OT: Divx a better delivery format???

Cliff Etzel wrote on 1/5/2008, 10:19 PM

I've been doing some testing between Flash Video and Divx and I have to say that Divx has really gotten my attention as a web delivery format.

I just did some side by side encodes of footage and not only was the file size smaller, it looked better and wasn't nearly as CPU intensive - something that has annoyed me with Flash - especially with less hardware (as an example - my single core laptop)

Flash reminds me of just because it's more prevalent, doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

Back to post

Comments

farss wrote on 1/7/2008, 12:23 AM

"While researching Flash I found countless complaints about installation issues"

I'm one of them!
I wasted countless hours trying to get the flash player to install on one machine just so I could watch one movie trailer. In the end I gave up and had someone get me the whole movie from a torrent. Needless to say it was in DivX and looked superb played back on our Sony DVD player.

I think Flash is viewed as being only for low res streaming content and DivX is the weapon of choice for full res SD or HD content. I've seen Flash work very well at HD so it's certainly capable of doing it but given the datarate it's a download rather than a stream. Once you cross that divide most people will bear the grief of installing the DivX player anyway or else they have a hardware player.

Bob.

Laurence wrote on 1/7/2008, 5:21 AM

When I try to get Flash to work from the 64 bit version of Internet Explorer, I get a message from Adobe saying that Flash is not yet compatible with 64 bit operating systems yet, but that it will in the future. Running the regular 32 bit version of IE from 64 bit Windows works fine, as does Firefox which is also currently 32 bit.