|
|
| henriQ |
| Posted: Oct 14 2002, 02:15 PM |
 |
|
Unregistered
|
Greetings.
Is there anyone with hands-on experience about this?
http://www.griffin-digital.com/divx.htm
Please report your impressions...
HN
|
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Oct 14 2002, 05:11 PM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
No hands-on experience, but this appears to be a new build of the open source DivX 4. However, I've been using DivX 5.0.2 for a long time and I couldn't be more pleased with it. For my two cents, I strongly advise against using any older versions of DivX.
Summary: DivX 5.0.2 rules! 
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| henriQ |
| Posted: Oct 15 2002, 09:05 AM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
Thanks for your emphatic suggestion, fccHaendler.
It's probably a non poltically-correct attitude of mine, but i use 3.11a,
mainly the 'fast motion' with very fair results, since the end of 2000.
Of course i'm open to new devellopments, and willing to try them out:
i've worked with 3.22, 4.12, 5.00 and 5.02 and Xvid (within vfw and wdm
environments) and i have never achieved better results than the ones
i get with 3.11a fm. Subjective? Let it be.
Now, i've posted 2 queries in this forum:
1 - What is it wrong with my system once i can use 3.11a fm with other
applications but NOT with VirtualDub?
2 - Does anyone knows and experienced DivX.dll (shortcut above).
And the first feedback i obtained were dismissing my above queries and
advising/promoting the use of 5.02 !
Regards.
HN |
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Oct 15 2002, 05:16 PM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
I wasn't dismissing your queries; I just don't have the answers!
sorry 
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| Neo Neko |
| Posted: Oct 15 2002, 06:01 PM |
|
|
VirtualdubMod Alpha tester
Group: Vdubmod Alpha Testing Team
Posts: 474
Member No.: 24
Joined: 11-July 02
|
Even if he could do what he claims, he is using massively outdated code which will not begin to perform on par with todays versions. Much like Divx 3.11 or VKI have no hope against todays codecs. |
|
| Neo Neko |
| Posted: Oct 15 2002, 06:02 PM |
|
|
VirtualdubMod Alpha tester
Group: Vdubmod Alpha Testing Team
Posts: 474
Member No.: 24
Joined: 11-July 02
|
| QUOTE (henriQ @ Oct 15 2002, 03:05 AM) |
It's probably a non poltically-correct attitude of mine, but i use 3.11a,
mainly the 'fast motion' with very fair results, since the end of 2000. |
Whether or not it is PC Divx3.11 can not compete or deliver performance even close to Divx4 let alone Xvid or Divx5. You are confusing SBC with Divx. They are not the same thing. Please correct this. You don't know how many people you confuse with this. I may be able to figure out you are saying Divx3 when you mean SBC, but I know tons of newbs who are making awfull plain Divx3 encodes that look like shit for lack of a better word.
| QUOTE (henriQ @ Oct 15 2002, 03:05 AM) |
Of course i'm open to new devellopments, and willing to try them out:
i've worked with 3.22, 4.12, 5.00 and 5.02 and Xvid (within vfw and wdm
environments) and i have never achieved better results than the ones
i get with 3.11a fm. Subjective? Let it be. |
It is SBC not divx3. Try it. It will save you the hastle of typing the extra two characters and you will not confuse others.
| QUOTE (henriQ @ Oct 15 2002, 03:05 AM) |
1 - What is it wrong with my system once i can use 3.11a fm with other
applications but NOT with VirtualDub?
|
You can use Divx3 with virtualdub just fine IIRC. But virtualdub will give you a stern talking to if you have it installed on the first run. Divx3 is one of the taboo codecs here of which we do not speak. It is illegal, buggy, outdated, and produces awfull encodes. SBC on the other hand is not illegal, it still is buggy, it still is outdated, but it can come close to competing to Divx5 or Xvid.
| QUOTE (henriQ @ Oct 15 2002, 03:05 AM) |
2 - Does anyone knows and experienced DivX.dll (shortcut above).
|
No unfortunatly I myself do not have the time. What little time I have goes to testing Xvid which runs rings around Divx3 and can compete with even the best SBC encodes.
| QUOTE (henriQ @ Oct 15 2002, 03:05 AM) |
And the first feedback i obtained were dismissing my above queries and
advising/promoting the use of 5.02 !
Regards.
HN |
Well prepare to be dismayed. I agree. For best results people should stick with Divx 5.02. It outperforms Divx3 in almost every concievable way. And even SBC can not outdo Divx5 in the hands of someone who has learned how to use it. Having said that I am not saying that someone should not test the DLL. All I will say is that you should not hold your breath for anything fantastic to happen. The guy did not tell how he encoded or at what settings. He could have encoded at 10Mbps for all we know and it would be hard to get artifacts at that datarate. I would like to hear from someone who has tried. But I am not expecting anything to come of it. Sorry. Thanks for the link though.
|
|
| henriQ |
| Posted: Oct 16 2002, 08:49 AM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
Thanks for your trouble Neo Neko.
I should state now that when i capture and encode (on the fly) with...
uh..., well, you know what -- shssss! -- 'rapid movement', shall we say,
i get the fourcc heading (through Avi Info, for instance) is: Div4 not
Div3.
And:
- I've dismissed SBC a long time ago.
- I agree with (it seems) -- Xvid (which has been stopped, i heard) is
still perhaps the only acceptable alternative to 3.(argh! -- shut!)alpha fm.
- Over the last 2 years, either from TV or from VHS and, lately, DVD, i've
captured and kept a small 'library' of some 300 hundred tittles (films)
and the encoding procedure i used statiscally wise was: 3.22 = 2%;
4.12= 15%; 5.0= 1%; 5.02= 5%; Xvid= 28%; all the remaining with...
'you know what'.
- I used 2 different rigs; 3 different video cards (one of them with videoIN
and OUT and 2 different TV capture cards (Hauppage 1st; fast replaced
with PCTV951 (Connexant).
As for my results: please cf with line 6 and 7 of my last post. Shss!
Kind regards,
HN |
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Oct 16 2002, 03:37 PM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
| QUOTE | i get the fourcc heading (through Avi Info, for instance) is: Div4 not
Div3. |
Now I see what's confusing you! The "DIV3" FOURCC is DivX 3.11 Low Motion. The "DIV4" FOURCC is DivX 3.11 Fast Motion. "DIV4" has nothing to do with DivX version 4.
 So I guess I did have the answer after all; I just didn't understand the question.
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| henriQ |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 08:24 AM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
Yes, you are correct fccHandler, Div4 is in fact the hacked codec i was
referring to, since the very beginning, meaning in fact (pardon to say
it just this last time...): DivX 3.11a Fast Motion.
Now i think everything is clear, and that i, for one, have NOT launched
any generalized confusion whatsoever.
Now that the air is also cleared, let me conclude that VDub does NOT
enable the hacked mpeg 4 version 4 to capture but only the hacked
mpeg 4 version 3 (after a stern warning msg. scolding the user).
Plain encoding or reencoding its another game with more relaxed rules.
Let me add just one last statement on codecs: i've been experimenting
VP3 (On2 - Xiph.Org), together with its last (September) updated .dll
and, while perhaps a bit too soon, i'm feeling that with this LEGAL codec
one will emulate if not even surpass (compressionwise) DivX(shss!)a fm!
It certainly, by and large, beats in image quality (ah! - those dark
backgrounds with 5.02 !...) or, at least, stands to Xvid.
Cheers,
HN
|
|
| Neo Neko |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 01:59 PM |
|
|
VirtualdubMod Alpha tester
Group: Vdubmod Alpha Testing Team
Posts: 474
Member No.: 24
Joined: 11-July 02
|
I would love to know how you can get Divx3 outside of SBC to give better results than Divx4+ and Xvid. I tested it against Divx4 when it was first out and Divx4 blew divx3 away on everything when you did not use Divx3 in conjunction with nandub to do SBC. Video capture to MPEG4 is bad form though. I used to mess with it. But since I like to filter and then compress my captures MJPEG and HuffYUV do much better for capture. Then I can compress in 2-pass with Divx4+ or Xvid with less bitrate than Divx3 and get a better picture than Divx3. With Divx3 even at higher bitrates I get massive smearing, altered colors, and freeze frames. How do you get Divx3 not to do that without nandub.
I have been playing with divx(MSMPEG4) since 1997/98 or so. And I spent several years with 3.11. I know it quite well. And I have not found a way outside Nandub SBC to get it to compare with Divx4+ encodes. |
|
| ChristianHJW |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 04:11 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1768
Member No.: 2
Joined: 7-July 02
|
I guess the answer to all this that Henri is not doing a 2 pass encoding, but only 1 Pass on capturing.
DivX3 fast motion uses a very high mq of 5, so this leaves a lot of bytes to action if you want to achieve a certain file size on capturing. This is the only explanation i have ... you can do the very same with all other codecs by manually setting mq to 4, and you will see that all new MPEG4 codecs will outperform DivX 3, if used in 1 Pass mode and without nndub ( SBC ) ...
--------------------
Visit the unofficial Virtualdub support forum on http://forums.virtualdub.org - help to reduce the big number of emails Avery Lee is getting every day !!
Support matroska as container and Gstreamer as the only truely open, x-platform multimedia platform .... |
|
| GrofLuigi |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 07:51 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 148
Member No.: 340
Joined: 22-September 02
|
Pardon me for asking (and I hope you wont beat me to death), but...
What is SBC?!
 |
|
| Neo Neko |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 08:09 PM |
|
|
VirtualdubMod Alpha tester
Group: Vdubmod Alpha Testing Team
Posts: 474
Member No.: 24
Joined: 11-July 02
|
| QUOTE (GrofLuigi @ Oct 17 2002, 01:51 PM) | Pardon me for asking (and I hope you wont beat me to death), but...
What is SBC?!
|
Smart Bitrate Control. It is roughly the MSMPEG4 equivalent of Divx/Xvid's 2-pass modes. |
|
| Neo Neko |
| Posted: Oct 17 2002, 08:59 PM |
|
|
VirtualdubMod Alpha tester
Group: Vdubmod Alpha Testing Team
Posts: 474
Member No.: 24
Joined: 11-July 02
|
| QUOTE (ChristianHJW @ Oct 17 2002, 10:11 AM) | I guess the answer to all this that Henri is not doing a 2 pass encoding, but only 1 Pass on capturing.
DivX3 fast motion uses a very high mq of 5, so this leaves a lot of bytes to action if you want to achieve a certain file size on capturing. This is the only explanation i have ... you can do the very same with all other codecs by manually setting mq to 4, and you will see that all new MPEG4 codecs will outperform DivX 3, if used in 1 Pass mode and without nndub ( SBC ) ... |
I agree with all your assesments here Christian. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was SBC that he was doing at first. But he insists that Divx3 alone can outperform any other MPEG4 codec. I have tested this extensivly and from all of my numerous video capture/encoding experiences Divx3 is about the worse codec to use by itself for anything. Even SBC is falling behind. If you set the bitrate and quantizers the same in Divx4/5 the same as Divx3 then the results will be identical if not better from my experience. He thought I was trying to give him grief with that last post which is far from the truth. There is alot of misinformation floating around about Divx3. People using the term SBC and Divx3 interchangibly which is breeding a whole new wave of ignorance. A whole new wave of people who believe that 1-pass vanilla MSMPEG4(Divx) is still the be all end all. Which from my experience is just plain silly and annoying. Again I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking him how exactly he is tweaking Divx3 to give him better results. Because either he is somehow accessing controlls other than the bitrate and sharpness slider in Divx3 or he is using Divx4/5 at it's default settings and not adjusting anything.
All this Divx3 revival nonsense stuff is getting on my nerves. I should know better than to trust P2P programs. But I was really wanting to watch that episode of Harvey Birdman Attourney At Law where Shaggy and Scooby get busted on suspicion of smoking pot. I always miss recording that particular episode when it airs. So I got on Kazaa Lite and did a search. Sure enough I find several people hosting a single file of it. It was only 320x240, but it was near 70Mb. My encodes of Harvey Birdman Attourney At Law at that rez were 30 to 40Mb on average. So i figured that since they splurged on the bitrate it should indeed be good. On top of that several people had rated the file condition as excelent. Once I got the file I went to play it. To bad Kazaa 2.0 only gives 3 classifications to files. Excelent, Average, or Poor do not even apply to this file. They need to add one or two new classifications. "Substandard piece of shit" and "Utter and complete waste of disk space". The thing was encoded in vanilla Divx3.11 and is mostly composed of several large macroblocks throughout the clip that smear and smudge constantly. There are moments when you can make out a few distinct shapes. But they are rare. The audio on the other hand is not half bad. It coulda been much better though. With the default Divx5 settings at that bitrate the file would have been tons better. I suppose there are just some people out there who should not be allowed to use codecs period. |
|
| jcsston |
 Posted: Nov 10 2002, 05:32 AM |
|
|
Matroska Dev
Group: Moderators
Posts: 553
Member No.: 652
Joined: 3-November 02
|
I normally use DivX 5.0.2 Pro, I really like it's built it resizing and noise reduction. One point nobody's said so far is CPU power. At 320x240 My DivX 5 content does not play smoothly on a K6-2 300mhz but using NanDub with SBC is does. My current rig is a T-Bird 650mhz and 640x240 with mpeg4 is the highest it will play.
But I have to agree DivX 5.0.2 is better than prior codecs.
now if I could just get consistent file sizes :-0
--------------------
Use the Matroska file format |
|
