Is it worth learning to encode 2-pass Xvid?

[Tobriand]

I've done a fair bit of encoding using the 4.12 divx codec, mostly on 2-pass (always these days). Basically, I'm wondering if its worth the hassle to learn the ins and outs of 2-pass Xvid encoding and get a different codec (since I'm fairly certain the one I do have is waaaay too new). Do you actually get better quality to size ratio with it in 2-pass mode (1-pass is a given, I think)?

Most of the stuff I've done has turned out near perfect, but if I can get it smaller, that'd be nice.

 

[DarkGod]

Yes, it is worth it. It would depend on how you define "quality" to answer your question about better quality for XviD, however IMHO I prefer how XviD's compression looks in comparison to DivX 4.12. You should definitely learn more about it since its a great codec either way and if you already know most everything about DivX 4.12 it should not take long at all, except it may only come in handy for the GP32 since now the new 3ivx D4 4.5 is the best mpeg-4 codec to use for PC video encoding.

 

[Dweeze]

Using DivX 4.12 I found that a 2 pass reduces file size, increases quality and I could push the FPS up as well.
I would definetly recommend trying it.

 

[mek]

Read this codec comparison to learn more about the differences between codecs.

Here's the most important part:

So, if you want a fast, detailed and good looking codec, XviD is your codec. If you're mostly encoding animated content or value less blocks over details RV9 seems like a pretty good choice. DivX5, VP6 and NeroDigital are situated somewhere in between, none excelling in any area. I felt that NeroDigital was the least detailed of the trio. 3ivX and ffvfw could use some maturing.

So, Yes it's definately worth it. I suggest you start here.