Why Still 3.11?

[balbrain]

Firstly I apologise if this has been raked up again and again. I searched but I am not too confident that I did a good serach. Actually I find it hard to think up what keywords to use :D

Yesterday my friend gave me a website - www.isonews.com. Some of you may have heard of it. It lists all pirated releases of movies by these groups who specialize in encoding Divx/SVCD/DVD. But almost all of em seem to use Divx 3.11. I could not find a single case of Divx 5. I was somewhat surprised. Why? When you can get better compression, better filesize predictability (Almost all my rips have been bang on at 700-702mb) better features like GMC and B-Frames. Why do "specialists" prefer 3.11?

Can someone explain this paradox to me?

Thanx

--balbrain

[smok3]

becaouse they dont want to make problems for their (silly) users?
becaouse 3.11 still has to be clearly beaten?

:D

[NeVeRLiFt]

You want the facts.... can you handle them?

Nothing beats Nandub or Fairuse right now.

As for VCD/SVCD you got two choices CCE or TMPGEnc.


I like XviD and see it as the future....


DivXNetwork and there sorry crappy DivX4 and now DivX5 can.... well I better not say it. Souled out sorry #$%@%&!!!!

[balbrain]

Well, I have heard from a lot of people that 3.11 is still the best/ nandub is still the best but apart from those two statements, no proof or good argument in favor has come to me. Dont mistake me. I love 3.11/Nandub and still believe in them. But Nando is asleep and Divx5 prmises (and delivers) more + constant development. I have heard a lot of praise for Xvid and although I am not an Xvid user (yet) I am optimistic. But it still has to earn fame n repect. XVid vs. Divx is like Vorbis vs. mp3. The former is certainly better but not propagandized enough so its not yet known/respected/popular among the people as mp3 is and continues to be. But thas totally another discussion. Xvid aside, someone has yet to gimme a good argument on the choice of 3.11 over 5 and later versions.

--balbrain

[TheXung]

XVid vs. Divx is like Vorbis vs. mp3. The former is certainly better but not propagandized enough so its not yet known/respected/popular among the people as mp3 is and continues to be

But speaking strictly as a ripper, you're rips whether done with XviD or DivX will both play with the Divx codec. And anyone of your audience who watches ripped movies will have the divx codec installed. Whether XviD is known by your audience or not, it does not matter, it will still play.

[balbrain]

Well that again might be true. But lets not try to weave around the truth that even tho Xvid might me better, Divx is certainly much more popular. And thus we come back to square 1 that in the world of Divx 3.11 is much more popular :p

--balbrain

[lordbelial]

Personally when I saw VASTLY sperior results with Divx 5 when I switched from Divx 3.11. It may just be me but there should be no reason to use 3.11 over 5.

[Wilbert]

Personally when I saw VASTLY sperior results with Divx 5 when I switched from Divx 3.11. It may just be me but there should be no reason to use 3.11 over 5.

Sure there is. Not everyone has a 1 GHz computer to play those movies.

[Doom9]

1) perform your own tests. quality is a relative term and not everybody will come to the same conclusion watching the exact same sample clips

2) if you don't feel up to making your own test, lack the time or whatever have a look at http://www.doom9.org/codecs.htm and http://www.doom9.org/codec2.htm

[int 21h]

Originally posted by balbrain
Firstly I apologise if this has been raked up again and again. I searched but I am not too confident that I did a good serach. Actually I find it hard to think up what keywords to use :D

Yesterday my friend gave me a website - www.isonews.com. Some of you may have heard of it. It lists all pirated releases of movies by these groups who specialize in encoding Divx/SVCD/DVD. But almost all of em seem to use Divx 3.11. I could not find a single case of Divx 5. I was somewhat surprised. Why? When you can get better compression, better filesize predictability (Almost all my rips have been bang on at 700-702mb) better features like GMC and B-Frames. Why do "specialists" prefer 3.11?

Can someone explain this paradox to me?

Thanx

--balbrain

First off, the scene != Isonews, Isonews != the scene.

Secondly, the compression from SBC 3.11 compared to compression in DivX 5 is nearly identical, as is the filesize predictability (in the right hands of those who can properly use the tools). And yes, about those 'features', the 'features' that no ISO reference decoding hardware currently support.. yes, yes, quite useful :rolleyes:

Lastly, its hardly a paradox, lots of people in the scene use XviD, maybe look around harder.

[Doobie]

Divx3 preserves more detail than Divx4 and much more detail than Divx5. Divx3 can produce simililar quality to Divx5 when done right. Divx3 has been the standard in the past for very good reason (it was clearly the choice)... and until a competing format matures Divx3 will still be the choice. If Divx5 were an open and free standard, it would be much further along in replaceing Divx3.