Difference between divx and xvid, and the best codec available?

[acommuter]

Hi,

I'm just wondering what the differences are between divx and xvid? Also, I currently use the codec from divx.com which seems to work with nero for encoding to vcd. Is this codec from divx.com the best?

Thanks.

[Nelson37]

I can give a definitive answer on that question.

But first, you must tell me which apple pie is best, which brand of car is best, which color is best, which sport is best, are we getting the picture? It is an opinion, and just like anuses, everybody has one and some are better than others.

The DIVX codec performs NO FUNCTION and CANNOT BE USED to make a VCD. If you think that it does, there is a whole lot more to discuss.

XVID is basically the free version of DIVX, which (Divx) originated from stolen Microsoft code. XVID is written from scratch, SFAIK, and IMO is slightly superior to Divx. The two are basically interchangeable in terms of reading each other's files.

Oh, and Nero is just about the worst encoder available. An average burning program, but a crappy encoder.

[suppafreak]

So if some of the newer DVD player says they can read Divx, does it means that they can read Xvid?

[Rockas]

Yes... it can read Xvid

[jagabo]

So if some of the newer DVD player says they can read Divx, does it means that they can read Xvid?

Usually.

[Rockas]

Sometimes those players brings surprises... I bought a $60 one that said it could play MP3... found out yesterday that it plays MP3 and it even plays WMA?!?!?!
I'll test it for WMV soon (as it plays Divx/Xvid)

edit: typo

[acommuter]

Thanks for the replies.

So within Nero, I select a VCD project and move a divx/xvid avi file in. I notice the divx icon appear in the task bar when Nero begins encoding. Once encoded, it's begin to burn to CD.

I can't be sure that divx is being used to encode, but it's definately weird it starts automatically when encoding begins.

If nero is not good for encoding, then what tool is better, just as fast and will provide a format that can be burned to CD or DVD?

TIA.

[Eyedoctor2]

I have personally gotten great results using: http://www.videohelp.com/tools/FairUse_Wizard

[redwudz]

Nero is probably using the Divx codec to read the file, then using a MPEG encoder to convert to the standard MPEG-1 for a VCD. For the VCD specification look to the upper left on this page for 'WHAT IS' VCD. TMPGEnc is a better encoder, IMO, than Nero for this. And it's freeware for MPEG-1. And for a few $ VCDEasy may be the best choice for authoring your encoded MPEG-1 files to the VCD format. There is also a freeware older version of VCDEasy still available.

[Marvingj]

DivX 3.x
Advantages :
Good compression, even though less advanced compression features are used
Better compatibility
Disadvantages :
DivX 3.x not entirely legal (hacked codec)
Outdated - does not have advanced compression features of DivX 5.x
Hard to control final file size

DivX 5.x
Advantages :
Great for controlling final file size (eg. for fitting onto one 700 MB CD)
More advanced compression features (eg. DivX Pro : multi-pass, bi-directional enc, GMC, Qpel), which may give better compression
Completely legal solution
Disadvantages :
DivX Pro not 100% free (free ad supported version or purchase required)

XviD 1.x
Advantages :
Great for controlling final file size (eg. for fitting onto one 700 MB CD)
More advanced compression features (eg. 2-pass, bi-directional enc, GMC, Qpel), which may give better compression
Completely legal and open source solution
Disadvantages :
Less common than DivX
XviD slightly harder (less consumer friendly) to configure than DivX

Okay, time to get my rest.

[acommuter]

This is great information. Nice to know the differences between Divx and Xvid and the difference tools members use to get the job done. Great Site!

I get the impression Xvid is the better format/method all round.

Thanks.

[jagabo]

Divx can be up to 3 times faster than Xvid at similar settings.

[acommuter]

In retrospect, I should have asked another question or two. For example:

1) I download a TV show in Xvid or Divx format and want to play it on my DVD player. I've tried and used VCD because these TV shows often come in CD sizes. i.e. 600MB or so. Is VCD the best option for quality and encoding speed in this case? Maybe there's an equally quick way (1 hour of encoding and burning for an hour worth of TV show) with better quality?

2) Maybe VCD is best for stuff I download in PAL?

Thanks.

[lordsmurf]

1. Size of the source file DOES NOT MATTER in any way. If you want quality, encode to DVD. Better yet, stop downloading. Watch off tv, or wait for the DVD release, and buy those. This assumes what you want is shown in your area (if not, no choice).

2. The second question makes no sense at all.

[acommuter]

I asked the PAL question was because I'm assuming Xvid and Divx can be encoded in either PAL or NTSC?

[Marvingj]

How to convert DIVX Format file into XVID Format file?

OK that is a valid reason. Let's do a two pass encode, this will give us the best possible quality.

1) Load the file into virtualdub.
2) Select video->fast recompression, audio->'Direct Stream copy'
3) Select video->compression, Select Xvid Mpeg-4, configure, and set encoding mode to '2-pass first pass', and click OK, OK.
4) Select File->'Save as AVI', in the save menu, check 'Add operation to joblist and defer processing'. And Save the file under a new name.
5) Select video->compression, Select Xvid Mpeg-4, configure, and set encoding mode to '2-pass second pass int.', set the desired filesize (minus the audio) and click OK, OK.
5b) You can check the size of the audio track by selecting File->'File Information', The last number in the last field is the audio size in KB.
6) Select File->'Save as AVI', in the save menu, check 'Add operation to joblist and defer processing'. And Save the file under a new name (it's OK to use the same file name for the first and second pass)
7) Select File->'Job Control' and click start.

[robertazimmerman]

But first, you must tell me which apple pie is best

Mom's

which brand of car is best

Porsche, followed closely by BMW

which color is best

Blue, of course

which sport is best

Scuba diving

are we getting the picture?

Only if the fine tuning is set properly

[Rockas]

But first, you must tell me which apple pie is best

None... don't like pies

which brand of car is best

My car, of course

which color is best

RED, no doubts about it

which sport is best

Soccer

are we getting the picture?

If only people stopped discussing the angels' sex!

[wiseant]

Divx can be up to 3 times faster than Xvid at similar settings.

Hi jagabo: Can you elaborate on this? which version(s) of DivX and XviD? what source material did you test? any other information would be welcome ... Thanks!

[jagabo]

Divx can be up to 3 times faster than Xvid at similar settings.

Hi jagabo: Can you elaborate on this? which version(s) of DivX and XviD? what source material did you test? any other information would be welcome ... Thanks!

Some examples: http://forum.videohelp.com/topic327969.html#1696170

[Rockas]

Check out this:

http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm

that is a documented test.

edit: Link

[Rockas]

Or even better:
http://www.doom9.org/codec-comparisons.htm

Just check the 2005 tests, of course

[jagabo]

Check out this:

http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm

that is a documented test.

edit: Link

That's at least a year and a half old. This is important because Divx has made a lot more progress than Xvid in the last year or two. Especially concerning encoding speed. Up until this year I used Xvid almost exclusively but Divx's encoding speed with nearly as good quality has made it much more compelling than it was.

[Rockas]

Those tests remain valid.
DivX 6.1 was used.

If such a break through as you describe happened... divx would be 7.x by now... it isn't, is it?

edit: remember that the speed is variable according to the source... and... most important... there is a great difference between progressive and interlaced material.

[jagabo]

Try it yourself.

[Rockas]

Don't have the time, sorry

I'm quite busy on other areas but I always find the time to check out good elaborated tests and comparisons.

My contributions to the community are on different areas like audio or/and Mpeg2/DVD related.

[jagabo]

Don't have the time, sorry :)

If you were using Divx instead of Xvid you'd have the time! LOL

[Rockas]

No... i don't use one or another... just pointed to a test so people can read and access data and really compare the results.

something like:

624x352 frame, Divx 6.5x:
fastest: 142 fps
balanced (default): 105 fps
insane: 33 fps

624x352 frame, Xvid 1.2x alpha:
default (MSP=6, VHQ=1): 34 fps
slowest (MSP=6, VHQ=4): 25 fps

320x240 frame, Divx 6.5x:
balanced: 339 fps

Tells me nothing about a comparison... all is stated are fps... no access to the kind o sources and how the test was made...

I don't care which is faster or which as better quality... I don't use them... but as I said... I'm always interested in well documented tests... you can make one and then... when people ask similar questions I will point them to your published work without stating my opinion 'cause I can't give it.

ps. I even updated my signature so I can prove my lack of time for mpeg4 tests lol

edit: typo

[wiseant]

Thanks for the links jagabo and Rockas . . .
Obviously I need to do some tests myself - what I was hoping for was some parameters to use so the comparisons are as equal as possible especially when comparing DivX 6.6 to XviD-1.1.2

Any thoughts?

[Rockas]

yep

Obviously I need to do some tests myself

you answered yourself

We can exchange ideas or theories but the final word will always be yours 'cause we can't discuss tastes.
Just as an example... I may prefer a smooth image while you may prefer a sharp one... so... what will be good for me will be crap for you and vive versa, right?