VAQ in xvid config

[romit]

Can anyone please tell me what purpose "VAQ" in xvid configuration dialog serves? Will the encoded file be standalone compatible if VAQ is used?

Thanks in advance

[burfadel]

VAQ is a port back from x264, it basically is just a bit redistribution algorithm. It will in no way cause incompatibilities with standalone players as it just tells where bits would be more beneficial for overall picture quality (essentially). Having it enabled will result in less blockyness in dark or 'flat' areas of the picture, improving overall perceived picture quality.

[romit]

Encoded with VAQ on, the result was pretty good even at low bitrates. Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

[jordisound]

The filesize of the video is not important for me. My target DRF in xvid is 2.6
Is recommended to use VAQ in this case or is "optional"?

Having it enabled will result in less blockyness in dark or 'flat' areas of the picture

I thought this option was created for to save bits on very dark/light areas, and the probability of blockyness when reduce bits in this areas maybe increase.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by jordisound

I thought this option was created for to save bits on very dark/light areas, and the probability of blockyness when reduce bits in this areas maybe increase.

That was the old adaptive quantization algorithm, which was (IMO) worse than useless.

[BigDid]

Hi Dark Shikari,

Any hope to see other improvements from x264 ported (by you) to xvid like VAQ was in it's time?

Thinking (not exhaustive and if could apply) about:
- Lookahead VBV
- MB Tree rate control ...

Did

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by BigDid

Hi Dark Shikari,

Any hope to see other improvements from x264 ported (by you) to xvid like VAQ was in it's time?

Thinking (not exhaustive and if could apply) about:
- Lookahead VBV
- MB Tree rate control ...

Did

Both are vastly too complicated to port because Xvid has no real lookahead system. The only reason I bothered with VAQ was because it was easy.

[BigDid]

Ok, thanks for answering.

No Blu-ray here yet, no HD-TV either and no real quick Internet connection, next year with an underwater cable (satellite actually) if nothing goes wrong; so no struggle to use AVC/HD by all means...

I suppose that is why I am quite lazy to move to x264. And my previous attempts have been rebuffed/rebuked quite hard

Did

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by BigDid

Ok, thanks for answering.

No Blu-ray here yet, no HD-TV either and no real quick Internet connection, next year with an underwater cable (satellite actually) if nothing goes wrong; so no struggle to use AVC/HD by all means...

Erm, if you have slow internet, wouldn't you want better compression?

[BigDid]

Hi again,

Cause we have monthly/quotas on downloading.
It goes from 4 to 16 Gigs; I am in the middle...
Uploading is between 64 to 512 kbp/s. MAx downloading is 1 Gbp/s theoric; reaching 512 is exceptional

I am not complaining, it is just that sometimes we don't seem to live on that same planet as you compu-net-guys

Did

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by BigDid

Hi again,

Cause we have monthly/quotas on downloading.
It goes from 4 to 16 Gigs; I am in the middle...
Uploading is between 64 to 512 kbp/s. MAx downloading is 1 Gbp/s theoric; reaching 512 is exceptional

I am not complaining, it is just that sometimes we don't seem to live on that same planet as you compu-net-guys

Did

But wouldn't a capped connection mean that you need better compression?

[BigDid]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

But wouldn't a capped connection mean that you need better compression?

I would if I used downloading more which I don't cause it is too slow. Examples:
- Watching SD on youtube or other websites: ratio is 10sec watch for 20sec (or more) DL. Or you start DL, do something else until DL is finished (10 to 15mn) and watch again; it seems not working on daily motion; DL again ...
- When I was playing WoW online, weekly updates could take all night and big ones more than 24 hours.
- I will not develop movies DL as it is dangerous ground here but you can imagine the time it could take.

So a better compression will be needed when viewing HD res on HD TV, or when capturing HD-TV programs or if Blue Ray where more available (not even for rental actually). They are just beginning to sells the BD-players.

So xvid is good enough for me, even if I plan to re-encode also to x264 on a hard drive for my WD-HDTV box.
Hard drives are not too expensive so I imagine I could do with 1 pass instead of 2 pass encodes...

If I still did not answer your point, my apologies, I had a bad day; and english is still not my usual langage.

For the record, anything that could improve xvid is welcome, hence this exchange.

Did

[Astrophizz]

AVC isn't just about making multi-GB bluray rips. It's also about making smaller DVD rips than ASP, or DVD rips at the same size but better looking - or some mix.

[raeltheimperialaerosolkid]

BigDid, I live in the middle east and I have most of your same problems. Slow ADSL connection but, above all, a cap to 10Gbyte/month that keeps me away to most of the use of any video through the net. This FORCED me to move to x264 that (for animation works, in which I deal the most) could made me save about 100Mbyte for a 23min episode. This, without losing quality. I'm still in love with Mpg4 ASP (and Xvid is the codec that gave me the best experiences on this side) because of its compatiblity with stand alone players of any kind. Probably if I had still been living in Europe, with decent internet connections, I wouldn't move so quickly to AVC (x264 in this case). Anyway, I still think that Xvid has a huge potential dued to its compatibility with the player and any further improvement would be more than welcome. I don't think at all that Xvid is dead. I mean, we live in a world where most of the digital music players still stick on .mp3 which is waaaaaay older than Xvid. This makes me think that Xvid as a long way (many years!) to go before dying.