No one talks about divx 6.7?

[DeathTheSheep]

The flickering is not due to pc speed. It is introduced encoding-time. Check some old threads I made on the matter... only really appears in super-low-bitrate anyway. Q5 or lower, QVGA or less.

[Brother John]

@Inventive Software
But after cropping your source is not DAR 16:9 anymore. PAR is still exactly the same though, because removing lines of pixels does not change the shape of those pixels. If you artificially create a perfect 16:9 DAR afterwards, that’s already the next processing step, which btw will result in a slightly distorted frame.

[kosmonaut]

What my biggest gripe is it seems divx has turn there attention mostly to stage6 and have stopped assisting in the development DR DIVX. And as far as the divx converter its usless for what I need to do.


Hi dannyv, sorry I've taken so long to reply, things have been a bit hectic around here lately with fires and such. :eek:

I don't have concrete answers to the Dr. DivX question, unfortunately, except to say there is still development on it, but no set ETA on new versions. I wish I could be more helpful, but that's all I was able to find out right now.

On the other issue of Stage6, you can be assured that is not taking too much attention away from other things anymore. We've actually split it off entirely from DivX. It's now (or about to become) a totally separate entity.

[weaver4]

On the other issue of Stage6, you can be assured that is not taking too much attention away from other things anymore. We've actually split it off entirely from DivX. It's now (or about to become) a totally separate entity.

Does this mean that DivX will put some effort back into it's tools? How about the Doctor, will any work start on it? I would help development on the Doctor but my C++ skills are lacking.

[Ajax_Undone]

Cool well I just got the entire Repository trunk DDled and Compressed it to a RAR type file...

Here is the link (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=67E5I64P) for anyone wishing to help (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=67E5I64P)...


To help with the Coding Part you need to know C++/Win32 Programming using Visual C++ 2005 Express edition, mingw and wxWidgets... If you think you can learn fast Do it...


To get involved contact harikrishnan_v he is the Project Manager @ https://sourceforge.net/projects/drdivx/

Note to all users wanting the Dr. Fixed post the bugs found at the Divx Forum or in the Bug tracker on sourceforge.

Please note that not all "Bugs" are Bugs just a mis understanding at which case post first in the Divx forums under Dr Divx first.

If someone there is able to help you out then avoid the bug tracker at Sourceforge...

Now we might just start getting this project going again... Who Know's...

[delacroixp]

On the other issue of Stage6, you can be assured that is not taking too much attention away from other things anymore. We've actually split it off entirely from DivX. It's now (or about to become) a totally separate entity.

Does this mean that DivX will put some effort back into it's tools? How about the Doctor, will any work start on it? I would help development on the Doctor but my C++ skills are lacking.

Your rock-solid enthusiasm, for a project that many deamed unnecessary and simultaneosly unattainable, has certainly been a beacon of light for the entire Dr DivX II project...
However, I think, your inspiration is worth more than any amount of hands-on 'nuts and bolts' programming...


Keep the light burning bright... the dream is alive and well !!!


:):devil::D
Pascal

[Ajax_Undone]

Does it look like there is hope or am I just smoking some of my own home grown, and seeing things that aren't really there...

[delacroixp]

Does it look like there is hope or am I just smoking some of my own home grown, and seeing things that aren't really there...
Probably all three !!!
All good !!
np !


*** EDIT *** (http://forums.divx.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=4750&page=1#c25726)
A certain group of people love movies, divx and encoding (not necessarily in that order) and they would like an advanced tool/app which includes all three.

DD II and H263 is a contradiction in terms since H263 is no longer the advanced codec (DD I was probably at the peak of it's game). However, having said that, H263 will still perform a usefull role in the community for sometime to come.

Perhaps, Dr DivX III, could support H263, H264 and "H265", as an advanced DivX application for all three... possibly in Visual C++.


:):devil::D
Pascal

[dannyv]

Hi dannyv, sorry I've taken so long to reply, things have been a bit hectic around here lately with fires and such. :eek:

I don't have concrete answers to the Dr. DivX question, unfortunately, except to say there is still development on it, but no set ETA on new versions. I wish I could be more helpful, but that's all I was able to find out right now.

On the other issue of Stage6, you can be assured that is not taking too much attention away from other things anymore. We've actually split it off entirely from DivX. It's now (or about to become) a totally separate entity.

Thank you for your responce and I hope DR DIVX will restore our faith in it with a new release. For now I will continue to deal with its quarks until something better comes along as far as an easy to use front end app for DIVX. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Ajax_Undone]

Thank you for your responce and I hope DR DIVX will restore our faith in it with a new release. For now I will continue to deal with its quarks until something better comes along as far as an easy to use front end app for DIVX. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Dude don't ever settle that's what makes this world what it is...

"The man that settles is weak and useless in the eyes of many, but in the eyes of the settler. He sees the truth of those who mock him are the ones who gave up first, and unto them is the detriment of all society"...

~A.J.~

[xruntime]

The cost of bandwidth has been declining since forever, if Stage6 doesn't survive now, eventually we will have a high quality site just like it. I'm confident in Stage6 though, because while it may appear to be a flawed business model, I doubt Divx is just standing around letting their money go. They must be making up at least some of that investment via advertisements or something of the like.

Especially those front page ads, don't you see them? The PS3, Crysis...they must receive some good money for those.

If they don't grow as fast as Youtube did, they'll be fine.

But to be honest, I could care less about their business model, but instead that I get to watch high quality, sometimes HD videos and even save them to my hard drive!

[Fluffbutt]

The cost of bandwidth has been declining since forever

Huh!, not here in this arsehole of a country (Australia) - they've just put the price UP by $480/year for my 80G connection.

[Amdh]

I Guess That's Pretty Normal .. AVC Gives By Far Better Quality Than DivX, So People Choose It Over That Old *X, Anyway, We'll Be Waiting For The AVC Edition Of DivX To See What DivX Networks Can Do There.

[Shinigami-Sama]

I Guess That's Pretty Normal .. AVC Gives By Far Better Quality Than DivX, So People Choose It Over That Old *X, Anyway, We'll Be Waiting For The AVC Edition Of DivX To See What DivX Networks Can Do There.

main concept's encoder was already pretty decent, so I wonder what they're going to do with it
I'm hoping that they actually make decent players that support the real standard, and not the half assed ones in their current product lines

[xruntime]

Huh!, not here in this arsehole of a country (Australia) - they've just put the price UP by $480/year for my 80G connection.

well, more so for the companies than the consumer, here in the US internet connections are slower than much of the rest of the world

I have 768/128 :(

[IgorC]

well, more so for the companies than the consumer, here in the US internet connections are slower than much of the rest of the world

I have 768/128 :(
All internet of Latin America is derived from U.S internet. Vastly most of connections is cablemodem 640/128 and sometimes 1024/256

[Amdh]

I'm Right With You Friend, In Terms Of AVC H.264 We Do Not Need Encoders Anymore, x264 And The Upcoming Xvid AVC Are Fairly Enough, We Need Decoders/Player And Some Hardware Support And That's What DivX Will Bring To The World Of AVC. I Consider That When DivX Will Release It's AVC Codec, More People Will Know About AVC, More Content Will Be Encoded In That Format And So Hardware Player Producers Will Be Encouraged To Integrate AVC Support To Their Players, Anyway, Wish Them The Best .. Good Luck DivX, It Won't Be That Easy To Sell DivX AVC When x264 Is Here And Free Of Charge, So Again Good Luck.

[weaver4]

AVC right now is a mess. Content for ipods, psp, ps3, quicktime, apple tv, xbox, and others won't play on each others. Hopefully DivX-AVC will be able to fix that.

One of the falsehoods as I see is that AVC is much better than DivX. According to this site's testing Divx is just as good as AVC if you give it 25% higher bitrate. I am willing to live with that to have hardware compatibility. [This is the only double blind MOS test I know of.]

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/subjective_codecs_comparison_en.html

BTW: Xvid-AVC has been close for over 2 years.

[Dark Shikari]

AVC right now is a mess. Content for ipods, psp, ps3, quicktime, apple tv, xbox, and others won't play on each others. Hopefully DivX-AVC will be able to fix that.AVC has very specific profiles, unlike MPEG-4 ASP, which is a total mess of different support that you can't really count on.

"DivX AVC" will not change anything; DivX is a tiny, tiny player in a huge industry, and all that really matters are the official profiles supported by the big players.
One of the falsehoods as I see is that AVC is much better than DivX. According to this site's testing Divx is just as good as AVC if you give it 25% higher bitrate. I am willing to live with that to have hardware compatibility. This strongly depends on the source and the bitrate. At high bitrates, yes, AVC is only marginally better. At low bitrates, it is vastly better; I'd say, for example, for compressing EVE Online fan videos, the reason I got into H.264 in the first place, H.264 has a 300-400% advantage over DivX at the bitrates normally used; 1000kbps at 720p is usually sufficient to equal DivX at 4000kbps.

If you're dealing with a grainy, messy source, the only advantage H.264 really has is CABAC, of course.

I don't see why one would want to use DivX over AVC for future compatibility though; the former is a standard endorsed by only a single company with generally iffy hardware support, while the latter is backed by dozens of companies and is already being used for broadcasting--something that DivX never managed to do in all of its years of desperate marketing.

DivX is still useful in the present though; if you need to archive HD in a format that doesn't require much CPU to play back, MPEG-4 ASP as a whole is still a very useful format as long as you're willing to allocate more hard disk space. And of course DivX has more hardware support simply due to the fact that it is quite a bit older and has had much more time to become supported. So while DivX will be less useful in the future, today it still serves its role.

[weaver4]

DivX has done a great job of working with Manufactures and Silicon manufactures to come up with profiles that are very portable (from device to device) in the ASP market. I am hoping they can do the same thing in the AVC market. Right now if you make AVC content for the psp it won't play on anything else; same goes for the Ipod, same goes for Apple TV, ect. I am in hopes that DivX will be able to do the same thing for the AVC world it did for the ASP world.

I have never ever found "iffy hardware support", if it is "DivX certified" I have found it will play all my content.

I have had 4 DivX certified DVD players in my home. every single one of them played my collection of DivX movies flawlessly. Never had to recode any movie to play on a new player. On the other hand my AVC movies (done with nero digital) won't play on a single hardware device not even my Apple TV. What do you think the chances are that these AVC movies will play on my new Popcorn Hour A-100....absolutly none....I will have to encode all my movies again...and again....and again.

AVC is better than ASP I just want it to be more portable, from device to device.

[Dark Shikari]

AVC is better than ASP I just want it to be more portable, from device to device.The point here is that AVC has been out for only a couple years, while DivX has been around for three times that...

[Manao]

Ipod / PSP /Apple TV all supports (A)SP, yet none are compatible with one another. The problem with those three piece of hardware and AVC portability doesn't lie in AVC, but in the devices' manufacturers (Apple/Sony).

And DivX will definitely not be able to force those two to make their devices be compatible with one another (the purpose of Sony/Apple being to tie the customer to the hardware, portability isn't a plus for them)

As for portability aside from those three hardware devices, AVC is self sufficient. No need for extra profiles created by a third party company.

[weaver4]

The problem is with the chipset manufactures as well. To make a piece of silicon that would run AVC in its entirety would require a very very expensive chipset. So all of these manufactures attack the problem a little differently by selecting subsets of the AVC to support. A third party company providing direction is exactly what is needed.

Lets admit it, DivX and XviD are going to be popular until the torrents quit supporting the content. And as as long as you need to have multiple files to support the same content for every AVC player (Ipod/PSP/Apple TV) the torrents are not going to rapidly move to AVC.

And the most widely uses ASP content on the Mac is Divx/Xvid, on the PC is is DivX/XviD, PS3 just announced DivX, XBoX 360 just announce DivX. So DivX has shown they can encourage the use of their codec on big time Manufactures.

[Dark Shikari]

The problem is with the chipset manufactures as well. To make a piece of silicon that would run AVC in its entirety would require a very very expensive chipset.Like the couple-million transistor dedicated hunk of silicon on nVidia's 8500 that costs a few dollars to make and decodes H.264 High Profile at Blu-Ray bitrates?

[weaver4]

Like the couple-million transistor dedicated hunk of silicon on nVidia's 8500 that costs a few dollars to make and decodes H.264 High Profile at Blu-Ray bitrates?

More than a few dollars; yeah but like that.

[Dark Shikari]

More than a few dollars; yeah but like that.Not really; it isn't as if its half the price of the card, given that its only a few percent of the entire chip.

[weaver4]

A full spec AVC chip would be 22-25 times larger than a standard DivX chip. A subset of AVC that is "good enough" for dvd players and portables would be about 3-4x larger than a DivX only chip. This is from a Chinese manufacture of hardware DivX players. Unfortantly I don't know what the price of a DivX chip is, I would guess that it is around $2.00.

This would be a good topic to get SMD (See More Digital) to comment on, he is over in the Hardware Forum and probably does not look here.

[SeeMoreDigital]

This would be a good topic to get SMD (See More Digital) to comment on, he is over in the Hardware Forum and probably does not look here.Sigma already has a few chip-sets that can decode: WMV9, VC-1, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4.2 and MPEG-4.10 ;)

These new chip-sets are no larger in physical size than previous chip-sets...

[Shinigami-Sama]

Sigma already has a few chip-sets that can decode: WMV9, VC-1, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4.2 and MPEG-4.10 ;)

These new chip-sets are no larger in physical size than previous chip-sets...

I'd worry if it were more than 1.5x larger...
you have any links for these chipsets?

[weaver4]

Sigma already has a few chip-sets that can decode: WMV9, VC-1, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4.2 and MPEG-4.10 ;)

These new chip-sets are no larger in physical size than previous chip-sets...

But the die size is larger, right? I heard that they require roughly 4x as many gates as a DivX chip.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Lets put it this way....

Sigma's really old EM8475 chip-set, which offers std-def: MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.2 support only, was around 27mm square.

MediaTek's MT1389xx and Zoran's Vaddis 888 chip-sets, which offer std-def MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4.2 support are 30mm square.

However, Sigma's EM8622L chip-set, which offers high-def: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4.2, MPEG.4.10 (aka: AVC) and VC-1 support, are also 30mm square.

So the above would suggest that the chip-set are not getting massively bigger at all...


Cheers

[IgorC]

But the die size is larger, right? I heard that they require roughly 4x as many gates as a DivX chip.
Some information about Moore's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Each 2 years the size of transistor is getting twice smaller and cheaper.

I.e. quad core CPU (45-65 nm) has the same size (and the same price as P4 4 years ago) as top single core P4 class CPU (130 nm).

That's why today for chipmakers AVC support has very low cost.

[Shinigami-Sama]

18 months on moores law but close enough

don't forget price goes down as you make more units
so if they only make 1M units rather than 2M it will cost more to the consumer

which is why I think they're biding their time a bit in the AVC market, most savvy people know about it and use it
but the masses still have their blinders on, at least until the X-Mass rush for hi-def discs
then it should be interesting

[weaver4]

SMD: Thanks, great stuff.

[delacroixp]

A full spec AVC chip would be 22-25 times larger than a standard DivX chip. A subset of AVC that is "good enough" for dvd players and portables would be about 3-4x larger than a DivX only chip. This is from a Chinese manufacture of hardware DivX players. Unfortantly I don't know what the price of a DivX chip is, I would guess that it is around $2.00.


Sigma already has a few chip-sets that can decode: WMV9, VC-1, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4.2 and MPEG-4.10 ;)

These new chip-sets are no larger in physical size than previous chip-sets...

Quad core CPU (45-65 nm) has the same size (and the same price as P4 4 years ago) as top single core P4 class CPU (130 nm).

That's why today for chipmakers AVC support has very low cost.

As IgorC has pointed out... a Penryn (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/), produced on the 45 nm fabrication process is streets ahead of a dual-core produced on the 65 nm process eventhough the die-size could be pretty similar...
It's not so much the size (less is more) but what's inside that counts...

A DivX chip costs only $2 to manufacture... but the cost of the final product is exponentially greater, after all the middle-men have taken their cut.
If an AVC chip were to cost $6... the SAP could conceivably cost double the price of regular DVD players of today...

SAP's may cost less than last year... but advanced models still cost more than average models at any point in time...
(Cheap is relative to how much you are willing and able to spend)


:):devil::D
Pascal

[xruntime]

Tbh, it's doesn't matter much to me if AVC gets released or dies, the current Xvid codec is excellent, and at higher bitrates, there barely is any difference...and as I mentioned before, with consumer internet becoming faster and faster the need for small video will eventually disappear and make way for a codec that gives better quality at higher bitrates (which both ASP and AVC can do equally well).

[Shinigami-Sama]

Tbh, it's doesn't matter much to me if AVC gets released or dies, the current Xvid codec is excellent, and at higher bitrates, there barely is any difference...and as I mentioned before, with consumer internet becoming faster and faster the need for small video will eventually disappear and make way for a codec that gives better quality at higher bitrates (which both ASP and AVC can do equally well).

true
but look at all the other consumer widgets out there
video/mp3 players
video phones
hand held game systems

[SeeMoreDigital]

Tbh, it's doesn't matter much to me if AVC gets released or dies, the current Xvid codec is excellent, and at higher bitrates, there barely is any difference...Well, you could say the same about MPEG-1, when it's generated at the same (higher) bit-rates as MPEG-2 and resolution (ie: 720x480/576 or above).