Problem with DivX 5.2: locks Virtualdubmod

[eiapoce]

Hello

I have a problem with the trial DivX 5.2 release.

When I do select this codec in VirtulDubMod it simply locks the program for at least 30 seconds EVERYTIME.

This is getting irritating since I do edit and compress (DivX) small videoclips recorded from my DVB card and I like to do this in a multipass stile. So editing a Clip takes the usual time + at least 1 minute just to wait that the codec decides to free the program...

I suppose that this has to do with the new copy protection and hope that will be solved in a next release.

Completely unrelated with Video Editing but pertinent with this issue: I had to return to the store a brand new copy of Painkiller - It didn't run on my system due too its UNFAIR COPY PROTECTION (no daemon tools allowed, no pioneer DVD-r allowed). When I heard that Doom3 had the same sh.t on it I decided to get a pirate copy wich now plays flawlessly...

Moral for DivX networks : Copy Protections schemes usually do just the opposite work that they are supposed to do! They hurt costumers and unaffect pirates.

If somebody can give a workaround that would be terrific!

Thanx
Enrico

Win XP Sp1, Athlon 2800 O/C 2100Mhz, 712Mb DDR, Nvidia 5600, Technisat Skystar2, Modem (56k sigh...)

[piscator]

You're better off using DivX 5.1.1. If you read around this forum, there seems to be a problem with the MPEG matrix which flaws the quality. Or you could use XviD which doesn't have any copy protection.

Anyway, it's not a good idea to advertise piracy. I'm sure it's against forum policy :rolleyes:

greetz,
Piscator

[jggimi]

...I'm sure it's against forum policy :rolleyes: That it is. We are scrupulous in our protection of intellectual property rights.

Eiapoce, you aren't required to like our rules, but you agreed to abide by them when you joined the forum. Before posting again, please review Rule #6 (http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm), and take the time to read this announcement (http://forum.doom9.org/announcement.php?s=&forumid=6).

[eiapoce]

I'm sorry about the piracy effect ;-) I thought that not mentioning the source or the way to get the dirty copy I was not going to break the rules. Thus I apologise.

But nevertheless the thruth rests that copy protection schemes are running wild these times. Going back to the shop with a new "non defective" item (100% identical to those others sold in the store) and ask for a refound is, at least, a embarassing situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the topic :
I know perfectly the Xvid and I love it. The problem is that my DivX certified DVD player does not like xvid.

Also I use DivX 5.2 pro because it has a nice "try 6 mounths for free" option. If there is something that I hate more than copy protections is the spyware stuff (and when I say spyware i mean adware, spyware, troians and spam in general). Befoter that I have been using a non pro version of DivX with fair decent resoults

Cheers.

[piscator]

Originally posted by eiapoce
But nevertheless the thruth rests that copy protection schemes are running wild these times. Going back to the shop with a new "non defective" item (100% identical to those others sold in the store) and ask for a refound is, at least, a embarassing situation.


This is a matter of perspective. The product IS defective to begin with. If you cannot play your product in a computer or car radio (had that a couple of times with audio CD's I bought), then the product is defective. Perhaps, it's an embarrassing situation, but for the shop who sold the defective product, not you :D Anyway, you wouldn't believe what responses I got in the shop when I returned a CD. One just suggested that I buy a new car radio :sly: and another suggested that I make a copy of it to play in my car radio....

On topic. For the moment, I still think you're better off with DivX 5.1.1. And I think XviD would also play on a stand-alone DivX certified player if you choose the right encoding options.

greetz,
Piscator

[Sharktooth]

Oh, well i also hate the copy protections and the divx one is really annoying.
I wonder why they protect their codec so hardly when there is a better codec and its source code is available...
Maybe for future DRM ... who knows ...
However 5.2 is not that bad if you use H.263 quant type. The idea behind the adaptive b-frames is not bad even if it's not perfectly implemented.
The most annoying things are the waitings as eiapoce described in his post and the incompatibility with the new SP2.
I know the SP2 thing could be fixed but why i have to disable a feature that keeps my system more secure?

[piscator]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
The most annoying things are the waitings as eiapoce described in his post and the incompatibility with the new SP2.
I know the SP2 thing could be fixed but why i have to disable a feature that keeps my system more secure?

Hmmm. I didn't know that about DivX 5.2 and SP2. So DivX 5.2 uses self-modifying code? Nice... And I guess, the waiting time is a build-in 'feature' of the trial. So, not much you can do about it eiapoce, except for buying it. Anyway, I didn't try 5.2 myself so far because it was stripped of the possibility to have the encoder for 'free' at the cost of spyware. Recapping the history of DivX this didn't agree with me.

First you had DivX3 which was completely free. Because of MPEG4 licensing fees and some other patent stuff, DivX4 came into life. There you got the spyware option as a means for DivXNetworks to pay the MPEG4 fees. With DivX 5.2, you only got a paying option (i.e. limited trial equals paying in the end). In my recollection, DivXNetworks stated in the early days that they would always have an option for a free encoder (note: in my recollection. either I remember incorrectly, or that promise got forgotten along the way). Anyway, 20 bucks is not so bad.

greetz,
Piscator

[DigitAl56K]

We'll have a fix out for this real soon.

[Sharktooth]

Is it a BIG fix (including MPEG quantization) or does it only fix the "long waiting time" issue?

[geoffman]

Originally posted by DigitAl56K
We'll have a fix out for this real soon.

Define real soon :)