Whats the best codec?

[Tab.]

Well lumimasking doesn't exist (in the same form, anyway) in 1.0, so I dunno what you're using

[the Black Monarch]

Oh? Well then what does the little check box with the words "Lumi Masking" next to it do?

I experimented with VP6 earlier this morning. Although I'm sure it affords excellent compression, it would be a much better codec if it didn't have a habit of using 1/4 the bitrate that I told it to use...

If you're looking for quality, why the heck are you using Quantizer 10? Why not Quantizer 2 or 3?

Because using such low quantizers results in ridiculously high bitrates and a lack of perceptible difference in quality. I later used Q6 with the same outcome. I do want my files to be distributable, you know.

[Tab.]

Oh? Well then what does the little check box with the words "Lumi Masking" next to it do?

No clue, because like I said, it doesn't exist in XviD 1.0.

[the Black Monarch]

After uninstalling the wierd bastard child of two different XviD builds that had come to coexist on my machine, and then re-installing the latest Koepi build, I was horrified that XviD had repeated the mistake that DivX made earlier of including "profiles" and then hiding the really important options within the Profile screens. I also found that Lumi Masking is still around; it's called Adaptive Quantization now, but the function still exists. After doing even more tests, this is what I found:

Taking the same 9 screencaps per encode as before, I found very little difference in the images. Sometimes Xvid would produce more or less noise in one area than Divx, and sometimes it would erase some detail that DivX didn't or include one that DivX erased; overall, the image quality was about the same, and considering that DivX was still using a 10% higher bitrate than XviD and took 2-3 times as long to encode, I was just about ready to end my reign of DivX fanboyism.

Then I actually watched both clips in motion.

The XviD encode had created some kind of horrible motion-search artifact about 15 seconds into the video. Then I went back and watched the DivX version, then I watched the XviD version again, and the artifact had disappeared. So now I'm confused.

Anyway, to sum up, I now hold XviD and DivX in equal regard. I like DivX for its ease of use and more widespread compatibility, while I admire XviD's increased flexibility of options, many of which are confusing/useless ("VHQ mode? What the hell is THAT?").

[Tab.]

more widespread compatibility

What?
They're the same.

Btw, xvid's profiles are the 'mistake' of the MPEG committee. Blame the Mpeg-4 standard (actually, don't blame it, thank it. Profiles are what keep interoperability, scalability, and functionality). DivX just made theirs up.

P.S. the basic function is the same, but you can't refer to dev-api-3's lumimasking and dev-api-4's adaptive quantization interchangeably. It has been significantly improved.

[the Black Monarch]

I meant compatibility in the sense that most people who watch videos online already have DivX but don't have XviD.

I have nothing against profiles. My beef is with the fact that the only way you can get to things like GMC is by modifying the properties of a profile even when you're not adhering to one. It's just stupid and counterintuitive. Special MPEG-4 tools and features should be kept separate from the Profile function.

[Tab.]

But they are profile-dependent properties. Granted, the team wanted a more convenient UI before 1.0, but it didn't happen.

Don't forget that DivX plays back XviD and vice-versa. Their support is equal and complementary. Same goes for 3ivX.

[the Black Monarch]

But they are profile-dependent properties.

So? Is it really so hard to put them on the front screen and let them be automatically de-selected when the user selects a profile that doesn't support those features?

Don't forget that DivX plays back XviD and vice-versa. Their support is equal and complementary. Same goes for 3ivX.

I know that's how it's theoretically supposed to work, but it hasn't been true as often as we would have liked. XviD 1.0 claims to have fixed this bug, but who knows what incompatibilities remain undiscovered?

[trythil]

But they are profile-dependent properties.

So? Is it really so hard to put them on the front screen and let them be automatically de-selected when the user selects a profile that doesn't support those features?

That already happens (at least in the VfW GUI). If you pick a profile that doesn't support a given set of features, those features will be disabled. Try going from Simple @ L0 to AS @ L5.

If you use the "unrestricted" profile, then nothing is disabled.

Don't forget that DivX plays back XviD and vice-versa. Their support is equal and complementary. Same goes for 3ivX.

I know that's how it's theoretically supposed to work, but it hasn't been true as often as we would have liked. XviD 1.0 claims to have fixed this bug, but who knows what incompatibilities remain undiscovered?

No. The compatibility of an XviD-encoded video stream with an OpenDivX/DivX5 decoder is nowadays dependent on the user of the encoder. Compatible output has been achievable (and has been achieved) since XviD was in beta testing.

[the Black Monarch]

That already happens (at least in the VfW GUI). If you pick a profile that doesn't support a given set of features, those features will be disabled. Try going from Simple @ L0 to AS @ L5.

And all of that has WHAT, exactly, to do with special tools being on the front screen?

No. The compatibility of an XviD-encoded video stream with an OpenDivX/DivX5 decoder is nowadays dependent on the user of the encoder. Compatible output has been achievable (and has been achieved) since XviD was in beta testing.

So you really think that every single compatibility bug has been found and fixed?