«

Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
they much of a muchness.

GraB wrote:
> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
> VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
> OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
> how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
> back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
> they much of a muchness.

ive got a philips 640k and the quality is outstanding... on a well
encoded divx its very hard to spot the differences between it and a dvd.
is that samsung actually divx certified? or just divx capable?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

GraB wrote:
> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
> VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
> OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
> how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
> back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
> they much of a muchness.

Was the divx created with a 1-pass or 2-pass encode?

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:08:22 +1300, Bruce Flyger
<> wrote:

>GraB wrote:
>> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
>> VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
>> OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
>> how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
>> back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
>> they much of a muchness.
>
>Was the divx created with a 1-pass or 2-pass encode?

And was it with the Pro codec or standard?

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:08:22 +1300, Bruce Flyger
<> wrote:

>GraB wrote:
>> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
>> VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
>> OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
>> how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
>> back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
>> they much of a muchness.
>
>Was the divx created with a 1-pass or 2-pass encode?

2-pass with Dr DivX, 5.2.1 codec.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:53:34 +1300, Hmmm <> wrote:

>GraB wrote:
>> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
>> VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
>> OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
>> how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
>> back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
>> they much of a muchness.
>
>ive got a philips 640k and the quality is outstanding... on a well
>encoded divx its very hard to spot the differences between it and a dvd.
>is that samsung actually divx certified? or just divx capable?

Dunno, it has a DivX logo on it though.

Craig Shore wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:08:22 +1300, Bruce Flyger
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>GraB wrote:
>>
>>>Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
>>>VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
>>>OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
>>>how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
>>>back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
>>>they much of a muchness.
>>
>>Was the divx created with a 1-pass or 2-pass encode?
>
>
> And was it with the Pro codec or standard?
>
>
i Dont think matters as he said it looks fine on his pc but not his
standalone, so it seems its a problem with the decoding not the encoding.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

GraB wrote:
> Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which
> has 6-head VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a
> DVD+R DVD (it played OK) and the same movie compressed to
> DivX on CD but was surprised at how visible the artifacts
> were with the DivX given how well they play back on the PC.
> Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are they much
> of a muchness.

Comparing the Philips DVP642/37 (firmware rev: 0531) with the LiteOn
2001 (firmware rev: 0302) using the same files and TV.

I used S-Video simply because it was easier to switch the cable than
using component cabling.

Both units at factory default settings for NTSC - Region 1.

The LiteOn, in all cases, provides a crisper picture with better
brightness/contrast.

Using AVI/Divx encoded files: typically at 1100 to 1300 mbps video,
all at 192 kbps MP3 audio, and TV capture conversions at 29.97 fps
(the original capture rate).

1 pass, interlaced - The 642 picture was unwatchable with interlace
jaggedly placed. The 2001 picture was almost as smooth as the
original broadcast with occasional brief jerkiness (possibly media).

1 pass, deinterlaced - The 642 had modest improvement over the above
test, but the picture was still unwatchable. The 2001 was as smooth
as the original broadcast but the deinterlace algorithm used (VDub)
softened the image a bit.

The above were both 640x480 frames.

2 pass, deinterlaced - The 642 picture was almost as smooth as the
original broadcast. The 2001 picture was virtually indistinguishable
from the original broadcast. Both were somewhat softened.

This image was 704x364

2 pass, progressive, 23.976 fps from DVD.
Both players produced smooth pictures with the 2001 being slightly
more crisp, brighter, and better contrasted.

This image was 704x384

I had thought that there are perhaps two or three chip sets in use
among these MPEG4 savvy players - and that still may be true. But
clearly these two units do not use the same components and the price
difference is reflected in the results!! (The 642 was US$63, the 2001
US$120).

I think the Philips 642 is a great device at $63, I seldom use it tho
and prefer the LiteOn 2001.

BJ

GraB wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:53:34 +1300, Hmmm <> wrote:
>
>
>>GraB wrote:
>>
>>>Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which has 6-head
>>>VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a DVD+R DVD (it played
>>>OK) and the same movie compressed to DivX on CD but was surprised at
>>>how visible the artifacts were with the DivX given how well they play
>>>back on the PC. Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are
>>>they much of a muchness.
>>
>>ive got a philips 640k and the quality is outstanding... on a well
>>encoded divx its very hard to spot the differences between it and a dvd.
>>is that samsung actually divx certified? or just divx capable?
>
>
> Dunno, it has a DivX logo on it though.

probably divx certified then which means it should be up to a decent
standard.. do keep in mind that most of the stand alone divx players do
not support all features of divx pro, the divx site says this about it.
So if the movies you are testing have been encoded using one of these
featuress, then it could have all sorts of results, gmc global motion
compensation could cause artifacts.

I have a utility that checks a divx quickly and tells you if its been
encoded with one of these, its called "avicheck" try finding it with
google and then check the divx you are trying to play...

"
Specifically GMC and Qpel

What will happen if I try to play a file I might have with GMC or Qpel?
It is up to the manufacturer to decide what the product does when
content with GMC or Qpel is encountered. Even though GMC and Qpel are
not mandatory to be DivX Certified, some manufacturers will implement
support of these features.
"






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Billy Joe wrote:
> GraB wrote:
>
>>Just been to evaluate a Samsung combo unit, DVD-V540, which
>>has 6-head VHS tape and DivX capable DVD drive. I took a
>>DVD+R DVD (it played OK) and the same movie compressed to
>>DivX on CD but was surprised at how visible the artifacts
>>were with the DivX given how well they play back on the PC.
>>Are other DivX-capable DVD players better, or are they much
>>of a muchness.
>
>
> Comparing the Philips DVP642/37 (firmware rev: 0531) with the LiteOn
> 2001 (firmware rev: 0302) using the same files and TV.
>
> I used S-Video simply because it was easier to switch the cable than
> using component cabling.
>
> Both units at factory default settings for NTSC - Region 1.
>
> The LiteOn, in all cases, provides a crisper picture with better
> brightness/contrast.
>
> Using AVI/Divx encoded files: typically at 1100 to 1300 mbps video,
> all at 192 kbps MP3 audio, and TV capture conversions at 29.97 fps
> (the original capture rate).
>
> 1 pass, interlaced - The 642 picture was unwatchable with interlace
> jaggedly placed. The 2001 picture was almost as smooth as the
> original broadcast with occasional brief jerkiness (possibly media).
>
> 1 pass, deinterlaced - The 642 had modest improvement over the above
> test, but the picture was still unwatchable. The 2001 was as smooth
> as the original broadcast but the deinterlace algorithm used (VDub)
> softened the image a bit.
>
> The above were both 640x480 frames.
>
> 2 pass, deinterlaced - The 642 picture was almost as smooth as the
> original broadcast. The 2001 picture was virtually indistinguishable
> from the original broadcast. Both were somewhat softened.
>
> This image was 704x364
>
> 2 pass, progressive, 23.976 fps from DVD.
> Both players produced smooth pictures with the 2001 being slightly
> more crisp, brighter, and better contrasted.
>
> This image was 704x384
>
> I had thought that there are perhaps two or three chip sets in use
> among these MPEG4 savvy players - and that still may be true. But
> clearly these two units do not use the same components and the price
> difference is reflected in the results!! (The 642 was US$63, the 2001
> US$120).
>
> I think the Philips 642 is a great device at $63, I seldom use it tho
> and prefer the LiteOn 2001.
>
> BJ
>
>
is that from a review site? or your personal findings? just really goes
against my experience with the philips and the reason i bought the
philips was it got such good writeups by other people using it..

im off to test an interlaced movie..

who uses ntsc anyway?


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---