What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
64 Comments
- sirmikester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This just means that 6.0 was really slow... how does it compare to DivX 3, 4 or 5?
- Gollywomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3direct link to Divx 6.1 codecs
http://www.divxmovies.com/codec/ - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2xvid is great, but it has distribution problem (Refusing to distribute official binaries is stupid), and it is loads harder to use for beginners.
Don't get me wrong, I use xvid whenever I need some MPEG-4 lovin', but for general usage for the general population it isn't a viable alternative. It wouldn't really be that hard to fix these two issues either, but the xvid team doesn't seem interested.
Also development on xvid seems to be extremely slow. - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1h.264 was a different codec, actually, until it was integrated in with MPEG-4 as AVC (Advanced Video Coding).
The three current problems with h.264:
1) Excruciatingly slow to encode
2) Requires a huge amount of CPU power to decode compared to regular MPEG-4 video
3) Barely anything can decode it well save QuickTime, a crippled commercial product (No full-screen without paying money)
Yes, it DOES provide very large benefits in quality-per-kilobit, but until it is more widely supported and we get some hardware acceleration in videocards for encoding/decoding, it will not be a good general-purpose codec.
It should be noted that the iPod supports it, which is one of the few things it is popular for. - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1samiamax said: "x.264 > h.264"
Umm, no. x.264 is an IMPLEMENTATION of the h.264 standard. Not only that, it isn't even a complete implementation of the standard. You are comparing apples to oranges. That is like saying that Windows is better than the Pentium 4. - tomaburque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do they still include spyware with their codecs?
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does this mean my movies will play back 300% faster?
- Erroneus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like dual-cores cpu's are really starting to become very attractive.
The latest gfx driver updates from Nvidia and ATI also had some decent speed improvements for dual core users. - grendel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0future codec may be good now, but set top compatability is limited to certified divx and some xvid.
- erthian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is that (HT) Hyper Threading or Hyper Transport ???
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Will I finally be able to play HD video on my computer without it stuttering?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Once things start supporting dual core stuff we will get alot more done! Glad to see they are think hard about this i might buy it when fx goes dual core the 10th.
- white, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bugmenot2- no.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1For all the people still using divx/xvid you should look into AVC/h.264 it has some amazing compression.
- fridge2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nice
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If that's true, it's great news :)
- citrusfizz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why is "AVC/h.264" better?
- adam8281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Re: spyware. DivX now has a free 6-month trial of the "professional" version of the codec that is without any advertisements/spyware. It is likely that when the 6 months are up there will already be an update of the codec which will have another 6 month trial. Basically, DivX seems to be moving away from trying to get money from end users for their codec. I got a free copy of their professional codec a couple months back with NO "trial" period when DivX ran a promotion for a couple days where anyone who e-mailed them would get a free permanent liscense key for the professional version. Bottom line - advertisements/spyware/expiration doesn't seem like a real worry with DivX anymore.
re: the question of whether 6.1 is so fast simply because 6.0 was so slow, this may be the case, I'd need to see benchmarks. I have noticed that since I switched from DivX 5 to DivX 6.0 things seemed slower, but I did not know if this was a fluke, since DivX's party line was that 6.0 was faster than 5. Anybody know if 6.0 actually was slower than its predecessors? - Bighoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does this make up for that POS converter i paid 29.99 for?
- TridenTBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm a big fan of the Xvid codec right now due to the fact that even my laptop can play those 700mb Xvid Movie files.(Solo 5300 Gateway Sucks ASSSSS) H.264 has better compression and quality but it is for more powerful computers, Xvid rocks for the ones like mine. (Desktop soon to be working)
- tarun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hehe--watch the hour long Apprentice : Martha Edition and you'll only see the 10 minutes of content in it.
- itjamesd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0still doesnt give me better quality than xvid
- mesostinky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sirmikester you read my mind. Just goes to show that you Should have been using xvid all along. Divx=bloated. Also if your running single core you'll still be running just as slow as ever. My guess is 14% is the norm for single cpu and 80% is some rare setup that noboy uses. I just don't see why people bother with Divx.
- stephen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is why I have stopped using DivX:
From the EULA...
"NO TRANSCODING: You are prohibited from using this software with a software or hardware product whose purpose is to "transcode" or convert DivX video or DivX Media Format content into an alternate format."
and
"BANNERS: This software will download product banners and/or similar marketing devices from our servers ..." - cnmsales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0h264 is still very buggy though.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How to get this to work with autogk? It takes about an hour to convert an episode of family guy from the dvd.
- cmeador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As others have hinted, DivX finally released a Mac port of 6.0 this past week. How long until they catch up and port 6.1 now? Three days before 7.0 comes out for Windows?
- recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What does it mean to be 300% faster? I was under the impression that doing something 100% faster would be doing it instantaneously. Does this mean that it finishes before it starts?
- lego, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I understand how something can be 300% slower, but how is something 300% faster?
- skillet2extreme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Im surprised no one has checked ot the main site. Divx is now supported by Mac, complete with the creation program that wasn't available before. Finally!
- GodsHand, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can anyone prove that XviD is better or are these just open-source nerds talking out of their asses again? Seriously, I'd like to see evidence.
- homersimpson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0where are the dvd players with divx 6.1?
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Support for multithreading in a video encoder is NOT newsworthy, it is something that DivX should have had years ago. Many other MPEG-4 encoders have supported multithreaded encoding (Support for SMP/HT/DualCore) for years, and you've been able to do it with DivX by encoding in chunks and splicing together (And I'm sure somebody wrote an app that did this).
What I really want to see is a video encoder that takes advantage of the GPU for encoding acceleration. I'm dissapointed that ffmpeg hasn't done this yet. ATI is going to be releasing hardware-accelerated encoders for X1000 series cards, although I imagine they COULD do it for all of their DX9 cards if they really wanted to. - code_of_life, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sticking with XviD. Dont encode all that much, and I have a seperate box for encoding.
Dont think 6.1 will play on the DVP-642 either :-/
I still dont trust DivX labs after they jinxed Dr.DivX 1.02 with the 6.0 release. On the other hand this caused me to switch to AutoGK :) - aliashandle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0isn't h.264 just another word for mpeg4 with divx and xvid being different implementations of? And speaking of dual cpus what about dual gpus allowing you to basically let the video card handle content creation and use the dual cpu's for more important things like surfing for pron.
- pHr34kY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0-----
You guys are tards. Windows Media codec owns all.
-----
I run Linux. WMV runs like a sedated dog (if at all). I downloaded two HDTV trailers this week, one in WMV and the other in DivX. the DivX looked better and ran a LOT faster.
I encode in XViD... There's nothing that I find more compatible and of such high quality, hell, I can play an Xvid on my NGage and on my DVD player.
All proprietory formats suck. - limitbreakerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0300% faster simply means 3 times faster than before.
- gamefoo21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LoL I use Divx player to play Xvid's... LOL
- Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0xvid is wonderful
it has a huge downside
you cannot use it in any closed source app at all, not even if its already installed and all you're doing is playing a video with it thru directshow.
Its uber-uber-uber opensource, which is a mistake, because it means things like game companies, etc, cannot use it in their games, so users basically suffer because game companies have to resort to worse comprimises / other proprietary formats like divx and stuff, instead of using xvid, because they dont really have the choice to open their code.
Other than that its great. - piratebill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So since you guys incode with Xvid alot, what apps do you use to do it?
- Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"NO TRANSCODING: You are prohibited from using this software with a software or hardware product whose purpose is to "transcode" or convert DivX video or DivX Media Format content into an alternate format."
So...that would mean that you can't legally use DivX within QuickTime, even though it's specifically designed to work that way on the Mac. Nice. :)
Xvid is great, but until the authoring tools are anywhere near usable (like a GUI, anybody?), it's going to remain largely useless to the content-creation crowd. - Kamael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh...XviD is still better than DivX...and no adware-closed source crap...
- Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is this for decoding or encoding?
- FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks! I needed this!
- raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Xvid is free, doesn't forbid me from transcoding to other formats, doesn't install spyware or stop working after 6 months, works fine under Linux, makes great-looking videos at pretty small file sizes, and unlike h.264, makes videos that play on three DVD players, a Zaurus and an Archos jukebox in our house. We were doing the digital video thing years before iTunes got religion.
So, if anyone can come up with a downside to Xvid (other than "Steve Jobs has nothing to do with it",) let me know. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I have purchased a licensed copy of DivX and use it regularly."
You suck. :) - kokobaroko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I prefere AVC/h.264, thank you
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"AVC/h.264"
Indeed... and the future shines on these codecs with promise. DivX is definitely "old news." - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0
You guys are tards. Windows Media codec owns all. - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Xvid, or true MPEG4 ISO are better alternatives.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is