The End of DivX et al - a discussion

[colordog]

I'm not sure which forum location is the best place to take about such a subject...

I was wondering what people generally thought of DivX 'going the way of the dinosaur', and other encoding programs such as Xvid, RM9, etc. Myself, I've used DivX and Gordian Knot to encode thousands of separate files. Recently though, I got a fast DVD burner, and started experimenting with programs like DVD95copy, DVDshrink, Nero Recode 2, etc. I found that using these, I could backup a DVD (to a 4.7GB) that had better quality than a DivX compression (to a 700MB CD). Not only that, but the entire process for DVD (~45 min) was much shorter than that of GKnot/DivX (~6 hours). Moreover, three companies have announced plans to release dual-layer DVD burners this summer (DVD9), which would result in 'perfect', uncompressed back-ups. Finally, DVD copying is more portable (plays in almost everyone's drives / entertainment center) than DivX (must buy player with DivX decoder).

Given this, I'm wondering if people still think that DivX will continue, or do people think that more people will switch over to DVD copying? I'm very curious as to what DivX can offer over this, especially for the next couple of years.

[Soulhunter]

Future... :rolleyes:

HD/BlueRay content -> DVD5/DVD9 via MPEG4/AVC !!!


Bye

[SeriousWorm]

Since you obviously provided the arguments, here's a few counter arguments:

- what about Internet distribution? All those movie trailers, game trailers & videos, showoff videos... And what about home videos... you really to plan to send them at 8mbps to your friends?

- the prices? AFAIK CD's are much cheaper than DVDs. Not to mention the fact that most people have CD burners while DVD burners only recently got popular ...

- you said backuping to DivX lasts 6 hours... I wonder how come you got so slow of a PC and you still claim you have a DVD burner? I'd rather upgrade to a, say ~2200+ Athlon XP and shorten the process to ~3 hours (2 passes).

- don't forget that CD's are more error resiliant than DVDs, especially than those dual layer ones.

That's all I could think up at the moment.

[Mnl]

Well I don't think that dual layer DVD burners will make mpeg4 encoding obsolete. Just think about CD's - the availability of very cheap burners and discs haven't exactly been the end of Mp3 and other audio compression formats. Many people spend a lot of time in front of their computer every day, and when you do that it is really convenient to have a copy of your DVD's lying on your hard drive for fast accessibility - just as with Mp3. So I think that mpeg4 compression will continue in the future.

[stax76]

for me it appears the opposite is the case, more and more DVD devices support formats like DivX and there are recorders on the way and new formats like there will be WMV players soon. I'm already preparing DVX for this formats

[bond]

HD-DVD with h.264/avc will be the future format

[Tuning]

I think in near future hollywood studios will start direct conversion to MPEG-4 and DVDs will be sold with MPEG-4 video. With thier own hardware encoders the quality may be higher than what expected.

[DigitAl56K]

Originally posted by colordog
I'm not sure which forum location is the best place to take about such a subject...

I was wondering what people generally thought of DivX 'going the way of the dinosaur'


Sshhh! I don't wanna lose my job just yet ;)


, and other encoding programs such as Xvid, RM9, etc.


Yeah, down with XVID!
Just kidding folks ;)


Myself, I've used DivX and Gordian Knot to encode thousands of separate files. Recently though, I got a fast DVD burner, and started experimenting with programs like DVD95copy, DVDshrink, Nero Recode 2, etc. I found that using these, I could backup a DVD (to a 4.7GB) that had better quality than a DivX compression (to a 700MB CD). Not only that, but the entire process for DVD (~45 min) was much shorter than that of GKnot/DivX (~6 hours).


If you did a DivX conversion, and gave DivX the same bitrate you do your MPEG2 software, I'm pretty sure DivX would win out. Also, your MPEG2 software might be re-using parts of the original stream to avoid recompression.

Remember MPEG2 is less work, leading to lower processing times.


Moreover, three companies have announced plans to release dual-layer DVD burners this summer (DVD9), which would result in 'perfect', uncompressed back-ups.


Yes, but what would be really nice is if we can move away from MPEG2 DVD's, and use all of that space to store some high quality, higher resolution MPEG4 video instead. DVD resolution as it stands today doesn't even fill a HD screen at 1:1.


Finally, DVD copying is more portable (plays in almost everyone's drives / entertainment center) than DivX (must buy player with DivX decoder).


Yeah, it sucks that you need a DivX player to watch DivX right? ;)

Seriously though, we're firm believers in the fact that soon you won't be able to buy a player that isn't DivX Certified.


Given this, I'm wondering if people still think that DivX will continue, or do people think that more people will switch over to DVD copying? I'm very curious as to what DivX can offer over this, especially for the next couple of years.


High definition video, a lot of features that we haven't even announced yet, the ability to store movies on your hard drive without consuming 5-7GB of storage, the ability to do video over IP, sending movies via the internet very quickly, etc. The list goes on.

Larger storage capacities will never negate the need for compression, at least until someone finds a nearly unlimited storage scheme, and a similar transport mechanism.

[KpeX]

I doubt that the increase of storage possiblities will bring down high video compression. Look at the audio world for example. Lossless audio compression is widely and freely available at very managable filesizes even on CD-Rs, yet Vorbis, Mp3, and AAC still are much more popular than lossless codecs.

[JensG.]

(Why would I want to backup my DVDs at all? I handle them with care.)
If I really wanted to backup my movies, I could still compress them and put two on one DVD. My originals already fill up space, with each individually backupped it would be even double!

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by JensG.
(Why would I want to backup my DVDs at all? I handle them with care.)
If I really wanted to backup my movies, I could still compress them and put two on one DVD. My originals already fill up space, with each individually backupped it would be even double! Sarcastic implication... Right ???


Bye

[JensG.]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Sarcastic implication... Right ???
Only to add some spice to my idea :D

[stax76]

I capture digital free and pay tv and digital pay radio...

[valnar]

I do both. I guess it depends on the source for me.

If the DVD is of high quality and the structure of it is important, such as extras, hidden secrets, interviews that I want, etc. - I'll copy/transcode the DVD.

If the DVD is episodic, like 4-6 TV show episodes per disc, I'll use DivX since chapter points and subtitles don't mean much. (Even so, I can get chapters and subtitles with DivX if I need it other ways.) Depending on whether I decide to reencode the audio or leave it as AC3, I can get 11-12 45-minute TV episodes per DVD-R disc at 512x384. That's a season on two discs. I'm doing all my Buffy DVD's that way. It's also a lot easier to bring up a specific episode and jump to a certain point when using BSPlayer or another media player. Waiting for the DVD menu and clicking through the options takes time. It's not what I call "video on demand."

The most common use of DivX for me is older movies. It the movie is from the 1970's or earlier, the audio is mono or stereo, and the DVD contains little or no extras. When only the main movie is important, and the quality is questionable in the first place (like an older black & white movie), then DivX is a natural choice just to get the film into digital. With DVD-R discs, I can get 3 or 4 movies onto one disc with excellent quality.

-Robert

[Wolfman]

AFAIK CD's are much cheaper than DVDs
Only in per-unit costs, per megabyte they are broadly comparable. Storing films recorded from Tv, getting four films on one disc, video jukebox, hard drive mpeg4 player..sending home movies to friends, storing hi-def content on std-def DVD's
you can teach an old dog new trix

[chemmajik]

most of mine are DivX5+ so unless your talking about divx311 which I still get I really only see a few xVid in comparison... maybe 5-10% if LUCKY... so this a apples to oranges junk post... DivX5+ dominates in the real hiq I view... Its not bec Xvid is bad its bad it has 5 versions... So not each created version looks the same on another xvid installed version... Until they or u figure it out DivX will rule check the porn sites for a reality check!!!

[esby]

Since we are talking of dinosaurs....

we can still read what the romans written on some stones...
but will we be able to read what we wrote in our cd/dvd in 25 years?

No matter the technology compression used, the result will be the same...

And maybe mpeg4 will die for the purpose of archiving,
maybe not, if you consider you can store more than with mpeg2...
Of course the quality might not be the 'same' but it could be an acceptable compromise.

And of couse, if we cannot read back the data after a few years,
that's just not very useful...

esby

[Malcolm]

what most people seem to forget here: you have to take your time into account! doing a DVD/DVB to DVD-R conversion takes only a fraction of time (and nerves) than doing a DVD/DVB to DivX/XviD conversion. this is certainly more important for me than saving some space or pennies for a DVD-R/CD-R.
but to answer the original question: well _both_ MPEG2 and MPEG4 will vanish! but for a long time they will coexist! both are widely accepted and their userbase is too big for them to disappear soon.

greetings,
Malcolm

[mf]

So how about backupping multiple movies in MPEG4 at constant quant 2, on a DVD?

[Wolfman]

doing a DVD/DVB to DVD-R conversion takes only a fraction of time (and nerves) than doing a DVD/DVB to DivX/XviD conversion Not so! It might take longer to process but with great tools like FU0.41, AGK1.16 and dr.divx then the "danger" is gone. I plan in future to archive some docu's from mpeg2 to mpeg4 and storing many (6hrs) per DVD is a big bonus. Space saving and ease of indexing (all epsiodes on one disc) are also plus points.. but yes for most this is not important.

[ToiletDuck]

HD/BlueRay content -> DVD5/DVD9 via MPEG4/AVC !!!

Better have yourself an 8way opteron system with a 64bit optimized codec to get that 20+GB file down to snuff. Anywho InPhase is the future of disk. Imagine encoding a 200GB disk.... YIKES