H.264 vs. DivX........ WOW!

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Chase R, Jun 11, 2009.

  1. macrumors 65816

    Chase R

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    So I had some spare time to do a little comparing of H.264 and DivX yesterday. I knew that H.264 was more efficient than DivX but not by this much...

    I downloaded "American Gangster" (FXG) to compare with the same movie encoded in H.264 via HandBrake (I own the DVD).

    The DivX version of "American Gangster" hasd a bitrate of 831 kbit/s (128 kbit/s MP3 stereo). The H.264 version of "American Gangster" that I did ended up having a bitrate of 812 kbit/s (128 kbit/s AAC stereo). So the H.264 encode actually had a smaller bitrate, but still very close.

    These are the settings for the HandBrake H.264 encode:

    Type: MKV
    Frame Rate: 24p
    Anamorphic: Strict
    Audio: 128 kbit/s AAC stereo
    Target File Size: 700MB

    [​IMG]

    Holy-moly-cows was H.264 better than the DivX encode. It was very close in quality to the original DVD! The DivX one has clearly visible blocks in dark solid colors as well as in solid blue skies while the H.264 one didn't have much if any at all.

    I'm very surprised with how much better the H.264 encode was compared to the DivX one. Why does the "file-sharing" community still rely on DivX when H.264 is so much better?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    i.shaun

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    I like H.264 mp4 movies.

    All my handbrake encodes are done in .mp4 with average bitrate of 900kbps and MPEG-4 / AAC Audio

    It seems to be the most efficient setting I've found to preserve decent quality, and also keep the size down. Most movies will still be over 1GB, but barely (1.02GB or something). Some movies even output 800 or 900MB in size, which is good for saving space.


    I tried going lower than 900 kbps but the quality was unacceptable to me.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    #3
    Because people don't like change. Back in the days, DivX was the way to go, and DVD rips in DivX format with a file size around 700 MB was perfect because you could burn it on a CD-R and watch it in really good quality on your (CRT) television if your DVD player supported DivX.

    Now of course, we know better, and you're right about the fact that H.264 is a far superior codec compared to DivX. That's why all the HDTV rips and Blu-Ray rips (720p and 1080p) use the H.264 codec.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #4
    A downloaded DivX isn't directly comparable to a self-ripped H.264.

    If you want a proper comparison, you need to make sure that you encode equally. From the same source, using equivalent settings. (For example, did you do one-pass or two-pass encoding? That alone can make a big difference.)
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    #5
    I think divx is h.264 Main Profile while the x.264 encode you did was AVC. Not a valid comparison. What was the CPU usage like between the two?
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #6
    AVC is just the friendly name for H.264. AVC==H.264
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    #7
    Sorry, I meant divx uses mpeg4 MP.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    #8
    the community is already on x264 mkv 720p+1080p files :apple:
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    #9
    You have to take into account the number of people that own DivX capable DVD players too.
    Ripped at a higher bitrate the quality is comparable to DVD and I can backup 3-4 movies to a single DVD.
    The DivX 7 standard from DivX inc is simply h264/AAC in an MKV container, so I'm hoping we'll see some cheap disk players supporting it soon.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Chase R

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    I only did single pass.

    I know it's not the best comparison but still, for two movies encoded at the same bitrate (H.264 was actually a little lower), the difference is very big, much bigger than I would have expected.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    #11
    It should be. H.264 can use lower bitrates but requires more CPU or GPU power to decode.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    geoffreak

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    #12
    The "file sharing" communities are switching to h.264 already. Many groups have EOL'ed DIVX for all future releases just within the past few months.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #13
    just an fyi, hb has dropped xvid. it will not be in the next release.
     

Share This Page