Frage von Gunnar P.:
Hi,
actually there are better codecs for everything
- For the Internet WMV9 + Sorenson 3 (mov)
- For DVD Mpeg2
- For HDV Mpeg2 () + m2t probably soon be synonymous AVC/H264
............
For what in the world, one therefore needs DivX + Xvid. To my knowledge, been times DivX codec developed as a hacker in order to accommodate the space movies illegally drawn on the plate ... In this corner, I think they come out even now synonymous.
Other opinions?
MfG
Gunnar
Antwort von Nightfly!:
Divx is a derivative of MPEG-4.
MPEG4 is a successor of MPEG2.
MPEG4 / 2, both working with losing compression, ie unötige image information will be removed and will be lost forever.
MPEG4 can be achieved with less amount of data the same quality as MPEG2.
MPEG4 is important for VideoOnDemand in the network or new DVB-T with more than 31 channels.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4
Gruß,
Nightfly!
Antwort von Epsonic:
Divx is a derivative of MPEG-4.
MPEG4 is a successor of MPEG2.
MPEG4 / 2, both working with losing compression, ie unötige image information will be removed and will be lost forever.
MPEG4 can be achieved with less amount of data the same quality as MPEG2.
MPEG4 is important for VideoOnDemand in the network or new DVB-T with more than 31 channels.
Sorry, what is this drivel? I had mentioned concrete examples. Which Applications DivX / Xvid might bring within the distribution formats (codecs) advantages in the pared to the others ...?
MfG
Gunnar
Antwort von Uwe:
Hi,
basically I like DivX / Xvid not synonymous. There are no Programs, which allow a reasonable edit + as you have correctly write bring few benefits in any field ...
The only possible exception of DVD's for training, promotion .. etc. Both are put in a position of higher compression much more on a DVD with acceptable quality - here we would have to screw with the bit rate Mpeg2 so far down so that the quality would suffer too much. And standalone players can handle it so now there are some who with DivX.
But that would be the only case study that I could figure. The disadvantage would be synonymous, that they probably still with no menus can create an authoring prog ............
Antwort von StefanS:
Divx is a derivative of MPEG-4.
MPEG4 is a successor of MPEG2.
MPEG4 / 2, both working with losing compression, ie unötige image information will be removed and will be lost forever.
MPEG4 can be achieved with less amount of data the same quality as MPEG2.
MPEG4 is important for VideoOnDemand in the network or new DVB-T with more than 31 channels.
Sorry, what is this drivel? I had mentioned concrete examples. Which Applications DivX / Xvid might bring within the distribution formats (codecs) advantages in the pared to the others ...?
MfG
Gunnar Then I will give you the "drivel" of Nightfly times translated:
"MPEG4 is important for VideoOnDemand in the network or new DVB-T with more than 31 stations"
ie:
The Nightfly of you is called Application example:
Video on Demand web
DVB-T
"MPEG4 is achieved with less amount of data the same quality as MPEG2"
ie:
A smaller amount of data requires less bandwidth to the carrier frequencies. Thus, more channels can be accommodated on a carrier frequency, as in the use of codecs that require a quality comparable to just a larger amount of data.
Ergo:
Nightfly has answered your questions.
Greeting
Stefan
Antwort von Epsonic:
Yes, thanks for the translation:) But again, I had asked for examples of use, which with DivX / Xvid would handle better than with others.
- VOD could be better with H264 + WMV9 be made in terms of size + quality.
OK, the example of the training videos with Uwe / Verkausförderung leads me to think ... Because just now are a lot of standalones that can handle it. Otherwise, the argument would no longer go. By AVC/H264 it would work with the same / better quality with even smaller file ...
Antwort von Epsonic:
OK, the example of the training videos with Uwe / Verkausförderung leads me to think ... Because just now are a lot of standalones that can handle it. Otherwise, the argument would no longer go. By AVC/H264 it would work with the same / better quality with even smaller file ... Given that many cheap DVD players can decode synonymous MPEG4 / Xvid, these formats are very common in the private sector, either compress recorded television and movies to watch later or share movies with friends ...
Antwort von Epsonic:
[quote = "Anonymous"]
Given that many cheap DVD players can decode synonymous MPEG4 / Xvid, these formats are very common in the private sector, either compress recorded television and movies to watch later or share movies with friends ... Yes, that's probably why DivX / Xvid found such disclosure. Due to a good + clever marketing / sales strategy could lead to this success.
In terms of quality remains the assertion that they are superfluous. There is obviously no scope in which they are better than others leading to the spec. Areas ...
MfG
Gunnar
Antwort von Gast1:
In terms of quality remains the assertion that they are superfluous. There is obviously no scope in which they are better than others leading to the spec. Areas ...
MfG
Gunnar A completely ridiculous assertion.
The goal is not better quality, but smaller amounts of data at relatively low quality losses. Stop the preferred codec of DVD Ripper. And still, not everyone has broadband and DVD Burners.
Because you could argue synonymous, a polo was unnecessary because it is a Passat or compare apples with pears.
Antwort von prem:
A completely ridiculous assertion.
The goal is not better quality, but smaller amounts of data at relatively low quality losses.
But talk is my ... Comparing cut as WMV9 and / or H264 with the two small in terms of data / quality losses at low starting DivX / Xvid bad ...
Stop the preferred codec of DVD Ripper.
Right. Since they are synonymous there (I already wrote in the incoming mail ...
Because you could argue synonymous, a polo was unnecessary because it is a Passat or compare apples with pears. at least now you realize that you have not really understood ...
Antwort von Burner87:
So I can complain about Dvix nich. Use the codec, not for self-produced video, but I convert all my TV recordings into Divx. This brings to each recording a File, which only 20-25% as large as the original. The quality is almost the same and the handling is very simple. Although it take to convert 1.5-2x original time but I can accept that. The material anyway, I cut only once and logically before.
Antwort von uli laier:
In addition, there will be people who refuse Nanoweich of software from various (some justified, some unjustified) reason
-> Nix wmv
A really good & free AVC/H264-Encoder I do not know.
DivX Pro 6 was a few months ago s.The first 10,000 visitors to the DivX wasted homepage. Since I am the proud owner of a synonymous Updatable DivX Pro 6 license.
stonee
Antwort von uli laier:
A really good & free AVC/H264-Encoder I do not know.
He is free + good:
http://download.pchome.de/download/x264-video-codec_6583.html
MfG
Gunnar
Antwort von uli laier:
Well,
because we do not want to praise the day before the evening.
The developers write on their homepage:
Development status:
BIG FAT WARNING: x264 is still in early development stage If there is a AVC/H264 encoder with the stability, quality and distribution, such as DivX or Xvid codec or the aforementioned achieved this status, it would certainly be an alternative.
A "noname" MP3 codec is synonymous something other than the Fraunhofer MP3 codec for example, or LAME.
Greeting
stonee
