DivX - Feedback on codex, DVD use, Vegas support

Chanimal wrote on 12/9/2004, 9:20 AM

I've noticed that the new DivX (Dr. DivX) allows you to batch convert video, is 30% faster than the previous encoder, is supposed to be 4-5 times faster encoding than Windows Media Player 9.0, produces video that is up to 1/5th the size of Mpeg2, is used for video conferencing, game development, portable devices, phones, etc. It is especially effective with HD compression, making it much more viable because of the HD-like quality, but the much lower size.

In addition, I understand that a LOT of the latest DVD players are supporting DivX playback.

Much of this information I learned reading an interview of two of the DivX founders: http://www.engadget.com/entry/8042727637215715/

Questions:

- What do you know of the DivX codec (how does it compare to Windows Media 9.0)?

- Has anyone played with the new Dr. DivX application ($29.95 for the "pro" codec, the player and the batch conversion utility)?

- What is your perception of DivX?

- What kind of support for DivX exists within Vegas 5.0 - or is going to be included natively (i.e., they pay a royalty (i.e, our Mpeg2 codec) in future releases? Perhaps an option to upgrade to pay the royalty.

- I also have a question of the player. If I wanted to create a CD version (because of the low file size), how easy is it for folks to view it (I know WMV will automatically try to download the codec).

- I assume I can include the player (my autostart application will ask to install whichever app I suggest if the file doesn't play)?

- How does DivX compare to Mpeg4 (I know Microsoft uses a proprietary "varient.")?

- Any pure spec Mpeg4 encoders and what will play the files?

I'm sure we'll have a lot of the forum techies jump into this thread. The hardware support is sure to increase and make this a viable option to consider, which is why I thought it worthwhile to discuss.

Have at it...

Comments

Bill Ravens wrote on 12/9/2004, 10:02 AM

You don't need Dr. DiVX if you've got Vegas5. If you allow 3rd party codecs, you can encode directly to DiVx5 from Vegas5.

farss wrote on 12/9/2004, 1:04 PM

My understanding of the situation with mpeg-4 is uStuff developed WMV9 because there were so many licencing issues with mpeg-4. I'm told uStuff had major input to the mpeg-4 design, bear in mind DivX grew out of code leaking from Redmond's work on a mpeg-4 codec.
But mpeg-4 is a huge beast, it's not just a single codec and I don't know if anyones managed to implement everything in the spec.
Bob.

Laurence wrote on 12/9/2004, 1:21 PM

I've been doing a lot of DiVX encoding testing lately and one thing I've noticed is that 24p footage encodes way smaller and sharper than interlaced footage. Yet another reason to get one of the new Sony cams. As has already been said, you can encode direct from Vegas, or Virtual Dub, or AVI Synth, or any of a nuimber of DVD rippers.

scdragracing wrote on 12/9/2004, 4:18 PM

chanimal, the divx codec is not supported by microsoft because it's basically a competitive product, so wmp will not automatically download the codec... at least it's never worked for me that way, i had to go get the divx player to see divx video... and even with the divx player installed, wmp still does not play divx.

since divx makes avi files, and wmp is the default avi player for just about everyone, potential viewers will get error messages when trying to see divx files.

if divx had better quality than wmp, you might want to deal with all the above... but i don't think it's better than wmp.

scdragracing wrote on 12/9/2004, 4:21 PM

laurence, i believe that the new sony hdv cams do not do a true 24p... it's really interlaced video that has combined fields within the camera, via a secret sony process.

whether sony hardware can combine the fields better than a quality software encoder can is something i would like to see explored.

Bill Ravens wrote on 12/10/2004, 9:28 AM

Another solution for playback is to install the ffdshow codec. This codec uses libavcodec to play back mpeg1, 2 and 4 and, in many cases, gives a better playback image than the oem codecs. It also works with DiVX. The nice thing about ffdshow is that it has some postprocessing variables that can provide image enhancement.

Laurence wrote on 12/10/2004, 10:25 AM

The ffd codecs are great. I'm still experimenting as far as which is the best. As far as the Sonys not being true 24p, I understand that is an intellectual arguement only: that while what they're doing may not be true 24p, in real world scenarios the quality does not suffer because of it and if anything produces a better 24p image than the competition. From the raw footage I've downloaded, I would say that even if you through out half the resolution with a line doubling deinterlacer, you still have way more lines of progressive resolution than either an XL2 or DVX100!

scdragracing wrote on 12/10/2004, 1:19 PM

there is no competition to the sony hdv cameras, so i'm not sure what you are referring to?? dv mode only, maybe, certainly not hdv.

i would strongly disagree that interlaced 24 fps provides better quality than real 24p, but it's kind of a moot point, because there is no real-world method of comparison(??).

right now there is a great thread on creative cow about using the component outputs of the sony, and bypassing that garbage mpeg2 encoding entirely... they have quoted some sony engineers on the measured improvement in picture quality... bob talked about this before, i have harped on it endlessly, lol, and it's now coming to pass... if you think the sony mpeg2 fake 24p is good, you should definitely see that thread... you don't even know what this camera is really capable of.

farss wrote on 12/10/2004, 1:36 PM

Why oh why are so many obsessed with 24p? I've worked with more 18p stuff than I'd care to remember, why aren't we all screaming for 18 or 16 fps?
Many years ago the film guys ran tests, all the way past 60 fps, the results get better as the frame rate goes UP, duh. Beyond 60 fps there's not much to be gained, that's around the limits of our eyes perception and that's what we should be screaming for.
Lets take the argument another way, the average car radio speaker is probably good for 150Hz to 8KHz response and throw in around 1% THD. So that's how most people hear their music. Think of the money we could save on mics, preamps and disk space if we recorded audio that way, I mean isn't it better, that's what Joe Average is used to!
Come to think of it Hollywood could save a bundle if the movie's audio was as badly compromised as the vision, hells bells we let them get away with all sorts of horrid artifacts in their vision because they don't want to run their cameras at an optimal frame rate so why should we make them worry about the audio?
Of course I'm not entirely alone in this, some in the know are looking forward to digital cinema projection so they can shoot and project at upto 100 fps. Once the public gets to see the difference I suspect they'll not tolerate 24fps.
Bob.

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/10/2004, 9:34 PM

Bob, while I *personally* feel mostly the same way...it's also and aesthetic no different than asking a sculptor why he likes stone over bronze or clay...it's an artistic choice. One I feel that is often chosen for hype and for reasons of "film is 24p and so must be I" sort of thing, but it IS an artistic choice. Some things look really great, and the "non-real world" look of slower cadences is something that some shooters really want.
Personally, I love the look of CF24 anyway. Last night, I rode the train from San Diego to Union Station in LA, shooting the entire distance, watching the light smear as the train rolled along. It's pretty fun in all the different CF modes. But it's also not real 24p, but real 24p ain't film, either. They all three are artistic choices.

Laurence wrote on 12/12/2004, 9:01 PM

I wasn't talking about the difference from an asthetic point of view but from a compressability one. I am finding that 24p compresses a whole lot better than interlaced footage.