divX sucks, use WMV

[DJ Bryson]

divX sucks, use WMV

All you n00b's having problems with divX... just use Movie Maker to make *.WMV files. It comes with XP and i believe you can download it seperate too. It's very easy to use, no codecs to download, good compression, the quality seems better, you can pic from different resolutions that effects files size... it's just easier and better. You can always count on Microsoft to *eventually* provide an easier solution.

[DVWannaB]

DJ,

you must be a "n00b" as well after that, your 4th post. This now qualifies you as the number 1 uninformed poster of the year .......... so far! To post that on this site with folks who have extensively tested and posted their results, just goes to show you have much to learn.

I recommend you do more reading and more research and more extensive testing before posting such outrageous claims. If you call the tech folks at Microsoft and are lucky enough to get them on the phone they will even tell you that WMV has come a long way and will get better, but would agree that DivX 5 is superior to WMV at this point in time. So lets no let the facts interfere with your attempts to make your point. Ok?

Cheers 'ole boy and good luck with your research.

[DJ Bryson]

lol... you're funny.

Let me see if I can make this more clear. I shouldn't have to do extensive research, It should be intuitive and easy like movie maker. In the past I have succuessfully compressed to divX using the instructions for Virtual Dub. I am on another PC and i use the exact same intructions with the same file and i get video pauses and lag. The instructions and steps for virtualdub are unintuitive. Someone needs to create an app that's easy to use for divX compression.

I agree that divX has higher compression, but it's much easier to use movie maker especially if you just want to make smaller files for the web.

[Gazorgan]

Actually, XviD won the battle of MPEG4 codecs, so your both wrong. WMV9 and DIVX5.1.x are about equal in quality. WMV just 'claims' DVD quality at lower bitrates. At the same bitrates they are about the same. WMV is variable framerate, so for slow flicks it can have smaller files. All of WMV9 defaults are WRONG when considering quality.

Oh yeah, installing WME9 permantly FUBAR's your system for other encoding work, so it's a one-way trip. Don't get me wrong, WMV is HDTV capable now, whereas DivX won't go that big.

[yautja666]

The instructions and steps for virtualdub are unintuitive. Someone needs to create an app that's easy to use for divX compression.

Someone already has. It's called 'Gordion Knot' and can be found at www. doom9.org. To make Divx (or Xvid) files you should have some basic knowledge of how digital video works beforehand, otherwise you will never get reasonable results. When working with Mpeg-4, in my opinion there will never be a 'one-click' solution that truly has all the bases properly covered.

[DJ Bryson]

Thanks... but i'll stick with WMV. Way easier, good quality, and no codec's.

[DVWannaB]

Actually, XviD won the battle of MPEG4 codecs, so your both wrong. WMV9 and DIVX5.1.x are about equal in quality. WMV just 'claims' DVD quality at lower bitrates. At the same bitrates they are about the same. WMV is variable framerate, so for slow flicks it can have smaller files. All of WMV9 defaults are WRONG when considering quality.

Oh yeah, installing WME9 permantly FUBAR's your system for other encoding work, so it's a one-way trip. Don't get me wrong, WMV is HDTV capable now, whereas DivX won't go that big.

Gazorgan,

Actually if you want to be technical about it, WMV is not MPEG-4, or so I was told by a tech from Microsoft. And I was not wrong, because I never said DivX was superior to XviD. So ha ...... there . In my experience, WMV at lower bitrates tends to smooth out details to much. At higher bitrates 1500 or higher, for my eyes, you have a "pick 'em" situation (with everything else equal). Yes, in my experience of all the MPEG-4 and "variants" (WMV, Quicktime, RealVideo, ON2), I think XviD is best.

With saying that, there is a thread over on Doom9 about HD WMV (DVD) which is very intriguing. There also examples and the Microsoft website using 1280x720 and 1980x1280 resolutions. They look fantastic, although as you guessed, the bitrate used is very high (like 3500 and up).

[teegee420]

Thanks... but i'll stick with WMV. Way easier, good quality, and no codec's.

Have a look at Dr. Divx. It should be simple enough for you. It's worth looking into because despite what you think, Divx is capable of giving better quality. That's the whole point of compressing video, right?

[DJ Bryson]

Xvid is a little off topic... but it's the same deal, you need to install codec's to view them and it's more difficult to make them.

For my use (web), It's easier to make WMV's. I'm sure you can get smaller files and better quality with Xvid, but it's not worth it for small clips.

Don't bother with divX or Xvid if you don't have to. That's all i'm trying to say. I think WMV quality is great if you use a bit rate of 700 or 1500 kbps. It looks great full screen. WMV seems to be a smoother picture too. I can see the square pixels with divX.

[teegee420]

WMV seems to be a smoother picture too. I can see the square pixels with divX.

That's probably the result of sloppy encoding. But hey, if WMV works best for you stick with it. It's just a little silly to blame the Divx codec because the user had trouble getting it to work properly.

[DJ Bryson]

Well... i'm just following the instructions on this website. I guess the intructions are sloppy.

[teegee420]

It's just a guideline, dude. There are too many variables that someone writing a guide can't predict. Now you're not only insulting people who can successfully encode to Divx, but the generous individuals that take the time to contribute their knowlege by creating how-to's for this site. At some point you need to take a little responsibility for your poor results and stop blaming everyone else. But if it's easier for you to point the finger then so be it. Good luck with your future efforts.

[DiablosuX102]

dj, if u use xvid (or divx) the right way, u will be very impressed with the results. it sounds to me like ur doing this for the web, which u might be better off using the WMV compression because more people will use it without having to worry about getting a decoder for it. BUT that doesn't mean you should come to this website and post WMV is better...i'm not trying to sound offensive, but if wmv gave better quality than divx/xvid, then divx/xvid wouldn't be so popular.

josh

[DJ Bryson]

ok fine... i was a little pissed when I started this thread. divX doesn't suck, nor am I qualified to say so. However, i've had lots of problems with divX compression and i'm sick of messing with the numerous settings. WMV is just easier and the quality is good enough for me. I know that divX can potentially have better quality, but I'm sick of it. I followed the instructions exactly. I used a couple different types of software. Maybe my PC is messed up a little, cause I was able to do it before. At any rate, WMV is easier and better for web PERIOD!

[teegee420]

At any rate, WMV is easier and better for web PERIOD!

Better for YOU. But at the end of the day, that's really all that matters. Stick with what works best for you, I say.

[Kingnog]

divX doesn't suck, nor am I qualified to say so

Yep, both statements = true

[hhhhbk]

xvid is the best compression and can create files of near dvd quality[dependant on the source] at between 1/4 and 1/6 of the dvds filesize

wmv is not bad for making small clips to stick on the web as at 512kb/s you can get a music video to be approx 15mb which is a huge save on upload bandwidth
movie maker is foolproof and will do if someone has the lack of knowledge/ability to use xvid [at the same time anyone who is too lazy to follow step by step guides deserves the grainy video]