Is DiVX 5.x.x or DiVX 6.x.x Free?

[Bonie81]

just came to know from colleagues that either DiVX 5.x.x or DiVX 6.x.x is Free. Is It?
if so, request to Video Help to add same in a codec download section.

[PuzZLeR]

Yes and no.

As far as decoding, yes - free.

But encoding is another story and it changes all the time.

You can get all current DivX codecs free but with slight limitations (usually called "Community Codec") or full versions with trial periods.

Once in a while there is a free giveaway from DivX, but that is the choice of DivX and maybe due to other conditions.

There are free versions of the CLI, but this is a commandline tool, and usually given away free for beta testing or for the OSS community, GUIs, etc.

There is/was a version of DivX called OpenDivX, but this is likely outdated and no longer supported by DivX. You can probably find it in other GUI tools, I think SUPER used to use it or still does.

But as far as the real full featured DivX codec encoder being free, non-limited, legal, with full GUI, full support, non-promotional or conditional, non-CLI only, etc - doubt it.

Then again, if $10 is too high a price for you (as is currently) then, with all due respect, use the comparably equal just-as-good compatible Xvid. Its purpose is to be free, full, and very good, without restrictions.

Note: If I'm wrong, please let me know.

[Bonie81]

thanks for reply.
$10 not much. last time i was quoted $29.99 while ago and i started using XViD.
one more thing, purchased version of DiVX comes with limitations?

[PuzZLeR]

$10 not much

Well, it shouldn't be, but in some countries it might be. Then again, the price is not greed on the part of DivX, since it is indeed a company - and it does come with support, compatibility to devices and DivX does contribute much to OSS. I think it's very fair considering it all includes H.264 as well, not just for ASP as is/was 5.x and 6.x.

Then again, there's always Xvid available as well. I think the two go well together.

last time i was quoted $29.99 while ago and i started using XViD.

I remember when it was over $50, I think, back in 2004, when Dr DivX came with it. I still bought it then even when Xvid became available. But that's me.

purchased version of DiVX comes with limitations?

Not at all. You get everything with the purchased version, including the better encoding/speed options, the GUIs, plugins, etc. Some of the stuff you may not need, but the key thing is registering and contributing.

[jman98]

Note that buying the commercial Divx encoder for Windows also gives you the ability to encode using H.264 if you wish. The Divx Plus Converter tool is really poor though with very few user settable options. Dr. Divx was a really good and easy to use free encoding tool that they used to support but they gave up trying to make Dr. Divx support H.264 encodes and just give us this crappy Divx Plus Converter tool. Divx Converter has even fewer user settable options on Mac. In fact it's so bad that even with a 50% discount available to me I refused to purchase Divx for Mac.

[PuzZLeR]

DivX went a different direction, dropping the Dr to the OSS community in favor of the user-friendly DivX Converter for the masses.

The DivX Converter, although not something I would use, is not actually a bad idea from the point of marketing. It's intent is to drop-and-go and you're done and fully compliant with Certified CE Devices.

Unfortunately it's the execution that is left to be desired - apart from being limited, it's very buggy and spat out undocumented error codes last time I used it. I certainly hope it's been improved of late.

I always preferred the good Dr, and now the CLI, since DivX Converter is a "toy" to the more advanced encoders, but I still believe DivX Converter would be excellent if it was more solid.

[Bonie81]

DiVX might be a good option for Windows OS, but, in Linux, I guess I must under WINE. Anyway Linux has better n free choices.
I would like to try it before buy and compare the results with XViD.
Definitely I will go for codec part not for whole bundled package.

[jagabo]

I would like to try it before buy and compare the results with XViD.

Note that the latest Divx bundle includes their h.264 encoder as well as the original MPEG 4 part 2 ASP encoder. Xvid is very slightly better then Divx in my opinion. Divx does have an edge if you need realtime encoding (eg, encoding while capturing). It's fastest setting is twice as fast as Xvid's fastest setting.

[PuzZLeR]

I too have noticed differences in speed and quality, but nothing significant enough to declare any clear winner in which to use between DivX and Xvid in ASP-Land. I've been a DivX lover since 2001, but will still say that both are historically fine codecs, even today.

Just making sure when you mention speed and quality - some settings in DivX profiles slightly hamper quality by omitting QPel and GMC, sacrificing them for speed and better compatibility with CE devices. Besides, the free version of DivX wouldn't allow you access even if you wanted them. This could be a difference in some cases between DivX and Xvid, since Xvid, being free and open source, doesn't restrict nearly as much.

[jagabo]

Just making sure when you mention speed and quality - some settings in DivX profiles slightly hamper quality by omitting QPel and GMC, sacrificing them for speed and better compatibility with CE devices.

Divx and Xvid both have the ability to enable and disable those features. The only difference is Xvid uses three warp point GMC and Divx uses one warp point GMC. Many newer standalone media players and set-top Divx/DVD players can play one warp point GMC, but not three. And of course, many older player would not play andy GMC or QPel.

[PuzZLeR]

Thanks for the explanation Jagabo. I personally don't use as much Xvid so I didn't realize this.

Then again, traditionally I've always stayed away from such options and it's a habit that's stuck since my first stand-alone DivX certified DvD player goes back as far as 2003 - forget GMC or QPel here.

But now you got me curious as to revisiting today and trying Xvid's GMC with my latest.

[jagabo]

I don't use GMC or QPel either. I usually use Xvid although I did purchase a Divx license long ago. Actually, these days I usually use x264.

[Bonie81]

Thank You all of you for various inputs.

I don't use GMC or QPel either. I usually use Xvid although I did purchase a Divx license long ago. Actually, these days I usually use x264.

I have started getting desired results by using x264.
Thanks to x264.

[PuzZLeR]

Well, x264 has come a long way - better quality, no more smearing or "Plastic Face Syndrome", decreased fragmentation among a million-and-one profiles and blu-ray compatibility have made it a serious encoder instead of just something for low bitrate >1MB nonsense, mobiles or "Internet distribution".

I've loved x264, with HandBrake, very much for years for my iPod, and still do. But I just couldn't take it seriously for my real projects all that time.

Now I do.

[gll99]

I got the free giveaway key for 6.xx from Divx at Christmastime a few years back (can't recall the year or date). I use both xvid and the divx codecs to capture avi with my tv tuner card as a poor man's PVR. For SD material using newer high speed computers you won't see much difference with a basic Home Theater simple profile.

Many of us recall when we first used the original mpeg4 based encoder to fit more video on a disc than we could with the mpeg2 codec. What was missing then was a hardware player that would let us play our videos straight to our televisions.

Then came the divx players. Divx makes money by licensing the codec to hardware manufacturers of divx compatible players so it is to their advantage to seed their codec to as many users as possible. Most divx playable material is home made. The Divx codec has to be cheap and sometimes given away free because if there is no demand for hardware players then why would companies who make or sell hardware players pay a fee for something no one wants. Even though I got the codec free, I've helped the company by buying at least a dozen Divx Certified players either for myself or as gifts since they were first introduced.

[PuzZLeR]

Then came the divx players. Divx makes money by licensing the codec to hardware manufacturers of divx compatible players so it is to their advantage to seed their codec to as many users as possible. Most divx playable material is home made. The Divx codec has to be cheap and sometimes given away free because if there is no demand for hardware players then why would companies who make or sell hardware players pay a fee for something no one wants. Even though I got the codec free, I've helped the company by buying at least a dozen Divx Certified players either for myself or as gifts since they were first introduced.

This I believe is true as well.

This is also why I truly believe that DivX has cheered for the success of Xvid as well. The users of the free Xvid, who also highly likely make home video, will distribute tons of Zigabytes of video all over the stratosphere. Since Xvid is indeed a compatible codec with DivX, it will only drive up demand for DivX Certified devices - this licensing revenue is the true bread and butter.

So, who cares (being DivX Inc) if I lose a few $10-$20 sales of my codec? There is no opportunity cost here from my point of view.

I use MPEG-2 for DvD video, x264 for iPod and now experimenting with blu-ray, but for good quality compressed video on stand-alones, I still use DivX/Xvid ASP, which I believe is still a great choice in this realm for a few more years yet.

I don't blame DivX for delaying their release of H.264 until they did - they had a cash cow that they were afraid to cannibalize.