Two questions about Flaskmpeg and divx

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Bilboa_3
    Junior Member
    Junior Member
    • Nov 2002
    • 2
    #1

    Two questions about Flaskmpeg and divx

    I am using Divx 4.12 codec for my compressions and flaskmpeg 0.608 preview.I have an Athlon 1800Xp cpu .

    My two questions are :
    Which is the best idct I shouyld use for fast and optimal encoding ? And why is it that the idct optimised for athlon is slower than the other two (with adm 3Dnow! support) ?

    2nd :
    Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ? I 've had the 5.02 codec for a while but then regretted the fact 'cause one too many apps went crazy from incombatibilities ....So when I formatted my pc , I fell back to 4.xx .

    Tags: None
    • Di Abolico
      Junior Member
      Junior Member
      • Nov 2002
      • 11
      #2
      2nd:
      Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ?
      Well, because 3.11 is widely spread and thouroghly tested.
      And 5.02 is used because it's the logical continuation of what 4.XX was, you see? (Which is successor of 3.11 open sources)

      Of course, sometimes it happens that newer version of programs lack some features, or work worse, etc. But generally, I prefer my Win2k and wake up screaming if dream of win3.1

        Comment

        • Enchanter
          Old member
          • Feb 2002
          • 5417
          #3
          Which is the best idct I shouyld use for fast and optimal encoding ? And why is it that the idct optimised for athlon is slower than the other two (with adm 3Dnow! support) ?
          The default iDCT method should work just fine (MMX or SSE, if I remember correctly). The reference IEEE-1180 does not seem to have much (if any) improvement, and for its quality, its slow speed does not seem justified.


          Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ? I 've had the 5.02 codec for a while but then regretted the fact 'cause one too many apps went crazy from incombatibilities ....So when I formatted my pc , I fell back to 4.xx .
          Because 3.11 and 5.02 (in two-pass encoding, of course) offer the superior video and compression quality that 4.x has never been able to deliver.

          In addition, these codecs work and coexist well together in my systems. They haven't caused a single system crash nor problems with my systems. What programs are you using that went crazy?

            Comment

            • Bilboa_3
              Junior Member
              Junior Member
              • Nov 2002
              • 2
              #4
              The one proggy I remember kicking the bucket when I upgraded to 5.02 divx codec was bsplayer .
              I suppose that by now there must be a newer version that completely supports 5.02 along with previous divx formats but back in the summer of 2k2 ,I had to change overlay modes and pray that I would get picture , and most of the time I got debug messages and crashes ....

              But you people told me what I suspected a long time now.Divx 4.12 is a bad choice and I should go back to 3.11 ...

              Maybe I'll try codec 5.xx later on when I see more encouraging posts and full support from my fav players.

              THANX

                Comment

                • Enchanter
                  Old member
                  • Feb 2002
                  • 5417
                  #5
                  I suppose that by now there must be a newer version that completely supports 5.02 along with previous divx formats but back in the summer of 2k2
                  The classic Windows Media Player 6.4 and PowerDivX 3.12 support DivX 5.02 files. As a matter of fact, most players should be able to handle any codecs (as long as they are installed in the system). It's encoders that really need to be patched in order to be able to utilise new codecs.

                  But you people told me what I suspected a long time now.Divx 4.12 is a bad choice and I should go back to 3.11 ...
                  The moment I tried out 4.x, I was unimpressed. I thought to myself, "What a joke! It's time to keep on using 3.11." With the release of 5.02, things have changed for the better and it's really up to you which (3.11 or 5.02) is better. Both are just that good.

                  In order to be able to achieve maximum quality, 2-pass encoding is recommended. 3.11, unfortunately, does not natively support 2-pass encoding and you need to use nandub to do its 2-pass encoding routine. 5.02, on the other hand, natively supports 2-pass encoding and hence you can use Flask for this.

                  It's up to you which codec suits you better. Ultimately, it's your eyes that will tell you which looks better.

                    Comment

                    • Di Abolico
                      Junior Member
                      Junior Member
                      • Nov 2002
                      • 11
                      #6
                      In order to be able to achieve maximum quality, 2-pass encoding is recommended. 3.11, unfortunately, does not natively support 2-pass encoding and you need to use nandub to do its 2-pass encoding routine. 5.02, on the other hand, natively supports 2-pass encoding and hence you can use Flask for this.
                      To me, Flask was sooooo sloooow... (Even XMpeg, which is optimized 1) - 9 hours for a single pass, whereas GKnot (and hence Nandub) worked just fine: 3 hours for one pass.

                      So I completely agree with Enchanter - you have to try to be able to choose!

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...