DivX-HD
By
Michael Baggaley,
published on July 5, 2006
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: hd, encoding, face, off
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: hd, encoding, face, off
Contents
4. DivX-HD
I ran a similar test using three DivX-HD compression settings with the results summarized in Table 3. The resolution on all three samples is again 1280x720, but the differences in quality are much more evident in Figure 4.
| DivX-HD | Bit Rate
(kbps) |
Encoded file size | File size per minute | Total encoding time | Encoding time per minute of video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Quality | 3417 kbps | 199 MB | 28 MB/Min | 16 Minutes | 2.28 minutes |
| Medium Quality | 2441 kbps | 147 MB | 21 MB/Min | 16 Minutes | 2.28 minutes |
| Low Quality | 1464 kbps | 95 MB | 14 MB/Min | 15 Minutes | 2.14 minutes |
Table 3: DivX-HD Encoding Comparison
I noticed that those same lines in between the high and medium samples had blurred a bit on the medium side, and the grass was much more blurry overall on the low sample. In fact, the low sample looked significantly worse than the other two. The extra 50 MB from Low to Medium quality really makes a difference in this case. And, of course, the bit rate also helps dictate the quality with DivX-HD files.
Figure 4: Three DivX-HD Quality settings (click on image to enlarge)
- Previous page WMV-HD
- Next page HD Vs. WMV-HD
WMV HD is far superior in the pic compared to the DivX HD.
While this comparison seems to be ok, you fail to mention the most important factor: Bitrate.
WMV HD is using 2 time the bitrate as Divx and Divx Still looks as good at 1/2 the file size. Maybe you should entered the same bitrate for both encoders next time you do a REAL COMPARISON.
Divx Rocks! Down with Microsoft. Check the Bitrate Dude. You should have let Tom do this comparison, cause yours suck.
Yup, this comparison needs a do-over. DivX rocks.