Why do you use Divx?

[*.mp4 guy]

Please choose the answer that best fits why you use divx, if you don't use divx you probably shouldn't be here, but its an option anyway. Also if you vote please expand on your answer and post what version of divx you use, along with your favorate encoding aplication. The poll will close in 2 weeks.

[stax76]

I'm happy with both, DivX and XviD. Currently I use mostly XviD. Usually I use the latest version and yes, my favorite application is StaxRip. Just added support for the Divx Media Format to StaxRip so I might play with DivX a little bit more.

[setarip_old]

Based on the options, perhaps you should change the title to "Why do you prefer DivX to other video codecs?"

Personally, the purpose for which I use DivX is to create DVDs with 6 or 7 high quality rips each as yet another backup of my original DVDs - for playback on my DVP 642/37 that sits in a room mostly frequented by my grandchildren. They get a kick out of having all 6 Star Wars episodes on one DVD.

The reason I use DivX (3.11alpha), as opposed to other codecs, is simply because that's what I started to use when it first came out...

[cacepi]

I use DiVX because it's the one codec that is fully supported by all the hardware I own. From the cheap Phillips DVP642, to my beloved Avel Linkplayer to that really cool KiSS DP-600 I have on my Christmas wishlist, I've never had a problem with DiVX.

I know that H.264 is supposed to be the future, but that future isn't here yet, and I honestly see no reason to change simply for the sake of change. DiVX just works, and that's all I can ask for.

cacepi

[*.mp4 guy]

Based on the options, perhaps you should change the title to "Why do you prefer DivX to other video codecs?"

Not particularly, the options apply to people who are using divx, and I wanted to know the reasons that they think are good reasons to use Divx. People have frequently claimed all of the options in the poll as reason other people should use Divx, or why they use Divx. The options may not all be completely true, but they are why people say they use Divx (for example Divx isn't neccesarily the highest quality mpeg4 asp codec, but some people claim it is and say thats why they use it, so quality is an option).

[Shinjite]

I used to use DivX for my encodes only when I want to watch my videos with my DVD player. Now my archiving are mostly in h.264 format.
DivX is easy to use and it offers good quality outputs too. So far I used DivX Pro 5.2.1 for my encodes and I am satisfied with it. Used it along with VirtualDubMod :)

[SenorKaffee]

The video quality is good, most people have the horsepower needed and because nearly everyone uses it for backups, I don´t need to tell the viewers where they can get the codec.

When H264 is accepted by most software DVD-players I´m going to switch over.

[JuanCC]

This poll needs other option : "Standalone DivX Player"

I see all my DivX files in my Standalone DivX Player and not in my PC , this is why i use DivX.

Also i can show this files in other DivX Players.

[weaver4]

I use divx because of compatibility. I like being able to watch movies on a set-top box, computer, portable/handheld, PDA and such.

But, I am getting rather tired of DivX's problems with audio sync. I don't know why but many recent movies just won't sync correctly using any (DrDivx, AugoGK, avi.net, DrDivx2). converters. I find the same movies don't have any problems with Nero Digital.

[tigerman8u]

I don't. IMO xvid faster and better results

[Slitheen]

I don't prefer Divx quality (although Dr.Divx 2 looks like it might better AutoGK after a few more beta versions) but you can't deny it's universal compatibility.

[Caroliano]

The "I don't" is leading by a big advantage... LoL

Well, the ones for compatibility can be fited in the "ease of use" category IMO. Because Xvid has the divx specifications compatibility profiles. So in this case can be as "universal" compatible as Divx, isn't?

And how Dr. Divx will improve the quality of Divx? I don't know very much about this project...

[*.mp4 guy]

This poll needs other option : "Standalone DivX Player"

I see all my DivX files in my Standalone DivX Player and not in my PC , this is why i use DivX.

Also i can show this files in other DivX Players.
JuanCC that is part of the "compatibility" option, since the only thing that could hinder use of a divx certified player is compatibility.



Well, the ones for compatibility can be fited in the "ease of use" category IMO. Because Xvid has the divx specifications compatibility profiles. So in this case can be as "universal" compatible as Divx, isn't?

And how Dr. Divx will improve the quality of Divx? I don't know very much about this project...
Thats true, the compatibility option is basicly the same as the ease of use option, however everyone might not know that ;). In my experience Dr. Divx doesn't improve quality, but other people might have a different opinion.

[raquete]

as don't have option to "i never used or tested it" i select i don't.
:p

[mod]

Is it possible to change it in Why don't I use it? :)

[Slitheen]

Divx is the mainstream MPEG4. Even your girlfriend has probably heard of it. It's video for people who (unlike most of us) aren't geeks. And they are perfectly happy with it, because let's be honest, you'd have to be pretty anal not to be.

[*.mp4 guy]

Divx is the mainstream MPEG4. Even your girlfriend has probably heard of it. It's video for people who (unlike most of us) aren't geeks. And they are perfectly happy with it, because let's be honest, you'd have to be pretty anal not to be.
Lack of options flexibility and features are all good reasons not to be happy with Divx, excluding the highly contested "best quality" arguments.

[cacepi]

Lack of options flexibility and features are all good reasons not to be happy with Divx, excluding the highly contested "best quality" arguments.The same could be said of MPEG-2, but here's a whole forum practically dedicated to DVD backup...

I'm not saying AVC/H.264 is bad, just that its time isn't here yet for a lot of people. DiVX provides enough functionality to satisfy many of us. With time and better hardware support, AVC will in all likelihood become king, but for now DiVX is still far from dead.

cacepi

[Enigmax]

I don't. IMO xvid faster and better results.
XviD play perfectly in the DivX players.

Greetings

[jggimi]

At the moment, just under 70% of the respondents to your poll don't use the codec.

I wonder, then, why they spend time reading threads in the DivX Encoding subforum?

[celtic_druid]

They don't. The top post appears on the main forum page. At least that is how I got here.

[*.mp4 guy]

At the moment, just under 70% of the respondents to your poll don't use the codec.

I wonder, then, why they spend time reading threads in the DivX Encoding subforum?

Thats a good point, I was kinda wondering about that myself. I wasn't really expecting many people to choose that option since this is the Divx forum...

[Edit]
They don't. The top post appears on the main forum page. At least that is how I got here.
That would explain it.

[Caroliano]

They don't. The top post appears on the main forum page. At least that is how I got here.
That was also my case. It is an interesting poll.

[SeeMoreDigital]

They don't. The top post appears on the main forum page. At least that is how I got here.Yep... That's how i got here too!

[IgorC]

There are still things to improve. Divx 6 still hasnt AQ at macroblock level, no VHS optimizations but there are OPSNR/SSIM optimizs wich dont always produce better quality. No idea why Divx devs carry more about misc. stuff like design, GUI, player etc and not about quality of encoder. First of all user carries about quality . And if quality is low who cares about compability and low price for Divx devices? Just look to H.264 boom.

[digitalman]

When is this 264 boom going to occur? I have been hearing about this codec for a couple of years, but I don't see a lot of support in popular non-PC devices, like portable video players, or DVD players, except PSP. Maybe it is me, and I have just overlooked them. That is why I use DivX, compatibility. It is also the fastest encoder out there, at least for me. I can send any video file to someone, and have them go to a simple named site like divx.com, and download the codec. If I use XviD, and I tell them to go to xvid.org, the only download on there is the source. Going to sites with names that aren't related to XviD, may be confusing for PC dummies. xvid.net is in french, and xvid.com has something to do with politics, and anti-government.

[DigitAl56K]

There are still things to improve. Divx 6 still hasnt AQ at macroblock level

We had that in DivX 5 for Psychovis. We now use a different method in DivX6.

no VHS optimizations but there are OPSNR/SSIM optimizs wich dont always produce better quality.

Psychovis is an HVS optimization. The H263 Optimized quant almost always gives better quality.


No idea why Divx devs carry more about misc. stuff like design, GUI, player etc and not about quality of encoder.

We don't care more about UI design than the quality of the encoder! That being said not many people want to use a codec they can't understand.

[foxyshadis]

Divx is definitely much easier to use than xvid, looks a little nicer and explains options better, it's easier to acquire, and appeals to the causual movie-maker much more - like me a few years ago. (If xvid came bundled with the relevant parts of the mencoder man page it'd be better.)

xvid definitely has a better speed/quality ratio now, and I've moved on to h.264, but back when I bought divx (and when it was project mayo) it was excellent and perfect for me.

[Hard Core Rikki]

XviD play perfectly in the DivX players.

Greetings


Not exactly. its GMC and QPel aren't supported very well in Divx players. Tweaked, it can play perfectly in Divx compatible players indeed.

I used to encode all my videos using Divx. Too bad its encoding speed dropped drastically because of increased encoding complexity. Regardless of technical merit, I would have prefered DivX over Xvid for its:
1- wide public acceptance
2- compatibility with home video players. sure beats homemade VCDs.

[DigitAl56K]

I used to encode all my videos using Divx. Too bad its encoding speed dropped drastically because of increased encoding complexity.

Much faster version coming at you real soon... :)

[IgorC]

Much faster? Hm ... Let me see. Divx6 is twice slower than Xvid comparing both without GMC and Qpel on onecore CPU. New beta HE-3 is still 15-20% slower than Xvid. opsnr and ssim on par for both.

It should be really much faster. Quality ????.... :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[JuanCC]

Let's talk about compatibility.

DivX Media Format SDK released , Dr. DivX 2.0 released.

DigitAl56K , Would be soon Hardware devices with DivX Ultra Certification (http://www.divx.com/corporate/solutions/divx-ultra_press.pdf) ?

[ricardo.santos]

[QUOTE=IgorC]Much faster? Hm ... Let me see. Divx6 is twice slower than Xvid comparing both without GMC and Qpel on onecore CPU. New beta HE-3 is still 15-20% slower than Xvid. opsnr and ssim on par for both.
[QUOTE]
Not on my Pc!!!

Divx6 is twice slower


LOL

[ricardo.santos]

sorry for going back to this again

Divx6 is twice slower

This kind of statment should be proibited, highly misleading.

quick test

source: 12 minute vob file
video only encoding time with divx(2 passes): 24 minutes and 36 seconds.

video only encoding time with xvid(2 passes): litle over 30 minutes

i have a pentium 4 2.80 with 512 Ram

one core only

[celtic_druid]

What build of XviD? What version of DivX (presumably 6)? Without that info your statement is just as misleading really. You could be comparing the latest DivX beta with XviD 1.0.x which isn't really fair.

[stephanV]

I think ricardo.santos aim was not to prove that DivX6 is faster as XviD, but that comments like
Divx6 is twice slower
should be accompanied with a little more explaining than was done there.

I'm pretty sure I can make XviD twice as fast as DivX and DivX twice as fast as XviD.

[ricardo.santos]

What build of XviD? What version of DivX (presumably 6)? . You could be comparing the latest DivX beta with XviD 1.0.x which isn't really fair.


I done the quick test using divx 6.0.3 and im quoting from the release notes"XviD-1.1.0-Beta2", and to be a fair test i would have to use the latest divx beta aswel(Divx HE-3) and on my system the new divx beta is faster than divx 6.0.3

What version of DivX (presumably 6)?

Why the question, Should i have used divx5 codec?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


I think ricardo.santos aim was not to prove that DivX6 is faster as XviD, but that comments like

Quote:
Divx6 is twice slower

should be accompanied with a little more explaining than was done there.


that is why i posted my quick test results, to let first timers/newbies know that the post by IgorC is misleading/not true

[ricardo.santos]

1 more quick test with 2 of the most used tools for divx/xvid encoding

Source file: 9 minute vob file from "war of the worlds"
original vob size: 354 Megs´
Final avi size: 30 Megs


VIDEO ONLY ENCODING DURATION (2 pass mode)

AutoGk(2.26)

Divx6.0.3- 19 minutes and 20 seconds
xvid 1.1.0 beta2- 21minutes and 33 seconds


avi.Net(1.4)

Divx6.0.3- 16 minutes e 31 segunds
xvid 1.1.0 beta2- 19 minutes e 20 segunds


back to the topic now:

i use divx because of their Divx media format and as the tests show it for its speed.

i can have multiple switchable subtitles(xsubs) on a normal divx file or add them to a avi/divx with srt2bmp or divxmux and be sure that no matter what model of divxplayer i buy they will always look the same in any certified divx player(who hasnt got one ?) and xsubs can be viewed with nowadays divx players no need to upgrade firmware(if its divx certified player it will play it)

i could have srt subs but each model displays them in different ways, some will even chop some letters.

most of the users here have english as their native language and because of that subs dont mean squat to them but if subs are an important factor to you divx is the format for you.

thanks divxnetworks

Ps: this is a divx thread not a "i hate divx or divx slower than xvid thread" if you dont like it dont use it

[Sagittaire]

In fact this discution about speed is useless ... you must make speed test with the same quality (metric sense)

for exemple I want 43 dB for 1000 Kbps : find the codec (XviD or DivX) with the highest speed for this quality level ...

[ricardo.santos]

In fact this discution about speed is useless

im talking from my own experience, when i want to convert a dvd to a compressed format(that is what most people want judging by the posts here and other sites and being able to play it on an SAP xvid is slower than divx(on my pc) wether its 4 or 3 on a dvd i have done the tests in the past and divx is faster.

im not being rude but you can say speed discussion is useless and you can bring "expensive words" to the discussion and say the opposite, but bottom line is that on my systen divx is faster than xvid when converting dvds.

[stephanV]

No, Sagittaire is right, both speed and quality depend on the specific settings used. So if you want measure the difference in speed between codecs, you will have to let them aim for the same quality level. Wether that should be measured in PSNR or something else might be point of debate of course, but the comparison would be reasonably fair then.

Like I said here:
I'm pretty sure I can make XviD twice as fast as DivX and DivX twice as fast as XviD.
This is, of course, without any regard for quality.

[ricardo.santos]

ive encoded a 9 minute clip with 2 tools that have SAP playability in mind, both same size, resolution and bitrate , both outputs look the same to me and i noticed that divx took less time encoding the clip than xvid.

[ricardo.santos]

waht conclusion can i take from this?

[jggimi]

IgorC was highly successful -- he managed to hijack this thread with one post.

If you are unable to return to the topic, I will close it.

[ricardo.santos]

[QUOTE=jggimi]IgorC was highly successful -- he managed to hijack this thread with one post.

QUOTE]

i agree, i know both StephanV and Celtic Druid are big guys i the scene, i just wanted to know if my reasoning is completely wrong?

[IgorC]

Guys. I really didnt tent to say something bad.
I said true. Divx6.0.3 is twice slower than Xvid 1.1. on celeron 2 ghz. . and Divx HE-3 is still slower 15-20% than Xvid. Both for maximum fiull quality settings. Divx insane mode + multi b + h263+ 2pass. Xvid wide search , VHQ, BVHQ, trellis and other options enabled. Both without GMC and Qpel . opsnr and ssim on par.
I was talking about possible future imporevements. Thats all.

Jggimi has publically named me as a hijacker of this forum
its wrong I said nothing bad aboud Divx. As I was mentioned publically a hijaker Im saiyng publically too Im going to send a pm to another admins of doom9. Please respect a little users . At least dont mentioned me publically hijacker and dont ask me not publicated such discsussiion publically. You did it publically so do I. It is fair.

[ricardo.santos]

on celeron 2 ghz.

that was the bit missing on your post.

end of discussion on my side.

[IgorC]

you have another cpu ....thats why you get another speed.

[Doom9]

I wonder, then, why they spend time reading threads in the DivX Encoding subforum?Probably because the thread comes up as the latest in the forum overview, and all those that look at the mpeg4 category will see it.. me included. The poll is a misconception though, if you want only people who use the codec, get rid of the option "I don't use DivX".

[charleski]

I think many readers of this forum tend to forget that there's a wide gulf between people who will spend hours tweaking their avisynth scripts and encoder settings to get the best result possible and those who just want to get some video encoded with the minimum fuss. (If you want to look at speed/quality tradeoffs, you should include time spent reading the boards trying to work out the best tweaks.)

I don't use divx because I belong to the former category, which means I play with x264, but I still think it's obvious that Divx has contributed a lot to the video encoding community. If you look at the latest MSU codec comparison, Divx6 performs pretty well when compared to some of the latest h.264 codecs, which is impressive.

@ricardo.santos: If you get better results using dixv than xvid, that's all that should matter to you. Some people get religious about the differences, but in the absence of a perfect quality measurement, a lot of it is a matter of taste anyway.

[*.mp4 guy]

The poll is a misconception though, if you want only people who use the codec, get rid of the option "I don't use DivX".
That option is only there because people would be smartasses and ask why I didn't include it if it wasn't there.

[Slitheen]

Well, 6.1 just released is super fast and has put Divx back on the map. Coupled with Dr. Divx 2 it's very impressive.

Sort of makes this poll a bit dated now, as Divx has moved up a gear.

[Manao]

Just some random remarks :

Divx is the mainstream MPEG4. Even your girlfriend has probably heard of it. It's video for people who (unlike most of us) aren't geeks.No, they have heard of DivX, but not the company. It was already mainstream to 'watch a DivX' when DivX networks didn't exist. DivX comes from the 3.11 codec, which has nothing to do with DivX networks.
No idea why Divx devs carry more about misc. stuff like design, GUI, player etc and not about quality of encoder.Well, it's simple : Nero has a great codec, yet they have been bashed and bashed over and over again at the beginning of the Recode stuff because the GUI wasn't good. GUI matters a lot more than the codec itself when it comes to selling.
Divx6 is twice slower than Xvid comparing both without GMC and Qpel on onecore CPU. New beta HE-3 is still 15-20% slower than Xvid. opsnr and ssim on par for both.|--------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| Codec | PProc | Bitrate | Size | OPSNR | SSIM 0 | SSIM 2 |
|--------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| DivX6 ASP | PP4 | 446 | 6757 | 39.85 | 70.17 | 65.02 |
| XviD ASP | PP4 | 446 | 6756 | 39.66 | 69.55 | 64.33 |
| LAVC ASP | PP4 | 447 | 6775 | 39.71 | 69.51 | 63.82 |
| DivX6 ASP | PP4 | 896 | 13493 | 42.78 | 81.14 | 77.99 |
| XviD ASP | PP4 | 896 | 13489 | 42.66 | 80.99 | 77.96 |
| LAVC ASP | PP4 | 897 | 13528 | 42.77 | 80.95 | 77.77 |
Divx 6 still hasnt AQ at macroblock levelYou mean, the thing that'll be dropped from XviD because it's a mess, and replaced by something else ?
H263 Optimized quantWhy don't you call it trellis ?
When is this 264 boom going to occur? I have been hearing about this codec for a couple of years, but I don't see a lot of support in popular non-PC devices, like portable video players, or DVD players, except PSP.You forgot the Ipod. And devices supporting h264 will come really soon ( it's a matter of month ), and in the overall will have come more quickly than for MPEG4 part 2.
xvid definitely has a better speed/quality ratio nowThat I doubt. XviD certainly has a good speed / quality ratio. Yet, DivX lately has matured a lot. The issue is that everybody wants to use it in insane mode, which is slow and doesn't necessarily bring distinctively more quality than other faster mode. The insane mode, considering psnr, is better than XviD, so it's normal that it's slower.

Anyway, back to the poll, I didn't vote ( I don't have time to encode anymore ). Would have I to encode with an MPEG4 ASP codec, I'd choose XviD because I know how it works and because I hardly used DivX. But I would recommend DivX to anybody who hasn't used XviD yet and who needs compatibility.

[IgorC]

Manao Do you think I dont know that those results for 450 kbps? For 1 cd-rip the difference for SSIM was +0.02 . Divx for metrics was tiny better.
Do you think +0.02 is good way to say that Divx was better than Xvid. Last build of Xvid has +0.05 OPSNR and +0.07 for SSIM. So with the same arguments I can say Xvid is better than Divx.

+/- 0.05 - 0.1 SSIM means nothing. For metrics (1 cd rip bitrates) Xvid and Divx6.1 on par. Or you can see difference on +0.1?

[Manao]

IgorC : last time I checked, 39.85dB - 39.66dB = 0.19, which can roughly translate into 4% bitrate saving. And for SSIM, 65.02 - 64.33 = 0.69. So I wonder, can you objectively do the math ? ( Oh, and 1cd rip for HP2 is 450 kbps, not 900 - just to be clear )

[IgorC]

dont speak to me about math. You dont know to who you are talking about math.
Maybe I dont understand nothing in my life but math.
I ve made a test with Xvid december build. And it was slightly higher than 78 SSIM. While Divx has 77.99. And I´m talking about min. reasonable bitrate (1 cd-rip). I´m not going to do 450 kbps 1/2 (one half ) CD-rip. No sence.

[jggimi]

Thread closed.