XVID vs. DIVX

[Enchanter]

I haven't tested anything new in the past few months in fact. Been busy with life, so hobby has to wait. I expect to be able to test new stuff (DVDShrink, DivX codecs, and what-have-you) in the near future, so I expect to be able to update my findings.

Please note though that my previous comments still stand. I recommend anyone reading this thread and having the same question as the original thread creator to experiment with both codecs and find out which (theory) applies to which codec. Nothing betters your own findings.

Regards.

[SpikeSpiegel]

Sure, everyone should try to find what really suits better his own "video quality" idea.

Somebody likes extra-fluid-with-no-noise-low-definition videos, someone else prefers extreme-definition-without-imperfections (don't look at me that way! )
In each case, with the right conf-filters, all (mpeg4) codecs are fine, I just say that with DivX you can save some HDspace-CDs with less quality loss (...), that's all.

[Enchanter]

Glad to see we are at an agreement.

Cheers.

[SpikeSpiegel]

Hi, long time no see!

Could anybody explain what happened to XviD since last time (before Nic's 16.07)?
I just tested Koepi's 1.0-09052004 build and...where are noise and macroblocks? Why there are so many details? Where does such definition come from?
Even with H.263 quant, vids are more sharp and detailed than DivX ones!

Doing a more extensive comparison I noticed that, while Nic's16.07 ever placed keyframes as DivX (same number and position), with this last build (and with default configuration) this is totally different (less keyf, but in the right places) and, while with DivX there's a great quality difference between key and bframes, in a Xvid encoded file they're almost the same, so the overall quality is better.
Well, it seems that, after such a honored career, DivX can be dismissed. Sigh!