As I stated before I am really new to this stuff. I have a Panasonic PV-GS320 and VideoStudio 11 Plus with the latest patch and PowerPack. I plan to purchase the DivX codec because I saw in one of the tutorials that it was good to have. Finally my question: do I need the DivX convertor MPEG-2/DVD plug-in that they recommend (for an additional $10) or is the DivX Pro package alone adequate for my needs?
What a question......If I don't know my needs, how can you??? Oh well, it's worth a shot. Any advice you can offer will be appreciated.
Thank you!
DivX [Just another noobie question]
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
SoldOnParadise
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:07 pm
- Location: Maui, Hawaii
- Contact:
-
Ken Berry
- Site Admin
- Posts: 22481
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:36 pm
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: Gigabyte B550M DS3H AC
- processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
- ram: 32 GB DDR4
- Video Card: AMD RX 6600 XT
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: Kogan 32" 4K 3840 x 2160
- Corel programs: VS2022; PSP2023; DRAW2021; Painter 2022
- Location: Levin, New Zealand
The DivX Converter is a drag and drop program where you drop an mpeg-2 into it and it converts it to DivX. Leaving VS and editing completely aside for the moment, it is a useful tool in its own right if you are wanting to do something quickly and simply.
On the other hand, with the DivX Pro codec installed, it is picked up by VS11.5+ (as an .avi). When you choose to convert a project in the VS timeline to DivX, then you choose the DivX codec and its control panel opens for you to configure the end product the way you want.
DivX is a huge subject in its own right, and you can produce pretty mediocre but very small files; up to very high quality but larger files. Still, even with the high quality settings, you can fit around an hour of DivX video onto a CD (and I mean CD, not DVD). Reduce its quality just a little and you can fit a whole movie onto a CD -- hence its popularity!
There is moreover an increasingly large range of modern stand-alone DVD players (particularly in the past year or so) which can detect DivX video on a CD or DVD and play it. A very much smaller number of players will also play DivX menus authored in the DivX Author package. Otherwise, if you have a common or garden variety of DivX-capable player, it will only play the main feature without menu.
Getting back to your original question, though, no you don't really need the converter if you have VS, but for $10, it is a cheap and useful tool for other purposes.
On the other hand, with the DivX Pro codec installed, it is picked up by VS11.5+ (as an .avi). When you choose to convert a project in the VS timeline to DivX, then you choose the DivX codec and its control panel opens for you to configure the end product the way you want.
DivX is a huge subject in its own right, and you can produce pretty mediocre but very small files; up to very high quality but larger files. Still, even with the high quality settings, you can fit around an hour of DivX video onto a CD (and I mean CD, not DVD). Reduce its quality just a little and you can fit a whole movie onto a CD -- hence its popularity!
There is moreover an increasingly large range of modern stand-alone DVD players (particularly in the past year or so) which can detect DivX video on a CD or DVD and play it. A very much smaller number of players will also play DivX menus authored in the DivX Author package. Otherwise, if you have a common or garden variety of DivX-capable player, it will only play the main feature without menu.
Getting back to your original question, though, no you don't really need the converter if you have VS, but for $10, it is a cheap and useful tool for other purposes.
Ken Berry
As fas as I know the Mpeg Plugin for Divx enables the Divx Converter to be able to read mpeg2 files.
This plugin is not necessary if you plan to use VS11+ to convert the videos to Divx.
Divx is nice for High Definition, for Standard Definition I can't see the benefit unless you want to send the videos via the internet to someone. But like Ken says it will reduce the filesizes so you can put the videos even onto a CD. When is the last time I burnt a CD? Hmmm......
Using Divx reduces the filesize, but the Windows format WMV also works great for doing this and the windows converter/encoder is free.
I use Divx for High Definition, with that it does a great job reducing the filesizes to 1/3 or less of the original file.
The new AVC/H264 codec will also do this but requires a fast cpu.
Divx will work on a P4 without any problems, avc/h264 HighDef will have problems on a P4.
Not long back the Mpeg2 plug-in was included for free if you bought Divx, that was a limited time special offer.
This plugin is not necessary if you plan to use VS11+ to convert the videos to Divx.
Divx is nice for High Definition, for Standard Definition I can't see the benefit unless you want to send the videos via the internet to someone. But like Ken says it will reduce the filesizes so you can put the videos even onto a CD. When is the last time I burnt a CD? Hmmm......
Using Divx reduces the filesize, but the Windows format WMV also works great for doing this and the windows converter/encoder is free.
I use Divx for High Definition, with that it does a great job reducing the filesizes to 1/3 or less of the original file.
The new AVC/H264 codec will also do this but requires a fast cpu.
Divx will work on a P4 without any problems, avc/h264 HighDef will have problems on a P4.
Not long back the Mpeg2 plug-in was included for free if you bought Divx, that was a limited time special offer.
-
SoldOnParadise
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:07 pm
- Location: Maui, Hawaii
- Contact:
Unless you need to do HD encoding, the free DivX pack is all you need. DivX pro won't give any advantage for SD resolution video.
When dabbling with DivX myself, I had no success with DivX Converter - the output was terrible! By contrast, I've had very good results from AutoGK, another freeware program, but it's not quite "drag and drop".
Although, as Ken says, AVC and H.264 encoding will require a modern pc for HD playback, a P4 is just fine for SD resolution. The quality is markedly better, for the same file size, than DivX (or Xvid, which I feel is superior to DivX) and the encoding time is roughly comparable.
Unfortunately, VS is very limited in its H.264 encoding ability - it offers just a few encoding profiles, and can't make the best use of the H.264 codec or use the even better open source x264 codec. Maybe VS12 will add some additional functionality.
Why would anyone want to use H.264 for SD resolution? Well how about being able to put 10 hours of high quality video onto a single layer DVD. The downside of course is that it would only be suitable for playback on a pc, but there are still plenty of uses. I take lots of home movie footage with me on my laptop when I'm away on business trips, which in mpeg2 format would be too much to fit on the drive or an inconvenient and fragile bunch of disks to carry around.
When dabbling with DivX myself, I had no success with DivX Converter - the output was terrible! By contrast, I've had very good results from AutoGK, another freeware program, but it's not quite "drag and drop".
Although, as Ken says, AVC and H.264 encoding will require a modern pc for HD playback, a P4 is just fine for SD resolution. The quality is markedly better, for the same file size, than DivX (or Xvid, which I feel is superior to DivX) and the encoding time is roughly comparable.
Unfortunately, VS is very limited in its H.264 encoding ability - it offers just a few encoding profiles, and can't make the best use of the H.264 codec or use the even better open source x264 codec. Maybe VS12 will add some additional functionality.
Why would anyone want to use H.264 for SD resolution? Well how about being able to put 10 hours of high quality video onto a single layer DVD. The downside of course is that it would only be suitable for playback on a pc, but there are still plenty of uses. I take lots of home movie footage with me on my laptop when I'm away on business trips, which in mpeg2 format would be too much to fit on the drive or an inconvenient and fragile bunch of disks to carry around.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
Have you done this getting "High Quality" video?Why would anyone want to use H.264 for SD resolution? Well how about being able to put 10 hours of high quality video onto a single layer DVD
My encodes with h264 using 1/2 the bit-rate of the original videos codec (mpeg2) seems to work well. So that would be about 2 hours or slightly above 2 hours of SD on a single sided dvd.
I've also found that encoding h264 requires the source to be high quality for the codec to work properly.
I have converted some DV.avi to 1440x1080 at 8MBS VBR using MF6+. Average bit-rates end up around 4-5MBS. They look ok.
I have to admit I haven't converted that many SD to H264. Seemed like it was better to stay with mpeg2. Some of the encodes weren't that good for SD.
I've played around a bit encoding to H.264 with VS11. Apart from being able to alter the bitrate, you have very limited access to the H.264 settings. I can understand that in a way, since users could easily mess things up.
By contrast, however, the open source freeware program MeGUI gives you access to the full confusion of parameters. In practice, you generally select from one of many "profiles" created by more experienced users, some of whom are the program developers.
MeGUI furthermore is able to make use of the open source x264 codec, which has even more features. It is to H.264 what Xvid is to DivX.
For the best results, you can use one of the highest quality profiles. This results in very protracted encoding times, but the quality is significantly better than you can achieve with VS.
For example, I ran some tests on a short clip featuring my daughter and her dog walking along a sandy trial. The sandy bit is fairly low contrast, and VS would produce an H.264 file with visible macroblocks which appeared to flash as they switched. To get rid of the effect, I had to pump up the data rate to very high levels - like 50% of the mpeg2 bitrate. That defeats the whole object of H.264.
Using one of the high quality profiles with MeGUI, I could select a video bitrate of about 900kbps and get great results.
Now I think that it would be unrealistic for VS to have the full range of parameters available to the user to mess with. Instead, there should be more encoding profiles to choose from. If these were customisable, more experienced users could develop profiles which could be posted for others to try.
Apologies if I've drifted too far off the main topic!
By contrast, however, the open source freeware program MeGUI gives you access to the full confusion of parameters. In practice, you generally select from one of many "profiles" created by more experienced users, some of whom are the program developers.
MeGUI furthermore is able to make use of the open source x264 codec, which has even more features. It is to H.264 what Xvid is to DivX.
For the best results, you can use one of the highest quality profiles. This results in very protracted encoding times, but the quality is significantly better than you can achieve with VS.
For example, I ran some tests on a short clip featuring my daughter and her dog walking along a sandy trial. The sandy bit is fairly low contrast, and VS would produce an H.264 file with visible macroblocks which appeared to flash as they switched. To get rid of the effect, I had to pump up the data rate to very high levels - like 50% of the mpeg2 bitrate. That defeats the whole object of H.264.
Using one of the high quality profiles with MeGUI, I could select a video bitrate of about 900kbps and get great results.
Now I think that it would be unrealistic for VS to have the full range of parameters available to the user to mess with. Instead, there should be more encoding profiles to choose from. If these were customisable, more experienced users could develop profiles which could be posted for others to try.
Apologies if I've drifted too far off the main topic!
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
2Dogs,
No, not at all drifting off subject.
MF6+ lets you adjust the H264 encodings. MF6+ also does a nice job with 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 framesizes.
I have to try MeGUI, sounds like the program "SUPER", I wonder if it's also using FFMpeg to encode the h264 videos with. There are a few technical differences in the H264 encodings to classify them as AVCHD compliant. I still have to learn them.
Ulead is using the MainConcept H264 encoder.
Encoding h264 at 1/2 the bit-rate of a source Mpeg2 file would be normal. Some go slightly above 1/2, maybe 60%. But, like in MF6+ I'll encode source videos that are HDV-Mpeg2@25MBS 1440x1080 to H264 1440x1080 using 18MBS Variable Bit Rate. When played back the average h264 bit rate yields between 10MBS-11MBS. The quality is still fine.
I think when encoding Standard Def I'd rather use DV as the source, the mpeg2 rendered from a dv source has some loss.
Also I might add that my MF6+ h264 encodes come out better than VS11+ h264 encodes.
No, not at all drifting off subject.
MF6+ lets you adjust the H264 encodings. MF6+ also does a nice job with 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 framesizes.
I have to try MeGUI, sounds like the program "SUPER", I wonder if it's also using FFMpeg to encode the h264 videos with. There are a few technical differences in the H264 encodings to classify them as AVCHD compliant. I still have to learn them.
Ulead is using the MainConcept H264 encoder.
Encoding h264 at 1/2 the bit-rate of a source Mpeg2 file would be normal. Some go slightly above 1/2, maybe 60%. But, like in MF6+ I'll encode source videos that are HDV-Mpeg2@25MBS 1440x1080 to H264 1440x1080 using 18MBS Variable Bit Rate. When played back the average h264 bit rate yields between 10MBS-11MBS. The quality is still fine.
I think when encoding Standard Def I'd rather use DV as the source, the mpeg2 rendered from a dv source has some loss.
Also I might add that my MF6+ h264 encodes come out better than VS11+ h264 encodes.