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

Michael Niedermayer michaelni at gmx.at
Sun Dec 18 02:41:40 CET 2005


On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:10:51AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:05:13PM +0100, Doom9 Feedback Hotline wrote:
> [...]
> > >for atemeActually, the auto idct selection seems not to work when you use 
> > >the MP4 container (see this: 
> > >http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=104143)And from past experience 
> ill look into this
> > >and experience during this comparison, I actually find the result of 
> > >decoding xvid decoded by xvid more visuallypleasing than when xvid is 
> > >decoded by lavc (and that's in the avi container where the auto idct 
> > >selection works just fine).XviD stands a lot less to lose by being decoded 
> mplayer ~/mpc2/samsung_t20/home/michael/videos/310058.avi -lavdopts idct=14 -vo md5sum
> mplayer ~/mpc2/samsung_t20/home/michael/videos/310058.avi -vc xvid -vo md5sum
> 310058.avi uses mpeg_quant, qpel and gmc
> md5s match so theres no difference between lavc and xvid decoders
> files with b frames have different md5 sums ill try to figure out why

b frame files are binary identical too (ignoring an initial black? frame
xvid outputs) if -noslices is used, so i would guess there might be a
problem with slices + vo md5sum

PS: b frame file generated by ffmpeg with 2 bframes and 4mv, if anyone has
a non broken file which decodes binary differently with lavc & xvid (assuming
xvid idct, bitexact mode, w&h %16 == 0 and such) then iam interrested in
seeing it


More information about the MEncoder-users mailing list