I hate DivX ;-)

**khp** · 5 Oct 2002, 08:59 PM

Jesus christ almighty, this kid has some problems

1. DivX Quality problems, with downloaded clips
If he would just stop downloading poor quality encodes, and actually encode some stuff himself, this would not be a problem. Sure it's possible to create poor quality divx, just like it's possible to create poor quality mpeg1/2. Comparing compression formats by how poorly they can encode a video clip is a bit silly.

2. Compability issues
Sure there are compability issues. If everything had to be backwards compatiple with previous technology, we would still be living in the stoneage. Some people choose to embrace new technologi, and others choose to sit back and complain.

3. Difficult to encode good quality
Yes, the clip on his page looks like it's been encoded at the lowest possible quality setting. Why anyone in their right mind would do that I don't know.

4. Other people using DivX
Againg he should just stop downloading videos off the net. It's a luxury problem, not to mention illegal.

**Enchanter** · 5 Oct 2002, 10:17 PM

Your article is deservedly a rant, but nothing further than that. A significant number of flaws (and unnecessary profane words) have undermined the weighing of your articles. Here go a few examples:

"God damn I hate that DivX

crap which I'll refer to from now on by the less retarded name "Div-X" because let's face it having a smiley in your name is even more retarded than having an uppercase second letter... yeah. "
We're talking about a video compression technology here, but you're needlessly "ranting" about the name of the codec. It works perfectly fine for me and its name does not bother me any little bit. Even if it was named "Ultra-lousy compressor", but works nicely, I'd give it the green light.

"So without even considering the fact that the codec totally sucks ass they stole the name."
I'd appreciate more details on how it sucks...
They did not steal the name either. They used it with the permission of the now-dead DIVX company.

"When I first heard about Div-X I thought it sounded so totally cool. I mean they say, with total confidence, that they can fit a whole movie on a single CD"
Yes, you can, although the quality will undoubtedly be far inferior to the original DVD. Yet still, you cannot hope to achieve the same compression level with any earlier revisions of MPEG (MPEG-1 and -2) at that kind of low bitrate. Try it and prove to me whether MPEG-1 and -2 can compress a whole movie to a CD and remain bearably watchable.

"Bottom line is Div-X looks like crap. It's ugly. To DVD is just ridiculous. In all my days I've only once seen one Div-X movie that I would say is comparable to DVD. I would never ever make any wild claim like saying it was as good as DVD but it looked nice enough."
That would depend how properly done the DivX movie is. I recently did A Beautiful Mind on 2 CDs with the newer DivX 5.02 and older DivX 3.11a. Suffice to say, the results are definitely not as good as the original DVD, but far from bad either (aka. excellent results). Anyone who hasn't watched the movie yet would not realise (when watching my rip) that they were not actually viewing the actual DVD, but in fact, your supposedly "ugly" and "crappy" "Div-X."

"So sure at high bit rates this thing can look decent. You know what else works well at crazy high bit rates like that? MPEG-2."
MPEG-2 WAS designed to work at high bitrates where as DivX, which is MPEG-4, works at low bitrates. Have you read as much as you seem to claim to???

"why exactly are people wasting their time using 320x240 resolutions on their Div-X when they can just make some MPEG-1 VCDs which use 352x240 resolution? They look way better and are pretty small. 74 minutes to a CD isn't too shabby. So yeah you can go and make this really shitty Div-X stuff that's a third the bit rate of a VCD and is totally unwatchably bad if you're masochistic! I mean you have to be really hard up to watch something of such sub par quality... yet here we are. Damn that sucks."
Let's see. 74 Min on a CD. That's 74 min of VCD or approximately 1000+ kbps of DivX video using 192 kbps MP3 track (Check the values with a bitrate calculator). Most experienced encoders here will agree with me that at this high a bitrate, you can opt to use much higher resolutions (640x352, for instance). Only the uninformed would use such a lowly resolution of 320x240 at this bitrate. I dare you to prove to me that a 74 min VCD can beat the crap out of a 74 min, 640x352 1000kbps DivX (with 192kbps MP3) in the quality department.

"My big beef has to be the compatibility issues though."
I agree with you on this. The MPEG-4 standard is pretty new and has yet to be widely accepted by the digital world (it will be one day). However, since I view my DivX on my computer, it does not bother me much. Moreover, there is always the TV-out option that I can sort to...

"I thought for a while that maybe I was doing something wrong even after following a bunch of retarded guides and stuff. I thought for a minute and realized I'd never seen a decent quality small Div-X video. So maybe it's everyone who's wrong? Or maybe it's the asstastic codec."
Show me these retarded guides and I (and many others) can show you the more proper and updated ones.

"Whatever so I go and grab the Div-X codec and install it according to the instructions and it didn't work."
Strange. I never had any problem installing and using the codec from version 3.x to the latest one. Did you read the Readme properly?

"it was much more haXor and less easy to install back then."
Was it? Or were you simply struggling to do something that you did not know, but has already been stated in the Readme?

"Ah **** okay so I go to get the new codecs 'cause I wanted to see this Anime I downloaded and... big ****ing surprise it didn't work!"
Very convincing pointsâ€¦

"I get some DivX 5 crap (they lost the

) and of course I have to redownload and reinstall"
They did not lose the

sign. It was deliberately moved so as not to associate it with the illegal M$-MPEG4-hacked 3.11a. And donâ€™t tell me youâ€™re so lazy so as to expect the DivX 5 codec to simply be downloaded and automatically integrated into the system?!?

"Hot ****"
Have you ever learned proper English before? Itâ€™s never too late to learnâ€¦

"Why are we still calling it a codec exactly? Whatever. No don't ****ing tell me 'cause I know what a ****ing codec is."
It IS a codec (COmpressor/DECompressor). Without it, your DivX contents simply wonâ€™t play! You have obviously not demonstrated any knowledge on codecs at all!!!

"So why do people insist on using this shitty shitty codec? Well it's simple. Everyone wants to be a 7331 haXor (elite hacker)."
I donâ€™t remember ever wanting to become a hacker in my life. I originally downloaded and installed the earlier version 3.11 simply because I needed to watch some of my DivX shows. That was it. And what makes you think any hackers would want to use Windows as their tool?

"Div-X is (was) originally this total haXor tool."
It has NEVER been a hackerâ€™s tool! FYI, It was a hacked version of a M$ codec. The newer version 4.x and 5.x have been totally rewritten from scratch and have nothing to do with the older 3.11. Again, you have amply demonstrated your utter ignorance and lack of knowledge in the field.

"If you're doing things just because they're the polar opposite of what you consider to be "too popular" then you're being just as influenced by them being popular as the 12 year olds who like N*SYNC and shit."
I think itâ€™s just you who thinks so...

"Quick time sucks but at least their videos look good and professional."
True. But I have seen DivX-compressed commercial clips that look just as good or better.

"Div-X's big thing is that it's free and open source and 7331 haXor preferred..."
Which version were you referring to? You seem to have got it all mixed up. haXor preferred? ROFLâ€¦.where did you get this wild mumbo-jumbo from?

"There's also a free "Pro" version packed full of spyware! Of course they sugar coat it so it doesn't sound like spyware but whatever. Anyway so you want a full version of Div-X 5.x "Pro" and you want to make nice encodes and stuff? Sure. 30$"
Doom9 and several others have outlined simple methods to block and circumvent the spywares found in the Pro version. No big deal there. Youâ€™re the only one worrying and ranting over nothing. Besides, if you are stressing on being a â€œhaXorâ€ so much, why donâ€™t you get a cracked version that does not contain spywares at all?

"So why the hell are people still using this shit? I mean they're no better than anyone else."
Yet, another reason why your words mean as much to me as a parrotâ€™s mimicks.

"I leave with a quote from the new Div-X player. It told me this as I closed it last night:"
The Playa is buggy. That much is certain. I, for one, never use the player, but rather, the more reliable WMP (Windows Media Player, for your information) 6.4 (You know. The older version. Not the newer 7.x version), and PowerDivX.

"I'm talking NTSC here 'cause PAL is perverse and unnatural"
How perverse and unnatural is it? I would ohh so much like to know.

Here's some brain food for you, you poor little thing: http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm

Your rant after all is just a rant. Not even worth a read [Leaves the chair, dashes to the toilet and let go of all the disgusted feeling]

**Chopper Face** · 6 Oct 2002, 12:00 AM

1. DivX Quality problems, with downloaded clips
If he would just stop downloading poor quality encodes, and actually encode some stuff himself, this would not be a problem.

As I mentioned I tried my hand at encoding myself and didn't like the results. I have also seen a wide variety of quality of encodes and the basic Div-X ugliness always shone though.

4. Other people using DivX
Againg he should just stop downloading videos off the net. It's a luxury problem, not to mention illegal.

Again what? I'm not trying to be a spelling bitch but I don't see where you mentioned it the first time. I don't download things I can buy or see in a theatre... especially not in Div-X. There are legal usages to downloading video... and how the hell are you talking shit about downloading illegal videos? What do you use it for and why do you assume I would use it for illegal reasons if you don't? Bah!

It works perfectly fine for me and its name does not bother me any little bit.

Needless to say the name sure does bother me. This is not a rant only on the codec's quality but the entire codec including name, functionality and selloutedness.

Yes, you can, although the quality will undoubtedly be far inferior to the original DVD. Yet still, you cannot hope to achieve the same compression level with any earlier revisions of MPEG (MPEG-1 and -2) at that kind of low bitrate. Try it and prove to me whether MPEG-1 and -2 can compress a whole movie to a CD and remain bearably watchable.

You aren't listening. I'm not saying that MPEG-1 does a better job of fitting a whole movie on a CD. I'm saying that it's simply impossible to do as they claim to fit a whole movie on a CD with DVD quality. I would fault anyone for saying MPEG-1 or 2 could do the same.

That would depend how properly done the DivX movie is. I recently did A Beautiful Mind on 2 CDs with the newer DivX 5.02 and older DivX 3.11a. Suffice to say, the results are definitely not as good as the original DVD, but far from bad either (aka. excellent results). Anyone who hasn't watched the movie yet would not realise (when watching my rip) that they were not actually viewing the actual DVD, but in fact, your supposedly "ugly" and "crappy" "Div-X."

Right. 2 CDs. What's wrong with the SVCD format? Works better for me.

MPEG-2 WAS designed to work at high bitrates where as DivX, which is MPEG-4, works at low bitrates. Have you read as much as you seem to claim to???

Absolutely not. I never claimed to have read anything or even tried to give the impression that I was litterate at all. I could have dictated this whole thing for all you know. This is a rant and not a research paper. To go out and research stuff would have been retarded. I consider myself to know enough about the issue and have commented on that. Anyway the key thing you fail to mention is that Div-X is meant to work with DVD quality at low bit rates. I've seen nothing but ugliness at low bitrates.

Only the uninformed would use such a lowly resolution of 320x240 at this bitrate. I dare you to prove to me that a 74 min VCD can beat the crap out of a 74 min, 640x352 1000kbps DivX (with 192kbps MP3) in the quality department.

I dare you to prove otherwise. Quality is subjective.

I agree with you on this. The MPEG-4 standard is pretty new and has yet to be widely accepted by the digital world (it will be one day).

How many years does something have to be around before it's accepted? I really don't think it ever will. And if it ever does then there will just be a new version of Div-X so whatever you're playing your old stuff on will become obselete within a few short months.

Show me these retarded guides and I (and many others) can show you the more proper and updated ones.

http://www.doom9.org/ of course this was over year ago so congratulations ahead of time for finding something more recent and updated than I could find a year ago. A very difficult task indeed.

They did not lose the sign. It was deliberately moved so as not to associate it with the illegal M$-MPEG4-hacked 3.11a. And donâ€™t tell me youâ€™re so lazy so as to expect the DivX 5 codec to simply be downloaded and automatically integrated into the system?!?

Well of course not. My comment is to piont out how annoying it is to be constantly downloading new versions of a codec that ends up sucking. I mean I never downloaded an MPEG codec.

It IS a codec (COmpressor/DECompressor). Without it, your DivX contents simply wonâ€™t play! You have obviously not demonstrated any knowledge on codecs at all!!!

As I had mentioned right before you said this No don't ****ing tell me 'cause I know what a ****ing codec is. So yeah of course I know what a codec is. It's just normally you only need the codec to view your video. No Div-X needs it's own player and everything. I understand it's a codec you pretentious piece of shit and that's why I said so blatantly that I knew what it was and asked that you don't waste your time telling me but you can't seem to get enough of the sound of your own voice. And you're lecturing me about English. Hot damn!

I donâ€™t remember ever wanting to become a hacker in my life. I originally downloaded and installed the earlier version 3.11 simply because I needed to watch some of my DivX shows. That was it. And what makes you think any hackers would want to use Windows as their tool?

Thanks for supporting my statement by saying that windows sucks and Linux rules like a true wannabe haXor.

It has NEVER been a hackerâ€™s tool! FYI, It was a hacked version of a M$ codec.

No comment.

Which version were you referring to? You seem to have got it all mixed up. haXor preferred? ROFLâ€¦.where did you get this wild mumbo-jumbo from?

All versions. People use Div-X 'cause it's a by the people for the people thing... that now costs cash. I stand by my statements.

Doom9 and several others have outlined simple methods to block and circumvent the spywares found in the Pro version. No big deal there.

Well there's cracks for quicktime pro and such as well but that doesn't change the fact that the people who use and made Div-X made it to be the opposite of these codecs.

"So why the hell are people still using this shit? I mean they're no better than anyone else."
Yet, another reason why your words mean as much to me as a parrotâ€™s mimicks.

They (Div-X) is no better than anyone else (other codecs). Do you mean I'm regurgitating other's words? I don't get your funky dialect.

The Playa is buggy. That much is certain. I, for one, never use the player, but rather, the more reliable WMP (Windows Media Player, for your information) 6.4 (You know. The older version. Not the newer 7.x version), and PowerDivX.

I also use the old version of WMP for full support of all respectable codecs.

How perverse and unnatural is it? I would ohh so much like to know. Here's some brain food for you, you poor little thing: http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm

I'm not reading your link punk. I know exactly what the difference between NTSC and PAL are. I just don't need to get into this retarded debate over the two. I also didn't need to be a pompous pretentious ass by spitting out 50Hz this and scan line that.

**Coma** · 6 Oct 2002, 04:47 AM

Chooper Face Here's an Idea..................Why don't you just go buy yourself some dvd's and uninstall Divx and then everyone is happy..............I'm fairly new to Divx and can get an excellent quality rip on 1 or 2 cd's........Have you even tried to encode a Dvd? Have you read a guide? Any idiot can understand The guides here and on doom9.org...............I did................Cheers

**Chopper Face** · 6 Oct 2002, 06:53 AM

You obviously didn't read this thread as I said I don't download anything that I could buy in a store because... well that's just retarded. Why would someone subject themselves to that?

Anyway no I have not tried to rip a DVD. I do stuff from laser disc source or from my digital cable which is high quality enough for it not to make a difference. Might as well be DVD.

As I said I did read a guide and I'm not saying I was unable to get good results because I'm incompetent. I'm saying I got bad reults because the codec sucks. Try to keep up.

**UncasMS** · 6 Oct 2002, 08:04 AM

**khp** · 6 Oct 2002, 08:16 AM

LOL, this thread is nothing but flame bait. I'am sorry I posted here in the first place, I should have seen it comming

.

**Enchanter** · 6 Oct 2002, 08:32 AM

I don't need to post a second time to see a fool coming. You shame this board by signing up here, mr. Face.

Edit: On second thought, flame on!

Needless to say the name sure does bother me. This is not a rant only on the codec's quality but the entire codec including name, functionality and selloutedness.

selloutedness? Muahahahaha!!! Nice english.

I'm saying that it's simply impossible to do as they claim to fit a whole movie on a CD with DVD quality.

It isn't as long as the movie is not too long. Take my 74min movie example and you'll see it clearly (I personally think one such as you will never be able to though).

Right. 2 CDs. What's wrong with the SVCD format? Works better for me.

-. An SVCD of resolution 480x() compared to DivX resolutions that can go as high as 720x(), is like what a candle is to the sun. You won't see it on your low-detail TV screen, but it is bleeding obvious on your computer monitor.
-. You need a DVD player software to be able to play SVCDs, where as to be able to play DivX contents, you only need to install the codec, which is free anyway.
-. Not all DVD players support SVCD.
-. TV-out options, as I previously mentioned, are always available on current graphics cards.

This is a rant and not a research paper. To go out and research stuff would have been retarded. I consider myself to know enough about the issue and have commented on that.

A worthless and sorely misinformed rant at best, that was made by a fool who can only rant and rant on how ugly and crappy Div-X is, without elaborating further on how exactly and qualitatively ugly and crappy Div-X is.

Anyway the key thing you fail to mention is that Div-X is meant to work with DVD quality at low bit rates. I've seen nothing but ugliness at low bitrates.

I never claimed that. You did.

"Only the uninformed would use such a lowly resolution of 320x240 at this bitrate. I dare you to prove to me that a 74 min VCD can beat the crap out of a 74 min, 640x352 1000kbps DivX (with 192kbps MP3) in the quality department."
I dare you to prove otherwise. Quality is subjective.

I don't need to prove what I and so many others know already. It is YOU who needs to prove your initial claim.

How many years does something have to be around before it's accepted? I really don't think it ever will. And if it ever does then there will just be a new version of Div-X so whatever you're playing your old stuff on will become obselete within a few short months.

Things are never accepted quickly enough. Take a look at the gaming world. DirectX 8 has been out for a few years already and yet we only see a few games that do actually support the features unique to DirectX8. I doubt Dirext9 will gain wide support and acceptance any time soon. That means getting yourself a Directx9-compliant Matrox Parhelia and/or Radeon 9700 is akin to buying something that you will never use for a considerable length of time.
The same goes for DivX. Already there are a few DivX decoder cards available for low-spec PCs and there are plans for stand-alone DivX players. This is a start and what makes you think the trend will go in the opposite direction?

http://www.doom9.org/ of course this was over year ago so congratulations ahead of time for finding something more recent and updated than I could find a year ago. A very difficult task indeed.

A year is a long time ago. By then, many newer and better guides have been released. Why don't you show me proper links to the guides you read there so I can tell for sure that you did not just pick up Doom9's homepage link and paste it onto this thread. Oh yes, elaborate further to me on what codec and encoding tools you used so I know that you DID do some encoding as well. Muahahaha!!!

My comment is to piont out how annoying it is to be constantly downloading new versions of a codec that ends up sucking.

It does not suck. DivX may not be completely DVD-quality, but it is by far the best video compression technology available that can achieve the best video quality in a given space constraint. It is you who is shutting out the truth from yourself.

I mean I never downloaded an MPEG codec.

Try playing MPEG-2 files on a freshly installed Windows, without installing a DVD player software or a codec. Tell me what error message you get. We'll see how well your claim stands.

No Div-X needs it's own player and everything.

I'll leave your defense on you comprehending english well enough out. (*snickers*).
DivX contents (DivX 3.11a, DivX 4.x, and DivX 5.x) NEVER require that you use the buggy Playa. I've always used WMP 6.4 for their playback. Did you actually ever bother to try any other players, or did you just leave it at that???

I understand it's a codec you pretentious piece of shit and that's why I said so blatantly that I knew what it was and asked that you don't waste your time telling me but you can't seem to get enough of the sound of your own voice. And you're lecturing me about English. Hot damn!

Muahahahaha. You are the only one making a scene here.

Thanks for supporting my statement by saying that windows sucks and Linux rules like a true wannabe haXor.

I knew you wouldn't catch my english words in the first place. You claimed that the DivX codec is a haXor tool and yet as far as I remember back in the early days of DivX, the codec was only available on Windows. No true hackers in their right mind would use Windows as their hacking tool. You've got the whole point totally confused here too by talking about hacking, instead of DivX!

"It has NEVER been a hackerâ€™s tool! FYI, It was a hacked version of a M$ codec. "
No comment.

And so realisation has dawned on him...

"Which version were you referring to? You seem to have got it all mixed up. haXor preferred? ROFLâ€¦.where did you get this wild mumbo-jumbo from? "
All versions. People use Div-X 'cause it's a by the people for the people thing... that now costs cash. I stand by my statements.

All right. I've been waiting for this.
Iâ€™ll take this bit from your article: â€œDiv-X's big thing is that it's free and open sourceâ€
None of them are open-source. Show me solid proof that they are and ever were. The DivX developers need money to survive and continue improving on the codec. What makes you think they'd work for free and starve themselves out?

Well there's cracks for quicktime pro and such as well but that doesn't change the fact that the people who use and made Div-X made it to be the opposite of these codecs.

Good. You seem capable of getting cracks for any programs you wish for. Why donâ€™t you do it for the DivX codec and stop ranting on?

They (Div-X) is no better than anyone else (other codecs). Do you mean I'm regurgitating other's words? I don't get your funky dialect.

In simple and comprehensible English, your words are total BS to me.

I also use the old version of WMP for full support of all respectable codecs.

Good. Then start using it for DivX5 contents and stop complaining about the Playa.

I know exactly what the difference between NTSC and PAL are.

Then prove to me that you DO know the difference and how is it that PAL is perverse and unnatural when compared to NTSC.

**admin** · 6 Oct 2002, 12:03 PM

Moved the thread to the Boycott/Protect/Rants forum ...

I think you all know my feelings towards DivX, you know with starting a website and forum and all ...

I would just like to add that MPEG-1/VCD is perhaps the worst compression format on the planet, since I've been working with VCDs/MPEG-1 since it first came onto the "market" (if you can call it that, since almost no one used it as a format to release movies on). The colours are horrible. The contrast is horrible. The compression artifacts are plenty. And I am not even talking about pirated VCDs, but rather, legal ones released by Warner Bros. There is a reason why MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 were invented, and it was because MPEG-1 sucks.

Fact : DivX is MPEG (a variant of MPEG-4), so it is based on an official format designed by the experts at the MPEG, and designed for a good reason. MPEG-1 has been replaced by MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 serves a different role altogether, it is not there to replace MPEG-2.

No one ever should ever compare DivX to DVD (or MPEG-4 to MPEG-2) - these formats perform different tasks, in that one is a low bandwidth format for use on lower bandwidth global networks such as the Net and the other is a high bandwidth format for using in high bandwidth systems such as DVD or Digital TV. In fact, I've already written a small article on why you shouldn't compare these two :

Digital Digest Newsletter - Produced using recycled bytes ...

http://www.digital-digest.com/newsletter/issue26/index.html#chapter3

Here is an extract :

The most common criticism is that DivX's quality is not as good as that of MPEG-2/DVDs - this is true, but this is also deliberate. DivX is not meant to be a competing format for MPEG-2 - in fact, DivX is based on the specifications of MPEG-4. MPEG-2 is meant for high-bandwidth systems, such as DVDs or Digital TV, while MPEG-4 is meant for low-mid bandwidth systems such as WAP, and the Internet. To ensure that videos do not take days to download from WAP enabled devices or the Internet, MPEG-4 is designed to be flexible in the area of bit-rate (which largely determines the file size). Of course, you cannot expect something that is 100 times smaller in size than an equivalent MPEG-2, and for it to still have the same quality - some movies you can download online are smaller than a CD quality MP3 that is of the same length - so how can you expect the video to look even remotely like a DVD?

As for DivX 5.0 Pro not being freeware, I've also expressed my dissatisfaction with this, although I can understand why it was necessary (MPEG-4 licensing fees). Of course, you can always use the ad-ware supported DivX 5.0 Pro version, and disabling the ad-ware component is not that difficult (eg. using a firewall software that blocks all out-going messages, such as Zone Alarm).

I agree that most DivX movies you can download from the net are crap, simply because they are pirated and usually shot using hand-held cameras at the back of the theatre. If you've seen the same movie on pirated DVDs, the quality is also crap, and so it has nothing to do with DivX the video compression format (or the DVD format), but rather, the source. Also, a DVD is 4-6 GB in size, whereas most DivX-Rips are only 700 MB large, there is a reason why DVDs uses all that space, considering DVD/MPEG-2 is already a highly compress format. However, if you've seen 2 or 3 CD DivX movies, and I've encoded some myself as a test when I was writing one of the DivX conversion guides, you'll agree that if you sit 1 metre away from the computer monitor, you won't be able to tell the difference between it and the original DVD - there is no difference at all when you watch it on TV.

That's not bad, considering the size of the movie is only 1/3 of the original DVD ...

A final word : Beware of trolls!!

**Enchanter** · 6 Oct 2002, 12:24 PM

Trolls...

I nearly forgot that word.

No other words seem to describe this person more accurately than this one. Ha!

**Enchanter** · 6 Oct 2002, 08:02 PM

3. Difficult to encode good quality
Yes, the clip on his page looks like it's been encoded at the lowest possible quality setting. Why anyone in their right mind would do that I don't know.

I had a look in his forum and the related thread. Saw this in one of his posts:

As for the Sailor Jupiter picture... well of course it looks like shit. I set the bitrate down into the toilet to maximize the artifacing. It's Div-X to the extreme.

That explains your question, khp?

Anyway, I should just move on and not pay attention to this kiddo anymore.

**Chopper Face** · 7 Oct 2002, 01:02 AM

It isn't as long as the movie is not too long. Take my 74min movie example and you'll see it clearly (I personally think one such as you will never be able to though).

That's because you think I'm an idiot... you know 'cause you're ignorant and don't know me.

-. An SVCD of resolution 480x() compared to DivX resolutions that can go as high as 720x(), is like what a candle is to the sun. You won't see it on your low-detail TV screen, but it is bleeding obvious on your computer monitor.

Right... but it will look better than Div-X. I think the candle to the sun analogy would be more fitting when comparing Div-X to DVD but whatever.

-. You need a DVD player software to be able to play SVCDs, where as to be able to play DivX contents, you only need to install the codec, which is free anyway.

True there are issues with getting SVCD to work but the standard is old and easier to get supported. I can play SVCD in my WMP now although I have no idea why...

-. Not all DVD players support SVCD.

Mine certainly doesn't but... no DVD players support Div-X.

A worthless and sorely misinformed rant at best, that was made by a fool who can only rant and rant on how ugly and crappy Div-X is, without elaborating further on how exactly and qualitatively ugly and crappy Div-X is.

Well it's really subjective. I guess I could've done some crazy error calculations but really the bottom line is what the eye sees. Math can't settle something like this. And I went on for a long time. Most of that isn't just "Div-X is ugly" although that's really the bottom line.

I never claimed that. You did.

I never said you did. It's been claimed by people such as http://www.divx.com/ though. Quote:

This codec is so advanced that it can reduce an MPEG-2 video (the same format used for DVD or Pay-Per-View) to ten percent of its original size.
...
DivX compression technology solves these problems with unmatched compression ability and visual quality virtually indistinguishable from a DVD.

"Quality is subjective. "
I don't need to prove what I and so many others know already. It is YOU who needs to prove your initial claim.

Do I have to repeat myself? Okay "Quality is subjective".

<snip a bunch of irrelavant vido card stuff>Already there are a few DivX decoder cards available for low-spec PCs and there are plans for stand-alone DivX players. This is a start and what makes you think the trend will go in the opposite direction?

Because of the inconvenience (impossibility) of conveniently updating a Div-X player with new codecs every few months.

A year is a long time ago. By then, many newer and better guides have been released. Why don't you show me proper links to the guides you read there so I can tell for sure that you did not just pick up Doom9's homepage link and paste it onto this thread. Oh yes, elaborate further to me on what codec and encoding tools you used so I know that you DID do some encoding as well. Muahahaha!!!

I was using fast motion MPEG-4 with virtual dub. I think it's only fair to mention that I could never get through a 23.5 minute episode of a show without it crashing on me and could only test on clips. Can't believe I didn't even get into that in my rant... Anyway I don't have the original link because I believe some Div-X stroker passed it to me in a binaries newsgroup 'cause they couldn't accept that I post something in VCD. Posts in binaries groups expire pretty quickly.

"I mean I never downloaded an MPEG codec. "
Try playing MPEG-2 files on a freshly installed Windows, without installing a DVD player software or a codec. Tell me what error message you get. We'll see how well your claim stands.

I never downloaded an MPEG-1 codec.

I'll leave your defense on you comprehending english well enough out. (*snickers*).

When lacking any way to reasonably argue good points pretentions jerks resort to spelling bitching

DivX contents (DivX 3.11a, DivX 4.x, and DivX 5.x) NEVER require that you use the buggy Playa. I've always used WMP 6.4 for their playback. Did you actually ever bother to try any other players, or did you just leave it at that???

I have 6.4.07.1121. Downloaded and installed the codec the other day. It does not play the Div-X 5 clip I downloaded well. Picture is all crappy and I get about 1 frame per second plus there's that whole when you try to shuttle through it hangs for a minute but that's always been a problem with Div-X. Why would I say it's incompatible if I didn't try it?

I knew you wouldn't catch my english words in the first place. You claimed that the DivX codec is a haXor tool and yet as far as I remember back in the early days of DivX, the codec was only available on Windows. No true hackers in their right mind would use Windows as their hacking tool. You've got the whole point totally confused here too by talking about hacking, instead of DivX!

Sorry haXor are wannabe hackers. Just the little punks who want to fight the power but are too stupid use Div-X.

None of them are open-source. Show me solid proof that they are and ever were.

"DivX is developed by DivXNetworks with the assistance of the open source community. The open source version of DivX ("OpenDivX") is headquartered at Project Mayo. You may think of Project Mayo as the "alter ego" of DivXNetworks. It is comprised of a community of open source developers, technologists, and videophiles working on DivX to achieve the following goals"
Anyway I guess the purchase version of Div-X isn't open source (no shit) but the point of Div-X has always been a fight the power tool. I mean the first version was just taking a real codec and making it free... yet here we are.

Good. You seem capable of getting cracks for any programs you wish for. Why donâ€™t you do it for the DivX codec and stop ranting on?

Not that I ever said I had cracked that stuff but you really don't get what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about an inconvenience to people who don't like cracks but that it's hypocritical to have a pay version.

Good. Then start using it for DivX5 contents and stop complaining about the Playa.

I thought I'd been through this several times. I refuse to repeat myself again.

Then prove to me that you DO know the difference and how is it that PAL is perverse and unnatural when compared to NTSC.

A European power outlet uses and alternating current with a frequency of 50Hz while and North American or otherwish normal one uses 60Hz. When TVs were first invented the system had to be based on these frequencies and therefore PAL TVs used 25 frames per second with 2 passes through to get each from done (interlaced and all) while NTSC uses 30 frames per second. PAL, having less frames has 575 lines per frame while NTSC has 480 lines per frame. I'm sorry if I'm getting any little numbers mixed up there but that would be a really anal detail. Now **** off dick smack.

I would just like to add that MPEG-1/VCD is perhaps the worst compression format on the planet, since I've been working with VCDs/MPEG-1 since it first came onto the "market" (if you can call it that, since almost no one used it as a format to release movies on). The colours are horrible. The contrast is horrible. The compression artifacts are plenty. And I am not even talking about pirated VCDs, but rather, legal ones released by Warner Bros. There is a reason why MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 were invented, and it was because MPEG-1 sucks.

Relative to Div-X it is a very commercial format. Maybe it never took off here but it's big in Asia.

No one ever should ever compare DivX to DVD ...

I totally agree but when the comparison is being made and people claim they're close someone needs to refute this.

I agree that most DivX movies you can download from the net are crap, simply because they are pirated and usually shot using hand-held cameras at the back of the theatre.

I'm not at all talking about stuff with bad source material. That stuff's just tragic.

That's not bad, considering the size of the movie is only 1/3 of the original DVD ...

Agreed. But at high bitrates it's not hard to get really good results. DVD, although much smaller than totally uncompressed video, isn't trying to be very small. Anyway at 1/3 it can look good. My beef is with the claims that at 1/10 it can look good.

And of course that Sailor Jupiter picture is an exageration... of course there are some bad Sailor Moon Div-X clips out there. I think that's mostly due to bad source though since most of those guys don't have laser disc players or good tapes.

**Enchanter** · 7 Oct 2002, 08:27 AM

You have amply shown us all here that you have little knowledge on the subject and yet a big audacity to start "ranting" on the codec without any solid proof to back-up your "lies'. It does not matter if you've got friends who can help you with correting your mistakes. I can, again, start pointing out the flaws in your posting and flame you like I never have, but nothing good comes out of it. I'm here to help fellow encoders and listen to their advice, not stay around so I can bash up trolls. You are in my ignored list as of now.

**Chopper Face** · 7 Oct 2002, 01:54 PM

Listen Anonymous or whatever. You haven't said a butt ****ing thing to prove me wrong. You're all proud to be schooling me but you just let your lips flap while the vile stench of feces passes through the air. I'd appreciate if you would stop calling me a liar with nothing to back it up.

It does not matter if you've got friends who can help you with correting your mistakes.

What the butt ****ing hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think I have a crack team of experts advise me on how to reply to all your comments? "Oh there's a loser on a message board full of losers that said something mean to me. Assemble the team and we'll meet in the situation room to devise a counter attack strategy!"

Feel free not to reply... you know since I'm on your ignore list.

I hate DivX ;-)

I hate DivX ;-)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment