Codecs confusion, which codec is best?

[Andy442x]

I would like a bit of help on choosing the best codecs to backup a DVD to AVI. I have read a bit about the different codecs but I'm still a bit confused by all the different ones.(Infact I'm more confused now, after reading all the guides, then when I started) Would I be correct in choosing the latest 5.02pro codec? I have tested this codec a bit (on a low action movie) and seem to get some very good results, but I can't understand why everyone doesn't use it. I havent had any file from the net that has used this codec. I would be interested to know what codec most people are using and if its not 5.02, the reason why not....surely newer is better (?)
Is there a page somewhere than can give me the straight facts on ALL the different codecs, and the pros and cons of each?

[UncasMS]

be asured, that the latest divx 5.02 PRO codec is an exellent choice which i recommend and use myself.

the only alternatives in terms of quality will be xvid and divx3/ms v2 in combination with nandub's sbc routine.
the last two routines are, however, a bit more complicated than is 5.02 and especially in dark scenes i prefer divx5.02 over nandub.

any realease from major gorups you will find on the internet will be done with nandub, since they try to stick to some basic rules.

this does not mean though (from my p-o-v) that those nandub transcodings are better than what you will get out of divx 5.02.

thus i can only encourage you to go for 5.02 pro and a TWO pass routine.

if you like, take a look at my guide (it does not cover particular NTSC problems like ivtc though!):

http://www.atlandide.net/~uncasms/en/index.php?page=gordian

[Andy442x]

ok thanks for the help, nice guide by the way,was very helpful !!

[techno]

oh????? what's this??? uncasms preferring something else over nandub? and he admits it?????

hehehe

hmmm......

uncasms:

with the 5.0.2 codec, can we still keep the FILE SIZE LOW???

[UncasMS]

with the 5.0.2 codec, can we still keep the FILE SIZE LOW?

dont know about you, but i can

[Enchanter]

It works well enough for me...

[techno]

LOL


oh no, not u too enchanter...

ye of little faith lol

I'm still stickin to my word, 3.11alpha.

I will change my mind when I see proof from uncasms

Techno

[UncasMS]

hehehe

on the other hand seeing i'm keeping what i'm promising in terms of hq divx5 transcodings, wont mean it'll flawlessly work for u 2

oh no, not u too enchanter...

join the club or stay behind

[techno]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

like the saying goes:

Old is GOLD

[Erci]

i still use 3.11 but I get good quality with 5.02 to. The reason I use 3.11 is that the file size calculation is of fore me. The finsihed movie is allways like min. 10 mb to small=( I don't know why either. I have tried a lot of different settings but now works for me=(

//Erci

[techno]

stop attacking me LOL

OLD IS GOLD!!!!!!!!!!! REMEMBER!! LOL

[Andy442x]

*wonders what he's started now*

I have had a few tests with it now (5.02), and I'm quite pleased with the results, though I think I'm beginning to see what techno means about the file size, the only other issue I have is the image quality, If I encode at 2000 kbps any solid black image (like the gaps in between scenes, turns out to be a bit blocky and 'murky coloured', and it seems I have to go upto about 3000 kbps to get a good quality picture. Is this correct or am i expecting perfection?

[Enchanter]

Nothing wrong with trying out new technologies. In a way, I like MS MPEG4 V2 as well because there really is no need to install any codecs for its playback (A stock installation of Windows handles it). Very handy when distributing the rips to people who are computer-illiterate.

p.s. I would have started using DivX 5 earlier were it not for its unauthorised playback of 3.11 contents. Thankfully, Uncas and Tsunami fixed it.

[UncasMS]

Thankfully, Uncas and Tsunami fixed it

Tsunami did!

i only posted the results

[Enchanter]

You played a part in informing us of it and making a sticky thread.