Is a divx movie the same quality of the original DVD?

[pulse8]

<< This isn't a high school popularity contest, kids. It's not about dissing each other. This is supposed to be a debate.

Once you grant a point, you have to stick with it. >>



hahahaha

A desperate plea from someone who is obviously losing this debate.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< Don't give him that one. >>



He gave it, he can't take it back.

This isn't a high school popularity contest, kids. It's not about dissing each other. This is supposed to be a debate.

Once you grant a point, you have to stick with it. >>


LMAO. I can take back whatever I choose--I edit it out and *poof* it never existed.
I'm above that, however.

Unfortunately, I wish you were above derailing a discussion and dragging it completely off-topic.

 

[crypticlogin]

Back to the thread topic...

I think DiVX is capable of having the same visual quailty as that of DVD, but once you put it into the context of fitting a full-length feature onto two CDs, then obviously not.

I'm going to stay out of this drubbing of voodooguy 'cause heaven knows there'll be other opportunities. :disgust:

 

[voodooguy]

<< I can take back whatever I choose--I edit it out and *poof* it never existed.
I'm above that, however. >>



You can't make your words disappear. Your words will still remain where I - and everyone else - quoted you.

Good luck making that disappear.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< I can take back whatever I choose--I edit it out and *poof* it never existed.
I'm above that, however. >>



You can't make your words disappear. Your words will still remain where I - and everyone else - quoted you.

Good luck making that disappear. >>


Even further off-topic? I'm going to bed.

 

[voodooguy]

<< Even further off-topic? >>



What is this forum called?

 

[worth]

I don't think anyone was quoted but you voodooguy...



<< Making copies of CDs is also known as piracy >>

 

[peto]

<< Peto, the problem with divx is it wasn't developed for optimum visual quality overall, it was developed for optimum quality in a very small file size. You have to take a quality hit in order to reach that size. Make divx a new standard in home video would not only be stupid, it'd be a step backwards. The next big thing will not be a new compression method that makes the movies smaller, but larger format media which will allow the quality to increase by lowering the amount of compression needed. >>



The very large DivX rips are nearly as good of quality of the original. I think that is partly caused by recompressing something that was compressed in the first place. Now, if DivX was tweaked a bit so it wasn't as geared to "optimum quality in a very small file size" and more to "excellent quality in a more reasonable file size" it would be a viable alternative to mpeg-2. As for "The next big thing will not be a new compression method that makes the movies smaller" I think that, sir is stupid. Why wouldn't we utilize more processing power which we have at our disposal by making a new compression method if it will be of equal or better quality at a smaller size? Now do I think DivX will replace MPEG-2 anytime soon? No. Joe Consumer just plunked down a couple hundred bucks for his shiny new DVD player and by the time he's ready to buy something else there will be a better compression method out there as well as media with more storage.

 

[pulse8]

<< Why wouldn't we utilize more processing power which we have at our disposal by making a new compression method if it will be of equal or better quality at a smaller size? >>



Do I really need to answer this?

You can't have equal quality at a lower file size. Whenever you compress something that far, you lose information. The smaller the files size, the more information was removed from it. The quality will never get better by having a smaller file size. This is why they will develop larger forms of media and the video will also become higher quality and less compressed. As the future progresses, the resolution of the video will be raised as well. Compression shows badly when you start making things larger. Mpeg seems to scale nicely, but not that nicely. I'm sure there will be another codec developed, but it won't be to make the files and smaller it will be to offer less compression.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< Even further off-topic? >>



What is this forum called? >>


Uhh....this forum is Off-Topic with respect to the REST of Anandtech.
This THREAD has a topic: Is a DivX movie the same quality of the original DVD?
The discussion has wandered horrendously off topic considering you're now debating some childish "No Takebacksies!" rule and not DVDs or DivX at all.

 

[Sepen]

Hahahaha, not even close. I rip my DVD's to SVCD's, and although I am quite happy with the results, they are not in the same boat as DVD's either. However, I have run across some that when ripped look the same as the original DVD. Back to the point, DIVX < DVD

 

[ttn1]

Your all missing the point. DVDs use mpeg2 compression while divx is mpeg4.

Obviously since 4 is greater than 2, divx is better than DVD.

Seriously, you're all talking about ripping DVDs into divx format.

But what if the original film was converted to high quality divx. In the same space, I believe that mpeg4 compression would give
higher quality.

For this to make any sense you have to define what you mean by divx. The crap you can download off the net is obviously
low quality.

 

[CTho9305]

<<

<< zip or arj is a lossless codec >>


or .rar or .tar, oh my! >>



tar is a crappy codec - it doesn't compress maybe you meant gzip/bzip2

 

[Jzero]

<<

<<

<< zip or arj is a lossless codec >>


or .rar or .tar, oh my! >>



tar is a crappy codec - it doesn't compress maybe you meant gzip/bzip2 >>


I was tihking the same thing myself "Why is everything a tar.gz then?"

 

[tweakmm]

<< Your all missing the point. DVDs use mpeg2 compression while divx is mpeg4.
Obviously since 4 is greater than 2, divx is better than DVD.
Seriously, you're all talking about ripping DVDs into divx format.
But what if the original film was converted to high quality divx. In the same space, I believe that mpeg4 compression would give
higher quality.
For this to make any sense you have to define what you mean by divx. The crap you can download off the net is obviously
low quality. >>


wow....
you must have been the guy that voted for DIVX being higher quality.
I can't beive what I am reading....
Lol... MPEG-2(DVD) is a lower number than MPEG-4(DIVX) so obviously the higher number is better. I hate to break it to you bud, but the only reason why the number is higher is that the compression is newer. MPEG-2 doesn't compress the movie nearly as much as DIVX. No matter how good the compression is, the one that compresses less is going to be higher quality. It might get to the point that you won't be able to tell the differense, but DIVX is never going to be better quality...

 

[Fandu]

Man, some of you really have no idea what your talking about.
First, lossy codec's, well HuffyUV comes to mind, it's one I use, it's public domain. See above for many more examples.

Second, The reason that you people complain that a DivX does not look as good as the DVD is purely bitrate. The MPEG2 stream on a DVD is usually in the 4-8Mbit/sec range. Single CD DivX rips are generally 600-850KBit/sec SBC. If you use a mich higher bitrate for DivX, it is 100% visually the same image, you cannot tell them apart. Try it yourself, use a 6000KBit/sec bitrate with DivX and you will not be able to tell them apart. Thus, if the studio's compressed their masters to both MPEG2 and DivX at the same bitrates, they would be for all intensive purposes the exact same image. Each codec has it's strong points, MPEG4 deals with some scenes better than others, as does MPEG2.


Second, for whoever said that you can't get 5.1 audio in DivX, you are completely wrong. In fact I have many movies that contain the original AC3 audio track from the DVD.

In conclusion, DivX CAN be as good, maybe better than, MPEG2. The reason people don't believe this is because they are always downloading very low bitrate DivX's. Compress a DVD to 6000KBit/sec DivX, add the AC3 audio track and you will have a nearly identical rip. It's not 100%, see below, but the chances of you noticing the extremely small differences (at this bitrate) are very very low. However your rip will also be around 4GB, same as the original.

DivX/MPEG4 is a lossy format, same with MPEG2. MPEG4 just scales to lower bitrates alot better than MPEG2 does.

 

[TrevL63]

anyone know when hd-dvd is coming out?

 

[goog]

All I'm going to add to this doomed thread is a copy can never be better than the original.
DIVX can be as good as DVD, but that's hardly the point least till DVD burners are a lot cheaper.
Anybody actually going to rip a DVD in the 4GB size range, didn't think so.

If the studios wanted to record in divx rather than MPEG2 this thread might be relevant.

 

[Ameesh]

<<
Second, for whoever said that you can't get 5.1 audio in DivX, you are completely wrong. In fact I have many movies that contain the original AC3 audio track from the DVD.
>>




stored in what format? encoders that use the Divx ;-) Codec like flask ask you to chose mp3 as your downmixed audio format, mp3s cannot hold 5.1 channels.

 

[notfred]

<< stored in what format? encoders that use the Divx ;-) Codec like flask ask you to chose mp3 as your downmixed audio format, mp3s cannot hold 5.1 channels. >>



DivX is a video codec, not audio. the AVI format itself doesn't care what format the audio or vieo is compressed in (if at all), so, there's no reason you couldn't use the uncompressed 5.1 channel audio in a Divx movie. I don't see why you would though, as it'd be really big, and I have no idea what software supports playing 5.1 channel audio from an AVI.

 

[Fandu]

Ameesh:

DivX is only a video codec, you can use whatever audio format you want. The AC3 5.1 audio tracks are not horribly big, ~200MB for an average movie. All you need for playback is an AC3 direct show filter, which are not hard to come by. You guys should read doom9.org, it has lots of great info.

AC3 is a compressed format. Usually 192-224KBit/channel/sec

Alternativly, you could also do 5.1 audio with Ogg Vorbis.

O-yea, Flask Sucks. Period. See doom9

 

[cuteybunny]

well a divx is near dvd quality but not 100 percent like it due to lower bitrate but if divx uses the same bit rate as dvd, it would smoke it. converting from dvd to divx is just a slow process that one would be better off spend time watching dvd movies instead.