That is pretty cool, except my PC is more or less DivX Certified, so I don't really need a player seeing as it's a better choice for me :P
16.8.2007 20:58 #1
It's taken several years for DivxNetworks to become a mainstream affair, but they seem to have sufficiently wooed the various content-providers to the point where very cheap Divx-capable players abound even at your local Walmart, Target and Best Buy big-box department stores.
My, my, but we have come a long way since the fledgling days of Divx codec 3.11 alpha. :-)
Quote:...my PC is more or less DivX Certified, so I don't really need a player seeing as it's a better choice for me.True, Rikoshay, but a portable DVD divx-capable player sure comes in handy during a power-outage. (Temporary blackout). There's nothing quite like being able watch a widescreen 16:9 movie while waiting for the power to come back on. (I often sneak mine into work with me). :-)
I have that one, and if you don't want to use the expensive ($100+) built-in rechargeable battery, you can rig up (as I have done) 8 AA rechargeable NiMH cells in a plastic holder which will run the player continuously for ~ 2-1/2 hours +. (I have four standby battery packs).
Although there is both downloadable DRM'd and FREE Divx content, I only use the free stuff. I prefer using the out-dated Dr. DivX software to create DVD content. You might have to dig around a bit to find Dr. DivX these days, but it's do-able, and the program is quite stable and reliable, and the quality of files it produces is Top-Notch. Plus current-day Divx codecs are constantly being updated, tweaked & improved all the time by volunteers in their spare time.
Congrats to Gej ("inventor") for 'hangin'-in-there !!
17.8.2007 00:15 #2
I know DivX can most often play XviD but I would love it if devices said that they could play XviD and x264 as well as DivX. I really cannot see anyone using DivX as their codec (except companies who still think anything that is free is bad) now after XviD and x264 have come so far. Both are free and open source, unlike DivX. DivX can go on making their fortune with licenses but I think soon enough the manufacturers will figure out how worthless the codec is. If the manufacturers really cared about what is available to the average (non-pirating) "consumer", then they would make their devices support codecs that are open source, including matroska, ogm, etc. Somehow licenses that cost money and do not have a lot of content available attract companies. I'll never understand that.
17.8.2007 00:15 #3
Double post
17.8.2007 00:16 #4
[Hmmmmm....] You think DivX is a 'worthless' codec ?? [Scratching head].
Well, the name 'DivX' has been around a lot longer than XviD (XviD being a spin-off of DivX itself), and so there is a lot more DivX content generally available. I suppose - technically-speaking - XviD is superior to DivX, just how much superior is up to the individual user to determine, I suppose. In my own experience (above) I find DivX 5.xx to be just awesome. Glich-free playback from DVD conversions, smooth fluid motion, no artifacts (choose your own bitrate), scannable back-&-forth in both directions, etc. etc. I can't tell the difference in general playback from the original DVDs.
I average 7 full-length 16:9 hi-bitrate movies on a single, dual-layer disc (about $1.50 each these days). And you have to admit, the 5 Giant Companies noted above in the news update, are all backing DivX up with standalone devices. You don't have to go anywhere near DRM'd stuff if you don't want to. (I never do), but it is still an option for anyone who wants it.
XviD-capable players are appearing too, just not as frequently as DivX.
17.8.2007 00:52 #5
I personally think that the main problem limiting manufacturers from releasing "x264 compatible" or "XviD compatible" players is that there's no one single instance in the world that could hand out such certificate or to instruct manufacturers on testing the playback capabilities. And that is the one reason why DivX has a clear edge in living room technology over open source contenders.
IMO, x264 & co need similar approach to Mozilla, where the product itself is being worked on as an open source project, but there's a company, a trust, a non-profit, whatever that is well-organized and has the testing and certification panel in place to assist manufacturers to build "Officially XviD compatible" players.
Then again, all these formats are simply MPEG-4 derivatives (x264 is an open source codec for H.264, which itself is simply the latest standardized video encoding layer of MPEG-4), so theoretically the manufacturer who builds its players to support MPEG-4 SP, ASP and AVC layers should do the trick. The main problem, apparently, is that most x264 material is nowadays wrapped within Matroska wrapper, which has even more limited support among manufacturers than XviD or x264 have.
But yes, some players do support XviD:
XviD -capable DVD players
But some special encoding mechanisms often cause playback issues even with players that are confirmed to support XviD.
17.8.2007 01:59 #6
My main gripe is that Divx is not on the Xbox 360. We should be able to stream and upconvert those signals to our HDTVs. Shame on Microsoft!
17.8.2007 04:43 #7
100 Million is a hell of a lot of devices. Congrats to them.
17.8.2007 05:59 #8
Love it.
Divx & Xvid are the result of a true 'ground up' demand from the consumer.
My Pioneer dv696 makes life a breeze and so did it's predecessor (a Toshiba sd350e)......frankly I really cant think of a sensible & sane reason why anyone with a computer would buy a DVD player without Divx/Xvid support.
Power to the people!
17.8.2007 06:32 #9
I love my DivX compatible Lite-On DVD Player/Recorder. Now when I get my DivX videos, I can burn them to a DVD-RW and watch right away, without having to mess with DVD compatibility and DVD format conversion. It was great to see that DivX logo at your local retail store. Congrats guys!
17.8.2007 07:21 #10
hi all, in my opinion divx/xvid is the best thing that happen to the net :) i keep up to 5 or 6 vids on 1 disk and with my compatible divx player, it's like being at the movies, big up to them :)
17.8.2007 19:03 #11
I have owned two divx players from Phillips, and I love them. They play divx and xvid, so I am not complaining.
I convert all my movies using either Dr. Divx or autogk. Best investment ever. Forget regular dvd players, get divx players.
17.8.2007 19:47 #12
i have 4 divx players in the house...
and 2 at another house..and all of them play Xvid...still haven't ran into a play that couldn't. not a new player atleast.
18.8.2007 00:33 #13
Hi, dRD! (And Everyone)......
Good point you make. With DivXNetworks, we at least have an established body to test any potential hardware player/micro-chip manufacturer, to ensure compatibility with DivX videos. A "DivX-Certified" sticker is a really good thing to see on any playback device you are considering, and should offer a welcome measure of confidence to a purchaser. Today, a DivX-capable dvd machine is cheap-cheap-cheap. :-)
And too..... there are an awful lot of totally FREE DivX videos out there. So, after many false & delayed starts throughout DivX's history, they're finally mainstream now.
Myself, I like the ability to store a LOT of (quality) content in a very small space.
18.8.2007 16:09 #14
I love it how the expensive DVD players out there have trouble with burned DVDs and the cheapest ones out there play DivX, VCD, .AVI, Mp3 and more.
18.8.2007 20:02 #15
Well done Divx. I have to say i do like this codec.
21.8.2007 21:19 #16
You know, it's almost comical ....
The very *best* codec; the very *best* video format; the very *best* audio format; the very *best* software; the very *best* ANYTHING is Totally in the mind of the beholder.
DivX is not the "cat's meow" (best) codec - technically-speaking - available, and perfectly-good-though-it-IS, there are superior formats available.
Take NERO-DIGITAL, for example. Isn't it inheritately superior to, say, DivX? I can't remember the last time I purchased a DVD-Burner that didn't come bundled with a free (basic) version of Nero-Burning-ROM. NO, you don't get any 'advanced' features (like Nero Digital) unless you pay for it, but so what ???
Petteri brings up a very good point. HOW MANY stand-alone DVD Players actually support NERO-DIGITAL ?? By my count .... Zero.
Beta was and isa superior format to VHS-video.
Nero Digital (in all likelihood) beats 'the pants off' Gej's DivX.
WMA (the cursed DRM'd Bill Gates Format) probably *does* beat-out the MP3 audio format.
Again, I have to ask you, SO WHAT???
Hardware compatibility reigns supreme, regardless of who does what the best.
Today's hardware devices (MP3 players etc.) have an abundance of internal memory (ROM). If you use a sufficiently high-enough bit-rate, you will NOT suffer, quality-wise. The same is true for DivX-video.
What is most important to you?
The latest-&-greatest video/audio codec/format, OR - complete compatibility with the next piece of hardware you buy from Walmart?
Like so many others here at AfterDawn, I too, look with keen interest (and enthusiasm!)at what is up-&-coming in our technoligal future(s). We'd be true dummies to assume otherwise. BUT ....
In the REAL world, (the here and now), we have to make our (often) expensive purchase decisions based on what is available out there.
(And I've never been happier!)
May God Bless AfterDawn And Company. You are my life-blood. :-)
- Mike -
24.8.2007 04:34 #17
Originally posted by A_Klingon: You know, it's almost comical ....
The very *best* codec; the very *best* video format; the very *best* audio format; the very *best* software; the very *best* ANYTHING is Totally in the mind of the beholder.
DivX is not the "cat's meow" (best) codec - technically-speaking - available, and perfectly-good-though-it-IS, there are superior formats available.
Take NERO-DIGITAL, for example. Isn't it inheritately superior to, say, DivX? I can't remember the last time I purchased a DVD-Burner that didn't come bundled with a free (basic) version of Nero-Burning-ROM. NO, you don't get any 'advanced' features (like Nero Digital) unless you pay for it, but so what ???
Petteri brings up a very good point. HOW MANY stand-alone DVD Players actually support NERO-DIGITAL ?? By my count .... Zero.
Beta was and isa superior format to VHS-video.
Nero Digital (in all likelihood) beats 'the pants off' Gej's DivX.
WMA (the cursed DRM'd Bill Gates Format) probably *does* beat-out the MP3 audio format.
Again, I have to ask you, SO WHAT???
Hardware compatibility reigns supreme, regardless of who does what the best.
Today's hardware devices (MP3 players etc.) have an abundance of internal memory (ROM). If you use a sufficiently high-enough bit-rate, you will NOT suffer, quality-wise. The same is true for DivX-video.
What is most important to you?
The latest-&-greatest video/audio codec/format, OR - complete compatibility with the next piece of hardware you buy from Walmart?
Like so many others here at AfterDawn, I too, look with keen interest (and enthusiasm!)at what is up-&-coming in our technoligal future(s). We'd be true dummies to assume otherwise. BUT ....
In the REAL world, (the here and now), we have to make our (often) expensive purchase decisions based on what is available out there.
(And I've never been happier!)
May God Bless AfterDawn And Company. You are my life-blood. :-)
- Mike -Mike are you a professional copy editor? Very nice the way you write, the spacing the bolds. (no sarcasm)
24.8.2007 15:23 #18
Quote:Mike are you a professional copy editor? Very nice the way you write, the spacing the bolds. (no sarcasm)Why, thankee, c1c !! (blushing red.)
Nah, I'm not a professional 'anything', really. In truth, after I read a message I wrote a day or to ago, I can usually find about 20 errors in it. [grin]
It would be very easy to get "lost" in the forums here - there's pretty much something here for everyone and then some! And, I think it's more important what a person says than how they say it.
Rock 'n Roll, my friend !
25.8.2007 22:34 #19
