Digital Video Forums  

Go Back   Digital Video Forums > Video File Formats > AVI, DivX/Xvid

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 5 Nov 2002, 08:57 PM   #1
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2
Default Two questions about Flaskmpeg and divx

I am using Divx 4.12 codec for my compressions and flaskmpeg 0.608 preview.I have an Athlon 1800Xp cpu .

My two questions are :
Which is the best idct I shouyld use for fast and optimal encoding ? And why is it that the idct optimised for athlon is slower than the other two (with adm 3Dnow! support) ?

2nd :
Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ? I 've had the 5.02 codec for a while but then regretted the fact 'cause one too many apps went crazy from incombatibilities ....So when I formatted my pc , I fell back to 4.xx .

Bilboa_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Nov 2002, 09:07 PM   #2
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11
Default

2nd:
Quote:
Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ?
Well, because 3.11 is widely spread and thouroghly tested.
And 5.02 is used because it's the logical continuation of what 4.XX was, you see? (Which is successor of 3.11 open sources)

Of course, sometimes it happens that newer version of programs lack some features, or work worse, etc. But generally, I prefer my Win2k and wake up screaming if dream of win3.1
Di Abolico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Nov 2002, 09:23 PM   #3
Old member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,417
Default

Quote:
Which is the best idct I shouyld use for fast and optimal encoding ? And why is it that the idct optimised for athlon is slower than the other two (with adm 3Dnow! support) ?
The default iDCT method should work just fine (MMX or SSE, if I remember correctly). The reference IEEE-1180 does not seem to have much (if any) improvement, and for its quality, its slow speed does not seem justified.


Quote:
Why you people either use divx3.11 or 5 and not 4.xx ? I 've had the 5.02 codec for a while but then regretted the fact 'cause one too many apps went crazy from incombatibilities ....So when I formatted my pc , I fell back to 4.xx .
Because 3.11 and 5.02 (in two-pass encoding, of course) offer the superior video and compression quality that 4.x has never been able to deliver.

In addition, these codecs work and coexist well together in my systems. They haven't caused a single system crash nor problems with my systems. What programs are you using that went crazy?
Enchanter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Nov 2002, 09:57 PM   #4
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2
Default

The one proggy I remember kicking the bucket when I upgraded to 5.02 divx codec was bsplayer .
I suppose that by now there must be a newer version that completely supports 5.02 along with previous divx formats but back in the summer of 2k2 ,I had to change overlay modes and pray that I would get picture , and most of the time I got debug messages and crashes ....

But you people told me what I suspected a long time now.Divx 4.12 is a bad choice and I should go back to 3.11 ...

Maybe I'll try codec 5.xx later on when I see more encouraging posts and full support from my fav players.

THANX
Bilboa_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Nov 2002, 10:33 PM   #5
Old member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,417
Default

Quote:
I suppose that by now there must be a newer version that completely supports 5.02 along with previous divx formats but back in the summer of 2k2
The classic Windows Media Player 6.4 and PowerDivX 3.12 support DivX 5.02 files. As a matter of fact, most players should be able to handle any codecs (as long as they are installed in the system). It's encoders that really need to be patched in order to be able to utilise new codecs.

Quote:
But you people told me what I suspected a long time now.Divx 4.12 is a bad choice and I should go back to 3.11 ...
The moment I tried out 4.x, I was unimpressed. I thought to myself, "What a joke! It's time to keep on using 3.11." With the release of 5.02, things have changed for the better and it's really up to you which (3.11 or 5.02) is better. Both are just that good.

In order to be able to achieve maximum quality, 2-pass encoding is recommended. 3.11, unfortunately, does not natively support 2-pass encoding and you need to use nandub to do its 2-pass encoding routine. 5.02, on the other hand, natively supports 2-pass encoding and hence you can use Flask for this.

It's up to you which codec suits you better. Ultimately, it's your eyes that will tell you which looks better.
Enchanter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Nov 2002, 01:38 PM   #6
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
In order to be able to achieve maximum quality, 2-pass encoding is recommended. 3.11, unfortunately, does not natively support 2-pass encoding and you need to use nandub to do its 2-pass encoding routine. 5.02, on the other hand, natively supports 2-pass encoding and hence you can use Flask for this.
To me, Flask was sooooo sloooow... (Even XMpeg, which is optimized 1) - 9 hours for a single pass, whereas GKnot (and hence Nandub) worked just fine: 3 hours for one pass.

So I completely agree with Enchanter - you have to try to be able to choose!
Di Abolico is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT +10. The time now is 10:14 AM.

Kirsch designed by Andrew & Austin


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Digital Digest

Visit DivXLand   Visit dvdloc8.com