Divx better than DVD?

[Yac]

I was wondering something...

Everyone says that the quality of DVD is better than Divx, I was wondering if that were true?

You see, a DVD disc normally has the size og 4.7gb...If the entire space, was used for the movie, the size of the movie would be 4.7gb, right?

If a divx had the size of 4.7gb, would i be better? The divx compression (mpeg-4) is alot better than DVD compression(mpeg-2), so would divx show a movie in a better quality?

After all, DVD uses the same compression as SVCD, the "only" difference is the sound and the size. While SVCD uses mp2, DVD uses DD and while SVCD only uses 2 cd-r (normally 700mb), DVD uses a DVD-R (normally 4.7gb).

If a SVCD had the size of 4.7bg, would it be DVD (its the same compression)?

[tgpo]

Divx is compressed! Thus the quality of Divx is much less than the quality of a DVD.

[adam]

tgpo, well dvds are compressed too, the difference is that divx is compressed much more.

Yac I am no expert on divx but I believe that the quality tops off long before the file would ever reach sizes comparable to a dvd. Also divx playback is very CPU intensive. If the bitrate were that high you would need a super computer to play it smoothly. Also, even though divx does have a better quality to compression ratio, it does compress differently than mpeg2. Again I am no expert on divx but I believe that it cannot retain the level of quality than high bitrate mpeg2 can. Remember that mpeg2 was created and optimized specifically for tv playback and mpeg4 was originally created and optimized for not only pc playback but for transfer over the internet as well.

Svcd and dvd both use mpeg2. If you were to raise the resolution and bitrate of a svcd to that of a dvd then yes the quality would be the same, of course now you would have an xsvcd and almost no dvd player would be able to play it with bitrate that high.

[jeex]

unless you're vidcapping from hdtv, i dont see how divx at whatever size or quality could be better than dvd.. especially considering if you're converting dvd to divx.. there is no way the divx could be better..

[tgpo]

tgpo, well dvds are compressed too, the difference is that divx is compressed much more.

Dvd's may be compressed, but it is the base original to comsumers, thus we can not get any better than that. Everything affter that is compressed and thus loses quality. Like mp3's. Everyone says that 224bps is cd's quality, but it will never be cd quality if some kind of compression is used on the song. You may not be able to hear or see the difference, but if compression is used in any way the quality is not equal to the original.

[e-z-e]

Only thing better about DivX is that its free. DVD has much higher quality in picture and definately in sound.

[adam]

tgpo, well dvds are compressed too, the difference is that divx is compressed much more.

Dvd's may be compressed, but it is the base original to comsumers, thus we can not get any better than that. Everything affter that is compressed and thus loses quality. Like mp3's. Everyone says that 224bps is cd's quality, but it will never be cd quality if some kind of compression is used on the song. You may not be able to hear or see the difference, but if compression is used in any way the quality is not equal to the original.

Divx is a format completely independant from its source. Just because all of us that use divx use dvd as a source that does not make dvd inherantly better quality than divx. If original film is transferred to divx as opposed to using a dvd as a source than I'm sure the quality would be better, but like I said I believe the quality of divx tops off at a much lower bitrate than dvd. Film is always the source. Compared to this dvd is compressed and divx is more compressed and thus is currently unable to achieve the same level of quality as dvd.

The only reason I stated that dvds were compressed was because your post seemed to imply that they weren't, even though I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

[tgpo]

Film is always the source. Compared to this dvd is compressed and divx is more compressed and thus is currently unable to achieve the same level of quality as dvd.

Exactly what I was saying. Divx, when used for movies(i.e. rips), is compressing a DVD when is already compressed, thus the quality can never match the original.

[adam]

But that was not what I was saying. The source for divx does not have to be a dvd. All video material originates as film. DVD and divx are independant formats from their sources. To compare the two, as formats, you have to assume they both have the same source. Practically speaking yes, divx is mainly used as a format for archiving dvds so of course it can never surpass the quality of the original. However, Divx is becoming more and more marketable and, though I still doubt its viability as a competitive format, it is concievable that in the future we will see divx encoded video straight from the same D1 master that the competing dvd comes from. And of course don't forget about homeshot dv video also.

Divx is inherantly more compressed than dvd, at least so far, because beyond a certain point less compression does not increase the quality of the divx, and even if it did it would make the format impracticle. Again I have to note that I have very little experience with divx, this is just my limited understanding, though I'm fairly certain I am correct about this.

We both do come to the same conclusion, however. Divx is more compressed than dvd and it does not achieve the same level of quality, at least not yet. There is still alot of growing room for divx and its encoding tools.

[devinemi83]

This is a really tough argument. DVD is awesome in quality because it comes from a very high quality source, if MPEG 2 video came from a VHs tape or another lower quality source it would look bad. Same thing for Divx. I have seen truely beautiful divx movies, and I have seen really bad quality divx movies. It depends on the quality of the input and the encoding process. Garbage in, garbage out. You can take a high quality source, encode it badly and it will look horrible, if MPEG 1 or 2 is encoded badly it will look horrible as well.