No one talks about divx 6.7?

[Sharktooth]

Then i will...
6.7 is out since a couple of days...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hmmm...

Since the interest in AVC, it would seem the amount members "viewing" the DivX section of the forum, has fallen quite considerably - it's even around a 60% less than Xvid.

Maybe it's time all the MPEG-4 SP/ASP codec providers were merged into one section. Same as the MPEG-4 AVC forum section.....

[weaver4]

Being a DivX fan has been rough the last year. DivX has shown much love to "Stage 6" and neglected their firstborn. They introduced 6.7 but their own tools (DivX Author, Dr. DivX) do not support it.

[Dark Shikari]

Being a DivX fan has been rough the last year. DivX has shown much love to "Stage 6" and neglected their firstborn. They introduced 6.7 but their own tools (DivX Author, Dr. DivX) do not support it.
Well the problem with Stage6 is one of a flawed business model.

1. Get loads of venture capital.

2. Create video site that allows people to upload videos of basically unlimited length up to and beyond 18 megabits per second. Don't take down TV shows, etc.

3. Watch millions of people use your site.

4. Watch millions of dollars disappear.

5. Wonder how the site actually intends to make money.

[mr soft]

Staxrip reports that 6.7 beta is old and needs to be updated.
It will then proceed to download 6.6 :confused:
Autogk will also prompt after each pass :confused:

[CruNcher]

Im gonna talk about DivX/XviD again if "Q" and XviD 2.0 AVC finaly arrive, before that it makes no sense, seing the rapid development H.264 is going through in all areas ;)
but yeah expect H.264 to be outdated soon too (at least from a technology standpoint) the future is in Wavelet again :P

[DeathTheSheep]

Create video site that allows people to upload videos of basically unlimited length up to and beyond 18 megabits per second. Don't take down TV shows, etc.

Holy cow, are you serious? I gotta check this ou--I mean, yeah, yes, sure. Now what was that url again?!!

[Dark Shikari]

Holy cow, are you serious? I gotta check this ou--I mean, yeah, yes, sure. Now what was that url again?!!Stage6 (http://stage6.divx.com/)

[DeathTheSheep]

And what is this "Q" thing CruNcher is referring to?

[DeathTheSheep]

http://gabe.ej.am/divxAVC.gif

[Inventive Software]

I must say kudos to DivX for having a product license that made me chuckle. :)

[DewAsmara]

Hmmm...

Since the interest in AVC, it would seem the amount members "viewing" the DivX section of the forum, has fallen quite considerably.....

In my point of view,
DivX or not, they should not make more difficulties for end user. Main problem for me as end user is in DivX Converter tools, that more and more difficult to process video, now I always failed to convert my DVD collection into DivX profile, even at Home Theater profile, as the new one have higher bitrate those will eat processor and memory capacity. And synchronous between video and audio also getting worst. I mean if not that easy anymore to convert or rip video who will use it? This not include the lack of DivX that too much stay with MP3 Sound. Now I always rip my DVD using MPEG4 standard codec and PCM Lossless Sound and pack in AVI container, much better than before.

But I have to admit that new DivX tools for Sound Process have been improve, but well I cannot stand with long waiting video convert process that always end up with failure.

[IgorC]

http://gabe.ej.am/divxAVC.gif

H.264? Maybe. But not vfw. What the point for commercial H.264 codec?
And we are in 2007. The first h.264 encoders appeared in 2003-2004.
Sensation of the year 2008 could be divx avc? Oh, please.
h.264 is already old.

[DeathTheSheep]

True, but they say a format is old from the day it's announced. Every beginning has embedded within it its own termination, philosophically. It has yet to reach its max potential, as many are willing to attest (even ASP has yet to reach its max potential, though it may be argued that we are relatively close).

[burfadel]

Im gonna talk about DivX/XviD again if "Q" and XviD 2.0 AVC finaly arrive, before that it makes no sense, seing the rapid development H.264 is going through in all areas ;)
but yeah expect H.264 to be outdated soon too (at least from a technology standpoint) the future is in Wavelet again :P

The future is in wavelet, true :) but h.264 has still got a lot of life in it! in 10 years time h.264 video should still be able to be played without too much of a problem (fingers crossed) :)

[bond]

imho the present is mpeg-2. the future will be h.264. between h.264 and the next "big future" there will be an "inbetween future" first (as was/is mpeg-4 asp), which might be some sort of wavelet stuff ;)

[Warren]

As for which codecs are reaching their peak it depends on which markets you are looking at.

In the US MPEG4 is starting to approach its peak with the satellite industry using it for their HD broadcasts. Cable is lagging behind with MPEG2 but I would expect them to follow suit in the next few years as new cable STBs become available. Consumer-wise in the US MPEG4 appears to be getting leapfrogged because of HDDVD/BluRay using h264 and variants until you look at backups/'community' content. With this content MPEG4 is still the dominant for non-HD material while h264 is dominant for HD material.

In Europe the situation is a bit more forward as they always tend to be ahead of the US in broadcast (and wireless) technology. With HD DVB-T using h264 it would appear that MPEG4's time is over or has been leapfrogged in some cases. I would argue that for backups/'community' content is in the same situation as the US.

[Warren]

With regards to wavelet compression, the only two codecs I know of are Snow and Dirac neither of which are even near ready for primetime.

I am unsure of performance with regards to Snow, but Dirac is still way too unrefined to permit realtime playback. Not to mention that encoding is glacial at best.

We have a few more years, say 3 until pure wavelet-based codecs are ready to start being used.

[Ranguvar]

AVC and wavelet codecs is what I focus on now. MPEg-4 ASP is not "dead", it will just eventually replace MPEG-1 as the quick go-to for small fast video.

I don't understand why anyone (sorry) likes DivX nowadays. Besides ease of use. Xvid is free for all features, is more customizable, etc.

Stage6, on the other hand, I love. It may be a flawed business model and all that, but once you watch 480p video (they have some HD stuff too(!)) at one or two megabits per second MPEG-4 ASP, you will never want to go back to YouTube's QVGA ~300kb/s VP6 with horrible mono 22KHz sound.

[DeathTheSheep]

You're definitely right about stage6. :)

But has anyone done any comparisons between DivX6.7 and XviD these days? XviD development seems to have trickled out, whereas DivX keep on going. I heard some doom9ers here mention that DivX is now surpassing XviD in various metrics. Anybody care to actually test DivX6.7 before leaping to conclusions? :)

[CruNcher]

i doub't any satellite company is useing Mpeg-4 Part 2 (ASP) in real, maybe over Data Channels but not over the normal .ts stream way :P
Mpeg-4 Part 10 (H.264) is dominant everywhere from a technological standpoint it's supperior over Mpeg-4 Part 2, if you have a very nicely tweaked encoder (wich x264 still isn't yet) you can get better quality at the same complexity and even faster time for every source and bitrate.
The Sad problem is that most users can't really use these tools given to them efficiently and in a correct way as the standard defines it (therefore Guis as Megui and Co have been developed, so the average users aren't lost with it).
The only difference is that DivX Ecosystem main goal is to be as easy as possible in every way, but that's nothing that can't be done with a special H.264 implementation also, Youtube allready begann the recode their howl stuff to H.264 but it will take time before we see they use it offciialy as still stuff as Hardware accelleration should be working and the Flash Player isn't yet able of this :) another solution is Silverlight both are Superior over what DivX uses currently and im sure that DivX knows this so they gonna come with Q soon or they gonna vanish from this planet, everyone in IT knows that you have to advance with it or you sink like the titanic did :P in the end we gonna have 3 solutions on the web and this will start other problems allready again (Mobile Device support, CE support and interoperability between all the Devices and DRM systems (every user wants it but none of the manufactures want it) :P VC-1/AVC/VP7.
That's also the reason VP7 bought a Chip company (and implementing H.264 too) they want to bring their own chips in Mobile Devices on the market with VP7 support, you will have to be even more carefull in the future what you gonna buy and especialy how you digitalize your stuff or endup with reencoding all your stuff over and over again loseing each time quality and also endup with the biggest interoperability problems (wich might force you to rebuy the content if you don't want to lose it's quality or be able to use it @ all) (companies dislike each other and try to make it the users as hard as possible to move their content from one companies device to another, it shouldn't be like that, that isn't what i understand under the premise to develop a industry standard at all) in the end such companies only hurt themselves and the standard they missuse, but most and for all they hurt the customers, actually the real word for this must be "enslave" them to their products.

In the future there is no way arround it, but we need an Organization that controlls this "missuse" more carefully as the Trade Commision seems not in the possition todo so or is blind.

[IgorC]

Sorry, Cruncher. You are interesting member but last time your posts are very large than normal and it's difficult to read 100 words statements. Just end to jump to other member's post.

[DeathTheSheep]

Remember ye the wisdom of Gabriel and thine path shall be clearly illuminated!

[WeaponX]

Previous divx version (6.5.x) decodes divx3 encoded .avi files perfectly. After updating to 6.7, there's no video when playing div3 .avi using media player classic, just a black screen with the audio running.

Anyone notice this problem with decoding div3 .avi?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Remember ye the wisdom of Gabriel and thine path shall be clearly illuminated!And you must please remember forum rule 15

[Elias]

No one talks about divx 6.7?It's really because DivX is not that popular.

[DeathTheSheep]

And you must please remember forum rule 15

That says something about politics and religion :rolleyes:. Since I was referring to Gabriel_Bouvigne's advice to CruNcher (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1048078&postcount=105), it obviously doesn't apply. ;) Maybe you meant rule 11? :p

I doubt any satellite company is using Mpeg-4 Part 2 (ASP) for real.
Well, our digital satellite provider here in the midwest US claims to be broadcasting in MPEG4 (not MPEG4 AVC), so there is some viability in the broadcast market, apparently.


The reason VP7 bought a Chip company (and why they're also implementing H.264) is that they want to bring VP7 support to Mobile Devices on the market with their own chips, so you will have to be even more careful in the future about what you buy and especially how you digitalize your stuff. Otherwise, you'll end up re-encoding everything over and over again, losing quality each time and ending up with big interoperability problems (which might force you to re-buy the content if you want to retain its quality or even use it at all).

Companies dislike each other and try to make it as hard as possible for users to move their content from one company's device to another's. It shouldn't be like that; that isn't what I understand under the premise of developing an industry standard, for in the end, such companies only hurt themselves and the standards they misuse. Most of all, they hurt the customers by effectively "enslaving" them to their products!
I think you make a very good point here, but are you implying that DivX is playing the role of the enslaver? Or that in the future your DivX videos will lose compatibility? If so, I can't fully agree with you here, since DivX uses standards that are very much open (even the .divx container is a variant of AVI) and to which open-source decoding is already abundant. I certainly don't think too many problems will occur down the road by using ASP now.

It's really because DivX is not that popular.
I completely disagree here. In terms of the people with whom I am in contact (U students), anyone referring to "encoding" or "compression" invariably means DivX. Everyone at my group meetings not using an iPod Video (and even here, there is some deviation) uses DivX for their mobile devices. I'd say it's a tossup between Quicktime and DivX there, DivX dominating the DVD backup scene. The only people I've seen in multitude who don't use DivX as their format of choice are those who either visit this forum or are simply stuck with the encoding tools provided by their device manufacturers.

[Elias]

I completely disagree here. In terms of the people with whom I am in contact (U students), anyone referring to "encoding" or "compression" invariably means DivX. Everyone at my group meetings not using an iPod Video (and even here, there is some deviation) uses DivX for their mobile devices. I'd say it's a tossup between Quicktime and DivX there, DivX dominating the DVD backup scene. The only people I've seen in multitude who don't use DivX as their format of choice are those who either visit this forum or are simply stuck with the encoding tools provided by their device manufacturers.I didn't say DivX isn't in use. It's just that XviD is more popular amongst the geeks, where it counts in the world of codecs.

[DeathTheSheep]

In terms of business model (and thus where it really counts, since we are all subject to the mighty buck), as long as the large customer base I mentioned continues to exist without significantly relenting, at least in the short term, majority people=majority $.

At least until Nero takes off amongst more video enthusiasts ("What?! No Waii, I just burn my CDs with that, there's no video, don't be silly." <- This kind of mentality will dispel).

[Elias]

In terms of business model (and thus where it really counts, since we are all subject to the mighty buck), as long as the large customer base I mentioned continues to exist without significantly relenting, at least in the short term, majority people=majority $.

At least until Nero takes off amongst more video enthusiasts ("What?! No Waii, I just burn my CDs with that, there's no video, don't be silly." <- This kind of mentality will dispel).Come on, it's not like DivX is pulling in billions on its codec which no one is buying anyway. The money DivX Inc. is making is basically only from hosting movie trailers, and similar stuff like that.

[DeathTheSheep]

Hey, everybody loves movies!!1 XD Well, at least what income it does receive goes (in part) into active codec development, which I suppose keeps them, at least, a player in keeping ASP alive, even neglecting the fact that lots of folks use it. You don't need billions (though I could use billions... :D).

[slavickas]

... you will never want to go back to YouTube's QVGA ~300kb/s VP6 with horrible mono 22KHz sound.
Youtube is FLV1 ~=H.263

[Dark Shikari]

No. It's almost exclusively VP6. :search:No, Youtube is FLV container, Sorenson H.263 codec, 48kbps 22khz mono MP3 audio, max bitrate 350kbps.

[DeathTheSheep]

Sorenson?! What?! Did they always use that? Holy cow... everyone keeps saying it's VP6. Did they change it recently? What a downgrade, if they did... sheesh.

[Dark Shikari]

Sorenson?! What?! Did they always use that? Holy cow... everyone keeps saying it's VP6. Did they change it recently? What a downgrade, if they did... sheesh.Never been VP6. Flash supports it, but Youtube never used it.

[IgorC]

The biggest video portal as is Youtube still uses 10 years old H.263 and even older mp3 for streaming. Sad but true.

[DeathTheSheep]

That's right, IgorC, you said it. Sad but true.

[Dark Shikari]

The biggest video portal as is Youtube still uses 10 years old H.263 and even older mp3 for streaming. Sad but true.Good thing one can use arbitrary bitrates (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-23Opat5zDE) by hexediting the file header. :p

[Elias]

The biggest video portal as is Youtube still uses 10 years old H.263 and even older mp3 for streaming. Sad but true.That's the irony. Google Video uses MPEG-4 AVC and AAC in mp4, yet Google is to lazy to change YouTube to newer codecs. I wonder when Google will stop being lazy and make it MPEG-4 on YouTube as well.

[IgorC]

Google will transcode all your goody H.264 to ugly H.263 after upload.

[weaver4]

Come on, it's not like DivX is pulling in billions on its codec which no one is buying anyway. The money DivX Inc. is making is basically only from hosting movie trailers, and similar stuff like that.

DivX does make most of their money on the Codec, but it comes in license fees for hardware manufactures.

[ReinerSchweinlin]

I did some encoding tests a few days ago using DIVX 6.7, XVID 1.2 and the MPEG4 Codec used in FFDShow (lavc?). On an old Athlon XP, DIVX was way slower with max settings than XVID (2fps / 8fps) with a MPEG2-Source fed by old XMPEG.....
I tried to find differneces in Quality by encoding 640x480 24fps with 1000kbit/s. Judging visually, it was very hard to decide which one was better. Looking at the Q-Factors of quantizers, lavc clearly won (average of 3), but it didn´t look much better. Very hard to decide which one was the winner. Surely, tweaking around with some matrices could yeald to better results but using standard MPEG Matrice (which isn´t provided by DIVX, it offers h263, h263 optimized (?) and MPEG2 (?)).
PSNR Ratio was about the same..
So far, I´ll stick with XVID since its much faster and investigate on lavc some more. I´m curios why it delivers very low quantizer levels with the same bitrate.

[Elias]

DivX does make most of their money on the Codec, but it comes in license fees for hardware manufactures.Any hardware company that buys a DivX license fee, is stupid. They should just buy an MPEG-4 license fee instead.

[prOnorama]

I didn't say DivX isn't in use. It's just that XviD is more popular amongst the geeks, where it counts in the world of codecs.

Mmmm I think this simple rule did more for the popularity of the XviD codec in practice than all the geeks combined

Codec:
- MUST BE XviD (all DivX codecs are banned)

I guess you know where it's from ;)

Of course "geeks" prolly made that "rule" so in that sense you are right and they are responsible :D

But in terms of hardware solutions DivX has by far the upper hand. Companies like Philips or Pioneer put DivX logo's on their DVD players so that counts (of course they will play XviD as well in most cases but it's not advertised). I don't know about DVD players from major A/V brands actually advertising to support Xvid.

[Elias]

Mmmm I think this simple rule did more for the popularity of the XviD codec in practice than all the geeks combinedThe popularity of XviD is because it's better. Simple as that. First time I tried XviD, it SUCKED. The quality was poor, the encoding time was slow, etcetera. But it has improved a lot since then, and today, it's easily better than DivX. Plus, it's open source and free, and that sure doesn't hurt.I guess you know where it's from ;)Honestly, I don't.Of course "geeks" prolly made that "rule" so in that sense you are right and they are responsible :DYeah sure.But in terms of hardware solutions DivX has by far the upper hand. Companies like Philips or Pioneer put DivX logo's on their DVD players so that counts (of course they will play XviD as well in most cases but it's not advertised). I don't know about DVD players from major A/V brands actually advertising to support Xvid.Hardware companies are wasting their money on DivX. They should just buy a pure MPEG-4 license fee and play MPEG-4 codecs (as in AVC/ASP/AAC in mp4), and that's it.

[weaver4]

XviD is not better. IMO that is simply not true. That was the case when Divx was 5.x but certainly not now. XviD has not improved in quality in over two years while the DivX people have been improving on a quarterly basis.

In the only double blind MOS score test that I know of says that DivX is better.

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

[weaver4]

Any hardware company that buys a DivX license fee, is stupid. They should just buy an MPEG-4 license fee instead.

But then they can't use the DivX logo on their product.

[Elias]

XviD is not better. IMO that is simply not true. That was the case when Divx was 5.x but certainly not now. XviD has not improved in quality in over two years while the DivX people have been improving on a quarterly basis.

In the only double blind MOS score test that I know of says that DivX is better.

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/subjective_codecs_comparison_en.htmlBe that as it may, I have nothing really against either XviD or DivX. I use both of these codecs myself, though I make sure to put them into mp4 rather than avi so that I get MPEG-4 compatible content, and that way, get DivX and their proprietary nonsense out of my encoded content.But then they can't use the DivX logo on their product.What a terrible loss.

[prOnorama]

Honestly, I don't.

See http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=102333

[kosmonaut]

Hardware companies are wasting their money on DivX. They should just buy a pure MPEG-4 license fee and play MPEG-4 codecs (as in AVC/ASP/AAC in mp4), and that's it.

You have some pretty strongly held opinions, so I'm not hear to persuade you specifically, but I would like to respond generally as to why hardware companies value DivX and put our logo on their products.

It's not just the technology, although that is important of course. Far more than that, DivX Certification is a pretty intense suite of testing. Many products have failed it, especially on the first couple of go arounds. And it goes quite deep. We work with the chip guys first, then the ODM makers, and then finally with the OEM's, all with goal of ensuring a certain level of quality and interoperability that is very, very reliable.

Now, why do companies like Sony, Samsung, LG, Philips (essentially every major DVD manufacturer) work with us? Why have they put out into the market over 100 million DivX certified products so far? These guys are tough, smart business people. If they thought it wasn't absolutely necessary to their bottomline, they would not do it. Period.

The truth is that they came to us initially. When users began to request the ability to playback MPEG-4 files (at the time almost exclusively DivX, now many other flavors, of course) on inexpensive devices, some innovators began to enable that, and to put it on their boxes. But users had no way of knowing what exactly that meant. MPEG-4 is a vast suite of standards. What DivX Certification allowed was for a precise, real world "standard" to exist that told everybody, from simple viewers to content creators the precise compression choices they should make in order to be inter-operable in the widest manner possible.

That is not a small thing and it is something that the CE companies valued DivX for enormously, and they continue to do so. Combine that with the rigorous testing we do in our Certification lab and hopefully you can recognize why the hardware companies look to us, and our logo, to demonstrate to consumers that their products are innovative, inter-operable, and high quality.

OK, this is already longer than I had intended. But let me know if you have any other questions and I'll do my best to answer them. Or I'll grab Gej and make him answer them. :p