> K...I did some tests. I'm not sure why you changed the brightness on your encode...It looks like it's noon time in your mpeg encode. That scene was when bruce willis got up in the morning...so it should be dark like mine. Oh yeah, I made no attempt to correct the rainbowing and the dotcrawl that is inherent in both of our encodes.
I wanted the gamma to be more balanced on this demo scene. Sorry.
> Here is the link to an mpeg-1 quality encode at 50% size. (average bitrate 769Kbps)
>
http://members.cox.net/xvidcompare/5...%20quality.avi
Thanks. Quality is visibly lower than our demo. I can see lots of block in the fast-moving scenes. Clearly lower quality, but watchable.
> I think the quality is pretty much the same in these two encodes.
No, definitely not. You must compare with
http://pockettv.com/mpg/vga/5e-640x480-1.7Mbps-v3.mpg
> Here is a better more decent quality encode. (average bitrate 1137Kbps)
>
http://members.cox.net/enragin_angel...%20quality.avi
> I think the quality here is much better than the mpeg-1 version and is still much smaller in size than the mpeg-1 encode by about 30%.
No, I think this one compares with 5e-640x480-1.7Mbps-v3.mpg . I can still see some blocks in this file, in the fast motion scenes, but I would say the quality is about the same, even though there are no blocks visible in 5e-640x480-1.7Mbps-v3.mpg .
So the gain is about 30%, i.e. what was to be expected.
Again, that was not the purpose of this thread, but thanks for confirming that Xvid is about 30% more efficient than MPEG-1.