Xvid - Why format exist?

[vodreaux]

Why does Xvid exist? I know it open source project Mpeg 4.

Xvid can not be played on most DVD Players including computers. You do need to get the codex for computer to play file. Xvid formated movies require conversion to other formats to be played on DVD Players.

Yet, Xvid format seems to be a perfer choice. It does take time to convert to other formats.

Unless I am missing something. It efficent format but tedious and annonying.

[DVWannaB]

Why does Xvid exist? I know it open source project Mpeg 4.

Well you just said it. It is an open source, continuing evolving and developing codec. It exists because it is pretty good at what it does, although not always the most intuitive or easy to use and configure.

Xvid can not be played on most DVD Players including computers.

Well that is true of all MPEG4 and MPEG4-like codecs (aka Micosoft WMV). There are more and more DivX/XviD DVD standalone players coming out every day. Even the larger well known manufacturers are starting to get on-board with players of their own.

You do need to get the codex for computer to play file

You stated that you need the codec on your computer to play an XviD movie, but isnt that true for RealVideo and Quicktime and others too.

Xvid formated movies require conversion to other formats to be played on DVD Players

I think thats true for all MPEG4 video files?

Yet, Xvid format seems to be a perfer choice. It does take time to convert to other formats.

Unless I am missing something. It efficent format but tedious and annonying.

It is preferred because it is widely regarded as the best of breed. I finally agree with your sentence. It can be annoying, particularly to encode and the confusing settings that it uses. But again, I attribute this to its developmental status. Right now I would consider XviD only for the die-hard beta testers or for video-philes who like challenges. It is definitely not for everyone.

[HDSN]

Hi

Is there an advantage of Xvid over Divx ???
What are the basic differences ??

Thanx

[D_Knife]

HDSN
the way I look at it is the xvid codec as mentioned are open source
so no ads/adware/spyware included

[DVWannaB]

Hi

Is there an advantage of Xvid over Divx ???
What are the basic differences ??

Thanx

I think this is true for most who work with these codecs. XviD is a faster encoder, gives better reproduction of the original source material and rate of improvement seems to be more dynamic, ie. the codec seems undergo a more active process and improvement environment.

DivX is more widely recognized, with their power to certify a player as DivX compatible or not. Obviuosly, they have more $$s and corporate backing, while XviD development are everyday users and developers with constant interaction and beta-testing.

[spectroelectro]

One advantage of Xvid is that because it's open-source,
I can (and have in fact) use it to encode in real-time
from my PCI video capture card. Also, Xvid has none
of the loathesome DRM garbage embedded in the
MS versions of DiVX, so there are no copy-prohibition
or play-prohibition flags to worry about. Not that this
has ever bothered anyone so inclined.
Xvid also comes with source included, so if you've a
mind to, you could even improve it. Unrolling those
inner DO loops and translate 'em into P4 machine
language, anyone?

[junkmalle]

A quick note for those of you who don't know:

DIVX and XVID are both MPG4 codecs and pretty much interchangeable. You can change the FOURCC code from XVID to DX50 and play XVID files with any DIVX player. And vice versa.

[WuphonsReach]

Since XVid is open-source, and there's a large motivated pool of developers who use it (even if they don't help programming the project), it's highly likely that the codec will still be around 10-20 years from now. It's the "MP3" format of the video world. People will be probably porting the XVid codec to every new system that comes along (if it's not already included).

OTOH, proprietary formats like WMV / QuickTime / Real can only be played on platforms that the manufacturer felt were worth developing for. Just like trying to play WMA files on non-Microsoft platforms.

[Suntan]

@junkmalle

Just to clairfy, Xvid uses/can use multiple B-frames which the Divx codec will just skip over. It also can use multiple matrices in the same video feed which is not mpeg 4 compliant. Although you do not need to use these settings, I believe that for multiple B-frames it results in much better video quality for the same bitrate.

@all
Yes Xvid can be more confusing, but it is not all that difficult to learn. If you already learned how to use Divx then the extra it takes to learn Xvid is a piece of cake. If you want to know more about Xvid and its different settings go here: http://www.vslcatena.nl/~ronald/docs/xvidfaq.html

If you want to take a look at a head to head of diffferent codecs look at Doom9's latest codec shootout, in which he picked Xvid as is favorite.

[eas]

One advantage of Xvid is that because it's open-source,
I can (and have in fact) use it to encode in real-time
from my PCI video capture card.

What does its open source nature have to do with the ability to encode in real time? Are you saying that because its open source, people have been able to tweak it to higher levels of performance than any of the closed source MPEG4 codecs?

[Greg12]

yes people do spend more time developing it.

[yautja666]

Yes Xvid can be more confusing, but it is not all that difficult to learn. If you already learned how to use Divx then the extra it takes to learn Xvid is a piece of cake.

Furthermore, Xvid can give good results with even just plain old default settings. I think it's the setup issues for the overall rip, like aspect ratio, deinterlacing, IVTC, cropping, etc., that cause the most confusion. It all takes time and patience, not to mention a lot of reading, but figuring out all the terms and options makes for a good learning experience (if video conversion is something you're truly interested in). I am living proof that it's possible to figure this stuff out strictly by scouring the guides at dvdrhelp.com and doom9.org.

[junkmalle]

Suntan,

Xvid uses/can use multiple B-frames which the Divx codec will just skip over.

Thanks for the info -- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by though. You mean when encoding you can specify alternate orders for the IBP frames? Like IBBPBBP... instead of IBPBPBP...? If the Divx player skipped the second B frames wouldn't the display get totally messed up? Unless it skipped to the next I frame, in which case the video would be "jumpy". I haven't seen any playback problems. Maybe I was just lucky and the files whos fourcc codes I changed from XVID to DX50 didn't use multiple B frames?

Oh, maybe you mean the IBP order can change in the middle of a file? Same with matrix too?

[Suntan]

@junkmalle

Yeah, I think it is like you said IBBPBBP... instead of IBPBPBP. Although not always, the codec decides how many consecutive frames are B (I think you can set a max of 5 consecutive but I wouldn't put money on it.) There have been very many debates over on the Doom9 Xvid forums about what will and will not work with respect to multiple B-VOPs (B-frames) and using packed bframes and the like with respect to other non-Xvid codecs. I noticed that the Divx codec would just skip over the extra bframes making the video jumpy. I didn't look at it too long so I can't say what it does to audio sync and the like. As for standalone mp4 players that debate is highly talked about over there as well.

For me, I use my computer to play them with ffDshow as the video codec and they look sweet upsampled to HD res!!

[RabidDog]

ANd for those who dont care to find out the inner workings of xvid or divx, just want an easy 2 use encoding solution, try autogk which is very simple. I prefer xvid over divx
1) I think it gives a sharper and better picture
2) its open source, free of baggage

However I dont think its a faster way to encode, using Autogk I find divx is 20%-50% faster, this time diff to me is trivial and as CPU gets better it will become even more trivial.

I watch mine on my Dvd player too!
AUtoGK .. free NOW

[Suntan]

@RabidDog

Actually I found that Xvid was quite faster than Divx for me. I figure about 20% (comparing RC1 & 2 to Divx 5.1.1 not that poky dog release 5.1) Never tested exactly because after a few test encodes with Xvid I never wanted to go back to Divx. I agree sharper and better picture.

I am running an anthlonXP (1900XP). What I have somewhat noticed, from comments by various people, is that a switch from Divx to Xvid is a speed increase if you run AMD and a speed decrease in you run Intel.

[RabidDog]

I run amd 2600 .. Still fast enough for me! I use autogk to encode 2 pass, same settings, same results.(divx faster than xvid)

[lordsmurf]

XVID/DIVX was larger compression with larger quality loss, though some will argue they perceive no difference between it and MPEG2.

Hey, illegal downloaders need a format too!

Like most other computers format, it exists because it can. While it may have originally been for XYZ purpose, it is now mostly a format for P2P files, most of them illegal.

It's a move in the right direction for the next good format, though people that think it will replace MPEG2 are honestly kidding themselves.

[DiablosuX102]

Hey, illegal downloaders need a format too!

hahaha, sad but true

[RabidDog]

mpeg2 is SOOO 20th century. mpeg4 will replace mpeg2 completely the same way vinyl replaced shellac.

[lordsmurf]

mpeg2 is SOOO 20th century. mpeg4 will replace mpeg2 completely the same way vinyl replaced shellac.

MPEG-2 may be 20th century, but MPEG-4 is half-ass whipped together with many flavors.

The whole idea of MPEG-4 is "hey, let's make MPEG-2 file sizes smaller and HOPE quality stays pretty good". Most fail, some do an admirable job. But nothing to date has wiped the floor with MPEG-2.

I doubt we'll see an MPEG-5 (instead look for something else with another name, possibly with more file integration similar to that ON2 or whatever-it-was-called format), but it will be the one after MPEG-4 that does the major damage to replacing MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 as a whole.

Keep an eye on MS for a "new-gen" version of WMV based on something other than MPEG-4. One that does HD and higher. They've already started, but I doubt it will be anything like the current HD-WMV they use here and there.

That's my opinion.

I think BJ_M has a pretty good opinion too, about what could be next.

[RabidDog]

Well yes mpeg4 is still a lossy compression method, like mpeg2,1 but like say ape audio files there will be lossless video compression (or less lossy) it just depends on the h/w requirements to play it back..hi-def is getting well finalized and lossless hi-def is going to require ????. I personally, on my tv, see very little diff between a good mpeg4 encode and the original source.

[Suntan]

@Lordsmurf


Yeah, we get that you don't like MP4, but but lets try to tone down the acusations.

I use MP4 because I can have a very good copy of my legally bought DVDs on my computer so I can watch them with a click of a button instead of having to go down to the basement to get the DVD.

Keep in mind also, that MP4 encodes start off with a lossy MPEG2 encode. I have no doubt, that for the same file size, a movie encoded from the source material one with Xvid and one with MPEG2 the Xvid copy would wipe the floor with MPEG2


@ Everyone Else

You can either listen to people's biased opinions (mine included) or you can go download the completely free MP4 programs/encoders and try them out for yourselves.