Why the #@^#! Xvid???

Sci-fi related and off-topic banter can go here. All posts allowed unless specified otherwise in the rules. Please refrain from posting flames, personal information, using this board as a private message system or help questions

Moderator: General Mods

Why the #@^#! Xvid???

Postby egov on Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:19 am

Why people are using Xvid compression when it is so buggy? :argue:
I cannot play most of the Xvid encoded movies on my PIII 850MHz, Win2000 machine -- either the video is choppy or the audio is totally out of sync. On top of that I cannot control the brightness. I installed the latest Xvid codec, it did not help. With Divx I have no problem at all.
egov
Red Shirted Trekker
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Earth

Postby <insert> on Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:02 am

read this
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way;
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

in particluar...this bit applies
[quote]When you are having problems with a piece of software, don't claim you have found a bug unless you are very, very sure of your ground. Hint: unless you can provide a source-code patch that fixes the problem, or a regression test against a previous version that demonstrates incorrect behavior, you are probably not sure enough. This applies to web pages and documentation, too; if you have found a documentation “bug�
Slowly Building the Subterranean Internet Movie Database

News Feeds for my Lastest Finds: >> [ed2k] [BT] [NZB]
HOWTO's: rss > bt > ed2k > usenet

User avatar
<insert>
The Ninth Passenger
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Out here on the perimeter ...

Postby egov on Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:31 pm

I do not claim I found a bug. All I say is that it does not work on my machine. I use DIVx as well, upgraded it dozen of times, it works fine. Anyway, who needs so many video compression standards when DIvx does the job well?
egov
Red Shirted Trekker
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Earth

Postby rayman on Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:43 pm

egov if you load the codec pack " http://anonym.to/?http://mirror.edskes.com "
as posted by Insert it should cure all your woes :o
rayman
Red Shirted Trekker
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:13 pm

Postby <insert> on Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:54 pm

egov wrote: Anyway, who needs so many video compression standards when DIvx does the job well?
or should it be "who needs so many video compression standards when XviD does the job well"? :P hahaha

anyway, divx is a propriety product, xvid is open source. there's one reason straight of the top......



I always use and recommend www.videolan.org as a other option, it comes with it's own codecs..and it's free and works for many OS. can even play damaged files or preview .part files .....give that a whirl too if need be ;)
Slowly Building the Subterranean Internet Movie Database

News Feeds for my Lastest Finds: >> [ed2k] [BT] [NZB]
HOWTO's: rss > bt > ed2k > usenet

User avatar
<insert>
The Ninth Passenger
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Out here on the perimeter ...

Postby spudthedestroyer on Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:55 pm

or better yet don't use a codec pack at all.

Download ffdshow, and then keopi's build of xvid, you can find a codec thread here:
http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=5640

The reason codec packs aren't such a good idea is because they more often than not introduce incompatabilities between all the useless junk it puts on your system.

The reason Xvid is used is because it is a superior codec to divx, and not only that its free and completely open source.

The only thing worth using over xvid is nero digital, but atm, that's too buggy (for real, not fictiously ;) ) and has compatability issues that need ironing out. You can see this superiority (both xvid over divx and nero over xvid) in numbers and images if you so desire, head over to any competant video encoding website, for example, www.doom9.org .

So in summary, xvid is not buggy, xvid is better than divx, people use xvid because its the best codec out (barring the very new nero digital), and the problem is a software incompatability on your system. The predominant word is "I" in your first post :)

If you have no interest in encoding/releasing a movie for any reason (most people don't), then I would recommend installing all your codecs manually, and all you really need is a direct filter called, ffdshow, which is available in the above link. In addition AC3filter (link above) and quite possible the DTS filter (link above). Then that's it.

This will decode everything and has more features such as brightness control, gamma, on the fly filtering such as deinterlacing, cropping, AR fixing, etc. You only need the actual official codecs if you intend on encoding.
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
spudthedestroyer
Rear Admiral Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby rayman on Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:17 am

i must say i have used nero recode to great results but i haven't tried the nero digital part yet so i can't comment on it to much i've tended to stear away from it till now as i have memories of nero's new additions before . may be i will have a go when they bring out a fix for all the bugs you guy's report
:o
rayman
Red Shirted Trekker
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:13 pm

Postby spudthedestroyer on Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:28 am

its not nero recode the program that's any good in my opinion, its just "click and crap". Primitive next to gknot for example, and very restrictive. The only draw of that program was the codecs which really are very clever. It can really pull off wonders, well not just the x264, but also the AAC nero digital sound codec.

Now that gknot supports x264 (nero digital) and the codec's open and developing, don't bother with recode... Grab gknot, http://gknot.doom9.org :)

I would use x264 myself, however, it is unsupported by a large number of platforms (main reason), and given that its a tad buggy as said, I don't want to crusade for it in any public releases. Used it a few times to get the best backups and some tests. It beat xvid in terms of quality :)
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
spudthedestroyer
Rear Admiral Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby rayman on Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:56 pm

but isent quality what it's all about the only thing a have tried that i wasn't to pleased about was when i asked nero vision express to alter gammer effect it told me on the transcoding it was going to take 18hr's compared to 1hr not altering it
:-o
rayman
Red Shirted Trekker
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:13 pm

Postby spudthedestroyer on Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:27 am

what I'm saying is nero recode is incapable of superior quality to gknot because it is a closed source program that doesn't utilise the very best possible steps, but rather compromises into an acceptable method of encoding in comparison to the best.

However, its not entirely true its all about quality. Best quality by itself is wrong, best compromise is the best definition of what your aiming for, particularly for releasing.

Firstly, the DVD format source is incapable of best quality because it in itself is inferior to HDTV content which is far superior in terms of visual quality. Likewise, MPEG4 is a superior codec to MPEG2 (on a DVD), however DVD is the predominant format because its standardised and endorsed and widely used.

However, your aiming for compressability and best quality with a rip. So its not necessary the best quality (which requires more space, bitrate and resources), but best quality to a level of compromise.

And as it stands the nero digital codec aka. x264 is the best quality codec. And gknot is the best quality encoder I have yet seen (providing you know how to use it).

Nero Recode as a program does not contain enough options to come close as an encoder, as said its strength purely lay in its Nero Digital codec which is available now as the open source x264

Back to releasing, I don't want to waste quality or importantly space in terms of bandwidth, filesize or bloat. Therefore I have to choose the codec which is most compatible to get it the best spread, and also in the best quality. There's the first compromise and that's Xvid atm. The next compromise is on bandwidth and filesize, which limits filesize. I therefore am reduced to a 1 or 2cd release, and you always aim to get the best out of the technical caps imposed by ripping circumstance.

Taken into account ANY encode step is lossy (okay lets exclude lossless [which is already lost some in the capture]), we have to work with the human visual system and luckily that's pretty shit. Therefore you can acheive perfectly great looking rips by compromising.

So yes and no, its about best quality, but its best quality as a compromise that's the factor in releasing. Even dvd makers have to compromise with the cap on max bitrate (~8mb/s), max resolution (720x) and max filesize(typically 8.5GB) available. That is in essence what ripping and encoding is about.

Anyway, my advise is to use Gknot and read a guide written by some really intelligent people over @ www.doom9.org . No point settling for a worse method. If you want to use nero digital codecs, use the x264, if you plan on releasing, you'll fair better with xvid for the time being :)

ps transcoding is an inferior method to encoding
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
spudthedestroyer
Rear Admiral Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby spudthedestroyer on Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:30 am

oh and to get back to the first post.

Xvid is and always will be superior to divx, in terms of quality, compatability and well its just a better MPEG4 codec. And I'm sure when x264 is whored up it will be a better MPEG4 codec to Xvid :)
ImageImage
ImageImage
User avatar
spudthedestroyer
Rear Admiral Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Royal Britannia


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron