Dvix_X_Xvid

[marcelcukier]

Hi, i was wondering what is the diference betwen Xvid and Divx (besides the name thing), and which one is better ?

[redwudz]

Which is 'better' is debatable. The newer Divx codecs are good. Xivid is freeware, if that counts. They are both based on the same beginnings and are very similar. I prefer Xvid myself.

[jagabo]

Divx is faster. Xvid is a little better (quality per file size) and more configurable.

[marcelcukier]

is there any reason why one is called Divx, and the other Xvid (contrary of Divx) ?? Divx|xviD

[redwudz]

My understanding is that Divx came first and Xvid is a derivation of Divx, hence the different name. They are not presently from the same company.

Probably a better explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xvid

And a Xvid setup guide: http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/xvid_setup_page1.html

[PuzZLeR]

Both are very similar and very compatible. They use identical video streams, only a few header stamps in the streams identify each.

I prefer DivX, but I would still be happy with Xvid. The name difference is that Xvid was formed from members leaving DivX, so they, maybe sarcastically, used a similar name.

Some points to know:
-Xvid is free and open source. DivX is not. Then again it's not expensive anyway. But nevertheless, they both come from different "religions".
-More tools support Xvid encoding, since there are less headaches with a license, etc.
-The quality, and speeds are very similar. Sure there may be a difference, as Redwudz (EDIT: and Jagabo) pointed out from experience, but the differences are small.
-Although both are compatible, DivX does not guarantee Xvid playback on the DivX certified players out there. I have yet to find one that doesn't play Xvid though, but I understand DivX for not guaranteeing compatibility since they have no control over Xvid.

[Ai Haibara]

-Although both are compatible, DivX does not guarantee Xvid playback on the DivX certified players out there. I have yet to find one that doesn't play Xvid though, but I understand DivX for not guaranteeing compatibility since they have no control over Xvid.

Some earlier players apparently checked the fourcc of the AVIs and refused to play them if they had a fourcc other than the ones DivX used. That's probably extremely rare in a player, these days, though.

[PuzZLeR]

Hey Ai Haibara,

Some earlier players apparently checked the fourcc of the AVIs and refused to play them if they had a fourcc other than the ones DivX used. That's probably extremely rare in a player, these days, though.

Yes, there was an issue with that a few years ago. But I wouldn't accuse DivX of locking out Xvid (not saying you are accusing either ). In fact, some of these same players weren't even able to play other versions of DivX either. Since DivX 5, and even with DivX 6, the FourCC code has remained the same at DX50 (something like that). The latest DivX Certification players want to ensure, not only inter-compatibility with other MPEG-4 ASP H.263(+) codecs, but intra-compatibility among DivX versions too.

I would think that it's in DivX's best interest to include Xvid in their certification, and Xvid's interest to provide compatible streams. There is no reason for any dirty politics and I honestly don't think, due to their very different "cultures" that they're even competitors. Rivals, yes, but certainly not territorial with each other. They actually indirectly help each other.

The only reason DivX can't guarantee Xvid support as well is not to be "mean". It's simply that it's not their codec and that they have no say as to what Xvid does, or will do, with it. For all DivX knows, maybe the latest Xvid version will include AVC - who knows?

Besides, if worse comes to worst, there's always apps that can change this without re-encoding if it's only a FourCC issue, assuming the streams are compatible.

[Ai Haibara]

Hey Ai Haibara,

Yes, there was an issue with that a few years ago. But I wouldn't accuse DivX of locking out Xvid (not saying you are accusing either ). In fact, some of these same players weren't even able to play other versions of DivX either. Since DivX 5, and even with DivX 6, the FourCC code has remained the same at DX50 (something like that). The latest DivX Certification players want to ensure, not only inter-compatibility with other MPEG-4 ASP H.263(+) codecs, but intra-compatibility among DivX versions too.

Even DivX 3?

No, I wasn't making any accusations, of course. I suspect those third-party players just limited them to certain FourCCs just so the end-user didn't see the messes that happened when you tried to play an unsupported codec mix in an AVI.

Yeah, I was surprised they've kept the FourCC in DivX 6, basically, to DIVX/DX50. You'd think they'd implement a DX60/DXUT/whatever to help indicate to players that the AVI/.divx (may) use Ultra features.

I would think that it's in DivX's best interest to support Xvid in their certification, and Xvid's interest to provide compatible streams. There is no reason for any dirty politics and I honestly don't think, due to their very different "cultures" that they're even competitors. Rivals, yes, but certainly not territorial with each other. They actually indirectly help each other.

I've had the impression that, for the most part, they've been 'ignoring' each other. They're still compatible at the base level, though, aren't they? :/

Besides, if worse comes to worst, there's always apps that can change this without re-encoding if it's only a FourCC issue, assuming the streams are compatible.

Yes, indeed.

[PuzZLeR]

Yeah, I was surprised they've kept the FourCC in DivX 6, basically, to DIVX/DX50. You'd think they'd implement a DX60/DXUT/whatever to help indicate to players that the AVI/.divx (may) use Ultra features.

Not necessary. The new ".divx" extension is enough. In fact, it's not just an .avi renamed, it's actually a new container - an enhanced AVI with features such as menus, subtitles, etc., much like ODML AVI.

The extension indicates this. If you were to take one of these ".divx" files and rename it to .avi, even with embedded "Ultra" features, no player/decoder would recognize them. This file, even with all it's DvD-like glory, would then only be treated as a regular AVI - only the video and audio interleaved streams.

I've had the impression that, for the most part, they've been 'ignoring' each other. They're still compatible at the base level, though, aren't they? :/

The feeling one gets hanging around the DivX forums (as I do), is that they actually do have a respect for each other. Although Xvid may have been born from DivX disgruntlement, over time, they have developed an understanding that they are actually both good for each other. Their relationship is more rival than competitor - a bit different. And as long as they stay with MPEG-4 ASP, I assume that they will both make an effort to be compatible with each other. Well, that's my impression.

If one goes with AVC? Then what happens in their co-existence remains to be seen...

[Ai Haibara]

The extension indicates this. If you were to take one of these ".divx" files and rename it to .avi, even with embedded "Ultra" features, no player/decoder would recognize them. This file, even with all it's DvD-like glory, would then only be treated as a regular AVI - only the video and audio interleaved streams.

Yeah, I know that they're just extension-renamed AVIs, with Ultra features that non-Ultra players should ignore, for the most part - but they've been toying with the use of .divx as an extension for their videos as far back as v5 or so. It didn't really go that far, until v6.

The feeling one gets hanging around the DivX forums (as I do), is that they actually do have a respect for each other. Although Xvid may have been born from DivX disgruntlement, over time, they have developed an understanding that they are actually both good for each other. Their relationship is more rival than competitor - a bit different. And as long as they stay with MPEG-4 ASP, I assume that they will both make an effort to be compatible with each other. Well, that's my impression.

If one goes with AVC? Then what happens in their co-existence remains to be seen...

Hmm... I haven't read the forums much since the time some were in an uproar over support for Win9X/ME being dropped, so it's been a while. I'd say they should have a healthy respect for each other - any improvement made on either side (in terms of the actual encoder/decoder) can possibly benefit both.

About AVC... I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Cunhambebe]

I do agree with redwudz; I like XviD better.

[gll99]

The wiki explains it well.

Divx made up a lot with Joe average user by releasing binaries of their standard codec and a couple of years ago around Christmas they did the unexpected and gave out free licenses of 6x pro to those who requested it. (I got one)

I use divx 6x because I find it easier to set for captures to play on my Philips player. The xvid codec can probably do the same but I've never spent the time to learn the settings properly.

Maybe I'm jaded or just more aware in my old age but in my opinion, DivX made the decision to create market demand for certified Divx devices and the only way to do that is for people to be able to encode. If there was independent DiVX movie content available like DVD mpeg2 enjoys then they wouldn't need to give away the encoder for people to create their own divx content. If we don't compress to divx who will? By extension who would need a standalone device if there's no encoded divx material to play? So for DIVX it's a catch 22 if they want to sell hardware licenses they can't alienate us or they lose the market drivers (us).

XVID being open source and geared towards the computer user is not trying to market to hardware manufacturers so it doesn't have that problem.

Divx won't block simple profile xvid and mpeg4 as long as it serves their purpose to have larger demand for divx hardware devices. The manufacturers would probably resist it too so they can sell more units.

[Cunhambebe]

On the other hand, Dvix seems easier than XviD. Anyway, as soon a you learn properly how to encode with XviD, I guess you might find it better than the commercial MPEG4 part 2 - which is Divx. Please click on both videos Brazil and São Paulo (both are XviD), check out the bitrate and see if you find it better than DivX.

[gll99]

@Cunhambebe
Before downloading videos one needs to know at what setting they were encoded. If you own a divx player then it has to be encoded with a simple profile and no qpel. On top of that many divx standalone players won't play GMC. So without knowing all the specifics of a video file and having the same video encoded with both codecs it's impossible to compare. If you use a software player then the decoder is important too since many people don't even know which mpeg4 codec defaults as their primary decoder when they have many on their system, ie... divx, ffdshow, xvid.... just to name 3. Many of these allow filtering which people even forget that they set and forgot so this could considerably affect the viewing.

[Marvingj]

At higher bitrates, there is not much difference between MPEG-4 ASP implementations such as DivX and Xvid compared with MPEG-4 AVC implementations such as x264 in terms of quality.

It's when you go to lower bitrates that you start to notice differences. Try doing some tests with small files, gradually lowering the bitrate each time and comparing. You will start to notice blocky artifacts quicker with DivX/Xvid before you start noticing them with x264.

In theory, you can get similar quality with x264 with a smaller file size than would be necessary for DivX/Xvid. In fact, about 20% less according to some research (but from my experience I believe it's more like over 30%).

This 20% extra quality per file size, or 20% smaller file size per quality level is why most are heading to x264, despite the longer encode times.

If you are Ok with higher bitrates/file sizes, then go ahead and use Xvid if the encode times are too long for x264. DivX/Xvid will still be supported for a long time yet by hardware/software.