Printable View
I don't know why people still use DIVX encoding movie, since xvid can compress in a smaller space and still bring the same (is it?) quality as divx ver. 5.03 did.
Can anyone tell me why? and what the different between DIVX and XVID? (I just can't see the diff. when watching them) :blink:
Thx. for your reply
okay dude they barely have any difference......
Not much difference, and DivX is still more widely known.
You'll see a difference when you encode your own movies and try to match the settings as close as possible (bitrate, framerate, target size, etc.). Comparing two different movies is not a good test. A fast action scene will test the codecs and pretenders will only drop frames. My XviD results have less digital artifacts and blocks compared to DivX (4,5). DivX 3.22 was only the only DivX codec that seems to come close to XviD but it does not have the target size control of the newer codecs. This is a subjective opinion but I find DivX is not on the same level as XviD.Quote:
Originally posted by Nunpoom@21 June 2003 - 04:13
I don't know why people still use DIVX encoding movie, since xvid can compress in a smaller space and still bring the same (is it?) quality as divx ver. 5.03 did.
Can anyone tell me why? and what the different between DIVX and XVID? (I just can't see the diff. when watching them) :blink:
Thx. for your reply
yeah, and why use mp3 when ogg is better for low bitrates and mpc is better for high bitrates? :(
The proof is in Equlibrium. Check out that movie in XviD format and you'll see how great it is for fast motion scenes. It is true that Xvid has less artifacts, is more efficient at using space, and that it's a derivative of MP4, but dude, it's still way better. Many people would use DivX becuase they have the option of using 1-pass encoding (encoding that's done on-the-fly, with no previous thought as to how the rest of the film might be) (the reason they use 1-pass most times is because it's faster) while XviD uses 2-pass VBR encoding (variable bit rate). 2-pass lets the computer keep a log of how it would compress it normally, then it reviews it the second time, sees where there needs to be some fine tuning, and then re-encodes the file with the information about how the rest of the film will be (like high-motion scenes, low motion scenes, etc) I mean, if you don't believe me, just encode one movie in XviD and then do it in DivX... you WILL see a difference.
I like dr divx it's takes about 4 hour to rip a dvd movie.I tried xvid don't like it has to many problems when you want to burn to vcd because of audio problems.