Misinformation on the net?

[Koepi]

Ahoy,

I fell over following article:

http://www.ultimatepocket.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=473&mode=thread&order=0

Since my frenchn is really rotten, can someone please tell if I understood correctly that they state

a) XviD is made by me?
b) It's suitable for pocket pc use?

Dunno if it really works as-is on a pocket pc (it's not cmopiled for MIPS or ARM and I don't have those SDKs...)

And of course the codec isn't inevnted or made by me, just compiled and a little modified.

So if I understood correctly someone should explain the authors the right version :) (I really would like to do that, but as I said, my french is not even well enough for understanding that article correctly)

Regards,
Koepi

[rui]

Can't help about the text, because i too don't understand French quite well.
But i must say that their xvid logo should be in that logo thread :D

[robUx4]

Yes it says that the codec is made by you. And that for very low bitrates it's much better than DivX and can be played by PocketDivX.

[Koepi]

Thx Robux!

Well, nice to know that XviD is playable on that platform through pocketdivx :) (i guess bframes may break that later on :-/ )

Still, someone should contact them and tell them that XviD is made by many people on www.xvid.org :)

Best regards,
Koepi

[vlad59]

I've mailed the webmaster of ultimatepocket.com. I'm waiting for an answer.

[vlad59]

The site has been updated (the webmaster is really cool).

[Koepi]

thanks a million vlad :)

[rmatei]

Yeah, it now says that the Xvid site is xvid.org but that the binaries can be downloaded on Koepi's. I assume it works on Pocket PC, otherwise it wouldn't have been posted. The quality, though, is absolutely awful (http://www.ultimatepocket.com/images/test.avi).

Besides that, it speaks very nicely of Xvid, saying that it's free, smaller, and better quality than Divx, and that it's got much better size prediction.

[Neo Neko]

Xvid plays fine with PocketDivx Player and the more specific DCDivx Player. But it is all a mater of how much the system can push. For one he has his quantizers set way to high for a clip of that size. I could post you some of my encodes I made fro my dreamcast. Apart from being 320x240 22Khz Mono they look damn good. It looks like VHS.

[The Collector]

Not that it gives completly accurat results, but you might try the Babelfish for instant translations. I find it to be very usefull in these situations!!

http://babelfish.altavista.com

[jrmillerUT]

The format xvid is not a real adaptation of the divx format. Its a mpeg4 format based on the opendivx proj. Divx now belongs to DivxNetworks and is commercially exploiting us while Xvid is GPL liscensed so it will always be free. Then it talks about how xvid.org only supplies the source and not an installer prog. Then it says that koepi provides the program at his own website.


that second paragrpah is just bull about plampilots and that xvid is compatible wiht divx5? then aomething about testing each codec at 100kb/s at 320*240. Then he states the film is higher quality and and filesize smaller(hell yes he's right) and that he didn't notice a longer encoding time. THen says to learn help yourself to a tutorial of Divx encoding.

Hope that helps... not babelfish so maybe it sounds more natural?

My french isn't great but basically he was praising XviD and specifically Koepi :)

P.S. I haven't been around encoding after the whole Divx5 pos fiasco... we about to see some more big jumps anytime in the near future? (notice i didn't say WHEN DO WE GET B FRAMES like all the other people) Not trying to rush anyone AT ALL! Keep up the good work!

James

[Teegedeck]

we about to see some more big jumps anytime in the near future?
Don't know about how much of a jump it will be, but after the now near-infamous B-frames, there still is 'motion-masking' coming up -- and also gruel keeps working on that new motion-estimation (and this is quite a key-feature, right?).