I currently encode DVD using GKnot to DivX.
I have heard some good reviews about WMV9 and RealVideo 9. But I
cannot find anywhere that does a comparison of the three.
Can any tell me if its worth trying RV9 as RealNetworks state on
there site that is better then WMV9.
Has anyone tried this and compared it to DivX, is it better.
I know it very difficult to say one thing is better than another.
I'll assume the search is broken
codec3-1.htm
You should do your own tests and then decide.
Edge
None of them,
I choose XviD!
RV9 is the best codec when you use a bitrate between 600 kbits/s and 900 kbits/s. But RV9 needs a more powerful machine than DivX. With 500 kbits/s, WMV9 is the best with high motion scenes, but provides less details and accurate keyframes than RV9. Moreover, WMV9 doesn't allow subtitles and is very very slow when encoding...
The best for a 1CD movie is RV9, it allows multiple audio tracks (use AutoRV9 : Surround audio, subtitles...
But if you prefer 5.1 sound, use WMV9 or DivX/Xvid-AC3/Ogg...
++
Really?? does real really uses more powerful machine to play then Divx or Xvid?? can comebody prove that??
It takes more CPU on my machine. The post processing is not configurable. The latest Xvid developer binaries have lots of good things in store though. And very little CPU.
Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.
Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing
Regards
Koepi
Originally posted by Koepi
Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.
Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing
Regards
Koepi Lastest Xvid build Not yet published?? Is that what is the surpaise is all about?? As sais on the xvid web site??
XviD is the best codec for any bitrate from 250 kbps to 2.5 Mbps.
quality is amazing, and if you prefer RV9/WM9, it's because you don't know avisynth, or you like blur effects.
Originally posted by Koepi
Well, I just made an encode of the 5th element targeting 684kbps (1CD) and the quality for that is amazing.
Latest xvid devel build (not yet published) - it's amazing
Regards
Koepi Umm, any plans to publish that code on yee website?
Hi people,
I have just experimented with RealVideo 9 using AutoRV9. I encoded a 10 minutes scene of Lord of the Rings Extended Edition. I used 58MB file output (hence a 2 hr movie could fit in 1 CD).
I encoded my video with DivX and XviD as well. Same audio bitrate same file size.
I can not believe that RealVideo 9 gives so much better results. The image has NO pixelation at all, although some detail is missing. Anyway it is clear that this codec is the best out there.
Now, I understand that you can only get Real Surround sound or whatever this is. May I ask something?
What is the difference between surround, prologic and stereo?
I have a 5.1 SB Live and no matter what when I use stereo, prologic or surround sound files I can hear the voices (dialogues) from all my speakers.
Originally posted by Marc FD
XviD is the best codec for any bitrate from 250 kbps to 2.5 Mbps.
quality is amazing, and if you prefer RV9/WM9, it's because you don't know avisynth, or you like blur effects.
I've done pretty extensive testing with both and while the one I use depends on my mood or the phaze of the moon, they are definitely very similar in quality, Real overtaking XviD in some places, XviD overtaking Real in some places.
gt;I can not believe that RealVideo 9 gives so much better results. The
gt;image has NO pixelation at all, although some detail is missing. Anyway
gt;it is clear that this codec is the best out there.
lol. you cannot compare RV9 with DivX/XviD if you don't pre/post filter as much as RV9 does. it's nonsense ^__^
gt;I've done pretty extensive testing with both and while the one I use gt;depends on my mood or the phaze of the moon, they are definitely very gt;similar in quality,
if you don't try to get the best, yes.
gt;Real overtaking XviD in some places, XviD overtaking Real in some gt;places.
i dunno with films, but on anime, even the on2vp3 is better than RV9.
of course, if you do a plain encode with both, RV9 will look better than XviD. but with some very simple tweaking, the RV9 result is the same, whereas XviD gets much much better.
@ Marc FD:
If you say XviD is the beats RV9 at pretty much any bitrate, what settings (in avisynth as well as in XviD) would you recommend to get results as good as RV9, re-enciding from a noisy VCD capture, at a total bitrate of 225 (audio+video). This is for cartoons (Simpsons).
Let's say I'm using a 32 kbit ogg for the sake of argument, leaving about 190 kbit for the video.
I realise this is a little under your claimed bitrate range, but all the same...
I'd be very interested in seeing what results you get. If I uploaded a short clip to my site for testing, could you encode it and send it back to me so I could see what kind of results you get?
I played around with both XviD (playing around with the codec settings) and DivX and couldn't get them to look anywhere near as good as RV9 at this bitrate (but I didn't really play around with my avisynth script much).
Hi ^^
gt;If you say XviD is the beats RV9 at pretty much any bitrate, what
gt;settings (in avisynth as well as in XviD) would you recommend to get
gt;results as good as RV9, re-enciding from a noisy VCD capture, at a
gt;total
gt;bitrate of 225 (audio+video). This is for cartoons (Simpsons).
gt;Let's say I'm using a 32 kbit ogg for the sake of argument, leaving
gt;about 190 kbit for the video.that's a really small bitrate...
gt;I'd be very interested in seeing what results you get. If I uploaded a
gt;short clip to my site for testing, could you encode it and send it
gt;back to me so I could see what kind of results you get?
if you want a demo of what XviD can do,
i propose you to download short clips on my site (5 Mb each, 90 sec anime trailers) (at the end of the page)
i encoded the last one (Slayers Next - Opening / clean version ) today.
for your short clip, i'm sorry, my bandwith is too limited.
give me feedback ^_^
which one did you encode today??
Because there is two Slayers Next - opening.ogm ... one is opening and the other one is opening2
BTW, the part4 of the opening2 doesn't work... ot i coudn't download it due to a server problem...
gt;which one did you encode today??
gt;Because there is two Slayers Next - opening.ogm ... one is opening and gt;the other one is opening2
i encoded the second. seems logical, no ^_^
gt;BTW, the part4 of the opening2 doesn't work... ot i coudn't download it
gt;due to a server problem...
i rechecked, should work now. please retry.
They look pretty good. Better than what I expected at that size. Was the source DVD? So which combination of the filters on your site did you use for these?
What compination of the filters would you recommend for a noisy VCD source? Presumably using Cnr2 would be a good idea...what else? So you think that XviD can really look better than rm at 250 kbit? Any chance of a sample clip?
Also, which XviD build are you using? Are you using any of the advanced experimental features?
gt;They look pretty good. Better than what I expected at that size.
thx.
gt;Was the source DVD?
no. a 45 Mb MPEG-1 trailer of 90 sec (clean)
gt;So which combination of the filters on your site did you use for these?
i didn't use any of the filters of my site ^_^
gt;What compination of the filters would you recommend for a noisy VCD
gt;source? Presumably using Cnr2 would be a good idea...
only if you need to stabilize chroma. if your VCD source is an unfiltered analog cap, it may worth a try.
gt;So you think that XviD can really look better than rm at 250 kbit?
gt;Any chance of a sample clip?
on a very fast trailer like this, both will look like crap.
anyway, i still think XviD will look better than RV9/on2vp3.
gt;Also, which XviD build are you using?
mine. but i didn't used any hacks.
gt; Are you using any of the advanced experimental features?
??
i used halfpel, bframes, luma masking and chroma ME.
fixed quant encoding.
I haven't tried RV9 yet, but will a heavily filtered XviD encode (for very noisy source and low bitrate encoding) take longer or a normal RV9 (with it's own pre-processing)? |
Post at 2011-4-15 15:17
| This Author's Posts Only
