What is the best Divx/Xvid codec? No spyware/virus version?

[Poplar]

Is there a reason why they base MPEG-4 on QT data structure? I don't see anything special about QT, perhaps because I rarely use them. The best stuff I've seen is Xvid and Nero's MP4.

[BJ_M]

Quicktime is a container - as is avi ...

there are 100's of codecs for QT , including all types of mpeg4 and H264


QT can be higer quality than any avi because it supports 10 / 16 and floating point color space ..

[celtic_druid]

Jerome Rota develops an open source MPEG-4 codec called OpenDivx
OpenDivX came out of the opensource project mayo and was developed by more than one person.

MS MPEG4/DivX maybe MPEG4 like, but it is not MPEG4.

[Zisguy1]

MS MPEG4/DivX maybe MPEG4 like, but it is not MPEG4.

Microsoft delivers a MPEG-4 implementation based on initial file specification, but with their own codec, that is not licensed back to the MPEG-4 working group (i.e. is not compatable with any licenced mpeg-4 implementation).

Well, if you want to get picky about it being a partially proprietary implementation, I guess you could say that. You could also say that many/most web pages don't use HTML, because of the proprietary MSIE extensions not approved by W3C. Whatever...

[celtic_druid]

You can read about some of the differences here: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/~michael/msmpeg4.txt

The fact is that it doesn't %100 follow the standards, therefor it is not MPEG4.

[Zisguy1]

You can read about some of the differences here: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/~michael/msmpeg4.txt

The fact is that it doesn't %100 follow the standards, therefor it is not MPEG4.

The notion that something which doesn't 100% follow a standard doesn't qualify as "genuine" is pedantic, at best. We live in the real world, not inside a dictionary or rulebook. But again, whatever. Some people do think that way, I've got no problem with it.

[celtic_druid]

I wouldn't call it pedantic. There is a reason for standards. If an encoder follows mpeg4 standards then you know it can be played back be a decoder that follows the standards. You know that it can be processed by tools which follow the standards, etc.

Try changing the fourCC from DIV3 to XVID and see if it decodes via XviD. Try muxing a DivX3 stream into an mp4 container.

It is the fact that we live in the real world that leads to such standards. You know that if you buy an audio CD it will work in your car CD player because both follow the red book standards; copy protected CD's not withstanding. Now when a user purchases a CD that doesn't quite follow red book but was labled compact disc audio and it doesn't work, imagine if they rung up the company that produced it and was told "don't be pedantic, this is the real world of course it is genuine red book audio."

[DarrellS]

>>divx codecs can read xvid <<

That is strange because I had to install the XviD program, it's not even just a codec, it's a package of about 12 files to open Xvid files on my computer and I had both the DivX 3.11 and the DivX 5.02 codec on my machine. No other codecs open and run in separate window while encoding a file so it must be different than any other codec.

>>xvid is no more buggy than divx ...... in fact even the latest betas are rock solid stable ...<<

I have seen alot of crappy DivX 5.02 files but like I said, the only time I've had a problem with the 3.11 codec is when I try to encode in a resolution that the codec doesn't like. Xvid does seek alot better that DivX but I have found that if I try to open an Xvid file in media player when another file is already open, it can freeze my computer and I spent all day re-encoding files to XviD on my computer to save space and every two or three files crashed Virtualdub and DivX 5 files were a lost cause since Xvid couldn't do anything with them at all and either created the acid on film effect that I spoke of the other day or a 2 minute clip of one frame.
Maybe the crashing is a Virtualdub problem but it also crashes Pinnacle Studio 8.

>>xvid can encode to some off the wall resolution - i do a lot of 1400x1050 w/ xvid for example ..<<

That is another strong point of XviD besides the small file size. DivX says it doesn't have any known restrictions but it obviously does.

[celtic_druid]

XviD uses 3 files: xvidcore.dll(core lib), xvidvfw.dll(VfW front end) and xvid.ax (dshow decoder).

DivX handles XviD if you enable the support generic mpeg4 option, which at least used to be enabled by default. Not sure if it supports XviD via VfW though.

Last time I installed a DivX plasma release it was causing all kinds of apps to crash. Never really had any issues with XviD on the other hand.

3ivX, Nero Digital and ffdshow also support XviD and DivX decoding, including DivX3.

[BJ_M]

in some apps (like vegas) , to import xvid , you have to change the FOURCC to DiVX

[vitualis]

As per what BJ_M stated.

DivX3;-) is a hacked MS MPEG-4-"based" codec. It is not kosher MPEG-4 but is is reasonable close to it. Contrary to what somebody up the thread stated, it does not have the best hardware support. Far from it in fact. Many stand-alone DVD players do not play DivX3 well though most newer ones try to make a good effort at it (because of "legacy" content).

If you look at reviews at doom9, the quality of DivX3 has been long surpassed by other codecs (which are legal, mind you).

XviD is very similar to DivX 5 and yes, the DivX 5 codec can decode XviD encoded clips (and vice versa -- though there may be settings issues with FourCC codes).

Regards.

[burnman99]

i would go xvid. It's open source good quality and at least as good as divx. It's a no brainer

Later

Rog

[DarrellS]

>>DivX3 is a hacked MS MPEG-4-"based" codec. It is not kosher MPEG-4 but is is reasonable close to it. Contrary to what somebody up the thread stated, it does not have the best hardware support. Far from it in fact. Many stand-alone DVD players do not play DivX3 well though most newer ones try to make a good effort at it (because of "legacy" content). <<

It may be a hack codec but it is still the best DivX codec there is. The Legit DivX 5.0.2 codec is a piece of crap.

DivX isn't made to play in any stand alone DVD players but it plays just fine in my Philips 642 DivX/DVD Player.

>>If you look at reviews at doom9, the quality of DivX3 has been long surpassed by other codecs (which are legal, mind you).<<

I could care less about reviews from Doom9, The quality of a DivX 3.11 is IDENTICAL to XviD. The only advantage that XviD has over DivX is file size. I've seen a few WMV9 files that come close but it takes Xvid twice as long to encode as DivX and it takes WMV9 10 times as long.

>>XviD is very similar to DivX 5 and yes, the DivX 5 codec can decode XviD encoded clips (and vice versa -- though there may be settings issues with FourCC codes).<<

Can you re-encode a DivX 5 file with an XviD Codec (or any codec for that matter)? I sure can't. I was finally able to re-encode a few 5.0.2 files to XviD but I had to encode the file with no compression first and then encode with the XviD codec. That's alot of extra work because of a worthless buggy 5.0.2 codec.
I have one DivX 5.0.2 file on my computer that I can do absolutely nothing with so I guess I'm stuck with it in the format and file size that it is.

[DarrellS]

i would go xvid. It's open source good quality and at least as good as divx. It's a no brainer

Later

Rog

Exactly. I'm not trying to push DivX as a better codec than Xvid. I'm just saying the the quality is identical. Everyone keeps trying to say that the quality of XviD is way superior to DivX and it's not. XviD has the file size advantage and that is all but it's enough for me and others to start using it as our new compression of choice. I just hope they fix the bug that keeps causing my editing programs to crash on every third or fourth encode.

[celtic_druid]

How can you say that it doesn't have a quality advantage and then state that it has a size advantage?

If XviD can produce the same quality at a smaller filesize than DivX, then for the same filesize you could encode with a higher resolution or a better quality matrix and have better quality.

[vitualis]

DivX isn't made to play in any stand alone DVD players but it plays just fine in my Philips 642 DivX/DVD Player.

Eh?

See the DivX Certification program?



There are some DivX based players that are certified. Most are not. However, most DivX capable players based on a modern chipset can usually play back both DivX5 and XviD without issue unless you are using some of the more advanced features.

A lot of these players still have difficulties playing back DivX3 encoded clips.

I could care less about reviews from Doom9, The quality of a DivX 3.11 is IDENTICAL to XviD. The only advantage that XviD has over DivX is file size. I've seen a few WMV9 files that come close but it takes Xvid twice as long to encode as DivX and it takes WMV9 10 times as long.

And here is the endgame argument. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Guess what? For all intents and purposes, the best quality is the source DVD. When we talk about "quality" of a clip, we compare it on the same metric which means the same average bitrate, or, the same filesize for the same clip.

If XviD can provide the same quality for a smaller filesize, that is basically the definition for higher quality codec.

And why on earth would you "re-encode" a DivX5 encoded clip into XviD? That is pointless. It is like re-MPEGing and MPEG.

The XviD codec can decode DivX5 clips natively.

Regards.

[DarrellS]

>>If XviD can produce the same quality at a smaller filesize than DivX, then for the same filesize you could encode with a higher resolution or a better quality matrix and have better quality.<<

No. You can't take a 320x240 file an re-encode it at 640x480 and expect either codec to make the file look any better. Xvid may do a better job of compressing the file but it doesn't make it look any better. WMV9 can compress the file way more than XviD but the end result isn't as good as either XviD or DivX.

I just finished trying to make a 640x480 DivX file smaller with Xvid but the end result wasn't much smaller than the DivX file so I'm not so sure that the file size advantage is that much better with XviD.
The XviD codec seems to know what bitrate to encode at whereas the DivX codec will encode overhead. If you tell it to encode a 900 bit movie at 3000 bits then that is what it will encode at. The XviD codec seems to sense the overhead and get rid of it.

[DarrellS]

DarrellS wrote:
DivX isn't made to play in any stand alone DVD players but it plays just fine in my Philips 642 DivX/DVD Player.


>>Eh?

>>See the DivX Certification program?

What does that have to do with my statement. DivX was not created for DVD players. Certain DVD players were created for DivX.

>>And here is the endgame argument. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Guess what? For all intents and purposes, the best quality is the source DVD. When we talk about "quality" of a clip, we compare it on the same metric which means the same average bitrate, or, the same filesize for the same clip.

If XviD can provide the same quality for a smaller filesize, that is basically the definition for higher quality codec.

And why on earth would you "re-encode" a DivX5 encoded clip into XviD? That is pointless. It is like re-MPEGing and MPEG.<<

Yeah, I'm stupid and don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Why would anyone want to take a high quality DVD and encode it to anything of less quality. I'm not even sure why they have forums so everyone can give their opinions of the best ways to do it. Surely people aren't trying to get the smallest size files they can get without losing so much quality that it is unviewable.

Like I said in my first post on the subject. If I want DVD quality then I'll just copy a DVD.

If I'm editing clips I've downloaded off of the internet, I have to encode them to something, I can't just direct stream copy or should I save them as uncompressed clips. I surely wouldn't want to re-encode them to XviD would I? No need in re-avi-ing an avi.

[Poplar]

Have to butt in and add my shiny $.02.

Compression is the name of the game in video processing. If a codec compresses better while maintaining the same quality, it's a better codec. Case closed. Of course, that's doesn't mean you can't stick to whatever cpdec you like. Let's all be happy with what we got.

Actually, I am not using XviD or DivX5 any more. If you can download the whole original DVD in less than one hour, you don't need them stinking codecs.

So long, suckerz!! :P

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator BJ_M

[vitualis]

What does that have to do with my statement. DivX was not created for DVD players. Certain DVD players were created for DivX.

It has everything to do with your statement but obviously, you don't know that you don't know.

The whole point of the certification program and how DivX works is that DivX 5 was designed with hardware players in mind. That is, it is designed so that it is relatively easy to decode on a hardware only design (which is required for an inexpensive hardware player).

DivX3 was not designed with this in mind which is why so many DivX capable hardware players still have problems with playback.

Yeah, I'm stupid and don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

YOU said it...

If I'm editing clips I've downloaded off of the internet, I have to encode them to something, I can't just direct stream copy or should I save them as uncompressed clips. I surely wouldn't want to re-encode them to XviD would I? No need in re-avi-ing an avi.

What sort of "editing" are you doing? Editing clips off the net is not recommended as they are poor quality to start off with. Simple editing (e.g., cutting the clip) can be mostly performed by a direct stream copy. In any case, XviD does provide better quality than DivX3 at the same bitrate so if I had to re-MPEG an MPEG (DivX/XviD are still MPEGs), I would choose the codec that would introduce the least number of generational artifacts which is XviD.

As for hitting a "ceiling" bitrate for quality (i.e., increases of bitrate no longer leads to increases in quality) I doubt very much you are hitting it. Ceiling bitrates for all these codecs are high enough such that they are generally not particularly feasible for use on fixed media sizes.

Regards.

[DarrellS]

>>It has everything to do with your statement but obviously, you don't know that you don't know. <<

That's right, keep up with the smart ass remarks.

>>The whole point of the certification program and how DivX works is that DivX 5 was designed with hardware players in mind.<<

Wrong again. DivX5 was created as a legal codec to replace the 3.11 codec and it was such a piece of crap codec that it was never able to replace the 3.11 codec which is still in wide use today. 99.9% of all DivX/MP3 AVIs are created with the 3.11 codec.

>>YOU said it...<<

Keep it up, the personal attacks make you look real intelligent.

>>Simple editing (e.g., cutting the clip) can be mostly performed by a direct stream copy.<<

Wrong again. Not sure how you got to be a moderator with your lack of knowledge. Maybe you should spend more time on a video editing board or better yet, do some editing of your own.

>>In any case, XviD does provide better quality than DivX3 at the same bitrate so if I had to re-MPEG an MPEG (DivX/XviD are still MPEGs), I would choose the codec that would introduce the least number of generational artifacts which is XviD.<<

I just did a test with an MPEG-2 capture and here are my results.

Channel 60 / 1 minute 47 seconds / 99,118 KB
File Type / MPEG-2
Frame Size / 720x480
Frame Rate / 29.970
Bitrate / 7194 Kbps [878KB/s]

44KHz stereo / 224Kbps layer II


XviD encode / 40,276 KB
Time to encode / 4 minutes 24 seconds (over 2 minutes longer than DivX 3.11)
File Type / XviD
Frame Size / 720x480
Frame Rate / 29.970
Bitrate / 1647 Kbps [0.35% overhead]

44100Hz stereo 16-bit PCM / 1411 kbps [0.03% overhead]


DivX encode / 41,382 KB
Time to encode / 1 minutes 58 seconds
File Type / DivX
Frame Size / 720x480
Frame Rate / 29.970
Bitrate / 1732 Kbps [0.33% overhead]

44100Hz stereo 16-bit PCM / 1411 kbps [0.03% overhead]

>>(DivX/XviD are still MPEGs)<<

Wonder why everyone calls them MPEG-4 AVIs? John McGowen, who is a so called expert on the AVI format lists MPEG-4 as AVI and everywhere I've looked on the net, they're called AVIs.
Video editing programs do not list them as MPEGs and I've never seen the MPEG-4 codecs listed as an option for encoding MPEGs.

[celtic_druid]

I meant keep a higher resolution, not artifically create one. But surely you knew that?

So say you have a DVD source @ 720x576. With DivX you might encode at 640x272, but with XviD you could encode at 720x304.

DivX 4.x was the legal replacement of DivX3 and I agree it was crap. DivX 5.x is miles better than 4.x though.

An avi is an avi no matter what the content.

You can direct stream as long as you cut on a keyframe.

I would have to say that the number of encodes using XviD now probably out weights the number of SBC encodes.

[DarrellS]

>>I meant keep a higher resolution, not artifically create one. But surely you knew that?

So say you have a DVD source @ 720x576. With DivX you might encode at 640x272, but with XviD you could encode at 720x304. <<

Like I keep saying, if I have the DVD source, I'm just gonna copy the DVD and like I keep saying, I'm not trying to say that DivX is a better codec, just that XviD isn't so much more superior that I would just scrap my DivX codec.
If I want to take an 800MB file that I have and put it on a CD-R then sure, I'll try converting it to XviD to make it fit. On the other hand, if I know that a file will fit on a CD-R using DivX compression then that is probably what I'll use since the encode time will drop significally by using the DivX codec.

>>DivX 4.x was the legal replacement of DivX3 and I agree it was crap. DivX 5.x is miles better than 4.x though.<<

I believe that DivX 3 and DivX 4 were from the same guy so that people could create their own avis without having to use Microsofts compression and create worthless ASF files and that DivX 5 was created to legally compete with Microsoft and make some money themselves.
I agree DivX 4 is a crappy codec and the only reason anyone would want to use it would be to get really small file sizes but the DivX 5 codec is nowhere near as good as the DivX 3 codec for encoding and if the XviD codec will read all DivX then there is absolutely no reason to use DivX 5.

>>An avi is an avi no matter what the content.<<

Exactly.

>>You can direct stream as long as you cut on a keyframe.<<

True but if you use any kind of filters like crop, brightness or resize then direct stream copy is impossible and if the keyframe is in a bad place it could be pretty undesirable.

>>I would have to say that the number of encodes using XviD now probably out weights the number of SBC encodes.<<

What is SBC, Sub-Band-Coding?

I am starting to see a few more files on file sharing websites encoded with Xvid and one of my movie forums finally put the XviD codec on their website in the tools section so it is staring to get alot more use it seems.

[celtic_druid]

Resizing, cropping, etc. is not really editing.

SBC is Smart Bitrate Calculation or something like that. Basically what NanDub does. DivX3 was 100x's worse before it came along.

You are thinking of DivX3 high motion (4CC DIV4). DivX 4 is something else.

I am just trying to point out that if XviD can produce the same quality at a smaller size (than DivX) then it must also be able to produce better quality at the same size (as DivX). Therefor it does have a quality advantage.

[DarrellS]

>>Resizing, cropping, etc. is not really editing.<<

What would you call it? Doing anything to change a video file from it's original state could be considered editing.

>>SBC is Smart Bitrate Calculation or something like that. Basically what NanDub does. DivX3 was 100x's worse before it came along.<<

That would've been my other guess. I'm not sure why everyone here has a problem with DivX 3 (except that it's a hack) . All I've heard in forums like this one and Doom9 for the last three years is how much better a newer compression that they've discovered is than the old reliable ones that everyone else is using but I have seen absolutely no proof that any of these are better and what I do read on forums like Virtualbub is how buggy most of these formats are and how much they cause programs to crash or cause sync problems etc... What I have seen is alot of people going through fads and swearing that their way is better than time tested ways. Hell, they even come out with their own guides to show everyone that they are experts and push editing programs and codec packs so that everyone can do it their way.

>>You are thinking of DivX3 high motion (4CC DIV4). DivX 4 is something else.<<

The webpage that I found this morning was on the history of DivX and they said that both DivX 3.11 and DivX 4 were created by the same guys.
Links I've found on the 4.12 codec say it was the first legit DivX codec but it wasn't very good and only lasted about three months before divx.com took over the codec in March 2002 and have been upgrading it ever since.

>>I am just trying to point out that if XviD can produce the same quality at a smaller size (than DivX) then it must also be able to produce better quality at the same size (as DivX). Therefor it does have a quality advantage.<<

From my latest tests (posted above) and tests that I have seen from others, that is debatable. Xvid had a very slight edge in file size but not much.

Here is the latest website I found on the AVI codecs and although the guy says that XviD has alot of promise, he's not ready to call it the best codec yet.

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbuehler/video/codecs/avi.html

[celtic_druid]

Once again how can you say that the quality is worse, but you can get a much smaller filesize? XviD can basically hit any size you want it to.

I suspect that the page is quite old anyway. Also excluding a couple of builds that Koepi did there are no seperate branches. Nic's last build was definatly pure cvs anyway and Koepi's last was 1.1.0beta1.

I really couldn't be bothered anyway. If you think DivX3 is the best, then fine. I'm sure you will also think it is better than x264 or any newer codec to, which is also fine, just don't expect the rest of the world to share your opinion.

You really should try doing some tests. Perhaps double blind so that you don't let your feelings dictate the results.

[mcbit]

My 2 cents!

If I encode a DVD using both DivX3 and XVid to an 800MB file size. On playback I can quite clearly see a significant quality difference and that is all I'm worried about.

Xvid clearly produces a better quality final product and has never given me a problem.

[junkmalle]

Here is the latest website I found on the AVI codecs and although the guy says that XviD has alot of promise, he's not ready to call it the best codec yet.

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbuehler/video/codecs/avi.html

Last updated 5/21/03.

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbuehler/video/new.html

[BJ_M]

Here is the latest website I found on the AVI codecs and although the guy says that XviD has alot of promise, he's not ready to call it the best codec yet.

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbuehler/video/codecs/avi.html

Last updated 5/21/03.

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbuehler/video/new.html

i found so many mistakes in there on so many things - that seems to make that site worthless .. i think he is just repeating some things he read on net - and seem to be outdated comments anyway .. i read about 1 page and there were so many wrong statements, I got mad to read further ..

[BJ_M]

ok - i went back and read a 2nd page , even more wrong facts ..

and this is MIT ? this is really really sad, I cant believe MIT woud allow such nonsense ..

read the dvd encoding page for real hoot ..