best compression

[sawman5]

Hi,

I have several divx files that i wanted to compress to save disk space. I was wondering what is the best option to convert to? Is wmv the smallest? I still want it to retain some quality as well.

Thanks

[nwg]

I haven't done much DivX but they are already compressed. I don't think you will you get much more compression and still keep quality.

WMV can be used for smaller files but they generally come with less sharpness and look soft.

If you have a CD or DVD burner perhaps archive them off the computer onto disc?

[LT. Columbo]

"I have several divx files that i wanted to compress to save disk space. I was wondering what is the best option to convert to? Is wmv the smallest? I still want it to retain some quality as well."

you won't be able to compress them any and maintain quality.

as suggested back them up on a disc.

[anonymez]

the only codec i can think of that will give you any noticeable file size reduction while retaining some quality would be 'x264', but is still under heavy development, and not yet ready fro mainstream imo (maybe in a couple of months ). your divx file is already heavily compressed, and as suggested above, back them up to a disc, or get a larger hard disk.

[bond_d9]

the only codec i can think of that will give you any noticeable file size reduction while retaining some quality would be 'x264', but is still under heavy development, and not yet ready fro mainstream imo (maybe in a couple of months ).

why should it not be ready for mainstream?

[anonymez]

mostly because decoding x264 at even dvd res takes a huge amount of power. because i have encountered bugs (though admittedly, many have vanished in the past few months). because it is still much too slow for most people IMO. because it is still being improved upon, so any encodes you make now may or may not look as good as ones you make in 2006

not exactly ready for ME because i can only dream of decoding x264 hi-def

[UncasMS]

you could apply more compression when lowering the resolution and maybe using some softening filters like fluxsmooth/convolution3d (flux should be much faster though iirc)

but recompressing avi to wmv does not make much sense

[shulthise]

How about just re-encoding the DivX files to DivX, but at lower bitrate ?

If the files were encoded with high bitrate (say 1400 kbps) you can reduce it to 800 or 600 with almost no quality loss.. (subject to the video type and content, of course..)

This should dramatically reduce the file size.. probably at about the same ratio the bitrate was reduced.


I think reducing the video resolution (width and height) would not reduce the file size by a lot.. it is mainly the bitrate that determines the amount of data saved for each second of a the video..

[UncasMS]

of course the resolution will not effect the size in any way, BUT....

... with a smaller resolution you can much easier reduce your bitrate in order to decrease filesize as the bitrate saturation will be different with smaller resolution

and applying some filters like fluxsmooth will let you drop bitrate even more

that's what i was driving at with previous posting

[bond_d9]

mostly because decoding x264 at even dvd res takes a huge amount of power.
not exactly ready for ME because i can only dream of decoding x264 hi-def

decoding will never be much faster, mpeg-4 avc simply needs a lot of decoding power, that has nothing to do with x264, but of course also applies to other avc codecs, like nero or apples h.264 codec

you should check out the high definition avc/h.264 trailers of apple and you will see that they also play damn slow in quicktime. and if quicktime is not a mainstream player (qt7 can play x264 perfectly btw) than i dont know what other player is mainstream

because i have encountered bugs (though admittedly, many have vanished in the past few months).

i dont know any open bugs, if you know one than i would be happy to hear about it

because it is still being improved upon, so any encodes you make now may or may not look as good as ones you make in 2006

what type of argument is this? i hope development will never stop, its a big advantage when a codec is developed all the time

if you always wait for a better codec to come you will never encode something...

[anonymez]

it might just be my system, but encoding/decoding is just not fast enough for me, unless ofcourse i disable certain quality options. especially with the inevitable introduction of new hi-def formats. note in my original post i said "IMO" meaning "in my opinion", and thats all it is.

i do a lot of hdtv encoding, and mainstream pc's (such as mine) are not up to scratch if you encode to x264. thats why i stick to xvid for now...