DivX Ultra

[goldensun87]

So, I've been reading up on the latest evolution of the DivX codec. DivX Ultra makes it very much like DVD-Video. Most importantly, menus and chapter points.

So, I was wondering, how long will it be until the XviD codec makes these wonderful improvements?

Oh yeah, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divx . Just use Ctrl+F and type in ultra.

[kypec]

So, I was wondering, how long will it be until the XviD codec makes these wonderful improvements
My guess is never. :p Those extra (DivX Ultra) features are tied mainly to container specification, not the video stream itself. Therefore .divx file extension was introduced, which enhances conventional .avi in order to support such features. If you want to use them just encode your video with xvid and try DivxMediaBuilder tool (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=109622).

[goldensun87]

Well, if DivX could create a new extension for themselves, then the XviD team may be able to do the same with their codec. If they have to, anyway. It's possible that DivX used a new extension simply to make their new features harder to emulate. If those new features cannot be included in the AVI file container, then I think the XviD team can still reverse-engineer the new DivX technology and make their own variant.

[CWR03]

Well, if DivX could create a new extension for themselves, then the XviD team may be able to do the same with their codec.
You cannot do something to a codec that is only affected by the container. That's like trying to put gas in an electric car.

You can get the same functionality from an .mkv container that you can from a .divx container, and for free.

[goldensun87]

But, standalone DVD players don't support mkv files yet, and I don't know if they ever will.

[CWR03]

Then standalone players likely won't support an .xvid container either. Without commercial support, it's unlikely there will be a specific Xvid standalone player even if there were an .xvid container.

[weaver4]

The problem comes from the fact that DivX is:
1) A company that makes/markets codecs
2) A codec
3) A container for video content.

The menu and chapter features are part of the DivX-Container. You can take content from either the DivX-Codec or the Xvid-Codec and put it into a DivX-Container using the DivXMediaBuilder Tool. Xvid is a Codec only.

So when people say "DivX sucks" they are insulting a Company, a Container and a Codec.

[goldensun87]

So, I need to know one thing. Do the menus and chapters support make the DivX Ultra files a lot bigger? Because I noticed that a standard 44 minute video is encoded to XviD with only 350 MB, but that same video has to be more than a 1 GB if it is an MKV. Or maybe the MKV file was bigger simply because of the larger dimensions, I don't know.

[D734]

goldensun87
avi and mkv are just containers (mkv actually has less overhead) but just to clarify commonly xvid/divx are in .avi and x264 are in .mkv)
you can encode the video at what ever file size you desire (but higher resolution like 960x544 or 1280x720 obviously need to be bigger in bitrate/size)
350mb 43min 624x352 and 1.09gb 43min 1280x720 are just done because that's the scene standard (however 720p x264 does indeed look better at sizes bigger then 1.09gb (like 1.45gb (or 2.18gb if good enough source)) so the standards are not perfect obviously)

things like divx menu's shouldn't effect the size much, and all you have to do is just drop the bitrate a little if they do go over the size you want.

[CWR03]

So, I need to know one thing. Do the menus and chapters support make the DivX Ultra files a lot bigger? Because I noticed that a standard 44 minute video is encoded to XviD with only 350 MB, but that same video has to be more than a 1 GB if it is an MKV. Or maybe the MKV file was bigger simply because of the larger dimensions, I don't know.
Why do you say it "has to be more than a 1 GB"? Where did you get that information?

[Jawor]

Probably the XviD AVI file (350 MB) was SD and the MKV file (1 GB) was HD (AVC?).