[MPlayer-users] Re: divx 6

[Mathieu Monnier]

> No, there is absolutely no reason that the same "video renderer" needs
> to be used. Even if you do insist on that, using mplayer would have
> worked perfectly well for all of the codecs being tested, and works
> just fine on windows.

Mplayer can't be used to decode all the participating codecs, can it ( 
i'm actually not sure of the answer to that one, that's not only 
rhetorical ) ? If not, that means he would have to use two different 
softwares. And he would have no way to force them both to use the 
overlay/video renderer in the same way ( since, on windows, it's a 
complete mess )

Would I try to do such a test, I would dump all the encoded results to 
yuv/lossless files, in order to make sure nothing change the between the 
codec and the screen.

> More disadvantaged? More disadvantaged in what? The XVID IDCT issue
> was a completely separate thing a few weeks before the doom9 tests.
> Using a proprietary decoder of course makes it impossible to tell
> exactly what IDCT algo is being used,

Why do you switch back to IDCT ? I was speaking of the bug in XviD 
compliancy that made it be decoded badly by other decoders that are 
compliant.

 > I have never seen a
> legitimate comparison of xvid and lavc and in the absence of one I
> have no position on which produced better quality at the time, or
> which produces better quality now.

Ok

> But I'm sick of people putting words in my mouth.

Perhaps that's because you strongly sound like "lavc is much better than 
xvid" or "xvid is shit", even if you don't say so. At least, that's the 
impression I get when I read you.

>> You say things have changed since then.
> 
> Huh?!? Where did I ever say something to that effect??

Well you did say that the quality bugs were solved, and you implies 
quite strongly ( though not directly ) that these were one of the cause 
of lavc inferiority in the test :

 >> Much better? The doom9 comparison showed that lavc had problems with 
 >> fine details. But high-contrast edges were no problem for any of the 
 >> codecs.

 > There were two reasons for this: testing fallacies which doom9 refused
 > to acknowledge, and bugs.

BTW, you still didn't acknowledge that he used mencoder for encoding to 
lavc. You spread the word that he used ffdshow for encoding :

 > There are exactly two programs with which lavc encoding can be tested
 > validly: ffmpeg and mencoder. ffdshow, which I believe doom9 used,

While he clearly did not.

Regards,

Mathieu