| Author |
Message |
Larc
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:04 am Post subject:
Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
For those of you who encode in XviD, what are the apparent differences
between the results of that and DivX you've discovered? I encoded a
movie with VirtualDub first using DivX and then XviD. Finished AVI
files are the same size. I've looked carefully, but can't find even
one visible difference in the two. Am I missing something?
TIA!
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:04 am Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:37:38 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:01:02 -0800, "Billy Joe" <see.sig@invalid.org
wrote:
| First - bit rate * play time = file size, so rule that out of
| your evaluation. No matter what codec you use, a given bit rate
| for the same play time will always produce the same file size
| (within a few bytes, at any rate).
It can't be ruled out this time since I encoded precisely the same
movie using both DivX and XviD. Using two different movies or
encoding at different rates would have been no test at all.
| Over the years in which I've been using the Divx codec, I felt
| it produced a better picture quality than xvid. However, the
| last several xvid binaries that I have used have shown marked
| improvement and I can no longer tell generally which picture was
| produced by which codec.
I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was the main
reason for my test. According to results of this one test, there
seems to be no apparent quality reason for anybody to use the less
standard XviD over the more widespread DivX.
|
[snip]
Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
RivaScoot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Joe
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:10 am Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
Larc wrote:
| Quote: | For those of you who encode in XviD, what are the apparent
differences between the results of that and DivX you've
discovered? I encoded a movie with VirtualDub first using
DivX and then XviD. Finished AVI files are the same size.
I've looked carefully, but can't find even one visible
difference in the two. Am I missing something?
TIA!
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
|
First - bit rate * play time = file size, so rule that out of
your evaluation. No matter what codec you use, a given bit rate
for the same play time will always produce the same file size
(within a few bytes, at any rate).
Over the years in which I've been using the Divx codec, I felt
it produced a better picture quality than xvid. However, the
last several xvid binaries that I have used have shown marked
improvement and I can no longer tell generally which picture was
produced by which codec.
To a certain degree it seems more dependant on what is used to
play the file (for example, a PC or the LiteOn or Philips MPEG4
player). In these cases the devices don't produce the same
picture for the same file on the same TV and I notice
differences in the presentation between encodings when played by
the same player on the same TV. In the cases of viewing from
the MPEG4 players - some scenes look better on the xvid version
while other scenes look better to me on the divx version.
And finally, the source material which created the AVI has an
influence. NTSC TV captures, for example, when converted to
one-pass, interlaced divx/xvid look atrocious on TV when played
by the Philips, while they look nearly perfect when played by
the LiteOn. Deinterlacing the same files in single pass
encoding still looks shoddy on the Philips. Only dual pass
deinterlaced encoding plays well for me on this device.
Clearly decoding is a big part of playing an MPEG4 and not all
decoders seem to be created equal!!
BJ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:01:02 -0800, "Billy Joe" <see.sig@invalid.org>
wrote:
| First - bit rate * play time = file size, so rule that out of
| your evaluation. No matter what codec you use, a given bit rate
| for the same play time will always produce the same file size
| (within a few bytes, at any rate).
It can't be ruled out this time since I encoded precisely the same
movie using both DivX and XviD. Using two different movies or
encoding at different rates would have been no test at all.
| Over the years in which I've been using the Divx codec, I felt
| it produced a better picture quality than xvid. However, the
| last several xvid binaries that I have used have shown marked
| improvement and I can no longer tell generally which picture was
| produced by which codec.
I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was the main
reason for my test. According to results of this one test, there
seems to be no apparent quality reason for anybody to use the less
standard XviD over the more widespread DivX.
| To a certain degree it seems more dependant on what is used to
| play the file (for example, a PC or the LiteOn or Philips MPEG4
| player). In these cases the devices don't produce the same
| picture for the same file on the same TV and I notice
| differences in the presentation between encodings when played by
| the same player on the same TV. In the cases of viewing from
| the MPEG4 players - some scenes look better on the xvid version
| while other scenes look better to me on the divx version.
I played both on a Philips DVP642 and on two different computers
looking for differences. I saw none between the two formats on any of
the playback devices, although there were differences between playback
devices.
| And finally, the source material which created the AVI has an
| influence. NTSC TV captures, for example, when converted to
| one-pass, interlaced divx/xvid look atrocious on TV when played
| by the Philips, while they look nearly perfect when played by
| the LiteOn. Deinterlacing the same files in single pass
| encoding still looks shoddy on the Philips. Only dual pass
| deinterlaced encoding plays well for me on this device.
The Philips tends to show pixilated artifacts on AVIs, mainly in hazy
scenes. These seem less evident with higher bitrates, but I used 832
kbps for video on both to allow the 101-minute movie to fit on a CD.
There are some smoky/foggy scenes in the movie I used for testing.
Some occasional artifacts showed up in DivX and XviD versions on
Philips playback, but not on either computer monitor. Since the
source movie I used wasn't interlaced, it wasn't necessary to employ
de-interlacing.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:44 am Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:18:20 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
news:g39br05m06hn0tka909umc0dj17vit9rnt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:02:34 +0100, "erik" <erik@somewhere.com> wrote:
| > Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
|
|
| > RivaScoot
|
| That's my reason also :-) Both look fine to me, my standalone player
can
| play both, so I lean to the one that I do not have to buy or (cough)
steal,
| when I want an upgrade.
You don't have to pay or steal. The DivX codec is free! :-)
http://www.divx.com/divx/download/
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Don't they say you should not use this free version for encoding? You
probably physically could... But even during playback it displays the divx
logo, so who knows what it does while encoding :-) For encoding I use only
xvid, btw.
|
Hmm...I've used the free DivX codec, but I don't recall seeing the
logo when I playback a DivX movie on my standalone.
Maybe it's there, but I just never noticed it.
RivaScoot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:01 am Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:09:34 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:04:31 -0500, RivaScoot <email@usenet.com
wrote:
| >I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was the main
| >reason for my test. According to results of this one test, there
| >seems to be no apparent quality reason for anybody to use the less
| >standard XviD over the more widespread DivX.
|
| [snip]
|
|
| Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
That's against it, IMHO. Anything that's open source can be changed
by anybody. There's no central control over it as there is with DivX,
so there's nothing to stop different versions from cropping up all
over.
|
Non-open source hacks of software abound as well.
That said, your argument is merely theoritical. Generally, open
source programmers take great in modifying code.
Computer system issues aside, name 5 open source programs you have
used that didn't do what you wanted it to do.
| Quote: | And the greatest plus for most users with open source — free —
isn't a real benefit in this case since the DivX codec is free as
well.
|
You don't understand the open source construct.
"Free" doesn't refer to cost, free refers to the fact that the
software code can be freely modified. Sure, in theory, one can charge
for open source software, but that is the exception. Generally, what
one pays for is the technical support, packaging, etc. -- not the
software.
In fact, Open Source movement Richard Stahlman goes as far to say that
money shouldn't be involved with software at all.
Naturally, many disagee with his notion.
| Quote: |
BTW, you may want to check your clock/calendar.
|
What's wrong with my clock/calender?
RivaScoot
| Quote: |
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan IV
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
news:g39br05m06hn0tka909umc0dj17vit9rnt@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:02:34 +0100, "erik" <erik@somewhere.com> wrote:
| > Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
|
|
| > RivaScoot
|
| That's my reason also :-) Both look fine to me, my standalone player
can
| play both, so I lean to the one that I do not have to buy or (cough)
steal,
| when I want an upgrade.
You don't have to pay or steal. The DivX codec is free! :-)
http://www.divx.com/divx/download/
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
|
Don't they say you should not use this free version for encoding? You
probably physically could... But even during playback it displays the divx
logo, so who knows what it does while encoding :-) For encoding I use only
xvid, btw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:02:34 +0100, "erik" <erik@somewhere.com> wrote:
| > Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
| >
| >
| > RivaScoot
|
| That's my reason also :-) Both look fine to me, my standalone player can
| play both, so I lean to the one that I do not have to buy or (cough) steal,
| when I want an upgrade.
You don't have to pay or steal. The DivX codec is free! :-)
http://www.divx.com/divx/download/
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:04:31 -0500, RivaScoot <email@usenet.com>
wrote:
| >I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was the main
| >reason for my test. According to results of this one test, there
| >seems to be no apparent quality reason for anybody to use the less
| >standard XviD over the more widespread DivX.
|
| [snip]
|
|
| Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
That's against it, IMHO. Anything that's open source can be changed
by anybody. There's no central control over it as there is with DivX,
so there's nothing to stop different versions from cropping up all
over. And the greatest plus for most users with open source — free —
isn't a real benefit in this case since the DivX codec is free as
well.
BTW, you may want to check your clock/calendar.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
"RivaScoot" <email@usenet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2n79r0pfua57bvkkeq79o6rkdgr5jnn4jc@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:37:38 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:01:02 -0800, "Billy Joe" <see.sig@invalid.org
wrote:
| First - bit rate * play time = file size, so rule that out of
| your evaluation. No matter what codec you use, a given bit rate
| for the same play time will always produce the same file size
| (within a few bytes, at any rate).
It can't be ruled out this time since I encoded precisely the same
movie using both DivX and XviD. Using two different movies or
encoding at different rates would have been no test at all.
| Over the years in which I've been using the Divx codec, I felt
| it produced a better picture quality than xvid. However, the
| last several xvid binaries that I have used have shown marked
| improvement and I can no longer tell generally which picture was
| produced by which codec.
I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was the main
reason for my test. According to results of this one test, there
seems to be no apparent quality reason for anybody to use the less
standard XviD over the more widespread DivX.
[snip]
Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
RivaScoot
|
That's my reason also :-) Both look fine to me, my standalone player can
play both, so I lean to the one that I do not have to buy or (cough) steal,
when I want an upgrade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:03:59 +0100, Christian Link
<C.LinkSPAMBLOCK@GMX.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:18:20 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no> wrote:
probably physically could... But even during playback it displays the divx
logo, so who knows what it does while encoding :-)
Well, at least it does if you don't bother to check the configuration
dialog, that much is true for sure. It's really amazing how many people
complain about this logo (which, indeed, should have been deactivated per
default, as it has been in the first codec versions introducing this, ehem,
"feature").
I mean, it's nothing new that people are too lazy to read the DOCs, but if
they don't even check the most basic settings of programs they use ...
|
I hear ya.
Millions have brought their McLifestyle to the internet -- i.e., they
want things without ANY effort.
RivaScoot
| Quote: |
For encoding I use only
xvid, btw.
... I really doubt they would get very far with XviD, either :-) . |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:50:24 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no>
wrote:
| Quote: | "Christian Link" <C.LinkSPAMBLOCK@GMX.net> wrote in message
news:jbhbr0ljio3v5o5n24khpq26pena6egk0d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:18:20 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no> wrote:
probably physically could... But even during playback it displays the divx
logo, so who knows what it does while encoding :-)
Well, at least it does if you don't bother to check the configuration
dialog, that much is true for sure. It's really amazing how many people
complain about this logo (which, indeed, should have been deactivated per
default, as it has been in the first codec versions introducing this,
ehem,
"feature").
I mean, it's nothing new that people are too lazy to read the DOCs, but if
they don't even check the most basic settings of programs they use ...
This logo appeared there when I tried the free DivX 5.2.1. I usually use the
codecs together with AutoGK or VirtualDub and configure all necessary
parameters from there. I do read documentation as the last resort. The logo
thing was nothing fatal, so I just ignored it as something slightly annoying
that I do not use often anyway. As I wrote I do not use DivX codec for
encoding, so I did not waste my time on learning something I won't be
needing anyway. So there.
|
Cat fight! Cat fight! ;^ )
RivaScoot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:48:40 -0500, "SL" <pillott@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I have the phillips 642 player and of course a pc. I used to encode to Divx
5.x. I then went with Xvid. Why?, because it produces the nice same
result every time and all I need is the one codec. It is available for free
at all the popular sites Ive seem to come across. I notice less pixelizing
on larger screen tv's with the Xvid (2-pass) encoding on black scenes.
I always assumed Xvid was superior as it came out later. Not a good guide
to use, but I did. Friends that no absolutely nothing about either seem to
agree the Xvids I use are a little "crisper" looking. Some (actually most)
they cannot tell from the real DVD. It is only fair to mention this is
using the Phillips 642 player. The Lite-On player that is its comparison
offers the same results Ive found.
It almost boils down to your personal preference.
|
Yep, using my Philips, XviD looks better than divX. There is less
pixelation.
RivaScoot
| Quote: |
SL
"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
news:p9obr0ln9f0on6e2ao5oep7t00v62ko6hr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:50:24 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no
wrote:
| This logo appeared there when I tried the free DivX 5.2.1. I usually
use the
| codecs together with AutoGK or VirtualDub and configure all necessary
| parameters from there. I do read documentation as the last resort. The
logo
| thing was nothing fatal, so I just ignored it as something slightly
annoying
| that I do not use often anyway. As I wrote I do not use DivX codec for
| encoding, so I did not waste my time on learning something I won't be
| needing anyway. So there.
DivX doesn't insert the logo in the encoded movie, but only displays
it as an overlay on playback. All you have to do is open config.exe
in the DivX folder. Select the Quality Settings tab and check
"Disable Logo." Apply. Poof! It's gone. ;-)
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RivaScoot
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:48:57 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:01:49 -0500, RivaScoot <email@usenet.com
wrote:
| >BTW, you may want to check your clock/calendar.
|
| What's wrong with my clock/calender?
For one thing, time stamps indicate that you replied to my post 9
hours and 33 minutes BEFORE I posted it! I know my clock is correct
since it's set to connect to time-a.nist.gov and self correct every
hour.
If I were forced to guess, I'd say your computer clock is probably
exactly 12 hours slow.
|
Oh, well...such is life.
I think you can deal with it.
RivaScoot
| Quote: |
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sheppy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Differences in DivX and Xvid? |
|
|
| Quote: | | Many users enjoy encoding with XviD because it's open source.
That's against it, IMHO. Anything that's open source can be changed
by anybody. There's no central control over it as there is with DivX,
so there's nothing to stop different versions from cropping up all
over. And the greatest plus for most users with open source - free -
isn't a real benefit in this case since the DivX codec is free as
well.
BTW, you may want to check your clock/calendar.
|
Not true - while anyone is free to modify the codec and distribute their
changes, no one in there right mind would want a modified version unless it
worked better than the original. And the Original is quite good.
If you want a good related example - look at VirtualDub, modified versions
were produced a while ago which allowed it to read Mpeg1 files only, then
this was extended later to include Mpeg2, now it's almost all encompassing.
It's a great program, (When's full AC3 support coming thou?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in