Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 ASP

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th August 2012, 17:12   #1  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
Anything like DivX vs XviD vs x264 2012 tests?

Im interested which one is better in 2012,

Back in the days of DivX 3.11 and nanDub there wasnt XviD.
Later XviD came out, and became (probably?) better than DivX 3.
How are they compared in 2012 with the latest releases?
I saw few screenshots, DivX vs XviD, the results from what i saw was that XviD has sharper image (better), DivX has smoother image (worse), but DivX has slightly better colors than XviD.

Also, what about the filesize, encoding and decoding speed (which one can be played on weaker pc)?
If latest DivX is smoother than XviD, than maybe it can be compared with x264 for HD content?

Last edited by zmejce; 2nd September 2012 at 15:27.
zmejce is offline  
Old 8th August 2012, 20:47   #2  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 4,336
I don't think much has changed in the MPEG-4 ASP world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
Also, what about the filesize, encoding and decoding speed (which one can be played on weaker pc)?
If latest DivX is smoother than XviD, than maybe it can be compared with x264 for HD content?
File size cannot be separated from quality. Both are very fast to decode or encode in software (decode is the same for both) but now there is a lot of hardware available to decode mpeg-4 AVC which is not used for mpeg-4 ASP.

Anything can be compared with x264 but I know DivX doesn't compare well to x264, HD or not.

Last edited by Asmodian; 8th August 2012 at 21:56. Reason: fixed H.264 = mpeg-4 confusion
Asmodian is offline  
Old 8th August 2012, 21:06   #3  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,655
it should be written as
mpeg-4 asp (divx,xvid...)
mpeg-4 avc or h.264 (x264,atheme...)
Atak_Snajpera is offline  
Old 8th August 2012, 21:53   #4  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 4,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
it should be written as
mpeg-4 asp (divx,xvid...)
mpeg-4 avc or h.264 (x264,atheme...)
oops! Thanks
Asmodian is offline  
Old 8th August 2012, 23:41   #5  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post
Anything can be compared with x264 but I know DivX doesn't compare well to x264, HD or not.
I've did some dvd encodes to x264, they were smooth... XviD was better.
zmejce is offline  
Old 8th August 2012, 23:51   #6  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
I've did some dvd encodes to x264, they were smooth... XviD was better.
If, at the same bitrate, XviD looks better than x264, you did something seriously wrong... maybe with your pre-processing, maybe with your encoder settings or maybe with your comparing method.

See also:
http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shika...e/compare.html
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 8th August 2012 at 23:55.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline  
Old 9th August 2012, 00:44   #7  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
Interesting site, maybe that's what I'm looking for. Do you know from which date are those screenshots?

According to them, x264 is best, then DivX, then others (maybe XviD, & a good mp2 encoder should be similar to -original source- screenshots).

Which birate do you recommend for HQ rip at 720x480 res. from dvd?

Last edited by zmejce; 9th August 2012 at 01:26.
zmejce is offline  
Old 9th August 2012, 09:24   #8  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,655
Atak_Snajpera is offline  
Old 9th August 2012, 20:19   #9  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 4,336
I don't understand what you what to know. Are you really thinking Xvid might be better quality compared to x264?

Currently x264 is accepted as the highest quality video encoder available. I think this is true even counting the many thousands of dollars encoder packages (they offer other advantages of course) but it certainly true compared to the cheap or free options.

MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid, Divx) is a simpler standard that's easier to decode, as such it cannot achieve the same quality per size. This is even more true of MPEG2.

Which bit rate to use is up to you just make sure it is the same for all comparison encodes.
Asmodian is offline  
Old 9th August 2012, 21:18   #10  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
I wanted to know which one of DivX and XviD is better in 2012.
I think to go with 1500-2000kbps birate DivX rip for video with 720x480 resolution from DVD source.
zmejce is offline  
Old 9th August 2012, 23:03   #11  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
If, at the same bitrate, XviD looks better than x264, you did something seriously wrong... maybe with your pre-processing, maybe with your encoder settings or maybe with your comparing method.
Oh no, Ive just used Handbrake 0.9.5 with High x264 preset, I didnt do any processing besides deinterlacing, still image is smoother with those rips, mp4 asp (divx or xvid) is sharper and clearer.

But on 1080p, x264 is absolutely best.
zmejce is offline  
Old 10th August 2012, 08:01   #12  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
I've did some dvd encodes to x264, they were smooth... XviD was better.
I go out on a limb here, maybe set myself up for ridicule...

If someone were to ask me, I'd say x264 is better than Xvid. No doubt. No room for discussion.
Very occasionally though, and I can't quite put my finger on it... sometimes when encoding low quality sources, Xvid seems a little more pleasing to the eye to me. Probably because it's not as good at retaining detail so where normally you'd lose some fine detail (compared to x264) you lose some of the unwanted noise or compression artifacts instead. Just a theory anyway.... but for 99% of the video I encode, I'd use x264, and I don't think I'd ever say Xvid was sharper or clearer.
hello_hello is offline  
Old 12th August 2012, 22:21   #13  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
Oh no, Ive just used Handbrake 0.9.5 with High x264 preset, I didnt do any processing besides deinterlacing, still image is smoother with those rips, mp4 asp (divx or xvid) is sharper and clearer.

But on 1080p, x264 is absolutely best.

Maybe that was your problem?

If it was a theatrical source (e.g. a movie), you wouldn't deinterlace it
poisondeathray is offline  
Old 15th August 2012, 03:17   #14  |  Link
CWR03
Custom User Title
 
CWR03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello
Very occasionally though, and I can't quite put my finger on it... sometimes when encoding low quality sources, Xvid seems a little more pleasing to the eye to me.
I know exactly what you mean. I had a Creative DVR card that captured in half-height resolution even at its best settings - I exported a lot of its files and saved them encoded in XviD, some of which look nearly as good (if not a bit better) as the DVD release of the same show that I encoded to x264. I never tried to figure out why, just always thought it was interesting.
CWR03 is offline  
Old 16th August 2012, 16:26   #15  |  Link
datauser
Registered User
 
datauser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 100
QUOTE by hello_hello
If someone were to ask me, I'd say x264 is better than Xvid. No doubt. No room for discussion.
Very occasionally though, and I can't quite put my finger on it... sometimes when encoding low quality sources, Xvid seems a little more pleasing to the eye to me. Probably because it's not as good at retaining detail so where normally you'd lose some fine detail (compared to x264) you lose some of the unwanted noise or compression artifacts instead. Just a theory anyway.... but for 99% of the video I encode, I'd use x264, and I don't think I'd ever say Xvid was sharper or clearer.


Have to agree too! Might also explain why if you use a high bitrate/high resolution x264 source and recompress it to avi, to find that it mostly comes out looking better than if you just encoded to avi/Xvid in the first place from your direct source to same specifications in my subjective opinion.

The x264 has done all the hard work preserving the source detail etc, so all you are really doing is some fine tuning with Xvid and losing unwanted noise artifacts in the compression process rather like a fine tooth comb filtering process/sieve. Ironic since there are no denoise options built in Xvid unlike the option in DivX to remove noise during the encoding process.

Last edited by datauser; 16th August 2012 at 16:46.
datauser is offline  
Old 2nd September 2012, 14:46   #16  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
It might be strange, but DivX 6.9 1080p rip @ 7500kbps (2pass encoding and Highest quality setting) is better than x264 rip (with Handbrake's High Profile @ ~13.3Mbps).

Also, for DivX 2pass Insane Quality encodes, it takes half the time of x264 High Profile 1pass with Handbrake.

Also DivX it's very light on the pc for decoding.

TESTED ON 37" 1080 LED TV with vivid color setting and crystal clear image.

BTW I was surprised when I saw a lot of dirty artifacts, from 2m distance from the TV on the x264 High Profile encodes that were ripped from Blu-Ray disc from ~40GB. DivX @ 7500kbps has dirty artifacts that can be seen only from being few inches away from the TV.

x264 High Profile's dirty artifacts can't be seen on my 24" monitor, neither the ones from DivX (as they would probably be very hard to be noticed on 32" TV).

Last edited by zmejce; 2nd September 2012 at 15:29.
zmejce is offline  
Old 2nd September 2012, 18:36   #17  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
It might be strange, but DivX 6.9 1080p rip @ 7500kbps (2pass encoding and Highest quality setting) is better than x264 rip (with Handbrake's High Profile @ ~13.3Mbps).

Also, for DivX 2pass Insane Quality encodes, it takes half the time of x264 High Profile 1pass with Handbrake.

Also DivX it's very light on the pc for decoding.

TESTED ON 37" 1080 LED TV with vivid color setting and crystal clear image.

BTW I was surprised when I saw a lot of dirty artifacts, from 2m distance from the TV on the x264 High Profile encodes that were ripped from Blu-Ray disc from ~40GB. DivX @ 7500kbps has dirty artifacts that can be seen only from being few inches away from the TV.

x264 High Profile's dirty artifacts can't be seen on my 24" monitor, neither the ones from DivX (as they would probably be very hard to be noticed on 32" TV).

Are you sure you didn't mix them up? DivX @ 7.5Mbps vs. x264 @ 13.3Mbps

There is no contest here . There must be a mistake somewhere

Maybe you're misinterpreting the "dirty artifacts" - are you referring to grain in the original? Because x264 will do a better job at preserving the original quality (this includes grain)
poisondeathray is offline  
Old 2nd September 2012, 22:05   #18  |  Link
zmejce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Rome
Posts: 51
No, I'm not messing the stuff.

The videos that I've encoded were different for x264 and DivX, however the DivX is better in that case.

I'll probably do tests to the same video when I'll have time and post screen shots.
zmejce is offline  
Old 2nd September 2012, 22:32   #19  |  Link
Bloax
The speed of stupid
 
Bloax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 317
The best way to compare codecs is to test them on different sources and compare the results.
Yes, logic is good definitely here absolutely quite yes.
Bloax is offline  
Old 3rd September 2012, 11:59   #20  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmejce View Post
TESTED ON 37" 1080 LED TV with vivid color setting and crystal clear image.

BTW I was surprised when I saw a lot of dirty artifacts, from 2m distance from the TV on the x264 High Profile encodes that were ripped from Blu-Ray disc from ~40GB. DivX @ 7500kbps has dirty artifacts that can be seen only from being few inches away from the TV.

x264 High Profile's dirty artifacts can't be seen on my 24" monitor, neither the ones from DivX (as they would probably be very hard to be noticed on 32" TV).
Maybe that's part of the problem.... your TV is trying to do clever things to the picture. If you really want to compare the two using your TV, do so with all the picture enhancing junk disabled. "Dirty artifacts" isn't really descriptive enough to know what it is you're seeing. Ideally you'd want to calibrate the TV properly first too." Vivid color" sounds particularly nasty to me.
I've never seen image enhancements in a TV which I thought improved the picture. I can't imagine why people use them. The first thing I do when setting up a TV is to go into it's settings and disable all of it completely.

Also you didn't say what you're using to play the encodes. ie a media player built into the TV, or a Bluray player etc. I've had fairly limited experience using different types of media players but even so it's fairly obvious they're not created equally. Even the image produced when playing the same encode using the two different Bluray players in this house (same TV) looks slightly different. Neither is bad, just one's a little more pleasing to the eye. If you're comparing encodes using a TV then ideally you'd probably want to be playing them on a PC connected to it, as chances are it'll be the best media player you own anyway (assuming you're using a decent software player).

The fact you say you can't see these "dirty artifacts" when playing the encodes and viewing them on your PC monitor would seem to indicate you need to find out what's messing with the picture when you're viewing them on the TV. Artifacts don't magically disappear and if they're encoded into the video you should be able to see them using your PC monitor too. Often when people post regarding visual problems playing encodes it's a problem with sending the TV the wrong levels or something similar.
hello_hello is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
2012, divx, tests, x264, xvid

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.