XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

the Black Monarch · Post by **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

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:56 pm

why not? I know I can

dwchang · Post by **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).

Quu · Post by **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...

Tab. · Post by **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.

Quu · Post by **Quu** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:22 pm

ok... that is somethign new to the mpeg-4 spec since i worked with it then...

MPEG-4 was targeted for internet distrobution... though its container format is very flexible (its simmiler to quicktime)... so i could see very easily it being used for video editing in the future...

MPEG-4 simple profile or advanced simple profile are both 10 megabits per second maximum.... the rest of the ideo profiles were ot finalized when i started coding an mpeg-4 toolkit... and other video profiles were more targeted for even lower bitrates than simple and advanced simple... plus wavelet was on the table for discussion... talk about a 180 degree turn around if they add a lossless...

the best thing they could do would be to add mpeg-1 video layer, and mpeg-2 video layer to the container format... then add a YUV and RGB uncompressed... then maybe a lossless (ala huffyuv or losless jpeg)...

alot of options once you change the scope of mpeg-4

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:32 pm

mpeg-4 container is great. It's a shame it hasnt been getting more software support than it has.

Patents, I suppose

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:56 pm

with h.264 frozen maybe mpeg 4 will finally be finished and go somewhere as a spec
but like I said, that'll happen as soon as HDTV becomes mainstream

Quu · Post by **Quu** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:06 pm

HDTV broadcast and MPEG-2 are tied at the hip

MPEG-3 was oroginally aimed at DVB and HDTV digital broadcasts...

MPEG-2 absorbed MPEG-3... so I susspect that HDTV brodcasts will remain in MPEG-2 for a good long while with out transitioning into MPEG-4...

Now that ian mentions it... a compleatly opensource editing/authoring program based on MPEG-4 would kick much ass... after the company i was working for went tits up I stoped working with MPEG-4...

does anytbody have a fully compliant MPEG-4 authoring package.... besides just video codecs? liek the compleate implimentation? that would be a fun thing... embeding the menu into the video stream

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:11 pm

I know about HDTV, I was referencing the fact that it's taking forever to get off the ground, same as mpeg 4 as an actual standard and not a bunch of obscure (in comparison to a standard like mpeg 1) vfw codecs.

AnimeMusicVideos.org

XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

Re: XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2