What is new in DivX 6.8.3? - Page 3

Manao · 30th June 2008, 21:53

Quote:

I can't think of anything in the gap between "hardware player supporting HD material at Level 4.1" and "little device I can hold in my hand" (PSP, iPod, etc).

Apple TV. And at least one of the STB (netgem) I regularly use at work (it caps around 20mbits in 1080i30).

However, I agree to say that the need for third party levels for AVC is a lot less dire than it was for ASP. Two years ago, it would have been another story, but now the processing power is there, so it's not necessary anymore.

ChronoCross · 30th June 2008, 22:44

The only problem I see with what you said Brother John is that other encoders aren't going to want to put "Certified to create DivX certified streams" in their products as that's free advertising and supporting the rule of law of the other company. Thereby creating a rift in the profiles as their companies adopt their own "standard profiles". It would be much better for them to just be able to say "Level 4.1 Compatible"

Inventive Software · 30th June 2008, 23:03

If we're talking DivX Certification here for a second, my thought would be that SD could be 4.1 or 4.2 High Profile compliant, and HD could be 5.1 High Profile compliant, thus keeping a wide spread of the H.264 standard's features. In practice, only the image size/frame rate and number of macroblocks and max bitrate changes between 4.1/4.2 and 5.1, the difference in bitrate and macroblock terms is 5.1 has 4x the macroblocks per second of 4.1, and 5.1 High has a max bitrate 6x bigger than 4.1.

Dark Shikari · 30th June 2008, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inventive Software

If we're talking DivX Certification here for a second, my thought would be that SD could be 4.1 or 4.2 High Profile compliant, and HD could be 5.1 High Profile compliant, thus keeping a wide spread of the H.264 standard's features. In practice, only the image size/frame rate and number of macroblocks and max bitrate changes between 4.1/4.2 and 5.1, the difference in bitrate and macroblock terms is 5.1 has 4x the macroblocks per second of 4.1, and 5.1 High has a max bitrate 6x bigger than 4.1.

There's no way in hell you'll get anyone to support 5.1, primarily given the fact that for all intents and purposes (nearly) no hardware exists in the current world that even supports 5.1 completely.

Ranguvar · 30th June 2008, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

There's no way in hell you'll get anyone to support 5.1, primarily given the fact that for all intents and purposes (nearly) no hardware exists in the current world that even supports 5.1 completely.

It would be better to ask for 4.1 compatibility, but also ask that the players attempt to play videos even if they have higher levels. Nothing annoys me more than patching a 5.1 video to 4.1, and then it works perfectly. It's like, "Why didn't you just give it a shot at playing instead of running in fear from the big 5 1?"

Inventive Software · 30th June 2008, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranguvar

It would be better to ask for 4.1 compatibility, but also ask that the players attempt to play videos even if they have higher levels. Nothing annoys me more than patching a 5.1 video to 4.1, and then it works perfectly. It's like, "Why didn't you just give it a shot at playing instead of running in fear from the big 5 1?"

Your solution sounds the easiest, but I'm also surprised players don't do this.

DigitAl56K · 30th June 2008, 23:41

The CE world is not as clear cut as you might imagine when it comes to H.264. There are many STBs that do not fully support High 4.1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

The only problem I see with what you said Brother John is that other encoders aren't going to want to put "Certified to create DivX certified streams" in their products

Why not? I could understand companies that compete for CE support taking some issue with it. Today I can count these companies on one hand with fingers to spare. Some of them don't even use H.264. I don't think any use the same container.

Which encoders are we talking about?

Brother John · 30th June 2008, 23:53

As far as player manufacturers are concerned I guess most won’t have a problem with DivX certification. But for example Nero might not be too keen to let their encoder produce »DivX certified« video. ChronoCross is right, that would be free advertising for the competition. But an industry wide joint certification program might be too much to hope for.

ChronoCross · 1st July 2008, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitAl56K

The CE world is not as clear cut as you might imagine when it comes to H.264. There are many STBs that do not fully support High 4.1.

Why not? I could understand companies that compete for CE support taking some issue with it. Today I can count these companies on one hand with fingers to spare. Some of them don't even use H.264. I don't think any use the same container.

Which encoders are we talking about?

I was talking exactly about those people. With all the infighting between CE devices causes tons of problems in the certified world. So why not use something that is already defined like Levels...

If AVC really wants to take off and have a decent market a universal non company specific standard must be used between encoders.

DigitAl56K · 1st July 2008, 01:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

I was talking exactly about those people.

And you miss my point: This covers hardly any companies. In fact, are there any beside Nero (who output .MP4 files and have their own "Nero Digital" standard anyway)?

Quote:

If AVC really wants to take off and have a decent market a universal non company specific standard must be used between encoders.

AVC in and of itself is not a media format. If "AVC" really wants to take off and have a decent market there needs to be a company to work with all of the manufacturers to promote a common standard. Look at DivX ASP format. We had this exact same discussion when DivX 5 was released.

Sharktooth · 1st July 2008, 17:46

@Digital56K: is DNX considering to make also a divx CLI encoder?

bond · 1st July 2008, 20:55

which advanced audio formats will the new divx avc certifications include? aac? vorbis? wma pro?

Inventive Software · 1st July 2008, 23:17

I'd ask if it's possible for Vorbis and AAC to get the look in on DivX Certified audio. Vorbis is not as common on standalones, and the Tremor fixed point decoder's been around for a long while. AAC could probably be the ideal multi-channel format, Vorbis the 2 channel format (although AAC is no slouch in this regard, there are different flavours that take different decoding requirements and more are being developed for different markets. Vorbis has not changed much), but they both have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Sharktooth · 2nd July 2008, 03:21

vorbis... mkv... dunno. i'd prefer a more "standard" compliant output.
mp4 is the natural container for AVC/AAC. why not use that combo?
MKV and vorbis are 2 outstanding techs and would be great to have them as a second choice though. however IMHO AVC/AAC in MP4 is the way to go.

Dark Shikari · 2nd July 2008, 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharktooth

vorbis... mkv... dunno. i'd prefer a more "standard" compliant output.
mp4 is the natural container for AVC/AAC. why not use that combo?
MKV and vorbis are 2 outstanding techs and would be great to have them as a second choice though. however IMHO AVC/AAC in MP4 is the way to go.

Probably because if they use MP4 they lose a potential way to distinguish themselves from the competition

GodofaGap · 2nd July 2008, 06:04

Or it could just possibly be that they wanted support for AC3 and perhaps some other non-native mp4 formats.

BetaBoy · 2nd July 2008, 08:14

... or any of a dozen+ other formats. IMHO (and without me going into details) using Matroska allows DivX a greater range of flexability without having to confirm to limited container possibilities. DivX has always been about pushing new ideas/concepts/projects (even though they have been quite this past year), this is no different.

SeeMoreDigital · 2nd July 2008, 09:13

Given that every digital surround sound amplifier offers onboard multi-channel AC3 decoding (and not AAC), AC3 is a must for any container.

Much as I like multi-channel AAC-LC and HE audio, I am happy that the MPEG-4 spec is at last being amended to officially accommodate AC3 (and EAC3) audio streams.

Daiz · 16th July 2008, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitAl56K

DivX 7 will use the MKV container format! That's right, you heard it here first: our new format does not use AVI! Those of you now planning a street party do remember to send me an invitation

Very seriously awesome news.

Now how about ASS for subtitles

?

DigitAl56K · 16th July 2008, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daiz

Now how about ASS for subtitles

?

Thanks for the offer but that's really not necessary, you can watch subtitles for free O.O

30th June 2008, 23:03	#43 \| Link
Inventive Software Turkey Machine Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Lowestoft, UK (but visit lots of places with bribes [beer]) Posts: 1,953	If we're talking DivX Certification here for a second, my thought would be that SD could be 4.1 or 4.2 High Profile compliant, and HD could be 5.1 High Profile compliant, thus keeping a wide spread of the H.264 standard's features. In practice, only the image size/frame rate and number of macroblocks and max bitrate changes between 4.1/4.2 and 5.1, the difference in bitrate and macroblock terms is 5.1 has 4x the macroblocks per second of 4.1, and 5.1 High has a max bitrate 6x bigger than 4.1. __________________ On Discworld it is clearly recognized that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10. If the hero did not overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld

30th June 2008, 23:53	#48 \| Link
Brother John (schein)heilig Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Germany Posts: 512	As far as player manufacturers are concerned I guess most won’t have a problem with DivX certification. But for example Nero might not be too keen to let their encoder produce »DivX certified« video. ChronoCross is right, that would be free advertising for the competition. But an industry wide joint certification program might be too much to hope for. __________________ Brother John When lost in BeSweet's options, have a look at the Commandline Reference. DVD nach MPEG-4 klappt nicht? Verzweifelt? Auf zum Encodingwissen! Last edited by Brother John; 1st July 2008 at 02:26. Reason: spelling

1st July 2008, 17:46	#51 \| Link
Sharktooth Mr. Sandman Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Haddonfield, IL Posts: 11,768	@Digital56K: is DNX considering to make also a divx CLI encoder? __________________ MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! Last edited by Sharktooth; 1st August 2008 at 14:16.

1st July 2008, 20:55	#52 \| Link
bond Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 9,770	which advanced audio formats will the new divx avc certifications include? aac? vorbis? wma pro? __________________ Between the weak and the strong one it is the freedom which oppresses and the law that liberates (Jean Jacques Rousseau) I know, that I know nothing (Socrates) MPEG-4 ASP FAQ \| AVC/H.264 FAQ \| AAC FAQ \| MP4 FAQ \| MP4Menu stores DVD Menus in MP4 (guide) Ogg Theora \| Ogg Vorbis use WM9 today and get Micro$oft controlling the A/V market tomorrow for free

1st July 2008, 23:17	#53 \| Link
Inventive Software Turkey Machine Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Lowestoft, UK (but visit lots of places with bribes [beer]) Posts: 1,953	I'd ask if it's possible for Vorbis and AAC to get the look in on DivX Certified audio. Vorbis is not as common on standalones, and the Tremor fixed point decoder's been around for a long while. AAC could probably be the ideal multi-channel format, Vorbis the 2 channel format (although AAC is no slouch in this regard, there are different flavours that take different decoding requirements and more are being developed for different markets. Vorbis has not changed much), but they both have their own strengths and weaknesses. __________________ On Discworld it is clearly recognized that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10. If the hero did not overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld

30th June 2008, 22:44	#42 \| Link
ChronoCross Does it really matter? Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,542	The only problem I see with what you said Brother John is that other encoders aren't going to want to put "Certified to create DivX certified streams" in their products as that's free advertising and supporting the rule of law of the other company. Thereby creating a rift in the profiles as their companies adopt their own "standard profiles". It would be much better for them to just be able to say "Level 4.1 Compatible"

2nd July 2008, 03:21	#54 \| Link
Sharktooth Mr. Sandman Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Haddonfield, IL Posts: 11,768	vorbis... mkv... dunno. i'd prefer a more "standard" compliant output. mp4 is the natural container for AVC/AAC. why not use that combo? MKV and vorbis are 2 outstanding techs and would be great to have them as a second choice though. however IMHO AVC/AAC in MP4 is the way to go. __________________ MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!!

2nd July 2008, 06:04	#56 \| Link
GodofaGap Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 823	Or it could just possibly be that they wanted support for AC3 and perhaps some other non-native mp4 formats.

2nd July 2008, 08:14	#57 \| Link
BetaBoy CoreCodec Founder Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Francisco Posts: 1,421	... or any of a dozen+ other formats. IMHO (and without me going into details) using Matroska allows DivX a greater range of flexability without having to confirm to limited container possibilities. DivX has always been about pushing new ideas/concepts/projects (even though they have been quite this past year), this is no different. __________________ Dan "BetaBoy" Marlin Ubiquitous Multimedia Technologies and Developer Tools http://corecodec.com

2nd July 2008, 09:13	#58 \| Link
SeeMoreDigital Life's clearer in 4K UHD Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Notts, UK Posts: 12,227	Given that every digital surround sound amplifier offers onboard multi-channel AC3 decoding (and not AAC), AC3 is a must for any container. Much as I like multi-channel AAC-LC and HE audio, I am happy that the MPEG-4 spec is at last being amended to officially accommodate AC3 (and EAC3) audio streams. __________________ \| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 \| My Network Layout & A/V Gear \|

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode