XviD versus MPEG1 or MPEG2

SephirothJenova · Post by **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>

post-it · Post by **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 ^^

Ashyukun · Post by **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.

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:56 pm

oh, why phade, why did you have to delete all of those hatter threads.

the Black Monarch · Post by **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.

Tab. · Post by **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..

post-it · Post by **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!!!!

Ashyukun · Post by **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)

the Black Monarch · Post by **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...

Tab. · Post by **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