You guys really should try this CoDec

[MadSkillzMan]

in my never ending search for HQ/size ratio codec, i thought i was happy with the DIVX;-). THe legal divx5.2.1 just...well sucked IMO. even w. Dr Divx.

But, screw divx. Check this codec out:

http://www.on2.com/

all you video people try it out yourself. youll love it. I compressed an 8minute, 1.8gb DV video into 32mb and hardly lost quality. Initial size was 720x480, dropped it to 352x240....no more scanlines, hardly see ANY pixelation. The encode time was above realtime (altough i am a dually user). the divx file was 24.8mb, the vp62 file was 32mb. yea, 8 megs, but the difference=wow! i wish they put out dvd players with vp62 support.

[Steelpuma]

Its a nice Codec, it seems to be on par with Xvid and DivX.

[MadSkillzMan]

i was reading some arguments in the divx codec forums..they cant seem to admit this codec is pretty darn good...its too new to play on DVD plays though, which sucks

[David]

It looks to be Windows only so far?

[MadSkillzMan]

sadly yes...and me wanting to move to mac ...this isnt good...but hey, while im here in x86 hell i guess ill just make the best of it.

[GerrFel]

Until it hits mainstream, I'll stick with DivX.

[Dragonprince]

1.8 gig into 32 meg with little loss in quality? Seems almost to good to be true, which reminds me of something my grandfather taught me...

[ziggo0]

What did you use to encode the video with? I wanna give it a try

[MadSkillzMan]

i used ulead...premeire has horrible render times...

1.8gb, that was raw uncompressed, 720x480, 16bit stereo sound. the output was 352x250 (or similar) with mp3 sound, 56 kb/sec (cant remember the frequency) i THOUGHT itd sound horrible, but it turned out pretty good. the motion was much better than Divx;-). it was a film of us shooting another heavy peice of metal through a busted CRT. DIVX would blur the projectile, even in the slow-mo replay. this codec, did not. ill try to post screen shots later.

[PhobMX]

i used ulead...premeire has horrible render times...

1.8gb, that was raw uncompressed, 720x480, 16bit stereo sound. the output was 352x250 (or similar) with mp3 sound, 56 kb/sec (cant remember the frequency) i THOUGHT itd sound horrible, but it turned out pretty good. the motion was much better than Divx;-). it was a film of us shooting another heavy peice of metal through a busted CRT. DIVX would blur the projectile, even in the slow-mo replay. this codec, did not. ill try to post screen shots later.

you should try he-aac, it would sound neatrly at 56kb/s

[MadSkillzMan]

ill take u up on that suggestion.

[svnrd]

the reason the was barely any quality loss is cause the res is a 4th of what is originally was. but hey, if it doesn't blur during action, it's still better than divx:)

[MadSkillzMan]

yea i just shrunk it for space sakes

we shot a 3lb peice of stock out of my spud cannon at a old monitor...ud just hear the sounds and see a hole appear, even after using divx;-) hi motion. even the slow motion replays, ud see maybe a grey cloud. this thing preserves it completely.

[Gnerma]

From my experience, knowing the ins and outs of how to use a codec properly on the source you are working with is much more important than which particular codec you happen to be using.

[Xenocide]

xvid is by far my favorite codec

[SavageBasher]

xvid is by far my favorite codec

Ditto. That, and AAC for audio.