DivX 5.03

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

DivX 5.03

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:06 pm

http://www.divx.com/divx/index.php

Doom9 wrote:It supports interlaced video, has a new post-processing algorithm which should improve perceived video quality during playback, has a video buffer verifier model in both one and two pass which can be used restrict the maximum peak bitrate and ensures that the encoded stream never violates the buffer of an MPEG-4 compliant decoder. Furthermore there's Nth-Pass encoding which means you can now perform more than 2 passes, the motion estimation algorithm has been optimized for higher resolution, the MP4creator has been removed for compliance issues but should be back in a later release, along with the intelligent IVTC functionality and some issues with DivX3.11 compatibility have been fixed
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby Ashton » Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:47 pm

So what's your call, Ed? Yay or nay?
Image
The anime Channel Petition Sign it if you like anime.
My member profile on the org.
オタク同士やろう! Ashton
User avatar
Ashton
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Northern California

Postby Brolli411 » Sat Jan 25, 2003 5:16 pm

Quality's great, just on all DivX encoded videos, in the bottom right hand corner, there's a DivX logo.
<A HREF="http://animemusicvideos.org/members/members_myprofile.php?user_id=3961">Member Profile</a>

"You just saved the entire world from a near-death destruction, how do you feel?"
"I'm going to Disney Land!"
"That's right, Disney Land, you heard it here first folks."

MPEG2Source("C:/<A HREF="http://animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/">Read ErMaC & AbsoluteDestiny's Friendly AMV Guides</a>")
User avatar
Brolli411
 
Joined: 25 May 2001
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:09 pm

pfft the decoder places a DviX Video logo every ones in a while over the video. Filter Properties/Quality Settings/Disable Logo might possibly solve your problem :\

Well I'm testing it now, I'm not really interested in the quality of the codec itself, it was the thing about the decoder having higher quality postprocessing that I figured would be a good thing in the amv community, since most people use the divx decoder but alot dont use divx itself.

I did 3 passes so far and judging from avisynth's subtract function there is a huge difference between the second and third pass.
I'm not overly impressed with the quality so far but I have to do an xvid encode of the same thing and see how it compares yet
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:13 pm

once in a while* >_< damn homonyms or whatever
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby Knowname » Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:01 pm

RadicalEd0 wrote:once in a while* >_< damn homonyms or whatever

dam now I'm gonna have problem with those... Never had problem with their there and they'res till somebody brought it up now this... dam you Ed0~!
User avatar
Knowname
 
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Location: Sanity, USA (on the edge... very edge)
Status: Indubitably

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:33 am

ok, tests are finished.

codecs tested:
DivX 5.03: 2 and 6 passes - 13,658 kb and 13,666 kb respectivley
XviD (latest Koepi cvs snapshot): 2 passes - 13,956 kb
3viX D4: only has one pass - 14,332 kb
DivX 3.11 SBC: 3 passes - 14,358 kb
Windows Media Video 9: 2 passes - 14,339 kb
RealVideo 9: 2 passes - 14,630 kb

clip used: frame 1307 - 3870 of Mission Improbable. 24fps, 512x384, 1024 kbps vbr used in all cases
both virtualdub and codecs with respective decoder filters set to max post processing for analysis

DivX 5.03, both 2 and 6 passes, actually surprised me. There was significantly less blocking and ringing than XviD in Vdub, instead areas which would have blocked took on an almost postprocessing esque muddiness. However it did look better than XviD's blocks. With full post processing however XviD caught up and was on par with the 6 pass DivX encode.

I was a little dissapointed in XviD in that as I mentioned there was some pretty noticable blocking and noise artifacts. Post processing cleared them up, but, I'm not in any condition to go around using 100% post processing on my 1ghz machine for normal viewing.

3vix started out good but got progressivley worse. Eventually it turned into an all out block fest that was uglier than the XviD by a good amount. Postprocessing did a good job of getting rid of the blocks, but also made the image kind of screwy, as in, not much better than blocky artifacts.

DivX 3.11, not as much noticable blocking as XviD or 3viX here, however it made up for that in a lot of mosquito noise. Postprocessing did an OK job of blurring this out but still wasnt great overall.

WM9, for all the claims made by M$ about this I'm not really impressed. Since WM is directly postprocessed, the only comparison was with the other codec's postprocessing, in which case it was sharper but also noticably blockier than XviD postprocessed. It holds a candle to Real9 in that it is a bit sharper but again it loses out in that it still has significant blocking.

RV9, I know I'm a RM whore, but honestly and objectively Real did do the best job here. Much sharper than XviD postprocessed, but with no noticable blocking or ringing. Slightly sharper than DivX 6pass with post, yet still with less leftover artifacts. Real stuff always looks sort of like its been run through 2dcleaner, as opposed to just being blurred like most postprocessing does, which is in part why it works so well with anime.

Overall I'd have to rank it like this:
1 - RV9
2 - DivX 5.03
3 - XviD
4 - WMV9
5 - DivX 3.11
6 - 3viX

not surpisingly, 3viX is last, and RV9 is first. The defunct DivX 3.11 is second to last. The upsets are in between. There was no fine line between divx 5.03, XviD, and wm9, it came down to one shot where a plane of color was more noisy in WM9. XviD came in after DivX due mainly to the excess blocking out of post. ffdshow's post turned out much worse than DivX 5's, with it xvid was under wm9. However with the divx 5 decoder 5.03 and xvid were very very similar.

So basically RV9 still rocks, XviD is still l33test, DivX 5.03 is a bit better quality than XviD, 3vix and WMV still suck and divx 3.11 is still old

Well I hope this info is useful somehow to someone because it took me like a fucking hour and a half to write it all :/
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:47 am

I forgot to mention no qpel or bframes or anything were used unless wmv and rm automatically use those which would suck but :\
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby AbsoluteDestiny » Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:44 am

Did you notice any actual difference between the nth pass divx and the 2nd pass? I'm guessing nth pass encoding is a bit overkill - why can't they just improve the curve calculations before the 2nd pass? :P

The results seem about right, but the thing I guess I'd have more objections to is the RM test. You say that RM looks like it's used 2d cleaner - well, it has basically. As you know, RM has noise reduction filters built into the codec whether you want them or not. Personally I'd rather choose my noise reduction.

Also you can't beat xvid for compatibility when encoded as ISO compliant :D
User avatar
AbsoluteDestiny
 
Joined: 15 Aug 2001
Location: Oxford, UK

Postby trythil » Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:11 am

Could you provide frame grabs from each of those test encodings?
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby RadicalEd0 » Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:07 pm

1. yes, there was a pretty large difference between the second and third pass, and the third and fourth, etc up until the 6th pass which was the last I felt like doing. Actually I think its a good idea to include multiple passes for extra quality, I mean, its arguable that a multipass encoder will do a better job than a 2pass, even if 2pass is good for general use.

2. RV does not use any kind of preprocessing or filtering. The only thing about the codec that cant be adjusted is the postprocessing, which uses a variable quant based filter, as in, it smooths on low quants and leaves high quants alone.

3. I'd really like to gary but ive no hosting and theyre too big and numerous for geocities to be useful here :x
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby Quu » Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:56 pm

until i can realibly convert RM -> uncompressed AVI.... i don't like it...

the frame grabber is sketchy at best

maybe with the Helix code beling relased we might get some RM -AVI programs.... but... I like to be able to edit...
Lead me not to temptation, for I have deadlines
User avatar
Quu
 
Joined: 26 Dec 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby RadicalEd0 » Mon Jan 27, 2003 3:37 pm

pfft you dont need to be able to edit RM, its meant for distribution final encode and it does a good job of it. Besides, you cant edit divx or xvid :\
EOvideo is a reliable converter that dosent just capture frames to my knowledge
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby RadicalEd0 » Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:05 pm

PSH, well, forget everything I said about DivX 5.03. Somehow they managed to get their decoder into the actuall vfw decoding instead of just directshow, so, the vdub analysis was innacurate in that DivX was being postprocessed where the others werent.

Without the postprocessor its just as blocky as XviD :\
the image comparison will be up in an hour or so
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Postby RadicalEd0 » Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:17 pm

on second thought ill put up the images tomorrow dont feel like scripting 70 pictures worth of html right now after copying pasting and saving 70 pictures from vdub ~_~

5 images, 7 codecs, 2 modes (postprocessed and not) = 70
User avatar
RadicalEd0
 
Joined: 24 Jun 2002

Next

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest