What is the best encoding program and is there a better codec than divx?

[binkybuckle]

Hi everyone, I was just wondering what is the best encoding program, taking into account: 1.ease of use 2.quality of encoding 3.speed of encoding 4.defantly no encoding directly from DVD-ROM(in other words, no encoding where the DVD-ROM is in constant use throughout the encoding processes). I currently use flask1.1preview with thundermism plugin with divx5.02, works very well. when i decript the vob file to my HHD I use CladDVDXP with no IFO parsing. Also I wish to Know if there is a better and more reliable codec other than divx. I am starting to get real serious in the convertion of my DVD's so any extra speed/quailty would be a great help.:biglaugh:

[setarip]

"Also I wish to Know if there is a better and more reliable codec other than divx."

Although it gets very little "air time" at these forums, you might want to look into the most recently released version of the cross-platform (PC and Mac) 3IVX codec. It does an excellent job (the best I've seen) of one-pass encoding. Settings of 75% to 100% yield clean, crisp images ;>}

[Enchanter]

Have a look at the XviD codec. Of my few conversions using the codec and playing them with Nic's (some bugs) or FFDShow decoder, they yield superb quality that does not seem possible with DivX.

The only drawback is that the codec is still under development (very very frequent updates) and the latest builds may actually give you problems compared to older ones (because aggressive approaches to testing new settings are necessary in this kind of development). However, if you're serious about learning, XviD will not disappoint as long as you are patient and willing to overcome problems with the codec (hey, it's not finalised yet).

[Bourrine]

There is a codec better and I think it's the best...
But it's not an open source codec so I think it's forbidden to
speak about it on this forum.

But as everybody knows (after to use it) it's a very very powerfull
codec and give for me the best results.

More it's very easy to use, so novices can do great works without
experience.

But it's not open source....

I say that because people seem to ignore it ...

[gs0666]

And which codec is that???

[Bourrine]

I'm a junior member and I'm afraid to be baned.
Send me a mail if you want to know, but I really think you see the codec I mean.

[gs0666]

I don't think you will be banned as long you don't add any "warez" links

[Bourrine]

RV9 and the results are very good for experts and novices

[hacker_on_fire]

Either you tell us or you stop talking about it cos their's no point.

By the way you won't be banned, if abide by the rules of the forum.

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by Bourrine
RV9 and the results are very good for experts and novices
I have read positive remarks about this in Doom9's forum. However, there is an article at Doom9 that claims that the codec still suffers from a noticable loss of details. Is that correct?

[LaFouine]

@setarip

Hello,

You said 3IVX made the best work you ever seen in a single pass process.

Is the DivX 2 pass process better than the 3IVX single, up to you ?

Thank you

[Bourrine]

In my opinion the codec realise a very good work.
It managed to keep with a very low bitrate the most important parts of the pictures.
The loss of details is a little bit sensitive but compare to DivX and Xvid there aren't any agressive pixels.
You have to try it to judge by yourself.
But most of people who often see it or for the first time are agree to say the aspect is better than Xvid or DivX.

Note that you can reach the same quality with Xvid but you have to make so much tests and filters.

The encoding resolution reachs by RV9 for the same bitarte is always greater than the DivX-XviD one.

Everyone is free to think what he wants.....

[Enchanter]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not planning to go trying out the RV9 codec yet. So far, I'm still impressed with the quality I'm getting from XviD (it remains better than DivX 5, to me) and am still spending time tweaking and updating the codec. I might take a look into the RV9 codec anytime though given the general positive reviews from almost everyone who has used it.

[Batman]

Here's my thoughts:

If you have knowledge of SBC don't throw it overboard...it still yields good results
divx 5.02 pro is very advanced codec, with some good features, also easy to use and relatively stable
xvid, under heavy development, a good codec you should test
RV9 is becoming more popular but I do not think it currently matches the quality of divx 5.0s pro/xvid

[hacker_on_fire]

i have seen some good rips on the net, of movies encoded using Xvid. so i will soon be testing it as i have heard good things about it.
however i would like to know if anybody knows when their will be a 'stable' version released of the codec.

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by hacker_on_fire
however i would like to know if anybody knows when their will be a 'stable' version released of the codec.
I tested Nic's latest build (the one released in December) and it yielded excellent quality.

Avoid Koepi's 15012003 Unstable build since it is suffering from oversized-AVI problem (2 times I repeated the conversion and 2 times I got an AVI 300MB larger than my desired 700MB). Koepi's older build at 03012003 does not suffer from the problem though.

However, if you want a really stable build of the codec, Koepi's older Stable builds will provide you with that, though it lacks the availability of tools such as B-frames, GMC and QPel.

Hope that helps a bit. :)

[UncasMS]

@ all xvid users

i would like to ask you a question, folks.

so far i have NOT seen a really perfect xvid sample.
dont get me wrong, i'm not indending to say xvid is not capable of proving highest quality.

all i'm saying is: i never came across hq sampes.

i did a couple of tests myself with numerous xvid version (no-bframe, bframes) but still i wasnt satisfied with the quality.

since i'm very much interested in this stuff i'd like to broaden my horizon and learn how to properly set up xvid.

having said this i'd like to take a look at 1 or 2 minutes of any sample that someone has transcoded himself, considers it really high quality (no macroblocks, sharp picture, no ringing effects) and would be able to provide me with the information on how exactly this quality was achieved.

in case anyone could help me out on this, i'd like to hear from you.

[hacker_on_fire]

I tested Nic's latest build (the one released in December) and it yielded excellent quality.

could you direct me to where i could get this build from. thanx a lot.

@uncasms, i have seen good rips of '8 mile' 'xXx' and LOTR: Two Towers, however which suffers from freezing and none are my rips. i would also appreciate tips of xvid encoding anybody.

[WildmanJoe]

Hi, just here to add a few comments... (hope I don't get banned)
I'm a ferverent supporter of XVid (hope I spelt it correctly) and have been using it since I started encoding... however recently I noticed something unusual about XVid... Although the quality of XVid is indeed superior to it's counterpart spelt backwards, there is some detail I thought everyone ought to look out for...
Enlarge your XVid movie to full screen or large screen... look at any portion of the screen. Do you notice something.... specks or dots or spots or whatever you would like to call them. Compare this with a movie from some other codec and you will see what I mean... I've got a few movies in XVid and the spots/specks/dots are still there!

If you don't believe me, go try it out... remember to have another movie encoded in another codec as a comparison, otherwise you won't know what I mean.

If I am wrong (I hope I am) or if you don't agree with me, post a reply, thanks.

[UncasMS]

@ hacker on fire

i know that LOR-TT version and that is exactly what came out in my own tests - i dont consider that best quality.

it's fine, but i DID achieve better quality with my divx5 routines using lanczos + convolution when doing LOTR-1 which had a similar running time and was therefor comparable with this vite version.

[Batman]

The vite version, simply put, "sucked." It does not accurately represent the full potential of xvid.

Searching the doom9.org forums and reading the xvid encoding guides there (as well as iago's xvid 2-pass encoding document) might provide you with some helpful tips on xvid encoding.

[UncasMS]

thanx batman

i'll have a look at it as soon as the necessary divx 5.0.3 test will be done

[Batman]

Glad to help :)

Yeah divx 5.03 looks interesting (there seem to be a few bugs) because of the nth number of passes you can do (5 passes for instance which theoretically should improve quality) and a noticeble speed gain.

[magnoliafan]

Originally posted by UncasMS
@ all xvid users


having said this i'd like to take a look at 1 or 2 minutes of any sample that someone has transcoded himself, considers it really high quality (no macroblocks, sharp picture, no ringing effects) and would be able to provide me with the information on how exactly this quality was achieved.

in case anyone could help me out on this, i'd like to hear from you.


Hi there. Did you ever get any samples? I did some stuff comparing DivX 5 and xvid, and I got much better results with xvid. I have some sample files, but they are pretty big (done at 720x480, highest bitrate). If you want to see a couple, let me know how to get them to you.