View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Chung
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 Posts: 79 Location: North Carolina, USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 11:22 pm Post subject: Today's needed cpu for playback is... |
|
|
What makes me ask I recently got a change to rip some Harlock Saga, which I'll likely poll on groups for post or not (since it's been over a year since MPG versions were posted), and it left me wondering what most people are finding the minimum/norm for xvid/divx playback. Looking at these rips I made... debating whether to knock them down a bit or keep them as they are. Being 6eps, my target was 3/cd.. I couldn't bring myself to squeeze 6eps onto 1 cd
CPU hit was averaging 67% over 100s on a 1.2Ghz athlon with nothing actively running at 1:1 viewing. Vid is 640x480 @ 1250Kbps Aud is 160Kbps @ 44.1Khz.
Another thing that kept roughing me was that I couldn't get it to 24fps and like the quality.. Just wanting to make sure.. but there is some material that simply cant be reduced to 24fps like original, correct? Something I haven been able to reduce from 29.97 Interlaced to de-interlaced 24fps just fine.. but this one didn't play nice.
(Seems I can never make a *short* post) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Gorunova
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
6 eps on one CD would be just fine with me. It's not like Harlock is a masterpiece of high-resolution animation.
I didn't download the MPEG versions because they were too big and
I didn't feel like re-encoding them. Smaller XviD versions would be welcome. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Chung
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 Posts: 79 Location: North Carolina, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ooh ooh.. that brings another question..
I've installed xvid and messed with it some.. attempting to create a valid quantizer matrix is still rather beyond me.. but even playing with defaults.. I haven't seen any leap over divx.. other than it being GNU.. is there another reason to make a switch? Think I read somewhere that b-frames were going to be introduced into the codec soon.. my thinking that it would be a good benefit.
Heh, it is rather true that Harlock wasn't so splendid on dvd, far as detail/crisp animation goes. I'll probably give it another shot and see what 6/cd looks like. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Gorunova
![](images/avatars/3.jpg)
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like xvid because it's more open, and I think it has more potential for future improvement as well.
I don't really know anything about tweaking it for encoding though. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Orqyman
![](images/avatars/1753905603e751e209a758.jpg)
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 98 Location: Dallas, TX
|
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've done some tests with both codecs as part of a project, and honestly, I think they're about the same. Assuming divx5 of course. Well, Xvid tends to encode faster at default settings. Both play back using either decoder anyway, so imo at this point, its a matter of preference.
some movie groups are dominated by xvid while others are strictly divx. Still a close call. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|-Shin-|
Joined: 04 Jan 2003 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 9:52 pm Post subject: The speed needed to play a 640x480, 30 FPS file |
|
|
I think my system is the slowest system that can play the recent files because I have to use a fast player and fast decompressor otherwise it'd just be too choppy.
(Although I have an alternative, faster machine) Basically I use BSPlayer + FFDshow and can play 640x480 res videos that are 30 FPS. This is a Celeron 466 with an NVidia TNT2 (reference drivers). By the way, it can barely do the 640x480 @ 30FPS but still play them smoothly enough to watch. (Desktop setting at 800x600x16 bit)
With WMP 6.4 and without FFDShow I can barely play 640 res videos at 24, although 512x384 files were okay. There was no chance that WMP 7.0 would let me play them because of the massive overhead required. BSPlayer was rated at www.divx-digest.com to be the fastest player at the time and I'll vouch for it's speed.
Even though BSPlayer uses the same codecs the overlay methods or something lets it play files back while using 5-15% less CPU power, which on a slow machine is a lot. With ffdshow+BSPlayer I use a total of 8-35% less CPU power. For some people, BSPlayer doesn't work but for others it may add some life to a slowly becoming out-of-date CPU.
Note: I do see occasional glitches with ffdshow. If you do download ffdshow, try to get the alpha version (as of Jan 2003) instead. If at a later date, maybe they'll have a non-alpha binary that will play the newer XVids. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh, like anything dealing with computers, as time goes on, you'll need a more powerful PC to playback the "normal" encodes.
Chung wrote: | I haven't seen any leap over divx.. other than it being GNU.. is there another reason to make a switch? |
I've always been in the thinking that there is no such thing as a "miracle codec," which you seem to be looking for. The encode makes the codec shine; it doesn't go the other way.
Which "DivX" are you talking about, btw? I really hope you're not saying it's not a leap over DivX3-4.. but it still has yet to really get past DivX5 I'll admit.
Right now, I prefer XviD over DivX5 more because of moral reasons than anything else. I like the fact its development is open.. I don't mean open as in the source(the only thing I understand less than C(or whatever language they use) is the MPEG4 standard ), but rather that we see it as a work in progress, rather than DivX's thinking of "working behind closed doors until we get a final product".. as a result, XviD seems like it's "taking longer" because it's more verbose than DivX, but I believe the results in the long run will show which codec was "in the right."
there's also the fact that it's free; you have to pay for DivX5 to unleash the real power of it (or use adware, or crack it).. namely stuff like GMC, B-Frames and QPel.
As far as XviD goes though, the best is yet to come. I've played around with the development builds some, which include various encoding tricks/schemes such as B-Frames and QPel. B-Frames helps compression tremendously, shrinking the encode up to 25% or more. Unfortunately, because of the way B-Frames work, it's no wonder that people on 500mhz machines can't play stuff back in DivX5 while they play DivX3/SBC encodes back fine. Simply said, DivX3 is just featureless in comparison. Unfortunately, it doesn't really seem as if QPel or GMC in their current states are much use (I don't think GMC is much use in DivX5 either, from what I've heard).. but eventually, I'm sure..
Of course, as I said above, it doesn't really matter what codec you use(within reason ); just use whatever you feel comfortable with. I feel that XviD is more a tweakers codec than anything since SBC. It's possible to make XviD encodes look a hell of a lot worse than DivX5; it's also possible to make them look just as good or better though, as well. Heh, unfortunately with DivX5, you'll only be able to make a DivX5 encode look better by either throwing more bitrate at it, or enabling something you hadn't previously (atleast from my initial impression of DivX5.. it seems a very plug'n'go type codec).. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|