What is Digg?64 Comments
- Jams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+68AVI is simply a container
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58Since when do big naturals require zooming?
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43No it isn't. DivX and Xvid are very comparable in performance, and it's quite hard to see the difference in encodings. Just because it's OSS doesn't mean it's better.
- Buckbeak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40Divx is dead. XviD has been shown to be superior and is free. For a comparison of codecs, see:
http://www.doom9.org/codecs-final-105-1.htm
Divx came in last place.
Besides, over sharpening is what they do at Best Buy. Videophiles are looking for the "movie" look and prefer a softer image. - Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33What about Xvid?
- chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31Perfect for zooming in on that divx pr0n video. Big Naturals FTW
- billygreen23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19why didn't you just link straight to the page?
http://www.doom9.org/codecs-final-105-1.htm - pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24Xvid is way better than Divx. In execution and principle.
- diggAddict, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Hello xemuniac ???? Do you know what sort of CPU load H.264 imparts when decoding - ALOT more than XVID and DivX, and there are next to none standalone H.264 hardware players (not Ipuds) out there. DivX/XVID has a much wider support base for non-pc standalone players than H.264. Sigma Designs only recently released a chip capable of decoding H.264 in hardware.
List off the H.264 hardware players out there for me - I am interested to see your list compared with the list of DivX / Xvid compatible players.
H.264 is the future yes, but right now, DivX / XVID are king for the downloadable format for many platforms - not just PCs but standalone players too.
Have you tried encoding H.264??? - it requires a horrendous amount of CPU grunt compared with DivX / XVID.
I reckon H.264 will be more common place within 1-2 years when more of the dual core CPUs hit the streets to make the encoding process alot less painful. - InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Please. There's nothing unstable about this: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/codecs_and_filters/ffdshow.cfm
- thatbox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21vuzman: "Just because it's OSS doesn't mean it's better."
Doesn't it? - domokunt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12sharpening - little appreciable difference, doubling of cpu load.
- AttroPheed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11ffdshow has done this for years
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Just what I need. Sharpened up crap blocks, just in case I didn't see them before.
- chicksdigme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I personally feel that Xvid has better image quality than Divx. But I appreciate improvement in Divx as well. Competition is good for consumers.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I didn't know about those newer releases. Why aren't they on the SourceForge project page?
- LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Uh, because you'd actually not be able to see the bar for the previous version if he started at 100%. Yes, graphs can be used to mislead, but in this instance, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
- Teaboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The images look good, but I'd like to see it in action to really get an idea of how it looks.
- tttstarr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Their agreement says you must accept banners. Not interested.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Last stable release of ffdshow? June 16, 2002. Nearly four years to the day.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's one comparison, others (e.g. http://www.compression-links.info/Link/2648_Subjective_Comparison_of_DivX_XviD_x264_and_WMV.htm ) claim DivX is better than Xvid. I myself am hard pressed to see a difference.
- timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Go to http://www.doom9.org > Guides > DVD Basics > Codec Comparisons > Codec shoot-out 2005 - Final round
Take a look for yourself. - Gronkk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Is this also available for Linux?
- SpyDerMann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The codec shootout 2005 only shows compression rate, not decompression PERFORMANCE. Someone needs to do an xvid / divx6.2.5 shootout.
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Screw that, I just print movies out frame by frame and flip through.
FLIP BOOKS FTW!!! - InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12You won't find many commercial applications using XviD over DivX.
- rlutterb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you've got crap source, applying sharpening will only sharpen crap. Even if you didn't have crap source, applying sharpening to increase contrast and feign the presence of higher resolution will technically make the image worse.
Turn up the sharpness on your TV and you'll evenually notice that dark objects will gain white outlines... this is called "ringing" and is bad. - illt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9xvid will be dead soon enough has encoding rates on AVC codecs speeds up. (quality is much superior).
Let us not forget that sharpening also increases localised contrast, and thus completely changes the color of the picture.
I would also like to see some dark-scene high speed examples. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's actually more than 50% FASTER using the sharpening than using derinring post processing
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Precisely. You can't magically pull resolution or whatever out of your ass if it's not part of the source.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, it also works with XVID video :)
- LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While, yes, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are H.264 formats, I think what he means is that if you were to throw a disc with a downloaded H.264 file on it, it probably wouldn't play. However you can get a DVD player and other hardware that'll play DivX straight out of the box.
- obeseotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So the new version of DivX can apply post processing effects to MPEG4 video? How is this news? Hasn't this been in there for years?
also, ffdshow decodes everything while improving picture quality, no reason to use anything else. - goahard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ffdshow is awesome!!
here's an older thread on how to use and some good results:
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=20&t=5597 - Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4diggAddict, you're so very wrong. There are already standalone players that support h.264 on the market, and in a few years almost all standalone players sold will support it. Why? h.264 support is part of the HD-DVD and BluRay specs. You can buy HD-DVD players right now, and BluRay players soon, and they all support it.
As for encoding, I suggest you look into hardware h.264 encoding acceleration, something that is supported by newer videocards by ATI, and I think possibly nVidia too. - patientx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Allright, I just checked with some high quality anime videos and xvids orginal decoder does better job than "sharpened divx" ... Nice try though :)
- enoughrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It does look sharper, especially on lower-quality vids.
- zimm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
xvid is way better. WAY more stable. and they never bundled any spyware like divx did once. (and may still?) - Quarks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Exactly, just look at the warez releases, if been wondering why everything is Xvid lately.
The newest DivX release is dated 2005-01-26. - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2DivX did *not* come in last place.
If you read the whole article you will see that XVID and DivX were chosen as the top two MPEG-4 ASP codecs (many others never made round 2 or round 3 of the comparison), and DivX came *second* ASP encoder overall at the time (XVID won in 2/3 but it was really close). - patientx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The question is , can we use this thing with xvid videos too ? Since we can decode all of mpeg4 videos with divx with the correct settings, can this speciality affect xvids too ?
And does it look better that way ? - mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Guspaz
Yup, nVidia does have an h.264 codec on their newer cards. It's been available for a few months now. I'm not sure if any software packages are taking advantage of the encoding capability yet, though. - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the DivX version looks much nicer ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The question is , can we use this thing with xvid videos too ? Since we can decode all of mpeg4 videos with divx with the correct settings, can this speciality affect xvids too ?"
You don't need to. Just install the latest ffdshow build and enable the sharpening. Voila! - gfnw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sharpening is lame anyway, as with most post-processing filters. You can't add detail that wasn't there in the first place. You can polish a piece of glass all you want but it'll never shine like a diamond.
- xemumanic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Nuts to divx or xvid. H.264 is where its at now. CoreAVC is the best decoder for this content. www.coreavc.com
Either that or a newer Nvidia or ATI card with hardware accellerated H.264 decoding. - gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Let's see .. squished blacks, oversaturation, too over-sharpened ... I would tend to call this a bug as opposed to a feature. If you care about the quality of the video this is not for you. For the video geeks out there, look at before and after with a vectorscope :)
- Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not exactly related, but they have some pretty good Graphs of Lies at the bottom. Notice how they start at 80%, making the 20% or 30% gains look HUGE. Not really dishonest, just amusing. Never trust graphs without reading them thoroughly.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4You don't have to imagine. The player is free and the converter has a 15-day trial.
- Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Uhm, the point is that the graph should start at 0%, not 80% or 100%... The misrepresentation of data is that a glance at the graph makes the new version look two or three times faster, rather than the actual case where it's about 20% faster.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is