Why DivX all of a sudden?

So where is the DivX player/encoding utility for OS X? The only thing I’ve found is a codec plugin that enables QT to play DivX.

So where is the DivX player/encoding utility for OS X? The only thing I’ve found is a codec plugin that enables QT to play DivX.[/quote]
There is none, but it’s planned. (have you heard that before? =)

Yes, if you want it to. Otherwise it uses it’s own .bik-format which can be viewed in the Bink player.

When I encode to divx I usually put a keyframe every ten frames. Is that too often? Is that why my divx files always turn out to be so much bigger than I expect? Anyway, most divx files I watch (and I watch A LOT, cause I watch anime) are not only near perfect in quality, they are about 10:1 compressions ratio, and scanning through them is fast (click and your there). And I’m only on a 1 ghz CELERON so my computer is not exactly blazing fast.

I really haven’t seen an mpg file with as good a quality to size ratio as divx, but if you can settle for a file about twice the size of a divx compression, then yes, an mpg file WILL look better than a divx file. It all just depends on what quality and size you are willing to settle for.

Thanks Eric.

So where is the DivX player/encoding utility for OS X? The only thing I’ve found is a codec plugin that enables QT to play DivX.[/quote]
There is none, but it’s planned. (have you heard that before? =)[/quote]

Well I guess thats a good reason, why it would be hard for someone to install DivX. Pretty easy to understand. 8)

I agree with Kib, the worst thing about quickTime is that it’s closed (that and the poor quality). I don’t know about a DivX encoder/decoder for Mac, but then I don’t know of any Quicktime encoder for Windows that’s free either. Even QuickTime itself, (which is just a player) costs money!!! The free version can’t even play movies in full screen, so where’s the fun in that? I certainly can’t use it to watch movies the way I can with DivX. Trust me, I use DivX all the time, I’ve seen dozens of movies in DVD quality, they mostly fit on one CD, for an MPEG of the same resolution and quality you’d need about 4 CDs.

Of course with the closed format, you need proprietary programs that can load QT movies. I myself don’t know any free editor or convertor for QT. I’d like to convert some QT movies to a better format, but I can’t seem to find any program that can do that under Windows, does anyone know of any? But with DivX, you have the freedom to use any kind of program that supports AVIs (there are thousands of them, I like AVIedit and VirtualDub).

Besides that, DivX is fast, I can encode a small (320240) movie at about 160 fps, and a D1 resolution one (720480) at about 35 fps, which means it faster than real time.

You are of course right that DivX is limited in the number of platforms that its available on, but with its good quality and performance, I hope that this won’t be for long :slight_smile:

saluk: if you have too many keyframes then the file becomes big, but if you have too few, it takes a long time to seek in the movie. The optimum is around 3 seconds.

Zsolt

the quality of a quick time movie depends on which codec you use. I’ve seen many quicktimes that play well look good and are small. it all depends on the codec.

quicktime also has:
realtime effects
herf tracks
flash tracks
vr tracks
etc.

most of these are only aplicable for interactive content.

the latest version of mpeg is based on the quicktime arketecture

Quicktime isn’t even available for unix like/based systems. (except for OSX then ofcourse)

Has anyone noticed in divx files the audio out of sync with the picture? I thought it was cause I got a bad file, but almost every single divx I have does it. sometimes just half a second, others as long as 4 or 5 seconds! I’ve gotten kinda used to it but… help!

Has anyone noticed in divx files the audio out of sync with the picture? I thought it was cause I got a bad file, but almost every single divx I have does it. sometimes just half a second, others as long as 4 or 5 seconds! I’ve gotten kinda used to it but… help!

I haven’t seen this- what platform you on?
To all the DivX vs. Quicktime debate; If DivX is bad, please don’t pick Quicktime as an alternative- Linux users will have trouble seeing it. Many blenderers are on linux so it would be unfair to them.
Perhaps Mpeg would be ‘good enough’ with enough attention paid to compression options/tradeoffs? that way everyone could see them (aaah, the benefits of an open standard)

New Quicktime 6 supports MPEG 4 which is what DivX is based on. I haven’t tried it yet but it looks promising.

Sorry Unix and Linux guys. BTW lots of Unix and Linux people are switching to Max OS-X simply because of software availability. Remember a computer is only as good as the software you can run on it.

A computer with no software is just taking up space.

-jscott

windows xp on an athlon xp 2100+, 1/2 gig ram

But it sure looks purdy

woiak: “the latest version of mpeg is based on the quicktime arketecture”
It’s the other way around: the guys at Apple realized that they need a better codec for QuickTime, so they got rid of the old codec, and developed a new one based on the MPEG4 standard (on which DivX, Xvid, 3vix, WMV, etc are also based on).

darkbyrd: its probably a problem with the codecs on your PC, do you have the latest one? Try this: uninstall all the DivX codecs you have right now, then install the old (the very first) codec 3.11 (this is needed for the sound), and then install the latest 5.02 codec.

Also, the player that comes with the codec, The Playa, is still buggy, so if you’ve been using that, try another player, like the default Windows Media Player, or any one of the other popular DivX players (I use MicroDVD, but BSplayer, GDivX player are also good).

Zsolt

And this is based on?

The main reason for people to use linux is because it’s free (as in freedom).

Eric:

The main reason for people to use linux is because it’s free (as in freedom).

I’d also add that although it might not be completely free as in beer, but it sure is very cheap. I never could understand why a Mac is so expensive! I always thought that a PC that you can configure (I mean the hardware) 100% to your liking, and get great performance for a low cost is much better than an expensive, closed Macintosh system. Is it because some people are willing to pay more for an unusual design, like a half-sphere shaped PC case?

Zsolt