Idwadi

Why would I want to do that?
Right now I fit 3 movies on my 1.0 gig Sd card. and they are great quality and Stereo sound! all on the betaplayer. :approve:
Right now I have the Patriots last superbowl season on there and "TopGun" and "entrapment" on my Ax.

p.s. Catherine Zeta Jones on her belly with her ass high in the air is as she slides under the laser beam is 'KEY'!! :love:

for the record:
DVD shrink & pocketdivxencoder wurks fir mi!!

irwin2

1. Compare codecs in this same conditions - adjusting brightness provides to better quality in encoded material - more about this you read on doom9
2. For me xvid 1.1MBps is better then 1.7mbps - sharp, detailed
3. Movie in 1.7Mbps takes 50% more space then xvid 1.1Mbps.

PocketTV Team

Originally Posted by irwin2

1. Compare codecs in this same conditions - adjusting brightness provides to better quality in encoded material - more about this you read on doom9 2. For me xvid 1.1MBps is better then 1.7mbps - sharp, detailed 3. Movie in 1.7Mbps takes 50% more space then xvid 1.1Mbps.

Ok, I can make the same with no gamma correction, but it will not change the results.

I agree with you, but again (for the fouth time) it was not the point of the thread to compare Xvid and MPEG-1.

Some companies want to use MPEG-1 rather than Xvid because they don't want to pay patent royalties or risk liability. The point was to show that it's possible to do VGA res with MPEG-1 at 1.7 Mbps or less with excellent quality.

Of course individual users don't care about liability, patent royalties and IP issues, and in that case clearly it's better for them to use Xvid.

Enragin_Angel

I used windows media player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe) with ffdshow alpha october 2004 to decode with no post processing.

If the blocks you see in my encode that look like they are trailing off a bit, you have a decoder problem. For that I suggest downloading ffdshow alpha october 2004

Not sure why you don't see blocks in your own encode, I see tons of them. You might have a post processing filter on.

@irwin: I don't see adjusting brightness as better quality. I would only adjust the brightness if I knew the brightness was incorrect. Like I said earlier, PocketTV Team's encode looked like it was bright noon, but that was the scene where Bruce Willis just got out of his apartment in the morning to start work. Plus, there are tall buildings where light shouldn't shine. So it SHOULD be dark. If you look off into the horizon, you'll notice that the sky is generally cloudy.

PocketTV Team

> Not sure why you don't see blocks in your own encode, I see tons of them. You might have a post processing filter on.

Not that I know of. I can't see blocks with WMP on desktop, and I don't see them either on the device using Betaplayer of PocketTV (of course both look the same since they use 2700G decoder!).

I downloaded the most recent Xvid codec's yesterday. The blocks I see in the smallest Xvid file are just normal quantization blocks, they don't look like a bug.

I know this scene is dark, but I wanted to use it as a demo clip, so i "normalized" the gamma, so that you can see something, not just a very dark image. i agree, it will not change the quality of the blocks...

And thanks again for providing the XViD versions, it provides a useful comparison.

irwin2

>The purpose of this thread was only to discuss ways to make very high quality MPEG's.

1.7Mbps is a very High Quality Mpeg's? and in VGA res? Are you kidding? :)

>I don't think Xvid looks good in VGA at less than 1 Mbps, but it's a question of what you consider good.

It's yours opinion. My is totally different.

> Of course, you can invert the way to compute percentage,....

But on axim x50v, on SD or CF card very important thing is a size.

>> Yes. But still for what? why? 1Gb movie mpeg1 looks worse then 700Mb Xvid. More space and worse quality.

> No, they would look about the same.

It's yours opinion. My is totally different. Try to compress whole 5th element (with sound) on 976Mb SD card. I bet - Xvid is much better in 700MB.

And from your last post "it was not the point of the thread to compare Xvid and MPEG-1." What's the point of this thread? to make high quality mpeg's? What's related with x50v? Try to doom9 on mpeg1 section.


--------------
@PocketTV Team: "Ok, I can make the same with no gamma correction, but it will not change the results."

@Enragin Angel: "I don't see adjusting brightness as better quality"

1. Human eye tends to notice encoding errors less if they happen in dark or bright parts of the picture.
2. Even results is small - Always compare in this same conditions.

victorypoint

Originally Posted by PocketTV Team

The result is DVD-quality at 1.7 Mbps or less (i.e. 2 to 3 times lower bitrate than DVD). You can see one example here: http://pockettv.com/mpg/vga/5e-640x480-1.7Mbps-v3.mpg

Why have you cropped an anamorphic widescreen source (The Fifth Element) to a 4:3 aspect? You're missing 40% of the movie! Not exactly DVD-quality if your cropping the source.

-AJ

FSRGuy

I just wanted to say good job on getting good-quality MPEG-1 files at such a low bitrate. Congratulations!

(Not all of us are interpreting your post as a challenge to Xvid or Divx). :)

__________________
Mmmmm....moldy pancakes.

Enragin_Angel

@victorypoint: He didn't cut off the edges. He simply resized it to 640x480. The edges aren't lost if that's what you're thinking.

victorypoint

Originally Posted by Enragin_Angel

@victorypoint: He didn't cut off the edges. He simply resized it to 640x480. The edges aren't lost if that's what you're thinking.

So his source was a fullscreen 4:3 version of the DVD? That explains it then. It would be interesting to see his results with a widescreen 16:9 version.

-AJ

PocketTV Team

Originally Posted by victorypoint

Why have you cropped an anamorphic widescreen source (The Fifth Element) to a 4:3 aspect? You're missing 40% of the movie! Not exactly DVD-quality if your cropping the source.

I have not cropped anything, the original DVD is in this format (it is not letterbox).

PocketTV Team

> 1.7Mbps is a very High Quality Mpeg's? and in VGA res? Are you kidding? :)

It is possible to make high quality MPEG in VGA resolution at 1.7 Mbps. There very few visible artifacts and blocking visible of the v3 sequence.

> It's yours opinion. My is totally different. Try to compress whole 5th element (with sound) on 976Mb SD card. I bet - Xvid is much better in 700MB.

I did. It looks perfect in MPEG, but you are correct, it is 30% larger than Xvid.

> And from your last post "it was not the point of the thread to compare Xvid and MPEG-1." What's the point of this thread? to make high quality mpeg's?

No, it was to make high quality mpeg's in VGA resolution (specifically) and with low bitrate.

> What's related with x50v?

The x50v has a VGA resolution display.

> 1. Human eye tends to notice encoding errors less if they happen in dark or bright parts of the picture.

Since there are less dark areas in our MPEG sample (which is brighter), it would make encoding error more visible, yet I clearly see more artifacts in the low-bitrate, darker Xvid version.

Enragin_Angel

We "clearly" have a difference of opinion, because I can "clearly" see the dct blocking artifacts that are more prevalent in your encode than in the one I encoded at 800Kbps. Your encode also suffers more dot crawl and general mosquito noise which is characteristic of MPEG-1 encoding. Look at any edge and you can see the mosquito noise (little dots around high contrast edges). The blocks that you see during high motion scenes in my encode are also shown in your encode as well. Face it, MPEG-1 is basically VHS quality. Go to any encoding site such as www.doom9.org and they'll tell you the same.

PocketTV Team

> Face it, MPEG-1 is basically VHS quality. Go to any encoding site such as www.doom9.org and they'll tell you the same.

It totally depends on the bitrate. If you are familiar with the technology, you know that MPEG-1 is the almost 100% identical to MPEG-2 when it comes to coding progressive contents (films), and MPEG-2 is what is used in DVD.

So what you are saying is: DVD is basically VHS quality. But you know it is not true. The reason is simple: when you throw more bits, you can get quality as good as you want. MPEG (1 or 2) at 4 or 5 Mbps has DVD quality.

> Your encode also suffers more dot crawl and general mosquito noise which is characteristic of MPEG-1 encoding.

Yes this is characteristics of MPEG-1 encoding *at low bitrate*, that's because of the lack of quater-pel motion compensation and bloc filter, we all know that. But still, your 800 Kbps appears to be globally inferior quality compared to the v3 1.7Mbps MPEG-1. Again, that's my opinion. And I agree that your 1.1Mbps is as good (or slightly better) that the v3.

PocketTV Team

Originally Posted by Enragin_Angel

For that I suggest downloading ffdshow alpha october 2004

I just did that.

For some reason the video in your clip plays very slowly (using WMP on desktop), and it gets totally de-sync'ed with the audio. Is that normal ?