|
DivX files turning out smaller than they are
|
|
|
Khisanth
Member
|
14. January 2003 @ 17:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
how about doing a system restore to before it worked? It may be a bit overkill, but if it's really important it might work.
In the land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
wjd
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. January 2003 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I don't just system restore but once this week is over I will restore a working hard drive image and that should do the trick. Perhaps then I might know what the problem is if it shows it's head again.
Thanks,
Will
|
|
maggas
Junior Member
|
15. January 2003 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
No reply from divx yet :( but extensive reseach reseach on the net maked me conclude:
Divx 5.02 will act strange (due to its binary configuration)when its bitrate exceeds 150kb/s (1200kbit/s) and occationally lower bitrates when using its 2 - pass feature. So it does not matter if you reinstall everything, restore windows or whatever, this problem will occur :(
My advice is to not encode higher than 1000-1200 kbit/s and if problems occur then well... wait till divx 6 (if it happens) or some other codec (xvid once it is optimised) :( I'm sad :(
|
|
wjd
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. January 2003 @ 13:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah well that would make sense because I notived it first when encoding a file at 1246 kbps I think. I'm though I had encoded that high before but perhaps I haven't. Anyway, I could just encode at 1199 kbps.
BTW, my initial results with Xvid were quite impressive, at low bitrates anyway. I haven't really got time to investigate further at the moment but it does seem promising.
I should also mention that it isn't just a hacked Divx codec. As far as I am aware it was built from scratch. Much like DivX was with version 4.
Thanks for you help,
Will
|
|
Khisanth
Member
|
15. January 2003 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
hmmm, I wonder about that. I don't encode to anything lower than 1800kbs and haven't had the problems you mention. I've done at least a good 30 conversions
In the land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king
|
|
wjd
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. January 2003 @ 14:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I'm just about to encode a couple of movies at just below 1200 to see what turns up. I'm still not convinced that this is the problem. It would have been noticed ages ago! It must be a combination of things.
Please, anyone with any ideas I'm all ears!
Thanks,
Will
|
|
wjd
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. January 2003 @ 09:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I've just restored a fresh image of Windows XP and installed just divx and virtualdub and still file size was way under what it should have been. I'm lost as to what I should do next.
Someone must have another idea out there! It's driving me mad!
Thanks,
Will
|
|
maggas
Junior Member
|
17. January 2003 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
"""sorry if i am wrong about xvid wjd"""
i believe the dimensions of the file have something to do with it to. I ripped a 1.33:1 (4:3) movie recently "peter pan" (for my little cousin of course) and it turned out exactly to what i specified. I also ripped one of those 1950s cinemascope movies "the robe" 2.55:1 (for my mum of course) and it turned out smaller than i hoped.
640*480 peter pan
640*250 the robe
Maybe just maybe divx thinks all files are the same aspect ratio (stupid idea). So i tested it out. I ripped the robe with its black bars (kinda dumb) but the file turned out the right size!!!! i still kept the first rip though :)
so it must be a problem with divx somehow in its design or configuration or somehting.
My new advice... wait till i write again :)
|
|
wjd
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. January 2003 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow! I think you might have stumbled upon something! Good investigation work. I shall investigate further.
Will
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
maggas
Junior Member
|
20. January 2003 @ 05:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes i think i have stumbled across something and thanx.
no response from divx still!
I believe that it is a definate bug in divx and i hope they can fix it in a later release
|
