H264 vs Divx/Xvid...

[bob4432]

i am using the new fairuse wizard v 2.x to encode some dvd movies to be played back via vlc on a laptop. i am going to keep the movies to 700MB. at this size will there be a noticeable difference with divx and h264?

is the x264 that comes with fair use the same as h264?

also, has anyone tried h264 content on vlc, there site says its support is experimental.

last, does h264 take more processing power than divx to decode and watch, assuming that all of the files will be the same size?

 

[raz3000]

http://www.divx.com/corporate/solutions/DivXvsH264b.pdf

Note that this article is NOT neutral. Also, the comparison is with Divx6, not 5.x

 

[bob4432]

thanks....i think i have divx somewhere around here. i acquired it when it first came out...i am currently encoding a h264 chris rock show direct from dvd, and man, with h264 it takes forever... it has been encoding for ~3hrs and still says it has ~2hrs left.

 

[SickBeast]

I tried encoding a DVD to H264 and my computer could not even play it back without stuttering. AXP@2400mhz.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I tried encoding a DVD to H264 and my computer could not even play it back without stuttering. AXP@2400mhz.

since i want to play them back on a laptop and actually run off battery, i guess this format is out of the question.

 

[bob4432]

decided to just use regular xvid.....

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Yeah H264 is quite immature right now and is not nearly as optimized as xvid. For instance, the encoding can take up to 100%+ longer with H264 than xvid . . .

As for quality, generally speaking the xvid produces sharper, crisper edges while having more artifacting during intense moments while H264 has more blurred edges but much less artifacting . . . still though I would prefer the quality of H264 to xvid though as some have said the performance of xvid is can be far better . . .

 

[xtknight]

Once H.264 matures more it will give a better quality/byte ratio, and I believe Nero/Ateme's encoder is already doing that if you know how to use it. I haven't had good luck with MainConcept's though, and Moonlight's is OK. XviD is still faster at encoding and decoding because of it's inferior complexity to H.264.

Originally posted by: raz3000
http://www.divx.com/corporate/solutions/DivXvsH264b.pdf

Note that this article is NOT neutral. Also, the comparison is with Divx6, not 5.x

PSNR is a bunch of crap, and without the settings they used for H.264 that article is 100% useless. Not complaining to you, just warning other people.

 

[bob4432]

i didn't know that h264 would take so much longer than xvid would to encode, which is of somewhat of a concern because i would like to encode a couple of movies here and their, but am not going to archive the encoded moves since i own the dvd and normally watch stuff on my ht. i don't need a encoded copy of the ~300 movies i have on dvd.

i guess i should have asked the question as more of a short term encoding/watch/delete process than a long time archive system.

is fairuse wizard an efficient way to encode to the h264 format? is it slower than other h264 encoders? i would like to give h264 a try just for sh!ts and giggles if the encode time wasn't ~2x what xvid is. if you guys could recommend me another encoder that is more efficient i would give it a try, or if it just takes that long for h264, then i will pass on it for the time being.

 

[xtknight]

Use x264's CLI (command line interface) encoder. I have used it a little and came out with better results than other encoders. I find the default settings to be optimal. Well you can still change bitrate and all that but don't bother messing with macroblock settings as the default ones are already decent.

 

[bob4432]

well my curiosity got the best of me so i encoded the movie "dust to glory" in both xvid and x264 at the same bitrates and pixel sizes with the total file size being 700MB for both formats. i chose this movie because it has many high speed parts with a lot of dust so there would be gradients and a good chance to see any artifacts or even minute differences in quality.

after i cut the black bars off the video in fairuse wizard 2.1LE, the actual video size was 656x352, audio was encoded in mp3 @ 128Kb/s and the fps was 23. all other options were set by fairuse wizard, so default.

to be perfectly honest, there was a difference in video quality in favor of the x264 at this setting but i would consider it minimal, to the point that i would personally not take the additional time to encode into the x264 format for use at this setting. higher rates may fair better. the video was viewed on a crt and also a lcd.

laptop test - as far as cpu usage goes, the x264 version used approximately 30-50% utilization on a p-m 725 series 1.6GHz Dothan core that according to cpu-z 1.31 clocked itself down to 600MHz while the xvid version used approx 4-15% cpu utilization, again with cpu-z reporting 600MHz for the p-m 1.6GHz Dothan core cpu.

desktop test - on a 2.8C -> 3.0GHz, i turned off ht so the os sees just 1 cpu. cpu-z 1.31 reports 2995MHz. the x264 encoded video cpu usage was 15-30% while the xvid format cpu usage was 5-12%.

ram was not an issue as it never approached needing to use the pagefile.

both machines viewed the video from a server that is conected to them via 100Mb/s switch, both machines have xp pro sp2 and were running vlc 0.8.4. this is as fair of a test as i can make.

this test in no way is comparing actual cpus, as the p-m clocked itselt accordingly to what was needed. what it does conclude is that x264 needs at least 2x more cpu utilization to view than xvid and in my opinion the quality difference does not justify the additional time it takes to encode into x264, which is a conservative 2x. also, this is coming from a retail dvd and not a HD format.

 

[tuteja1986]

my x1800xl plays it fine

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
my x1800xl plays it fine

both machines play it fine, i was just trying to see how cpu it would take, unfortunately i can not make the testbeds equal because i don't have a ati 7500 series gpu for my desktop to match what is in the laptop.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: bob4432
what it does conclude is that x264 needs at least 2x more cpu utilization to view than xvid and in my opinion the quality difference does not justify the additional time it takes to encode into x264, which is a conservative 2x.

There are some anime fansubs which are released as both H264 and XVID, labeled HIGH and LOW quality. I've played them back on both my 19" LCD and my 35" CRT television and only thing I notice is that XVID has occasional artifacts but overall looks sharper while H264 doesn't have those artifacts, but also sometimes doesn't look as sharp. Honestly if I weren't looking for the differences, I wouldn't have seen them.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: bob4432
what it does conclude is that x264 needs at least 2x more cpu utilization to view than xvid and in my opinion the quality difference does not justify the additional time it takes to encode into x264, which is a conservative 2x.

There are some anime fansubs which are released as both H264 and XVID, labeled HIGH and LOW quality. I've played them back on both my 19" LCD and my 35" CRT television and only thing I notice is that XVID has occasional artifacts but overall looks sharper while H264 doesn't have those artifacts, but also sometimes doesn't look as sharp. Honestly if I weren't looking for the differences, I wouldn't have seen them.

i guess i should have stated that the x264 does do gradients better, but not 2x better. either way it is a good codec and i am sure once it has been around for a bit longer its efficiency will get better, or maybe my next machine will be a dual dual core rig

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
my x1800xl plays it fine

How well does the R520 handle decoding h.264? Can you play 1080p content at less than 50% CPU util?

 

[ethebubbeth]

In addition to the sharpness aspect mentioned before, I have found h.264 to handle motion much more smoothly than DivX/XviD (often in scenes with long/sharp pans or lots of motion, things tend to get choppy). Also, color appears much more vibrant on h.264. Of course, this is all just what I've experienced thus far.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ethebubbeth
In addition to the sharpness aspect mentioned before, I have found h.264 to handle motion much more smoothly than DivX/XviD (often in scenes with long/sharp pans or lots of motion, things tend to get choppy). Also, color appears much more vibrant on h.264. Of course, this is all just what I've experienced thus far.

what setttings and files size are you using? have you watched dust to glory?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
my x1800xl plays it fine

How well does the R520 handle decoding h.264? Can you play 1080p content at less than 50% CPU util?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't yet...

 

[AmdInside]

All I know is that when I play video on my laptop from iTunes, it eats up alot of CPU resources wheras I can play a 720P WMV HD video perfectly smoothly on the same laptop.

 

[IeraseU]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't yet...

I do believe the X18xx series of cards did offer decoding support out of the box; encoding support however has not yet been added, but it's coming.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: ethebubbeth
In addition to the sharpness aspect mentioned before, I have found h.264 to handle motion much more smoothly than DivX/XviD (often in scenes with long/sharp pans or lots of motion, things tend to get choppy). Also, color appears much more vibrant on h.264. Of course, this is all just what I've experienced thus far.

Depending on how that was handled, this really is either a fault with the source or the encoder, not the codec. CinemaCraft CCE SP vs most others will make MPEG2 look different too, especially with sharpness (but it is also $2K). That is not the codec, but the encoder.

As for vibrance, this is probably a sourcing issue. Most DivX I have seen is not HD, while the H.264 is and most samples came from film or 4:4:4 source with being HD as the goal. The DivX was planned for NTSC display, so would not be as high a quality.

"Dust to Glory" - Dana Brown. Met him last year at CineGear. Great guy. Had a couple of beers together and talked about all of the guys we both know/knew (surfers - some of the same people Apoppin would know too). Also had a major cleaning bill to remove all of the dust from the rented lenses from Panaflex. I am thinking I remember $150k was the figure.

 

[bob4432]

just a quick update - now i am trying to see how small of a file i can go and still have good results. last night i re-encoded the movie in both x264 and xvid to only 450MB while it still being 704x368 and must say, there is very little difference between it and the 700MB file, maybe tonight i will see what they do @ 200MB...

 

[eelw]

You can get surprisingly good looking video with a bitrate as low as 200kbps for a 640x480 video with a 2 pass h.264 encode. What bitrate are you currently using?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: eelw
You can get surprisingly good looking video with a bitrate as low as 200kbps for a 640x480 video with a 2 pass h.264 encode. What bitrate are you currently using?

i think it came out to ~ 500KB/s (total movie length is 1hr 40min and total size is 450MB)

tonight i will encode @ 200MB total file size using probaly close to the same resolution and might try vbr instead of cbr for audio. will le you know how it goes