New DivX release on Labs

[thedivxkid]

DivX Labs has some new releases

http://labs.divx.com/

Check out the new beta versions of DivX and the new DivX Media File format that includes menus, subtitles, multiple audio tracks chapters etc...

thekid...

[State Of Mind]

DivX sucks. XviD rules. This is not a biased statement. I've experimented with both codecs intensively.

[ViRaL1]

DivX sucks. XviD rules. This is not a biased statement. I've experimented with both codecs intensively.

Who pulled your string?

[Soopafresh]

Uh oh.... BUMP !!!!

[celtic_druid]

In this instance we would be talking about DXN's hack to extend the avi container to support menu's and not their video codec, which I think pretty much everyone would agree is not as good as XviD.

XviD doesn't do menu's or other stuff that a codec shouldn't like resizing, etc. That is not to say that you can't do menu's, subtitles, multiple audio tracks, etc. and still have XviD video. XviD is MPEG4 and the mp4 container supports all of that stuff. Hell even a regular avi can have multiple audio streams and subtitles.

[BJ_M]

isnt this also a new codec also ? some addition features not in 5.2 ...

have not tried it though ... been really happy w/ xvid for hd

[lordsmurf]

DivX sucks. XviD rules. This is not a biased statement. I've experimented with both codecs intensively.

Please refrain from THREADJACKING in news threads. Thanks.

[Soopafresh]

I download the "making of" file on the site and was able to play the content without having to install the new codec.

[celtic_druid]

Well the codec hasn't changed. It might be updated, but it is still just ASP MPEG4. Players/filters will need to be updated though to support new features like menu's and subtitles.

[disturbed1]

Well the codec hasn't changed. It might be updated, but it is still just ASP MPEG4. Players/filters will need to be updated though to support new features like menu's and subtitles.

In which (more)hardware players will be supporting. Fewer set-top DVD makers from Asia will be making DVD-Video set-top players. Instead they are focusing on less expensive(ly) licesned codecs, such as Ogg-Theora, Xvid, and other MPEG4 variants.

I also recall MPEG4 being talked about for HD-DVD production. Because of the space savings and quality when compared to MPEG2.

Greedy patent lawers have been making noise about license patents for certian formats ( http://www.google.com/search?q=china+dvd+patent )

If it will catch on, that's another topic

[celtic_druid]

There are still licensing fees for MPEG4, plus I guess DivX certification? ogg theora on the other hand is license fee free, however I have not heard of a hardware player that supports it.

MPEG4 part 10 (AVC/h.264) will be part of HD-DVD. MPEG4 ASP as I understand it will not.

[State Of Mind]

DivX sucks. XviD rules. This is not a biased statement. I've experimented with both codecs intensively.

Who pulled your string?

I don't have a string. This "2004 Codec Shoot Out" proves it.
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-104-1.htm

[BJ_M]

well if you go by that (excellent) review ..

xvid sucks and nero rules ...

nero xvid and divx were all good in some areas ...

it mostly because of the people at DiVX that yo will see any hardware playback at all - and some f those will have xvid support also ... so please dont knock them .. they have managed to pull DiVX from the pirate category to semi-respectable .. and dragged xvid along with it ..

[Wilbert]

xvid sucks and nero rules ...

Not that I agree with State of Mind's remark. But, in all fairness, the tested nero codecs are AVC codecs.

[BJ_M]

i was referring to the comment above my post --


they are all mpeg4 types ..and i was trying to point out that comments like that really are not in context or complete ..

[celtic_druid]

You can't really compare a AVC codec to ASP though. If you want to compare Nero's AVC, then compare it to x264 and not XviD especially when Nero/Ateme have their own ASP MPEG4 codec.

[BJ_M]

You can't really compare a AVC codec to ASP though. If you want to compare Nero's AVC, then compare it to x264 and not XviD especially when Nero/Ateme have their own ASP MPEG4 codec.

true -- but nothing wrong in comparing it ether .... xvid help up pretty nicely in fact ..

and in some HD stuff im doing , xvid was better (due to a lack of a proper HD profile yet in nero - which is on the way)

[State Of Mind]

My apologies.

[DarrellS]

DivX sucks. XviD rules. This is not a biased statement. I've experimented with both codecs intensively.

It's your opinion so it is a biased statement.

I haven't made any movies using the Xvid compressor so I can't say whether it is better or not but I can tell you that every single Xvid file that I've downloaded off of the internet have been corrupted.
All of these new fangled compression techniques that everyone brags about on here cause nothing but compatibility issues in both editors and players.

DivX with MP3 audio works just fine for me. No out of sync problems etc... The problem with files on the internet is that people want to compress their movies as much as they can so they take up less bandwidth. A 750 MB movie is going to look like crap if it's compressed down to 150 MB.

If I want to make a DVD quality burn, then I'll use an ISO image and burn a DVD. Otherwise, I only make DivX/MP3 AVIs. They all play just fine in my DVD player.

[celtic_druid]

The fact that they are corrupt is most likely far more to do with the way they were downloaded and or the fact that they were using the avi container (assuming that they are avi's).

An XviD avi should not corrupt any easier than a DivX avi it should also if encoded with the same settings be just as compatible in terms of playback.

If State Of Mind did a blind test, then it is not biased. If not then I guess it maybe.

[DarrellS]

Well, I took a 640x480 file that I captured and made both a DivX AVI and an XviD AVI.

The XviD file was 3.60 MB in size and the DivX file was 8.87 MB (advantage XviD)

They both looked almost identical and I couldn't tell which one looked the best (even)

The Xvid jumped from one spot to the next with a click of the mouse whereas the DviX took a second or two to react to the mouse clicks (advantage XviD)

The two things that I didn't like about the XviD file was that it didn't show up as a thumbnail in Irfanview but as the movie camera and if I had a movie opened in media player already, it took 22 seconds to get the file to open. The first time I tried to open the file with a movie file already
open, it froze the computer.

Not sure what caused all the corrupt files that I downloaded off the internet. I got them all from movie forums and either used the right click save or used a download manager. The movies played alright but everything would bleed into itself like someone poured acid on the film in places.

I'll have to make a CD with Xvid files and see if it plays in the DivX player. I may have changed my mind about this compression, I'll let ya know.

[DarrellS]

>>I'll have to make a CD with Xvid files and see if it plays in the DivX player. I may have changed my mind about this compression, I'll let ya know.<<


I made both a DVD-R with 12 Xvid files and a CD-R with one XviD file and they both played flawlessly on my Philips 642 player.

Not sure why people with this player don't just put XviD files on a DVD instead of spending 4 or more hours converting the files to MPEG2 and then how ever long it takes to burn the files to DVD.

It took 20 minutes to burn the XviD DVD. [/quote]

[RabidDog]

Chinese mfrs make dvd players that play BOTH ordinary DVds AND mpeg4 so no escaping royalties that way.. however they are making evd players now, and have adopted it as their Std,
Xvid and divx files are both equally vulnerable to corruption
IMO xvid will compress smaller, but divx plays more smoothly on my player
darrellS , point 3 .. many people do!

[DarrellS]

>>IMO xvid will compress smaller, but divx plays more smoothly on my player
darrellS , point 3 .. many people do!<<

I haven't played enough XviD files yet to make that assumption but I have read a few posts of unhappy members who can't play their Xvid files on their DivX player. I do like the file size advantage but it is driving me crazy having to restart my editing programs on every third or fourth encode. Don't know what is causing them to crash but it is very annoying. I never have that problem with DivX.

If I was going to make a CD or DVD with one DivX file that would fit without re-encoding to XviD, I think that would be my option.

I have a TV series that was encoded to 355MB XviD files and 12 will fit on one DVD but if I was putting each episode on one CD, it might've been better to have them as 700MB DivX.