What would I change? I'd change the encoding format. I'm not going to watch things I have to install codecs for. I do not have, and have no desire to have, any form of DivX on my computers.

Sorry Mitteg - Must agree with Jetdv here. I've had enough issues with codecs in the past. Call me a scardy cat or whatever . .. but I've just achieved a stable platform . . too much to gamble on here. I won't even u/g to MS MEdia PLayer 9.0!

Grazie

Like the other two before me, I've reached the point where if I have to download another codec or app to play something, then I don't watch it. There are too many better established players/codecs out there to have to get another one. Where does one draw the line?

Having said all that, I think it only fair to give you a chance to explain why you've chosen to go the DivX route, instead of one of the other "mainstream" formats, like Real, QuickTime, or Windows Media.

True, true - Let's hear it Mitteg.

Grazie

That's pretty cool. :) I like the "loading video" message at the start. I'd add more time between the "loading video" and your actual logo. Not enough time to let it sink in.
Did you render this in Vegas? I can't get Vegas to render Divx 5.0.3 files. 5.0.2 worked fine.

I'm not mitteg, but here's the reasons I use Divx over Windows Media, Real, Quicktime, or even Mpeg:

1) Easier to download/less hassle (Quicktime is about a 9mb download, Media Player is about a 9mb at least, and Real player I HATE! I used to like it until they added all the frills. Divx is under 4mb). Great for a dialup conection!

2) It's widely supported (lots of movies I download are Divx. I've never had a problem giving someone a Divx movie).

3) the newer ATI Radon cards support Divx hardware decompression (I can play a 640x480 30fps Divx AVI with no dropped frames on my p3-667. Quicktime won't output to my TV with my TV Out.

4) You can't save streaming RealMedia file (which stinks!)

5) I like to support the underdog. Isn't that why we use vegas in the first place (over the more popular NLEs)? :)

Of course I don't use Divx much with VV. Divx and VV don't like to get along. Premiere's big advantage over Vegas (and this is the ONLY advantage I can think of) is that Premiere can render to ANY codec by just having it installed. Vegas doesn't like Divx (which is sad... Kinda makes them like they only support what they think is "mainstream," not what the users want (I know this isn't the case though).

If this is the same DivX outfit that tried to palm off their crap on DVDs a few years ago (pay-per-view), then they deserve being the underdog! If not, I stand corrected and offer a sincere apology.

Not the same DIVX. That was a scheme devised by Circuit City years ago. It failed and the new DIVX is a completely different thing.

Hello,

I will try to encode the video in another format, let's say quicktime.

jetdv, Grazie and jayglad,

I agree with TheHappyFriar, divx has the best compression ratio I've ever seen maintaining the quality of the video. Especially the new 5.0.3 version. In my opinion far better than WMV or RealPlayer. The video is 720x576 25fps and 1,5 Mb and it is almost identical as the 300 Mb uncompressed version.

Anyway, I will encode it in quicktime.

Greets.

Robert.

BTW, I use VirtualDub to encode divx. It's great ! Vegas also did a good job.

Although I can't prove it 100%, Paul, I think they are the same. Perhaps they had a deal with Circuit City, but nearly everything on their site is "VOD--video on demand," which is exactly what that whole CC/DVD/philosophy fiasco was about. They wanted to tap our pocketbook each time we watched a movie. Well, the movies they recommend on their site are VOD too! Same candy, different wrapper, or so it appears. One can almost see where this is heading.

Very intertesting, Marquat. If that is true, and there is no reason to believe it's not, it certainly seems odd that if it was indeed developed by a "Hollywood law firm" it is almost incomprehensible that they, of all people, would have allowed the trademark/tradename to be stolen without a fight. They would have received a hefty chunk of change for that alone, which could have offset some of their losses.

There are new proposals similar to the Pay-per-view idea behind the original DivX. They are a little different in that you go out and buy a CD or DVD, but to play them, the player has to be connected by phone to an AUTHENTICATION station rather than a billing station.

It doesn't charge you (at least they say it will not, in the beginning), they only verify it. The verification method is simple. If a CD or DVD is duplicated and someone wants to play it on different machines or at different phone numbers, an investigation starts (in one scenario), or it refuses to play (in another). Interesting.

Three part fingerprint: 1) CD or DVD ID, 2) Player ID, and, 3) Phone number. Hard to counterfeit.

Now wouldn't THAT be convenient? Especially in your CAR, where it would have to be connected by Cell. Anyone besides me see why this would be so unpopular?