Codec h264 xvid divx

Quad processors are best suited for using the H. This high quality codec is compatible with most modern devices like mobile phones and other digital video players. Both Xvid and H. Novice users can often get confused between the two formats. However, there are several quite conspicuous differences between the two.

The Xvid codec is the predecessor to the H. The quality of the sound and video outputs is fairly inferior when compared to their H. Similarly, although it can be encoded fast with minimal processing power, the format has been dubbed as one used by video pirates and is not supported on most new devices.

This code was included in the OpenDivX public source repository but then removed. It was at this time that the project forked. DivX took the encore2 code and developed it into DivX 4. Other developers who had participated in OpenDivX took encore2 and started a new project with the same encoding core, and named it Xvid. Xvid is a free, open-source codec and is the main competitor of Divx.

Xvid is published in the GNU General Public License, which guarantees end users the four freedoms: to run, study, share, and modify the software. DivX is a commercial product, although it does offer a free download with limited functionalities. Unlike the DivX codec, which is only available for a limited number of platforms, Xvid can be used on all platforms and operating systems for which the source code can be compiled. And though the DivX codec is different from the Xvid codec, video players that display the DivX logo usually support Xvid files.

However, DivX and Xvid are not popular now as the newer codec H. Some say x is much better. This is at least according to some irc chatter I've read. Not that that is a great source. I assume VLC's "wizard" to encode H. Thanks for all the responses. I definitely have some research to do They're both using x Intel Indeo? You can try MediaCoder. Seems to have a lot of options. You should at least make the tiniest attempt at a scientific test and encode the same source file to both formats with the same bitrate.

You can't compare a random thing you made with a random tool you downloaded with someone who knows what they're doing. I mean, c'mon, basic common sense. On the other hand, if you really believe mb xvid looks fine at high resolution, you have very low standards - a good thing in a world of shitty video - and might not care no matter how big the real difference is.

Almost all use x Including Videora. MeGUI is my personal favorite, but although it has an automatic mode, it's really oriented toward the power user. StaxRip is a nice balance toward the newbie side. In terms of raw efficiency, Mainconcept is currently the best, x and Ateme after that, then lots of little ones barely worth a mention including Sony's. Doom9's h. There are threads comparing the quality of different formats, especially h.

Even as far back as the last Doom9 codec shootout in , h. The only time xvid gives you a better picture is in pictures with heavy grain, at very high bitrates MBps , but with the right advanced options h.

Since at the bitrates you use grain and detail in general is nonexistent, this doesn't apply to you. This is even true for ipod-level h.

Whether you really want to educate yourself or not, you can at least get a good GUI or two that'll handle most of your needs. Also, I wish people would just stop recommending VLC. It was great a few years ago, but you can get nearly all the same features in a much nicer package in smplayer.

Another similarly good player but with directshow capability is GOM Player, but it's been languishing without an update for a while now. Them were the days of VHS captures and x realmedia, yar. Anyway Indeo's included with Windows, so why'd you have to play it with Quicktime? The Faceless Rebel. HCB himself. Originally posted by JoeyGeraci: Does anybody know how to achieve this with h? Originally posted by Sagittaire RV9 for very low bitrate is the best for my eyes.

I agree, it should be possible to make a more adaptive in-loop filtering. Yep, adaptive in-loop filtering could be a kick in the butt for med and high bitrate. But, changing this require changing the bitstream, so we might only see that in RVX.

But, I think with disabling b-frames for high bitrate could improve the quality. Originally posted by Sirber But, changing this require changing the bitstream, so we might only see that in RVX. I didn't think it would be that much of a trouble. So in-loop filtering used by RV9 isn't just a fixed algorithm that could be changed into something more adaptive to bitrate and sources? In this case, it will take you right to threads explaining these keys, that do not normally exist.

Search for each one separately. Note that these keys have their audience file equivalent, and should be used carefully, since they apply to all versions of Producer, and over-ride any other setting, incl. Hi Folks, By the way - either I overlooked that information or it wasn't mentioned before After some tests with VP6 I feel inclined to use it in some cases and I will def.

File size? I would like to compare lets say a divx with a VP6. Originally posted by Shandra Hi Folks, P. We hoped to address the problem with interlaced material before releasing the fix we should have it early this upcoming week.. Originally posted by snowcrash Can you explain what these settings do? Let me then add the following: customPacketSize : not needed in newer Producers, which will automatically use a large packet size for high bitrate VBR.

In current releases this setting is needed. Final Update Download and compare Not same script perhaps I only used the 'Main' and not 'Complex' setting too. So I will generate another test using the 'Complex' setting and report my findings. Hi Sagittaire, I generated another encode using 'complex' instead of 'main' and there was no perceivable 'visible' difference between the encodes! Sagittaire, I have to admit I have not read all your posts in this thread but I seem to remember you talking about generating some HiDef encodes.

Are you still thinking about this? Update with XviD I tried VP6 6. By the way I'm interested in one-pass VBR, i don't care about a target bitrate!

Saverio M. AKA MadActer. Originally posted by veryhappyjk the trouble is when you switch to one-pass VBR, a sort of Quantizer should appear and other useless parameters disappar, but this doesn't happen. Sorry, maybe I don't get the point Well then La Sagittaire Where can I find tools to make my own comparison???

TNX Shandra One-pass vbr is already implemented, and consequently quantizer selection. I think "one-pass-people" should have consideration :- though i see today noone cares about one-pass encoding. I think "one-pass-people" should be considerated only a little :rolleyes: though i see today noone cares about one-pass encoding. Hi Sagittaire, your test is really great! Two questions: 1. Do you used the newest VP6-version 6. Can you post a speedtable of the different codecs?

OR can you just tell me the speed which you get with VP6 aprox. Sagitaire I'd really like to know how xvid scores with the mpeg matrix and probabely even qpel and gmc. Best results with these seetings. Would you like to do a 1-pass comparison too?

Just wondering whether you also want to know the difference between 1-pass result of different codec and the difference between 1-pass and 2-pass of different codec Sagitaire There is a way to turn of the inloop filtering of RV10 encoder and decoder! Thank you very much for your efforts.

Thanks alot. VP6 6. Originally posted by Sagittaire VP6 6. Some settings-nagging again. Yet is are my suggestion for Bframes anyway. For those of us who do live video streaming this is the most crucial type of test paramter.

Which of the popular codecs do it best in the kbs-2mbs range? Does it help visual quality? Or does it tax the end-users' system too much which might offset improvements? Any information and results would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance. Psycho-visual enhancements already exist that make the video appear more like the original, even though PSNR is decreased. How can this happen, you may ask.. The simplest example could be the video being shifted one pixel compared to the original.

PSNR and all measurements that do some kind of comparison with the original, pixel for pixel, will be completely ruined, but visually, seeing the one pixel shift is almost impossible. Others might prefer to max out PSNR though. Personally I disagree, Where ever possible it's advisable to keep as much vertical resolution as possible, otherwise why bother capturing and converting from an HiDef source in the first place? Also remember that an i source is interlaced not progressive like an DVD source.

All the i source material I have looks great when converted to x But if that's not possible then the only other option is to use x anamorphic. Google-translated conclusion: "The RV10 "Elysian" with its new rate control and its threshold of activation of the inloop filtering shows from now on as powerful at all the bitrates.