[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission (submission)

Guillaume POIRIER poirierg at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 14:39:56 CET 2005


On 12/15/05, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:


> For YEARS AND YEARS all mplayer developers have known from experience
> that lavc is superior in quality to xvid, while windows users have
> known the opposite. This idct discrepency would explain it.

That's quite possible. Just bear in mind that lavd has always been
used to decode all MPEG4 videos (because it was faster) when
apparently it would have been wise (before michaelni added xvid's idct
to lavc) to make mplayer use xvid's decoder.
In some way, mplayer devs have shot xvid in the foot :-P.

> Just a few hours ago Dominik was reencoding a h264 file he had to make
> it playable on his "slow" laptop. He tried both lavc and xvid and got
> vastly superior results with lavc (2.32 avg quant versus 2.82 -- avg
> quant is generally not a good metric of quality, but with this much
> difference it probably is, and he reported the lavc file looked better
> too).

I'm sure an xvid advocate could find encoding options that could yield
a quality similar to lavc. XviD, just like lavc also needs to be given
appropriate encoding options to yield the best possible quality. In a
nutshell: it's easy to blame so and so codec when in fact the problem
doesn't come from the codec but the thing between the keyboard and the


MPlayer's doc is offline. Find some fresh one here:

More information about the MEncoder-users mailing list