ExtremeTech Wages War of the Codecs

prostoalex writes "ExtremeTech tested Windows Media, DivX, QuickTime/Sorenson and QuickTime/MPEG4 codecs. They encoded clips from Matrix Reloaded, Monsters, Inc., X2 and Spider-Man. QuickTime/Sorenson won the encoding speed contest, for the quality tests read the entire review, as each movie sample was encoded with 500KB and 1MB bitrates. Video samples provided on the site as well, so see for yourself."

Comments

But no Xvid?

[Anonymous Coward]

They expect to have their opinion valued on Slashdot when they don't review the open source video codec? (It generally wins in other tests.)

Re:But no Xvid?

[bigman2003]

I've seen so much Windows Media bashing over the years, that it is great to see someone provide a good comparison, with PICTURES as proof.

I do WMV streaming at work- and it works great. Previously, right here, on Slashdot of all places, when I mentioned it, people would tell me over and over that the quality sucked.

So, if they really cared what the slashdot kiddies thought, they would have have done something to skew the results. But this didn't happen.

They did mention that the encoding took far longer for Windows Media, and that is true. (But their hardware was crap for media encoding- a single processor? If you are doing video encoding, you probably have a lot more hardware than that to throw at the problem). But when it comes to ease of hosting, and getting the users to actually view the thing, nothing beats Windows Media 9.

I did try Divx for a while- and after the 9,000th complaint in about 2 days, I finally relented, and put it up in a .wmv format. The complaints were not about quality, but in the "how do I watch the movie" vein.

Josh and Trish America want the video to play with the click of a link- which generally means Quicktime or Windows Media. I'll stick with Windows Media.

Honestly- very few of the people here on Slashdot want to watch the movies I serve up- but your parents do. Now do you really want to explain to them how to play an Xvid file?

Re:stills vs. motion...

[Erratio]

One big factor which is neglected in this article is compatibility. I don't do too much with video files but a decent amount with audio and sometimes there are formats with minor quality differences, but what ultimately decides which to use is how many players can handle it easily. It doesn't come into consideration quite as much for personal archiving and controlled environments, but even then you can't tell what the future will bring and a little flexibilty now saves time later.

Xvid rules the scene

[Anonymous Coward]

You only need to look at the scene to know what codec is in this month. It's Xvid by a long margin, most TV-shows (Stargate, Enterprise, whatever), DVD-rips, Anime etc. are encoded with it. MP3 and AC3 are predictably dominating the sound codec, with many TV-shows now also making the transition to full AC3 (well, the DVD rips of them at least).

I call shenanigans

[awaspaas]

Okay, I just encoded some DVD-size video at 1mbit and 500kbit, 1/4 size, in QuickTime MPEG-4 and can barely see any artifacts in either. This dude seriously got some settings wrong in his MPEG-4 encodings, although I don't quite see how that's possible as settings are quality, framerate, keyframes, and data rate (and he said quality was set at best). I'll post some screenies later if I get a chance.

Well it might be licensing

[Sycraft-fu]

I mean MPEG-4, despite being open, is NOT a free format. You are required to pay licenses for encoders and decoders. Has XviD payed this? If not, it's technically not legal. That could keep it out of being a serious contender for pro use. I mean I'm betting the MPEG-4 group isn't going to care if some hobbiests are using an unlicensed encoder, but they'll care if pros are.

Limited value

[Dr.Knackerator]

Does it tell you which codec is best? Maybe but only for recompressing MPEG-2 footage. They *should* have tested against DV output as the standard consumer format, and uncompressed video. Plus looking at snapshots of compressed movies is of limited value, there is a big difference between what detail we can determine through a still image and a moving one. If you were to freeze a tv picture (or look at a captured frame) which includes something moving you would see a combing effect of the interlaced video. It doesn't look like that when you view it though.

Re:What's up with MPEG4?

[macmaxbh]

Apple's MPEG-4 has both a mediocre encoder and decoder. 3ivx is a much better choice, it both decodes MPEG4 (and Divx/XviD) with better postfilters (the best, argurably), even scaled to how much CPU time it can grab. Its encoder is extremely nice, and very userfriendly, and it's extremely high quality. (And before you point Doom9's tests, Doom9 has NOT been configuring 3ivx correctly, so he's shooting himself in the foot). It has a 'trial' codec free (no real restrictions, but only for 'trial use') available for both Windows, Mac, and even BeOS (older versions are available for Linux and other platforms).

Referring about Sorenson, keep in mind this is the FREE codec that comes with Quicktime Pro. Professionals use a several hundred dollar 'Developers Edition' with Cleaner (two pass VBR encoding, which makes Sorenson rock). I know this is a for-user comparison, but in the professional scene, Sorenson can be even better then third/second place in quality.

All fail miserably at making good encoding easy

[sjonke]

I have tried using DiVX and Apple's MPEG4 to encode a short video and there are just far too many options to play with. It's virtually impossible for the average person to use any of these and get great results. We need something that will produce excellent results at the click of a button. Until then I'll stick to showing my digital videos saved back to the camera, plugged into a TV, where quality is fantastic.