XviD vs Divx

[IYG]

Hi all,
I used autoGK to encode a video using XviD and Divx.
This is the information about it:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9311/vsik9.jpg

In this specific case, you think if I should use Xvid or Divx to encode it.
Thank you very much.

[fibbingbear]

Isn't that going to depend on which looks better to you?

Also, if you care about legal issues, properly licensed DivX is the better choice.

[Pulp Catalyst]

fibbingbear is right, it's what looks best to you,
i should note, this question has been talked about in many many times,

but for the record looking at codec comparissons, Xvid is far better,

the only time DivX can keep up with Xvid, and that is if you max out DivX to it's limits, however this will increase encoding time about 700%,

in otherwords, it will take about 16 hours on a advance system, where as Xvid will take about 2.5 hours

from my experience Xvid is better, but both codecs suffer with dark screens,

and DivX is a certified format, although Xvid should not cause any problems, as long as profiles are used inside the encoding program,

but this is just a opinion, nothing more, and it also depends on the program being used aswell,

AutoGK for example is good but does not MAX the potential of Xvid code, as you can't adjust the Codec setting,

Fairuse wizard and film machine i believe allows this setting to be put to max, and DivX can't compete against Xvid at this setting (again personal opinion)

try yourself, or research and find some codec comparisons, in fact i believe Doom9 has these codec comparisons,

good luck, and hopefully you answer this question yourself, because like "fibbingbear" said, ultimately its what you think is best, not anyone else,

TIP: different programs do make a difference, some are badly designed, and will give inferior results,

i use Film machine & Faireuse wizard for my needs,

again, good luck,

[fibbingbear]

Pulp Catalyst, have you tried the most recent version of DivX (6.8)? The failures of DivX over XviD have been mostly addressed, from what I can tell. In the past, xvid was generally faster and better, but nowadays I think they are just slightly different.

[weaver4]

I agree, most of the studies were done using DivX 5.1. Version 6.8 is much improved and much faster. Over the last 18 months DivX has made significant improvements and XviD has been mostly stagnant.

FairUse Wizard by default uses internal codecs which are not the latest. You can change the program to use external codecs by modifing the ini file.

[buzzqw]

and.. just to spam.. latest automkv beta (0.96) added support for divx 6.8 !

i got excellent results and blazing fast conversion

BHH

[unskinnyboy]

Also, if you care about legal issues, properly licensed DivX is the better choice.OK, this doesn't make sense. Supposing he wants to use Xvid for his personal use, what kind of legal issues should he be worried about?

[fibbingbear]

There was a previous discussion about this at:
http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-132548.html

Basically, patent law is weird. :p

Many people assume that personal use means no royalties needed, but I don't know if that's actually the case --- it could be that the MPEGLA just doesn't care about MPEG4-ASP anymore and is focusing their attention on h.264. Or maybe that personal use constitutes such a small percentage of their total profits, it's not worth it to them to stop people from acquiring binaries of XviD.

In either case, DivX licensing is cheap (esp. if you wait for a 50% off sale on their web site), and it's guaranteed to be 100% legitimate. XviD is unknown, as far as I know.

[unskinnyboy]

We are going OT here, but, you are wrong, IMO. We've discussed this legality thing many times in the past.

Here's my summary -

First off, paying royalties is up to the codec maker, not the everyday user. Xvid is an educational codec, not a commercial codec like DivX, the reason why you won't find Xvid binaries on xvid.org. As long as you are not distributing your Xvid encodes (like the Starcraft2 website), then you are totally OK. DXN makes money from their codec, so they certainly have to pay the licensing fees. And why would MPEG LA not care? When did H.264/MPEG-4 AVC even come into being? In 2003. What about back in 2001-2002 when we just had Xvid? Wouldn't MPEG LA have cared then?

[fibbingbear]

As long as you are not distributing your Xvid encodes (like the Starcraft2 website), then you are totally OK.

If this is really true, you've made my day :)

I knew that XviD was protected, in the US, under the First Amendment (hence why they could distribute the source code), but I never knew that it was also considered okay to compile it and use it. Typically educational/research use (which the US has laws protecting) is quite different than personal use (which I did not know if it was protected or not).

And why would MPEG LA not care? When did H.264/MPEG-4 AVC even come into being? In 2003. What about back in 2001-2002 when we just had Xvid? Wouldn't MPEG LA have cared then?

The H.264 was a contrived example. What I was going for was --- since it's so hard to stop distribution, and offers such little benefit to the company, they might not even bother.

You seem to have more experience with the legality, and I'm not an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm not going to continue the argument :)

[Pulp Catalyst]

sorry been away, the last time i did a compare was version 6.7, and the results i got was what i said above,

Xvid is faster with quality ratio,

meaning for per minute of processing Xvid is superior, if time is not a factor then DivX can be pushed, but will take longer,

i admit i haven't tested 6.8 but i do check changelogs,

but i find DivX lies (i know strong word) but it's true, they keep saying, 20% faster here, 15% better compression here, but in my tests i don't see these numbers adding up,

they keep coming out with these PR change logs, and it feels like they purposely want to make them sound good, keep putting things like better % here, increased decoding speed,

but i just don't see it, (again personal opinion nothing more, so lets not get into flaming as that's been going on for a long time)

Xvid, is not perfect fact, from my experience ASP codecs could never be perfect, because ASP is fundamentally flawed, so don't think i'm a Xvid lover, because i don't get that personally involved, i do my tests, read other people's comments, and way it up, and i just don't think DivX has delivered what they should of delivered a long time ago,

considering that they make profit, DivX should be far superior to Xvid, but it's just so slow,

perhaps if i have time i will test 6.8, but looking at the change logs, i don't see much work in the compressing speed, they seem to be working on decoding speed at the moment, which i find pointless for most, because GPU's accelerate decoding any way. and with modern day CPU's aswell, decoding ASP is quite simple for most (but there are many computers in the world that are still slow, but these are fading slow but sure)

but i say again, use what one feels is the best, do 6 tests, for a good result, do 9+ tests to know for sure,

Note, DivX has one advantage that has to score points, it is a certified format, so if playback on DivX players is needed, then DivX is guaranteed to work (again profiles must be used)

but strangely we seem to have lost the original poster (IYG)

[ricardo.santos]

Xvid vs Divx?

On my encodes i only have standalone playability in mind, so i only use the standalone profile.

Divx as improved considerably their quality and speed in the last year and a half, onmy P4, 2.6g with 1G RAM and using Avi.net/Autogk/Staxrip the quality is better than Xvid and i use balanced mode in divx not "extreme quality profile"

On speed encoding ON MY SYSTEM divx is way faster than xvid, considerable difference.

I dont test divx/xvid outside the standalone profile.

Xvid might have been better in the past but not now. my opinion is based on the fact that i only use standalone profiles....

[IYG]

but strangely we seem to have lost the original poster (IYG)
I read all of the posts =))
I didn't reply because it's over my head :confused:
I have tried a lot of tools to rip DVDs, and I just end up with autoGK.
I had some troubles when I used GK.
I have a quad core, so I think it's really a waste when I just used autoGK.
I use chinese DivX player, and it can play back both DivX and Xvid.

[Pulp Catalyst]

well did some tests,

yes there speed has increased so as there quality, but they have cheated somewhat to help this fact,

the encodes are so dark, really dark, not to sure what kind of colour space accuracy system there using, but the brightness is problematic,

there drdivx software is unreliable, kept crashing
there built in converter application is very limited, and also crashed twice, but got there in the end,

and still problems with there installer when it comes to x64 bit operating systems, Jesus how hard is it to fix the bloody shortcut problem's, (it's called SysWOW64 people, not System32)

however as codec quality is topic here,

i apologize, yes DivX is finally getting better, shame they hide how much better it is getting, because by lowering the brightness levels it does have a way of making the quallity of the image better,

speed, yes, again, i apologise, they have deffiently speeded up there compression system somewhat, and perhaps there speed is better then Xvid, but not by much, but quality, from what i can tell no,

but because there own extra software is so unreliable and limited, it was hard to do a fare test, so i can't comment on this,

but for the record, Xvid mainstream support was dropped a long time ago, so in good sportsmanship it was on the cards that DivX was going to catch up, only took them around 15 months,

can't help wondering if Xvid project continued, just think how good Xvid would be today,

to sum it up, yes, DivX is the choice, they have done a remarkable job, and there codec is really become professional

2 pointers to DivX though,

1 sort out your software, there to buggy, and have silly problems that remain that should and could easily be fixed

2 sort out the colour (brightness problems) there have been so many problems with this yet they have failed to fix it

just search "divx dark" in google,

if they addressed these issues, I'm sure DivX would be superior in all aspects without question, and become the dominant ASP format,

people would even forget that DivX has been making money for so long, and Xvid held out as long as it did and open source never made a penny,

so, DivX all the way,

and forgive me for doubting DivX like i did without updating my research and evidence and get my facts straight first.