FREEMAN'S MIND: EPISODE 38

[Scorpia]

he hasn't posted it yet, i imagine his hands are pretty full right now, i mean he might've had to use his feet to type ^that.

edit: ninjas everywhere. lol

[m1el]

the best container still is .AVI

In 2011, for h.264, this is completely wrong.

.AVI is the most supported container still.

Wrong. the most supported container is mp4 because there is an ISO standard for it. And almost any hardware player capable to play h.264, supports this format.

If you are talking about your software player not capable to play mp4, you can throw it away, it's outdated for about ~10 years.

Mp4 files offer much greater compression

they have qood quality

Wrong. (container)MP4 does not do any video/audio compression. Codecs do that. MP4 is a freaking container, it only contains an encoded video/audio stream.

I can put (almost) any video/audio codec to (almost) any container. The video quality won't change. The size won't noticeably change.

It's a container, not a codec, it should not affect quality or compression.

 

My opinion on containers:

 

AVI is a proprietary container created by M$, it has many issues you could live with, but they are really bad for container.

Supported only because people have over 9e+6 videos in AVI files.

Currently M$ created a WMV codec and container to replcace AVI. And there is only one encoder available for WMV9. Native support is only on (surprise!) Windows.

MP4 is a *ISO standardized* container, made by Apple. It is pretty well designed container. And I don't like Apple, if you ask.

It is supported freaking everywhere. Best choice unless you want to include soft subtitles.

MKV is an good open container with many good functions, including .ass subtitles, chapters, but it's not supported by some hardware players and (default) iPhone player.

 

Why do I know if avi have issues / mp4 is well-designed / mkv have good functions?

Because I used to read the specs of this containers, so I can tell what the container capable of.

 

 

As for the video codec IMO, there is no discussion or question, currently, h.264+x264 encoder > all.

 

Why did I wrote this? Because I rage when people say "I 8T MKV BECUZ IT IS SLOWER THAN AVI. MKV SUCKS", "AVI FTW!!11", "XVID > X264!!1", etc., etc...

And I don't want these people to affect the quality (at least video quality) of show I watch and enjoy a lot.

 

If I am wrong somewhere, tell me.

[m1el]

On the other note, I don't see any stuttering in any video in encoding tests on 2 OSes (Windows/Linux) and 3 different players (mplayer/MPC-hc/WMP). (But motion blur makes me dizzy)

Most CPU-eating video was WMV/WMV9 one (~19% CPU) easiest to decode is AVI/XviD (~9% CPU). Well, that was expected.

 

XviD video have visible artifacts, despite it is bigger than x264 encoded video.

[Vapymid]

I generally agree with the points you make, m1el. However, AVI is still the most supported container because it's natively supported by the DirectX and therefore will be handled by any up-to-date DirectShow based editors or players provided you have the necessary codec installed.

 

That does not apply to h264 in AVI though. Therefore, as far as MPEG4 codecs are concerned it is best to continue to use MPEG4 ASP codecs like XviD or DivX - if you want to use AVI container, that is.

 

Comparing h264 and XviD the issue is not that h264 will retain better than XviD quality at the same (low) bitrate value - that goes without question. What matters is will XviD provide acceptable quality at reasonable bitrate (even though it may be higher than for a h264 encoding of the same quality)?

 

In my experience XviD at 3mbps is good enough to encode 720p machinima.

 

To put things in perspective, sites like Vimeo store h264 videos of the same picture size encoded at 2.5 mbps and that is considered good quality.

 

So, where is the balance? I'd say XviD AVI @3mbps will be more practical than h264 MP4 at 2.5 mbps at the cost of 17% extra size.

 

Regards

[m1el]

...because it's natively supported by the DirectX and therefore will be handled by any up-to-date DirectShow based editors or players provided you have the necessary codec installed.

Same goes for mp4 and h.264. Clear install of Windows will play mp4/h.264.

 

What matters is will XviD provide acceptable quality at reasonable bitrate

Sure. Same goes for mpeg-2 on *reasonable for today* bitrate. But you can make a h.264 video with *better* quality and *lower* bitrate.

Look at this: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/85489

XviD video have twice bitrate as h.264 have. But XviD looks worse, that's why I say to use h.264/x264, not XviD.

XviD looks worse on lower bitrates, it looks worse on higher bitrates.

Why would you use it? Just because you used to watch AVIs with XviD inside?

Also XviD is not supported by some hardware players (while DivX is supported).

Edited October 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Frikkin' hell... I've just looked at the samples Ross put up on the home page.

 

8mbps for h264 and 15mpbps for XviD!!! You can find these bitrates on commercial BDs. If I knew what budgets Ross had in mind I would not have posted about the puny Vimeo comparison above...

 

But seriously,

 

a) I can't find any visible difference between AVC and XviD samples (no more artifacts in XviD than in AVC).

b) While nice, these bitrates are overkill.

c) If you cut XviD rate to 8mbps you don't appreciably loose quality (tried with both h263 and MPEG matrices. H263 looks a bit softer, which may be a good thing) while halving the file size.

d) Two pass XviD encode to 6mbps VBR still looks quite OK.

e) As m1el noticed above, XviD is much CPU-easier to decode than AVC.

 

Regards

[m1el]

I can't find any visible difference between AVC and XviD samples

Bad for ya~

[Vapymid]

Why would you use it? Just because you used to watch AVIs with XviD inside?

 

Well, Ross seems to have decided to use AVC anyway, so this argument is moot now.

 

But yes, AVIs with XviD are OK with me. If something works I usually see no reason to change things. There is also the issue of diminishing returns - you use ever more intensive process, extra software etc. to gain very little in terms of either bandwidth or quality and have to pay more and more in performance to achieve that. Best is the enemy of good.

 

Regards

[Vapymid]

I can't find any visible difference between AVC and XviD samples

Bad for ya~

 

Well, maybe it's actually good for me...

 

Regards