Why not register?


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:33 pm  Post subject: DivX 6.8 vs Xvid 1.1.3 Test (UltraHighMotion & Interlaced)
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Servant Of The Dead Donkey
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:25 am
Posts: 75
Delete this topic...

Xvid with mkvmagic is 5 times faster

results differ very much with different settings...
this test needs a lab!

_________________
Visit the Occult Willing SLuts @ https://ows.untergrund.net


Last edited by Aszazin on Sun May 18, 2008 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:10 am  Post subject: Re: DivX 6.8 vs Xvid 1.1.3 Test (UltraHighMotion & Interlaced)
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Servant Of The Dead Donkey
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:25 am
Posts: 75
And above all, the only codec that gives really satisfying results is: x264

and i say, very high above all
smallest file size, but sharp as fuck!

I think I'm done with divx/xvid poo!

It might be possible x264 can do the quality of a 1CD-rip into a 1/2CD...

_________________
Visit the Occult Willing SLuts @ https://ows.untergrund.net


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:41 pm  Post subject: Re: DivX 6.8 vs Xvid 1.1.3 Test (UltraHighMotion & Interlaced)
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
It is completely unsuprising x264 beats divx and xvid in all benchmarks; the problem with adoption is cpu power.... it uses way, way, way, way more decoding resources than any other codec on the market and that's a problem with anyone who's purchased playback hardware over the past 5 years.

Even the all conquering XBMC does not have the appropriate power to playback all but basic profile x264 :(

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:36 pm  Post subject: Re: DivX 6.8 vs Xvid 1.1.3 Test (UltraHighMotion & Interlaced)
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Servant Of The Dead Donkey
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:25 am
Posts: 75
That's true,

but a TV output and a cable (sometimes long) to your TV isn't very expensive. Just use the computer as player...

I think encoding in h.264 will carry your result further into the future as an xvid or divx will.

All the video's I made are very difficult to encode in MPEG2 or MPEG4, untill now, with h.264.
(I have one which is impossible to get into MPEG2DVD, no watchable result possible, even at the highest quality possible...)


But indeed, some people will fall out off the boat in handling this format for today.
I also have the cheapest DVD player from the supermarket, dated 2004...

So I use the cable (20m S-Video and separate audio cable)

H.264 is also the codec used for distributing HD-formats, so future players will not have a lot of problems with it, I assume.

_________________
Visit the Occult Willing SLuts @ https://ows.untergrund.net


Top
 Profile  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:33 pm  Post subject: Re: DivX 6.8 vs Xvid 1.1.3 Test (UltraHighMotion & Interlaced)
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Site Admin
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 1:35 am
Posts: 19753
Location: En España
Quote:
but a TV output and a cable (sometimes long) to your TV isn't very expensive


Quality loss is through the roof unless you get a decent DVI capable. I wouldn't want a long DVI cable if you go to all the trouble to preserve quality ;)

_________________
Mouse nipple for the win! Trackpoint or death!


Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


Moderator: Help Mods

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Frontpage / Forums / Scifi


What's blood for, if not for shedding?