Small DivX files - what am I missing?

[Kooldino]

Ok, so in case you missed it, I posted a recent vid here:

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?t=54017

It's about 15MB, 640x480, low fi mono MP3 audio, 1:07 long.

So you gotta figure around 13MB a minute for that kind of quality.

This really makes me wonder - the guys who make 699MB high res DivX rips of full length movies...how do they do it? What are they doing that I'm not? Are they dropping frames or something?

[Nowhere]

resolution (together with 16:9)
together with some minor settings probably... (dunno what settings)

[LvR]

Multipass rendering, fewer I frames, better compession algorithms etc etc

[Kooldino]

Multipass rendering, fewer I frames, better compession algorithms etc etc

so the multipass rendering...it will just take longer for me to encode, but performance in the user end will be the same?

Fewer I frames is good? I typically use them somewhat frequently since my stuff is usually high motion.

[LvR]

Performance on the user's end should in theory improve with multi-pass encoding:

What effectively happens if the encoder is well designed is that some bandwidth is stolen from places where its not required (static etc) and its given to the places where it can serve a better purpose (action etc). It will also produce the smallest file possible since it doesn't encode at high rates if its not required.

Fewer I frames can be either good or bad - function of your material .................. fewer I frames will most likely result in smaller files (not necessarily, but likely) - more I frames does not imply better visual quality by default - its a function of the encoder design - and if the encoder is working really well, then you should be able to get a way with 1 only I frame in the beginning of the file. I frames makes editing of the material easier/faster - it doesn't improve visual quality by its mere presence (in a mpeg stream anyway)

[Dr Mordrid]

If you're using DivX 6 you're working at a disadvantage. It's been producing larger files than DivX 5, and lots of people are complaining about it. It also won't show up in the codec list of many apps.

Dr. Mordrid

[Kooldino]

Yeah, I'm using 5.x since I heard bad things about 6.

I don't understand why 6 is worse.

[Dr Mordrid]

Because they tried to change/add too many things at once with a small dev. team. It's different for a company like Ulead who can add 50+ programmers at the drop of a hat, but DivX is a small outfit.

Dr. Mordrid