It was developed by VideoLAN. The X encoder provides a large number of functions compared to the other H. It includes an API and also a command line interface. The most useful command line interface is used by many graphical user interfaces including MeGUI and Staxrip. It also comes with many psycho-visual enhancements like psycho-visual speed distortion optimization and adaptive quantization which is available in two modes.
This improves the video quality of the video encoded in the X encoder. Provides the high quality of videos encoded with advanced psycho-visual optimizations. It also supports many features that are used by different applications, including applications such as web videos, Blu-ray, low latency, and even TV broadcasts.
The Xvid encoder is a codec library for encoding and decoding video files while on the other hand, the X encoder is a software library for encoding videos in H.
X guarantees better video quality and also faster compression, but devices must be of the new age to support X Xvid is older but a more secure encoder. Your email address will not be published. The difference between Xvid and H. Although both Xvid and H. Xvid is a well-known open source codec, initially released in Originally it was developed as an outgrowth of the DivX codec.
Xvid has reigned supreme in the lossy compression codec arena for quite a long time. Its reputation had surpassed the popularity of the DivX codec. It was hailed for its ability to encode and decode video files even on weaker processors. Moreover, the Xvid codec allows users to encode and decode files at a relatively enhanced speed level. There is a major quality difference between the videos encoded in Xvid and X The difference between Xvid and X is that Xvid is an encoder that follows MPEG-4 part 2 video coding standard while X is an encoder that encodes video streams into H.
To clearly know the difference, one should know what video coding actually is. Video encoding is a process of converting source formal data usually in RAW format which occupies large capacity into small sized Docx or H. It can even be done by lowering the parameters of encoding in the same format it was encoded.
The source format is the final output to one or more specific encoded files. If the quality is set the same for both Xvid and X, video encoded in X will be of smaller size than the video encoded in the Xvid encoder.
Also, if the file size is set the same for the encoders, the video quality of X encoder will be better than the video quality of the Xvid encoder.
Xvid is not a format. Videos encoded with Xvid encoder can be decoded again with all the decoders that are MPEG-4 compatible.
At least that is what it should be, but. A noisy source requires a higher bitrate if you want to get about the same quality as from a clean source. Roughly speaking, a lot of your bits get spent on encoding noise instead of signal as the encoder has a hard time distinguishing them.
At least that is what it should be, but Yes, but a kbps encode from a clean source will look much better. With a cleaner source you can get away with less bits, so an even lower bitrate encode can still look better.
The answer that I gave was based on: quote: good x front end that is fairly easy to use, Handbrake for Windows is broken for many discs that I have tried Chapter navigation, audio and not as nearly as functional or easy to use.
I've been doing a lot of DVD rips lately. I've experimented with their h and xvid encodes, and have not seen any visual advantage to going with the h over the xvid when maintaining the same video bitrate. Most of the advances I've read about that h introduced seemed to be targetted at high resolutions and artifact reduction, but I honestly can't tell a difference.
So I've been ripping to xvid as a result. I can't watch the videos on my ipod or PSP as a result, but at least they play back on my xbox, which is where I'd rather watch them anyway. I'd go for VLC personally on the free end, as it's pretty easy.
It's not great in terms of options, but it works. However, keep in mind that results strongly depend on the encoder implementation. Enabling all the features of H. Also, I haven't yet seen an optimized fast codec compliant with the full H.
Just to confuse the issue, HandBreak Divx encoding is or at least was awful when compared to its h. I would suspect that at the sizes and rates your talking about, your issue is more with implementation rather than codec quality.
I second the nomination of megui for a front end encoder. Easy to use and very powerful. Also comes with basically all the tools you need. If you have any questions about options, bitrate or whatever, pop over to the doom9.
Agree with ease of use for Visual Hub. Easiest thing EVAR. A great tool that I use if I need to transcode a file for someone quickly and easily. It is not a tool that I'd use for having a lot of flexability in accessing the options of h though the gui though. With visual hub you get the standard Good-Better-Best encode slider bar, and some advanced bit-rate, deinterlacing, and cropping options or a CLI over-ride input dialogue box.
So its more of zomg-easy, easy-with-overrides, or CLI. Still a great app for drag-n-drop encoding - Very Suitable for quick eyetv transcodes What I use it for. I still prefer megui for real archival h, as I enjoy tuning my encodes and dont mind playing with my food to do so.
If the question is "Is x better than divx? Some say x is much better. This is at least according to some irc chatter I've read. Not that that is a great source.
0コメント