detail information

Very interesting article! I'm quite amazed that such a new codec as Nero Digital can compete and beat DivX and Xvid.
I'm also looking forward to a test that also includes RealVideo 9 and Quicktime. Those codecs are also better than DivX.

nice review

gonna play with some settings.

What i ask myself is, how popular will this became

But I guess there will never be standalone players, which are capable of RealVideo or Quicktime.

I have to disagree that your screenshots of Nero Recode look as good as DivX. Slightly blurry if you ask me. And of course, in the hands of somebody who uses VDub or GKnot, DivX should be even better.

A very badly chosen screenshots if you ask me. All very dark with faded backgrounds and the only one that has enough color levels has a different captured frame for the Nero codec.
I think that with more adecuated captures the diferences between codecs would show easily.
Not suspicious but i don't like it.

I would agree with the comments about the screen shots. Would it really have been that difficult to pause and frame step to an exact time frame in the video and then take screen shots? I also have different results to speak of. I was initially excited about Recode2 and am still hopeful for it. I'm particularly excited about using AAC at 64kbps to give more headspace for the video! This review however did not bother to mention the Dr.Divx software which is very much as easy to use as Recode2, has auto clipping and resizing as well. Also, the author of the article failed to mention what standard of the Divx Pro codec was used. Was it standard, high definition or what?

To compare on my own I encoded the movie , Bend It Like Beckham, with Recode 2 using its default settings to a, dual pass, 705MB file size. Mind you the bitrate was noted as higher than when I encoded the same movie with DrDivx, the difference being the audio. DrDivx was also encoded using dual-pass, and standrard high definition certification levels. DrDivx uses mp3 (I can't seem to get an answer as to whether it is the standard codec or the Pro version) and I encoded at 128kbps. Hence the video bitrate allocated for the Divx file was less than that for Recode2. DrDivx, in light of the additional audio bitrate, also resized the video to a smaller size to account for the video bitrate decrease. To accomodate this I resized the window to the size indicated for the Recode2 version.

Even given these changes, lower overall video bitrate stretched to non-ideal frame size, The Divx file by in large showed less blockiness and even a more crisp picture. The Recode2 image in general looked softer and slightly foggy. So in case you haven't gotten my drift, I disagree with the results of the review. Given time I'd be willing to post my screen shots if anyone is interested.

Lastly I do appreciate the reviewer taking a novices perspective in the review. I would be curious (and am intending to explore) the encoding fps and quality when the expert setting are all turned on. Yes Recode2 is drastically faster at encoding than the Dr/Divx codec but at what cost? I'm more than willing to set up Dr.Divx to encode at its highest quality settings, dual, and then nth pass if it means a better picture than a more speedy codec. I'm excited bout the possibility of DrDivx incorporating AAC into their software! I hope it happens!

Ok ok, I'm done now.

Thank you very much for your feedback, it's much appreciated. We would be very intrested in your screenshots. You can put them online on our Nero Recode Forum. You can click the link at the end of review (slightly above the reactions).

For your other questions, Dennis (the reviewer) will likely be better able to answer them.

Dr. Divx didn't work for me. It took much too long to produce a file and titles were not positioned properly.

I'm quite satisfied with the performance of Nero Digital.

We all definitely have our opinions about which codecs are superior, but I look at what devices these videos will play on. I am an avid media center user, along with an extender (my Xbox 360). I recently switched to Nero Digital H.264 since it is supported on my iPod and my Xbox (strange...both Microsoft and Apple...). I personally find Divx & Xvid to get a little blocky/choppy, but I don\\\'t think there\\\'s a big difference. I probably would not have even gone to H.264, but since Xbox\\\'s and ipods don\\\'t support Divx/Xvid, I felt it was time for a change.

Besides, I find Nero Recode to be a simple program that will give me good quality videos with AC-3 audio - all in a neat package.

My first mp4 video had audio only. Black screen. Looking on google shows this problem is quite common.

I am currently comparing Xvid on AutoGK with H.264/AVC on Nero Encode 3 .
I can't really comment on quality as I can't really see any difference due to the fact that AutoGK's default settings are better than most OS conversion software.
However, I can say that to my surprise my comparison shows the exact opposite of Dennis' review.

I have found AutoGK a lot faster at producing comparable results.
I am not sure why but on my set-up Nero Recode's 3 2-pass to AVC takes almost 3 hrs whilst the same movie takes about 1 hr 40 min on AutoGK's 2-pass encoding to Xvid.

I was very disappointed after all the hype about Nero Recode's two pass encoding speed and was hoping to use the the new H.264 codec to backup my movie collection.

Coincidently, I also noticed that AutoGK's 1-pass Target Quality Encoding is far better and faster than Recode's 1-pass encoding and can render a high quality backup with a target quality setting of 60% in about 1 hr on my setup. (the down side is that you cannot specify target size, though, the average output size is between 900MB - 1300MB which is exactly what I need any way as I'm backing-up to my HD)

I'm going to try other OS softwares SUPER and MeGui to see if they are any faster. I'll let you know how that goes.

I'm using a Dual Core 2 CPU 2.00 GHZ with 4GB or Ram.

sorry I actually meant tosya Nero's Recode took 4 hrs not 3 hrs.