Could Divx eclipse HD and Blu-Ray?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by RichA, Mar 3, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Seems like given it's file size compression (MPEG-4)
    it could make some in-roads into the next kind of
    system to replace the current DVD and it could do it
    with current DVD disks. I don't know what kind
    of interest has been shown in it from the studios
    (if any) but it's an interesting alternative
    to current DVD.
    -Rich
    RichA, Mar 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Billy Joe Guest

    In ref:

    RichA <> wrote:

    > Seems like given it's file size compression (MPEG-4)
    > it could make some in-roads into the next kind of
    > system to replace the current DVD and it could do it
    > with current DVD disks. I don't know what kind
    > of interest has been shown in it from the studios
    > (if any) but it's an interesting alternative
    > to current DVD.
    > -Rich



    Digital cable captured video converted from best quality MPEG2
    available to me to an MPEG4 rate that works for me hints very
    strongly that industrial strength conversion using this
    algorithm would produce stellar results.

    I sure would like to see some original source material captured
    (converted?) as MPEG4. I convert all my TV MPEG2 captures to
    Xvid at about 1/9th the MPEG2 capture size of 12 mbps with very
    satisfactory results. It certainly seems to me that a studio
    conversion to MPEG4 at no more than 2 mbps (a tad under 1
    gigabyte per hour) would produce quality challenging or
    surpassing current MPEG2-DVD encodings. HDTV numbers would
    surely change that to perhaps 3-4 gig per hour. The problems
    seems more to be of licensing, entrenchment, and a resistance to
    change than the cost of gearing up - DVD players so equipped are
    no longer a challenge. (Interestingly, my local library is
    beginning to stock books-on-disc in MP3 format, so there may be
    hope in the digital video arena too?)

    However wishes, horses, and beggars never seem to assemble in
    the same locale ;-0)

    BJ
    Billy Joe, Mar 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Guest

    Billy Joe <> wrote:

    [snip]

    : Digital cable captured video converted from best quality MPEG2
    : available to me to an MPEG4 rate that works for me hints very
    : strongly that industrial strength conversion using this
    : algorithm would produce stellar results.
    :
    : I sure would like to see some original source material captured
    : (converted?) as MPEG4. I convert all my TV MPEG2 captures to
    : Xvid at about 1/9th the MPEG2 capture size of 12 mbps with very
    : satisfactory results. It certainly seems to me that a studio
    : conversion to MPEG4 at no more than 2 mbps (a tad under 1
    : gigabyte per hour) would produce quality challenging or
    : surpassing current MPEG2-DVD encodings. HDTV numbers would
    : surely change that to perhaps 3-4 gig per hour.

    [snip]

    Some time ago I made some comparisons between content encoded
    in MPEG2 and MPEG4. Screenshots can be found at:

    http://www.ludd.luth.se/~jlo/tech/HD/index.html

    As can be seen, MPEG4 at 10Mbps is not enough to accurately
    represent MPEG2 at 30Mbps, particularly not in high motion
    scenes.

    Of course, completely unscientific and I was re-encoding the
    MPEG4 from the MPEG2...


    J
    --
    "I'd give my soul to be where I was a year ago...
    ....if I had a soul left to give"
    , Mar 3, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    selaboc Guest

    wrote:

    > Some time ago I made some comparisons between content encoded
    > in MPEG2 and MPEG4. Screenshots can be found at:
    >
    > http://www.ludd.luth.se/~jlo/tech/HD/index.html
    >
    > As can be seen, MPEG4 at 10Mbps is not enough to accurately
    > represent MPEG2 at 30Mbps, particularly not in high motion
    > scenes.
    >
    > Of course, completely unscientific and I was re-encoding the
    > MPEG4 from the MPEG2...


    As MPEG2 and MPEG4 are both lossy compression schemes, by re-encoding
    MPEG2 and MPEG4 you are defeating the purpose of your comparison as
    your MPEG4 will have all the compression artifacts of both encodings
    whereas your original MPEG2 will only have the artiacts from it's
    original MPEG2 encoding and thus the MPEG2 will ALWAYS look better than
    the re-encoded MPEG4. For a true comparison, you would need to take an
    uncompressed source as your start point and seperately encode the
    uncompressed source with MPEG2 and MPEG4 and then compare.
    selaboc, Mar 3, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    Guest

    selaboc <> wrote:
    :
    : wrote:
    :
    :> Some time ago I made some comparisons between content encoded
    :> in MPEG2 and MPEG4. Screenshots can be found at:
    :>
    :> http://www.ludd.luth.se/~jlo/tech/HD/index.html
    :>
    :> As can be seen, MPEG4 at 10Mbps is not enough to accurately
    :> represent MPEG2 at 30Mbps, particularly not in high motion
    :> scenes.
    :>
    :> Of course, completely unscientific and I was re-encoding the
    :> MPEG4 from the MPEG2...
    :
    : As MPEG2 and MPEG4 are both lossy compression schemes, by re-encoding
    : MPEG2 and MPEG4 you are defeating the purpose of your comparison as
    : your MPEG4 will have all the compression artifacts of both encodings
    : whereas your original MPEG2 will only have the artiacts from it's
    : original MPEG2 encoding and thus the MPEG2 will ALWAYS look better than
    : the re-encoded MPEG4. For a true comparison, you would need to take an
    : uncompressed source as your start point and seperately encode the
    : uncompressed source with MPEG2 and MPEG4 and then compare.

    Yes, I am aware of that as I indicated above. I didn't have any
    uncompressed HD material lying around though. Even so I'm fairly
    confident that the MPEG2 compression is not responsible for the heavy
    artifacting in the MPEG4 in the high motion scene and I think the
    result would have been similar even with an uncompressed source stream.


    J
    --
    "I'd give my soul to be where I was a year ago...
    ....if I had a soul left to give"
    , Mar 3, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On 3 Mar 2005 12:37:19 -0800, "selaboc" <> wrote:

    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Some time ago I made some comparisons between content encoded
    >> in MPEG2 and MPEG4. Screenshots can be found at:
    >>
    >> http://www.ludd.luth.se/~jlo/tech/HD/index.html
    >>
    >> As can be seen, MPEG4 at 10Mbps is not enough to accurately
    >> represent MPEG2 at 30Mbps, particularly not in high motion
    >> scenes.
    >>
    >> Of course, completely unscientific and I was re-encoding the
    >> MPEG4 from the MPEG2...

    >
    >As MPEG2 and MPEG4 are both lossy compression schemes, by re-encoding
    >MPEG2 and MPEG4 you are defeating the purpose of your comparison as
    >your MPEG4 will have all the compression artifacts of both encodings
    >whereas your original MPEG2 will only have the artiacts from it's
    >original MPEG2 encoding and thus the MPEG2 will ALWAYS look better than
    >the re-encoded MPEG4. For a true comparison, you would need to take an
    >uncompressed source as your start point and seperately encode the
    >uncompressed source with MPEG2 and MPEG4 and then compare.


    I downloaded some HDTV files with the extension, .tp.
    Also, I have some HD trailers from Divx that G-Spot reports are:
    Divx-5, 4000kbps, 1280x720.
    Would either of these suffice as good starting material?
    -Rich
    RichA, Mar 4, 2005
    #6
  7. RichA

    Biz Guest

    DirecTv is rolling out mpeg4 technology later this year with the launch of
    the new satellites which will initially be for HDTV. In the near future
    beyond that, the story seems to be they will be migrating everything over to
    mpeg4.


    "Billy Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In ref:
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > Seems like given it's file size compression (MPEG-4)
    > > it could make some in-roads into the next kind of
    > > system to replace the current DVD and it could do it
    > > with current DVD disks. I don't know what kind
    > > of interest has been shown in it from the studios
    > > (if any) but it's an interesting alternative
    > > to current DVD.
    > > -Rich

    >
    >
    > Digital cable captured video converted from best quality MPEG2
    > available to me to an MPEG4 rate that works for me hints very
    > strongly that industrial strength conversion using this
    > algorithm would produce stellar results.
    >
    > I sure would like to see some original source material captured
    > (converted?) as MPEG4. I convert all my TV MPEG2 captures to
    > Xvid at about 1/9th the MPEG2 capture size of 12 mbps with very
    > satisfactory results. It certainly seems to me that a studio
    > conversion to MPEG4 at no more than 2 mbps (a tad under 1
    > gigabyte per hour) would produce quality challenging or
    > surpassing current MPEG2-DVD encodings. HDTV numbers would
    > surely change that to perhaps 3-4 gig per hour. The problems
    > seems more to be of licensing, entrenchment, and a resistance to
    > change than the cost of gearing up - DVD players so equipped are
    > no longer a challenge. (Interestingly, my local library is
    > beginning to stock books-on-disc in MP3 format, so there may be
    > hope in the digital video arena too?)
    >
    > However wishes, horses, and beggars never seem to assemble in
    > the same locale ;-0)
    >
    > BJ
    >
    >
    Biz, Mar 4, 2005
    #7
  8. RichA

    Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    : On 3 Mar 2005 12:37:19 -0800, "selaboc" <> wrote:

    [snip]

    :>As MPEG2 and MPEG4 are both lossy compression schemes, by re-encoding
    :>MPEG2 and MPEG4 you are defeating the purpose of your comparison as
    :>your MPEG4 will have all the compression artifacts of both encodings
    :>whereas your original MPEG2 will only have the artiacts from it's
    :>original MPEG2 encoding and thus the MPEG2 will ALWAYS look better than
    :>the re-encoded MPEG4. For a true comparison, you would need to take an
    :>uncompressed source as your start point and seperately encode the
    :>uncompressed source with MPEG2 and MPEG4 and then compare.
    :
    : I downloaded some HDTV files with the extension, .tp.
    : Also, I have some HD trailers from Divx that G-Spot reports are:
    : Divx-5, 4000kbps, 1280x720.
    : Would either of these suffice as good starting material?

    If you mean to directly compare the MPEG2 .tp material with the
    MPEG4 divx material it is obviously no good unless they actually
    show the same scene. Ideally they would also be directly compressed
    from the same lossless source.


    J
    --
    "I'd give my soul to be where I was a year ago...
    ....if I had a soul left to give"
    , Mar 4, 2005
    #8
  9. RichA

    Billy Joe Guest

    In ref: 96TVd.99294$

    Biz <> wrote:

    > DirecTv is rolling out mpeg4 technology later this year with
    > the launch of the new satellites which will initially be for
    > HDTV. In the near future beyond that, the story seems to be
    > they will be migrating everything over to mpeg4.
    >
    >

    <snip>

    Really good news, Biz.
    Have you any links to docs re?
    Presumably the decoder will be in their set-top box, but I
    understand they do/may offer the Motorola HDTV PVR, no? Makes
    me wonder if it does/will have a decoder too?

    BJ
    Billy Joe, Mar 4, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,498
    RichA
    Apr 15, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Silverstrand
    Sep 25, 2006
  3. Terence
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    Terence
    Mar 26, 2007
  4. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,825
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  5. windhello
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,396
    john810
    Dec 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page