing out noise and artifacting to get a better looking picture than on the DVD. Anyway, is there even any other kind of quality than perceptual quality in this case? But whatever floats your boat.
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

Next

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest