Divx and copying DVD's in general... What's the point?

[CQuinn]

<< Correct me if I am wrong...

But isn't the major advantage of DVD's, the high quality video and audio? By copying them to VCD, you've just thrown those out the window, right? >>



Quality is subjective, and can vary greatly depending on what equipment you do the playback on. The average TV setup
will not how a difference between DVD and Divx playback, as both are (usually) still playing at a higher resolution than the
TV is expected to handle. There is also the advantage of having the film available on your desktop or laptop for easy viewing
as opposed to carrying the DVD itself around.

But for the most part I would agree... I have a small collection of DVD video titles, and only buy those that I think I would enjoy
watching more than twice a year. However there is still some utility in having Divx/VCD as a replacement for VHS.
Instead of trying to rip DVDs, I am trying to set up my rig to capture and archive old shows that I've recorded to
videotape over the years. Again, becuase these are shows that I may feel the desire to watch again sometime, but that
relieves me of having to search thru hundreds of old tapes to find a particular show (instead I have to search thru hundreds
of CDs , but those are easier to catalog in the long run.

 

[Vic]

I experimented with DivX encoding, but just to see if I could do it.
Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. I never owned a large VHS collection (I think I have like 20 tapes, if that) and I know that I won't own a lot of DVD's. Unless it is a really great movie, I don't want to see it again. Watching the same movie over and over again is just a waste of time. I just rent 'em, watch 'em, and return 'em. If it's a truly great movie (big emphasis on great, we're talkin' Godfather quality here), then I'll buy it. Other than that, it's not even worth the CD blank and my time.

 

[csiro]

One thing that's cool is to rip divx to your pda...you can carry around movies in your pocket...

 

[FrogDog]

<< I know plenty of people collect DVD's.. But my question is, do you really watch them often enough to justify the effort?

I mean, people listen to songs over and over, but do they really watch the same movie over and over?

I can't imagine watching even my most favorite movies more than a couple times in my life, let alone the crappy (e.g. majority) movies. >>

Maybe not but is it really worth the X amount of dollars for the DVD if it's not going to be watched more than once? I'd rather spend $3 for the rental instead of $30 (CDN) for the DVD even if it is lower quality and takes more effort. So really what I'm saying is that you could make the same argument (and maybe you are) for people who collect DVDs.

 

[Wingznut]

<< "So really what I'm saying is that you could make the same argument (and maybe you are) for people who collect DVDs." >>

Maybe I am.

 

[gopunk]

btw, there are movies i have seen more than 2 times... these are movies that you would bring to a party, etc

like

any of the kevin smith movies
swingers

 

[Red Dawn]

<< One thing that's cool is to rip divx to your pda...you can carry around movies in your pocket... >>

Hey that would be cool as long as it didn't have subtitles.

 

[MrBond]

I own several DVDs, and I enjoy watching my favorite ones every now and then. Now, living in a dorm room, (up until today when my ps2 came, woo) I had no DVD player. So, I'd encode my DVD's to DivX out of convienence (and because the sound and picture on my PC is much better then the 13" TV I have in my room). Even still, I don't think I'd keep DVD's up here long term, they're too easy for someone to borrow and never return. My old roomate was really bad about that, he'd loan out games and my movies without telling me, then never get them back. Hense the reason no DVD's come up here.

Given the option, I'd rather watch a DVD. But I can settle for DivX quality and sound based on the circumstances.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Do you really watch all of them enough to justify the cost/time/effort?
Or do you have several movies that you haven't had a chance to watch, and probably never will? >>


I have a portable DVD-player besides the big one I have under the TV.

If I'm going on a plane trip somewhere, I might bring the burned copies because if I lose them, then I can replace them with another couple 10-cent CD's...with the portable's 7" monitor, you can hardly tell the difference

 

[Kelvrick]

Takes me about 10 minutes to decode. Maybe half an hour to do everything else such as convert divx and stream audio.

I do it because my TV sucks, and I like watching movies on my computer. That, plus the 80gb seagate HD I got from fry's lets me store 2gb movies that don't lose much quality.

 

[goog40]

<< Do you still get 5.1 audio with Divx? >>



You can. Like it's been said though, if you really want a divx copy of it, its probably easier to just download a copy from the groups that really know what they're doing.

 

[kami]

People prefer the format for these reasons...

1. They don't have any quality standards. Highly compressed, artifact-filled video is enough for them. Take that divx off your 17" monitor and put it on a bigscreen TV and see how DVD-like it looks like.
2. They have crappy sound systems (and yes guys, Promedia and z560's are pieces of crap)
3. They are cheap
4. add your own reasons....

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but these are the main reasons IMO. Different strokes for different folks. divx is a great technology but hell if I'm going to watch movies I enjoy in such a butchered form.

 

[manly]

DivX ;-) is not a sh1tty codec; done properly, the quality remains pretty good. Besides, don't forget that the point of DivX is that it is more bitrate-friendly than MPEG 2.0. If you really think about it, most of the quality of DVD is being wasted since the vast majority of us don't have widescreen HDTV anyway.

I rarely encode DivX because it's a major chore on my P3-800.

However, for a video I want to collect, I'd rather encode it myself than download it. I don't have much luck finding sources to download from, and even when I do, the quality is frequently horrible. In my case, it takes a lot more time and effort to download a poorly-encoded AVI than to make a good one myself.

 

[BD2003]

Kami, did you forget that DVDs cost $20 when DivXs are free?

 

[BettyBoop]

"What's the point?" Wingznut PEZ asks an interesting question.

From what I see posted by those who have huge collections of pirated movies, I would say that the mentality of these guys is often similar to that of the warez kiddies: they do it (and brag endlessly about it to their fellow snarfs) for peer status purposes more than out of a desire to actually use the stolen booty (movies, software, whatever.)

Back in the fifties, antisocial punk teens collected hubcaps and hood ornaments from cars, not because there was any real use for these things, but so that they could show them off to their pals as evidence of how cool they were. Perhaps pirated software and movies are the stolen hubcaps of today's malcontents, and destructive hackers are the sneering, tire-slashing juvenile delinquents of our time.

 

[arod]

Well I use DVD2SVCD bundlw which takes all of 5 seconds for me start a copy but It does make my AMD 1333 usless for about 10 hrs depending on the length of the movie... quality wise it is very hard to tell the difference on my HDTv and yes I said HDTV so I would notice artifacts if the were there... The only down side the it can't take 5.1 sound but it is nice to be able to rent a movie I wouldnt buy and be able to watch it later.

 

[Xenon14]

<Do you really watch all of them enough to justify the cost/time/effort? >


Cost - Free
Time - Spare
Effort - None
(Unless I missed something, could you please point out the cost, time, and effort that is put into it?)

Whether I download or make, it is of no inconvenience to me. I can stop when I want, continue when the computer is free. There are movies I watch more often than others, but when I want it - it's there. It's like MP3's on a slightly bigger scale - I have tons of mp3's that I no longer listen to, but a 5 minute burn on a cdrw backs them up on a 10 cent cd. I say, if anything, it's more worth it than not.

 

[kami]

<< Kami, did you forget that DVDs cost $20 when DivXs are free? >>


No...see #3 on my list.

 

[Lithium381]

i did it just to prove my computer is faster than my brothers, although heh, it is 200mhz up on him :-D

 

[crypticlogin]

<< From what I see posted by those who have huge collections of pirated movies, I would say that the mentality of these guys is often similar to that of the warez kiddies: they do it (and brag endlessly about it to their fellow snarfs) for peer status purposes more than out of a desire to actually use the stolen booty (movies, software, whatever.) >>


My sentiments exactly. Instead of hanging hub caps on walls, the new thing is to proudly (but not TOO proudly and not to the cops) display CDs in their CD albums. At one time, DVD ripping was something almost noble to "stick it to the MPAA", fighting for their fair use acts, being the uberhacker to break the encryption, yadda yadda... but now it's become another "look at me, I have more than you" child's play.

 

[BD2003]

Dunno about you, but everyone I know gets the movies so they can watch them. Same with MP3s.

 

[Sepen]

<< hoihtah, how long does it take for you to encode an Average Movie with your Pee4 1.8 running @2.7ghz ? >>



Red,

If I rip a DVD to SVCD it takes about 15 minutes of my time, and about 3-4 hours to encode. That was the old days. No when I rip DVD to DVD-R it takes about 5 minutes of my time and 4-5 hours on average to encode. Some only take 5 minutes as I can copy a DVD one to one. And I get AC3 5.1 sound and a perfect DVD picture.
Now I don't care when the kids get there greasy fingers and whatever on the discs. Oh, this is with a XP1700 and 512mb Mushkin DDR...and a Pioneer A03.

 

[oLLie]

<< Some only take 5 minutes as I can copy a DVD one to one >>


For a second I thought you were talking about burn time... but now I see you're talking about pre-burn encoding (in this case I believe you meant there is little to none, i.e. 1:1)

 

[Martin]

<< People prefer the format for these reasons...

1. They don't have any quality standards. Highly compressed, artifact-filled video is enough for them. Take that divx off your 17" monitor and put it on a bigscreen TV and see how DVD-like it looks like.
2. They have crappy sound systems (and yes guys, Promedia and z560's are pieces of crap)
3. They are cheap
4. add your own reasons....

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but these are the main reasons IMO. Different strokes for different folks. divx is a great technology but hell if I'm going to watch movies I enjoy in such a butchered form. >>





Right on.
1. I dont have a big tv or a DVD player to begin with. As far as artifacts, watching a movie on my 19" from about 1.5-2m away, artifacts disapear.
2. My ACS56 are actually MUCH better than what the TV has
3. Couldn't be more true, homethreater is very low on my "must have" list. I'd rather spend money on something better...say...oh....university? hehe.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

You guys talking about crappy quality video and artifacts must be looking at badly done encodes. I used to do SVCD the old way, about 8 different programs and WAY too much time, now with DVD2SVCD its like 30 seconds of work and a good night sleep.