DivX, not reaching it's full potential?

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
Do you ever think the industry will ever consider the following?

DivX + Bluray
DivX + DVD-RAM
DivX + DVD-RW/+RW

DivX I believe, isn't reaching it's true potential until it's implmeneted on both rewritable and high density media.

That being said, you could probably store 15+ hours of cable quality DivX on a single DVD-RAM on each side! :Q :p
 

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
Yeah. Realtime DivX recorders. Or even just players.

The ultimate would be a DivX ReplayTV type device. :p
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
DivX won't make it big because it has no commercial future. With current TV technology (even HDTV) it isn't going to be better than DVD quality. Commercial DVD's (with double layer) put a complete movie on one disc and higher density DVDs are coming. The last thing movie studios need (with pirating concerns) is a compression scheme that makes it easier to put movies on home recorded DVDs. VCD technology is supported by set top players only because it's a big moneymaker in Asia, but DivX doesn't show the same backing.
 

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
I think what DivX shows promise for is in set top recording boxes, like things to replace VCR's. Not as a distribution media.

Boy would I Love to be able to stuff 30 or so episodes of my favorite TV show on a single disc. DVD-RAM+DivX would do just that. Bluray, nearly 8X that. You could store a whole TV show, period, on a bluray disk with DivX compression algorithms.

As I said, I see the future of DivX as a set top encoding agent for recording and perhaps for collectors edition distribution (As in just distribute a DivX copy of a TV series on a bluray disc or somesuch.)
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
You are thinking like a technical person, not a marketer or an uninformed consumer. You gotta get over that to make any money.

All DivX gives you is storage in minimal space at the expense of processing power (real time DivX compression is real tough). Storage space with fixed hard drives or optical media is fairly cheap. Set top recorders will more likely depend on real time MPEG-2 compression or something similar which can be stored on hard disks (100's of GB is getting cheap) and perhaps rolled out to standard DVD's which is essentially MPEG-2. If the MPEG-4 standard gets accepted (similar to DivX) I suppose it might be used but I think the big companies will try to defend their turf by staying with MPEG-2.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
They have some MPEG 4 (xvid,divx) DVD players now but there only for playback.

To encode realtime MPEG 4 would require an expensive player.
 

NuclearFusi0n

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
7,028
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
They have some MPEG 4 (xvid,divx) DVD players now but there only for playback.

To encode realtime MPEG 4 would require an expensive player.

A nice HTPC can do it all and more ;)
 

BatmanNate

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
12,444
2
81
DiVX's value is that it is a compression format, which makes for ease of transfer over WAN's. As far as commercialization in the HT market is concerned, it's not likely to happen. The average consumer wants a high quality movie, not the ability to fit 15 hours on a disc. The computer geek consumer is a different story, but is not in the majority. I just use an HTPC and a 21" monitor, as I don't have a TV or cable. (I don't care for tv)
 

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
Have you ever noticed how awful TV resolution movies look on a good monitor?

And you all are forgetting, really, one of the greatest benefits of DivX. It's hyper compression.

You could theoretically compress HDTV level (Ultra high resolution) video down to MPEG-2's size. Now *that's* what i'm talkin about. Heh.

Maybe someday they'll have MPEG4 TV stations? That would be a much more efficent use of bandwidth.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
eh, maybe when we have 3gb cache mem for on the fly 2 pass divx encodes or something insane spec like that.


as for blue ray.. waste the bitrate on divx? i dont think so. with new technology you want more picture quality, not just the ability to cram pirate vids where peeps don't care what it looks like. full quality hdtv with low artifacts is where its at. divx would be a cop out.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
14
81
MPEG 4 is an excellent format; it provides high compression, and potentially high-fidelity video. The popularity of DivX (one of the implementations of MPEG 4) shows how important this technology is. However, it has some limitations - It requires considerably more processing power, both to encode and decode, and is less tolerant to corruption.

Its use as a format in a digital video recorder was suggested earlier - but this is unlikely to be a commercial success - MPEG 2 is perfectly adequate and storage capacity is extremely cheap. Additionally, in Europe, where digital broadcasting is well established, the preferred format is MPEG 2. Commercially available combination receivers/DVRs simply save the raw MPEG2 stream to disk, and replay it when required. The additional expense of a transcoder would far exceed the saving in terms of storage capacity.

For broadcast purposes MPEG2 is far superior to MPEG4 - as the former is tolerant to minor corruptions and dropouts. The same features are also useful in optical disc players, where dust and fingerprints can cause similar problems with reading. A change to a higher compression ratio, often requires a higher error correction level (with subsequent reduction in available capacity). This is one reason why digital radio is broadcast in layer 2 (MP2) rather than layer 3 (MP3). After allowing for error correction, MP3 offers very little advantage over MP2 - and requires significantly more processing.

Current DVD-R/RW technology can store about 2 hours of footage on a single disc in very satisfactory quality (better than some broadcasts). Future advances in storage are likely to improve this more than a change in codec, with less associated complexity.
 

Woodchuck2000

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2002
1,632
1
0
I agree that it would be ideal for recording of the TV into a set-top-box - at roughly 10X the compression of MPEG-2, you'd fit a lot more video onto a hard disk. The only problem is that of processing power - My XP1900+ can just about manage real-time DivX encoding with audio, and you're not going to get that of power in a set top box for quite a while yet.
 

kami

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
17,627
5
81
DIVX still has issues.
For example...the other day I wanted to archive some high quality video and I didn't want to use uncompressed cause that's just too damn huge...so I tried DivX 5.02 with the biggest bitrate it would allow me (10Mbps) and there was still banding! For god's sake! Even MPEG-2 at 2-3Mbps would have less banding.

It's good for some things (like retaining sharpness), but background detail and subtle stuff is often lost, even with high bitrates.

 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Storage mediums will get bigger, but they will never change the standard to a higher compressed format. The better the storage mediums get, the less compressed the video will get.
 

NuclearFusi0n

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
7,028
0
0
Originally posted by: kami
DIVX still has issues.
For example...the other day I wanted to archive some high quality video and I didn't want to use uncompressed cause that's just too damn huge...so I tried DivX 5.02 with the biggest bitrate it would allow me (10Mbps) and there was still banding! For god's sake! Even MPEG-2 at 2-3Mbps would have less banding.

It's good for some things (like retaining sharpness), but background detail and subtle stuff is often lost, even with high bitrates.

that's because divx sucks monkey butt
not because MPEG-4 sucks....
 

FishTankX

Platinum Member
Oct 6, 2001
2,738
0
0
Heh. Okay, after my 'Education' I have now realized the limitations of MPEG4. Thanks for the info, folks.


Think there'll ever be an MPEG-4/MPEG-2 hybrid? There's gotta be somethin inbetween. Maybe.. MPEG-3? :p Maybe something more error tollerant and still higher compressed than MPEG-2


 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
well home theater folk probably just want less artifacts, or an improved version of mpeg 2. compression is secondary to picture quality really.
 

NuclearFusi0n

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
7,028
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well home theater folk probably just want less artifacts, or an improved version of mpeg 2. compression is secondary to picture quality really.

mpeg-4 smacks the crap out of mpeg2, check out some quotes from some XviD developers (mpeg-4 codec)

"Well I had a look around, and MPEG2 is quite inferior to MPEG4 - the motion vectors take up more space, DC/AC prediction isn't as good (or just absent altogether), MPEG2 has one less zig-zag scanning mode and the VLCs aren't all that different (in fact MPEG4 has more to choose from). If one performed a lossless (MV's + DCT coefficients) transcode from an MPEG2 stream to MPEG4, MPEG4 would use less space.

MPEG2 is also missing a number of MPEG4's features which will (eventually, when implemented) drop bitrates even more - shape-adaptive DCT, quarter-pel ME, global motion compensation, sprite coding, texture coding with wavelets, shape-adaptive wavelet transforms, dynamic resolution conversion, etc. "

"In terms of why TMPGEnc can often seem to outperform MPEG4, it's performing much more pre/post-filtering (i.e. lots) compared to say XviD (i.e. none)."

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21694
 

kami333

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2001
5,110
2
76
They really need to work on the q-pel and GMC, causes problems in so many movies that I usually just leave it off. Kinda sucks getting the pro version only for b-frames and psychovisuals.
 

NuclearFusi0n

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2001
7,028
0
0
Originally posted by: kami333
They really need to work on the q-pel and GMC, causes problems in so many movies that I usually just leave it off. Kinda sucks getting the pro version only for b-frames and psychovisuals.

psychovisuals is available in the free version i think

and divx sucks, it's crap++
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
What people don't realize, though, is that the movie industry is NOT going to move onto a higher compressed standard, even if it is supposedly better quality.

Storage mediums will increase and that will yield higher quality video. It's the way it's always been.
 

KokomoGST

Diamond Member
Nov 13, 2001
3,758
0
0
Well, I think as nice as a Divx settop box would be... as people have already said, you can build a PC for such a job.
It's pretty much just shelling $$ for a digital TV tuner card and TV out.

Regardless, we prolly won't see any real mainstream offerings with MPEG4 compression... we'll just see higher density media. Heck, hack an XBox and you have essentially a settop box for games, MP3, and video.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
mpeg4 is usually marketed as a streaming video thing for the internet... of course... if its not fault tolerant then the streaming part is suspect