Video Thread v.2...Switching Codecs Again | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Video Thread v.2...Switching Codecs Again

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I discovered DivX by myself, thank you very much :laugh: don't know about Sean, though. I actually had DivX for a while but only the most recent version of the codec is good enough to compete with the best codec I was using, and that was Mainconcept's H.264 v2. (maybe they'll come out with a v.3? I hope)

Sean- I may very well be through with MC H.264 v2 if Divx 6.2.5 proves itself worthy when I encode the 2006 Campbell's vids. :agree: it has to be BETTER as well, similar doesn't quite cut it...if not, then I'm sticking with H.264.

The order of the top codecs I used to encode skating videos for the past four years (all of these were the best available to me at the time):

Quicktime Movie .mov (Worlds 2002 and fall 2002 events), Quicktime MPEG-4 .mp4 (2003- Worlds 2005), MainConcept H.264 v.1 .mpg (Marshall's Spring event 2005-Skate Canada 2005), MainConcept H.264 v.2 .mpg (Skate Canada 2005 - Worlds 2006), and likely DivX Codec 6.x.x - Widescreen Format (fall 2006- whenever a better codec comes out).

I found the biggest leap to be switching from .mp4 to the first version of H.264 (Worlds 2005 was the last competition I used .mp4, Marshall's Spring event 2005 a month later was my "test event" for H264). I remember H264 simply BLEW ME AWAY when I encoded my first video in it. It was LEAPS better than what I was using before. Now, of course when I look back at footage encoded in it, it looks grainy and "out-of-date" compared to H.264 v2 and Divx 6, but boy, that was the turning point right there. Not only that, but encoding time was cut significantly...I could probably encode as many as 4 or 5 H264 vids in the time it took for my old mac to encode ONE mp4 file. (Sean, this also contributed to me switching back to PC- I could not use this hot new codec with my old Mac, nor with a new one.)


During the time I used H.264 (both versions) I used other codecs (i.e. Windows Media) to encode some of the more unknown skaters (i.e. skaters I didn't really care about much) but saved the best codec for the top skaters. This was strictly a filesize issue- I simply did NOT have the space to encode all the skaters in H264 so I had to "discriminate". The exceptions to this were the Olympics where I encoded ALL footage in top-quality H.264 v2, and the US Nationals and Worlds entirely in H.264 v2 (with varying bitrates depending on skater). Also, I encoded all fluff events in H264 format (to take advantage of the superior ABC broadcast picture).

Normally when I find a new codec I designate a "test event" where I sort of test out the codec to see if it's suitable for "prime time"- and it's always a fluff event like Marshall's or Campbell's. (the only exception was H.264 v2, which I started using immediately since it was so much better than the old H.264 codec and used the same software). I've been testing Divx 6 WS out on various vids but won't know for sure until I can capture and encode the upcoming Campbell's event in it whether it's suitable for archiving.
 
Last edited:

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
AFTER MORE EXTENSIVE TESTING

I came to the conclusion that the two codecs are really close. In fact, so close that I think there's a trade-off involved. H.264 seems to offer the better overall quality picture (with fewer "artifacts"), however Divx seems to do a better job of handling the fast motion involved in skating (doesn't blur as much). So I may continue to use H264 for non-skating footage (fluffs, interviews, etc.) and use Divx for the actual skating.

The two codecs are pretty close. I tried comparing screencaps taken from both codecs (at the same resolution and bitrate, 720x480 and 3000Kbps) and it really depended on which screencap I took which codec APPEARED better. H264 has a "cleaner" picture but tends to "struggle" whenever the subject is moving quickly. Divx has more "artifacts" in the picture but screencaps taken from a quickly moving scene showed the Divx image to be clearer than H264. Hopefully I can get to posting samples so you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Uh guys, do I get an honable mention in this thread???:laugh: :laugh:

Back when I was trying to figure out how to make the videos available for everyone, DEE suggested using DivX which made the video available to a couple of posters who were unable to see it and hence made it "possible" for most to have an ability to - good thinking DEE:agree: . I never thought about using it as a solution because people may not have it, so I wanted to use something they had. I was Basically making the files playable for a iPod believing everyone would have software for that and a relatively small file size as well. Thanks DEE and others for contributing!

.... don't know about Sean, though.
I am not sure when or where either:laugh: Likely a recomendation from ex-job.
Sean, this also contributed to me switching back to PC- I could not use this hot new codec with my old Mac, nor with a new one.)
*chuckle* Macs and PCs are getting along in this day and age, and if you base your decisions on trendy new software..... have you been using it a lot in this time? It doesn't matter that anyone is using Windows, it works for me 95%+ in both giving and receiving. If I relaunch My 8 year old Mac with Win, I can still get just in case.;)
Hopefully I can get to posting samples so you know what I mean.
:clap: Samples:clap:

Friends don't let friends buy PCs,
but we'll still work with them if they do, yes even network.
:laugh:
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
You're right in that the gap between Mac and PC is closing. However, it's my personal bias because I've been using PCs all my life and only in high school was I forced to use Mac because of all the Apple maniacs down there :rofl: Mac OS X is a very stable operating system but most of the programs I like to use either aren't available at all or available in the latest version for the Mac. PCs have much more versatility IMO, but I don't wish to turn this thread into Mac vs. PC debate. We were (I was) talking about videos.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
OK, here's one. These are screencaps during ESPN2's rebroadcast of Worlds.

This first series is Kimmie jogging down the isle preparing for her freeskate. The captures below are nearly identical but were captured with each of the two codecs in question. The first one is the H264 cap and the second one is the Divx cap. (Ignore the differences in color- the Divx one appears to look duller- but that's the media player's fault as I had both open at the same time- once before the roles were reversed: the H264 one appeared dull in an earlier test. Just judge the quality of the images themselves.)

1
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/8379/h2641zx7.jpg

2
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/2232/divx1jn5.jpg
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Series Three: Quality Test

Emily Hughes waiting to skate. Look at the detail in her face and especially the background. Look at the blue curtain. This is pretty subjective as to which one is better so I'll let you decide this one for yourself. Decide before you read my take (opinion) on it below. Once again ignore any color differences.

1
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1219/h2643nu1.jpg

2
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7214/divx3rv6.jpg






MY OPINION

This best illustrates how close the two codecs are. However, if you look closely I believe H.264 has the overall better quality picture. The Divx cap shows more "artifacts" especially in the blue curtain. Emily's face also appears to be slightly more "pixellated" in the Divx photo, while Emily's face in the H264 cap is clearer, but appears to lack minor detail. But that's really nitpicking. I bet the average person, ignoring color differences, would be hard-pressed to tell a real difference.
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
This best illustrates how close the two codecs are. However, if you look closely I believe H.264 has the overall better quality picture. The Divx cap shows more "artifacts" especially in the blue curtain. Emily's face also appears to be slightly more "pixellated" in the Divx photo, while Emily's face in the H264 cap is clearer, but appears to lack minor detail. But that's really nitpicking. I bet the average person, ignoring color differences, would be hard-pressed to tell a real difference.
:agree: But these are Pictures:p , I was hoping for some vids:cry:

so, 2, 2, 1.

BTW, of course I am right about Mac vs PC:laugh: I don't know what your idea of versatility is though?, but everyone has their thing - no matter how whacked that can be to some one else.;)
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Save the Mac/PC thing for another thread.

Vids take much more time to post and you wouldn't be able to play the H264 vids without paying for software, anyway. But screencaps are the best way to "nitpick" the encoding capability of a codec.
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Save the Mac/PC thing for another thread.

Vids take much more time to post and you wouldn't be able to play the H264 vids without paying for software, anyway. But screencaps are the best way to "nitpick" the encoding capability of a codec.

I'm just joshing around with you, "take a pill:p ":laugh:
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
so, 2, 2, 1.

I take this to mean you prefer these in the order that they were posted. I'm inclined to agree with you here. I could post some Divx videos but you wouldn't be able to compare them to the .mpg files so there's really not much point there...

You may ask why I'm doing all this. My mission is to find a codec that can keep as much of the original quality of the imported DV-AVI file as possible. Since DV-AVI takes up 1GB of space for every five minutes, it's definitely out of the question as an archive format. So I have to compress the videos so that a freeskate is not 1.4GB in size but more like around 100-200MB. And which codec can compress it to that level and maintain more quality? That's the mission here.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Divx simply SHINES when it comes to HD footage, though. I just got finished with encoding a source .mpg HD 1280x720 video (that I downloaded from somewhere else) and the Divx codec can maintain much of the original sharpness and quality of the video while compressing it by surprisingly large amounts.

I just wish I had a source (MPEG2) skating .mpg video to work with...(Anyone here happen to have anything? :p )...Standard definition video always tends to turn into "internet video" once compressed but HD video can remain vivid and sharp at bitrates of 4-6 Mbps (even 3Mbps isn't too bad but at that rate you definitely start to see visible artifacts in the image. It's still a nice, vibrant picture though.) And this is while keeping the 720p dimensions intact (1280x720).

I'm surprised that more people are not using Divx to post vids in HD. I think it's amazing. And you don't even need a dual-core processor unit to play DivX HD video (unlike many other formats such as H.264). Slower computers should be able to play DivX HD assuming they have enough Video RAM.
 
Last edited:

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Can I have your feedback on this video? (same video I've been describing). This video was encoded with the XviD codec (often used to post HQ/HD video on the net) but at a lower bitrate- 1024Kbps. This is not widescreen- it's regular NTSC format This might be a candidate to encode certain parts of the Grand Prix events.

The video was also deinterlaced (to prevent those annoying scan lines during motion) but sharpened as the de-interlace filter tended to make the video look "soft" (blurry).

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CGS3KXDN
 

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
For that size of file it was amazing quality, I had pixel issues and play "hung up a bit," but that might just be what I have and had running.

I must say I am extremely fond of that outfit of Sarah's:love: (acutely a "drool" emotiocon would be better) even more then the yellow dress - which is a harder color to look good in and my favorite color. I would like to see her wear her hair the same as in the yellow dress though. Anyhoo:laugh:

I understand why you are doing this, great qual in a small package :agree: I must ask though, if it is for your own personal achieving, then why the tests? Why not use whatever looks good to you - if it is just for you? IDK, JAT.
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The tests are to see which codec offers the best quality in the smallest filesize (see my above post where I explain basically the meaning of this thread).

Could you expand on the "pixel issues" and "hung up a bit"? I think at lower bitrates (I notice it especially below 1500Kbps) Xvid tends to "break up" the picture into the parts that are moving and the parts that are stationary. I think this causes that "shifting" artifact phenomenon that I think is present in the video I posted above. Windows Media does the same thing I notice as well.

I tested Xvid at several different bitrates. Step all the way up to 3800Kbps and you get very close to the original, but NO codec that I've found can reproduce the quality and clarity of the original DV video, that is, at any reasonable bitrate (I'm looking at < 4 Mbps). De-interlaced Xvid seems to come the closest, closely followed by H.264 (however H264 introduces the least amount of artifacts into the picture of all tested codecs). Then DivX video comes in. I find DivX better suited for HD video (it doesn't do so well with standard-definition (DV) video).

For the low end (sharing) I find MPEG-4 AVC (Apple H.264) to be the best by far, followed by regular MP4. I personally can't stand WMV, though, because of its aspect ratio and its lack of color depth. Unfortunately for me it continues to be a very popular format (Micro$oft anyone??)
 
Last edited:

SeaniBu

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
The tests are to see which codec offers the best quality in the smallest filesize (see my above post where I explain basically the meaning of this thread).
I was wondering because the end user is intended to be you, right? So what ever is best for you and your results. I was wondering why you would need feedback. Just thought you could do the "testing" on your computer because that is where the file reside, and what ever you like best (size / quality) would be what you would want to keep. I guess a little feedback never hurt though eh?:agree: But if it was "just for me" I would see what looked best and forget about anyone else:laugh: :cool:
Could you expand on the "pixel issues" and "hung up a bit"? I think at lower bitrates (I notice it especially below 1500Kbps) Xvid tends to "break up" the picture into the parts that are moving and the parts that are stationary. I think this causes that "shifting" artifact phenomenon that I think is present in the video I posted above. Windows Media does the same thing I notice as well.
You explained it perfectly. :agree:
 

R.D.

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I only posted that one video because if I do share videos that's the type of format I'll use. As for the ones I plan to keep only to myself (the high-bitrate files), you bet I'm the only one who's gonna see those :laugh: so I don't post those here.
 
Top