Has DivX become unnecessary?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Yef, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Yef

    Yef Guest

    Hi all,

    Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    computing power that people devote to backing up
    their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    were available. But now it is possible to back up
    VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    in perfect original condition, with no need to
    compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    always introduces errors and noise, but that
    conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    high-definition players, has become unnecessary.

    However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.

    Yef
     
    Yef, Mar 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On a sunny day (18 Mar 2005 14:21:40 -0800) it happened "Yef" <>
    wrote in <>:

    >Hi all,
    >
    >Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    >computing power that people devote to backing up
    >their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    >virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    >unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    >had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    >were available. But now it is possible to back up
    >VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    >in perfect original condition, with no need to
    >compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    >experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    >always introduces errors and noise, but that
    >conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    >high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    >
    >However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    >from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    >high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    >Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    >
    >Yef

    And you RECORDED tha HiDef leader on WHAT?
    You can burn it to a DVD too.
    And I record HDTV from satellite on my harddisk:
    streamtype
    Reading q1.ts
    TS_STREAM
    SIZE: 1920x1080
    ASPECT: 16:9
    FRAMERATE: 25
    PROFILE: Main
    LEVEL: High
    CHROMA: 4:2:0
    PAL
    MPEG2
    It is about 10GB / hour perhaps....
    So one could use DivX to reduce the space by a factor
    so one movie fits on a 4.7GB DVD.
    But DVD will not let me burn files that long.
    So I write these big files as image, the thing does not know the difference.

    In Linux
    growisofs -Z /dev/dvd=movie.avi

    write on the disk:
    'this is movie.,avi as image, and play with cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -'

    Who needs a filesystem if you only have one file, it only takes space.

    And so play it in Linux with
    cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -
     
    Jan Panteltje, Mar 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yef

    pertnoy Guest

    Divx is still good if you only want the movie,and not the extras, you can
    put about 6 0r 7 full Divx movies on 1 4.7Gb disc.
    "Jan Panteltje" <> wrote in message
    news:1111188168.4e541b2e507610d5a923b022f174103e@teranews...
    > On a sunny day (18 Mar 2005 14:21:40 -0800) it happened "Yef"

    <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    > >Hi all,
    > >
    > >Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    > >computing power that people devote to backing up
    > >their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    > >virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    > >unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    > >had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    > >were available. But now it is possible to back up
    > >VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    > >in perfect original condition, with no need to
    > >compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    > >experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    > >always introduces errors and noise, but that
    > >conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    > >high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    > >
    > >However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    > >from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    > >high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    > >Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    > >
    > >Yef

    > And you RECORDED tha HiDef leader on WHAT?
    > You can burn it to a DVD too.
    > And I record HDTV from satellite on my harddisk:
    > streamtype
    > Reading q1.ts
    > TS_STREAM
    > SIZE: 1920x1080
    > ASPECT: 16:9
    > FRAMERATE: 25
    > PROFILE: Main
    > LEVEL: High
    > CHROMA: 4:2:0
    > PAL
    > MPEG2
    > It is about 10GB / hour perhaps....
    > So one could use DivX to reduce the space by a factor
    > so one movie fits on a 4.7GB DVD.
    > But DVD will not let me burn files that long.
    > So I write these big files as image, the thing does not know the

    difference.
    >
    > In Linux
    > growisofs -Z /dev/dvd=movie.avi
    >
    > write on the disk:
    > 'this is movie.,avi as image, and play with cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -'
    >
    > Who needs a filesystem if you only have one file, it only takes space.
    >
    > And so play it in Linux with
    > cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -
    >
     
    pertnoy, Mar 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Yef

    pertnoy Guest

    That`s one, 4.7 GB.
    "pertnoy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Divx is still good if you only want the movie,and not the extras, you can
    > put about 6 0r 7 full Divx movies on 1 4.7Gb disc.
    > "Jan Panteltje" <> wrote in message
    > news:1111188168.4e541b2e507610d5a923b022f174103e@teranews...
    > > On a sunny day (18 Mar 2005 14:21:40 -0800) it happened "Yef"

    > <>
    > > wrote in <>:
    > >
    > > >Hi all,
    > > >
    > > >Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    > > >computing power that people devote to backing up
    > > >their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    > > >virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    > > >unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    > > >had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    > > >were available. But now it is possible to back up
    > > >VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    > > >in perfect original condition, with no need to
    > > >compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    > > >experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    > > >always introduces errors and noise, but that
    > > >conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    > > >high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    > > >
    > > >However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    > > >from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    > > >high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    > > >Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    > > >
    > > >Yef

    > > And you RECORDED tha HiDef leader on WHAT?
    > > You can burn it to a DVD too.
    > > And I record HDTV from satellite on my harddisk:
    > > streamtype
    > > Reading q1.ts
    > > TS_STREAM
    > > SIZE: 1920x1080
    > > ASPECT: 16:9
    > > FRAMERATE: 25
    > > PROFILE: Main
    > > LEVEL: High
    > > CHROMA: 4:2:0
    > > PAL
    > > MPEG2
    > > It is about 10GB / hour perhaps....
    > > So one could use DivX to reduce the space by a factor
    > > so one movie fits on a 4.7GB DVD.
    > > But DVD will not let me burn files that long.
    > > So I write these big files as image, the thing does not know the

    > difference.
    > >
    > > In Linux
    > > growisofs -Z /dev/dvd=movie.avi
    > >
    > > write on the disk:
    > > 'this is movie.,avi as image, and play with cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -'
    > >
    > > Who needs a filesystem if you only have one file, it only takes space.
    > >
    > > And so play it in Linux with
    > > cat /dev/dvd | mplayer -
    > >

    >
    >
     
    pertnoy, Mar 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Yef

    Yef Guest

    I was speaking of today's DVD vis a vis current
    DVD writers, but ...

    > SIZE: 1920x1080
    > ASPECT: 16:9
    > FRAMERATE: 25
    > PROFILE: Main
    > LEVEL: High
    > CHROMA: 4:2:0
    > PAL
    > MPEG2
    > It is about 10GB / hour perhaps....


    .... these numbers are encouraging for the future.
    I would guess one could put two hours of 1080 video
    onto one of the new 50 gig dual-layer Blu-Ray disks.
    But Sony has announced an 8-layer 200 gig disk is in
    development.

    Perhaps one day, when we finally have the 1 terabyte
    HVD (holographic) we will not even need to compress
    video any longer. That will be real Freedom.

    http://news.com.com/Group aims to d...99.html?part=rss&tag=5562599&subj=news.1041.5
     
    Yef, Mar 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Yef

    RichA Guest

    On 18 Mar 2005 14:21:40 -0800, "Yef" <> wrote:

    >Hi all,
    >
    >Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    >computing power that people devote to backing up
    >their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    >virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    >unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    >had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    >were available. But now it is possible to back up
    >VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    >in perfect original condition, with no need to
    >compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    >experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    >always introduces errors and noise, but that
    >conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    >high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    >
    >However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    >from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    >high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    >Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    >
    >Yef


    Couple things. The idea of the 700meg Divx file will go
    the way of the dinosaur because DVD burners and discs are
    now cheap as dirt. People don't need or want to use
    CD-Rs if they can avoid them. However, bandwidth and downloading
    still make that compromised quality size popular, it's simply a much
    faster download than a 4 gig file. The 350meg Divx file for
    hour-long TV shows will likely remain very popular, however.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Mar 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Yef

    Just Me Guest

    I have a DVD writer that writes dual-layer but the blank discs are very
    expensive. I can get the 4.7 gig disc for about 5 percent of one dual-layer
    disc.

    Another thing to add, encoding a DVD into Divx takes a long time too. And
    also I've noticed that different DVD's to Divx come out different, some good
    some not so good.

    As far as burning the VOB files themselves, I've tried that and my DVD
    player will play them fine but when I try to go forward in time by entering
    the minutes forward, the DVD player doesn't seem to know the length of the
    VOB and sometimes just crashes. So, you are sort of stuck with just
    watching each of the entire VOB's.


    "Yef" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    > computing power that people devote to backing up
    > their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    > virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    > unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    > had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    > were available. But now it is possible to back up
    > VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    > in perfect original condition, with no need to
    > compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    > experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    > always introduces errors and noise, but that
    > conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    > high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    >
    > However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    > from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    > high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    > Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    >
    > Yef
    >
     
    Just Me, Mar 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Yef wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Recently it occurred to me that all the time and
    > computing power that people devote to backing up
    > their DVDs and converting them to DivX, while
    > virtuous in its way, seems bound to become
    > unnecessary. DivX was important when few people
    > had DVD writers, and before dual-layer writers
    > were available. But now it is possible to back up
    > VOB files themselves and to play them back,
    > in perfect original condition, with no need to
    > compress and lose any amount of quality or to
    > experience sound quality problems. Conversion
    > always introduces errors and noise, but that
    > conversion, at least for now during this lull before
    > high-definition players, has become unnecessary.
    >
    > However, I have downloaded a high-def trailer
    > from divx.com and I can say with certainty that
    > high-def is the real future. It looks much better.
    > Too bad high-def discs and drives aren't available yet.
    >
    > Yef
    >

    This was brought up on a message-list for dvd::rip (an excellent front
    end for transcode on Linux) and the general (albeit biased) conclusion
    was no, Divx still has definite uses that aren't likely to go away.
    Personally I transcode my DVD's to AVI's using the Xvid codec so I can
    store them on my modded xbox. Although disc space may be cheap, it's
    definitely not cheap enough. To be fair, my rips tend to be much larger
    than the 700MB crap that you see on peer2peer networks (I generally
    encode at 1200Kbps for video), but it's still much smaller than the 5-9
    gigs. As to encoding time, on a modern system (P4 3.0 or P-M 2.0) it
    takes roughly 3 hours to rip & encode a 2 hour movie using 2 pass
    encoding and passing the audio through.
     
    Nicholas Andrade, Mar 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Yef

    Yef Guest

    Personally it's the poor quality of the Divx video and audio
    that bothers me about it. I am using older software (FairUse)
    because it makes it easy. Maybe some newer free program
    is available that does a better job. But I see many problems:
    interlacing effects on some videos even when the settings are
    supposed to remove that, and the audio these days is almost always
    very bad quality, with cluck sounds just as a person begins
    to speak, or loud background noise that sounds like burr-burr.
    Conversion time is a non-issue since I run it overnight.
     
    Yef, Mar 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Yef

    Yef Guest

    I have seen single layer DVD-Rs for $0.50 each.
    I don't have any problem with the idea of putting
    half a video on one DVD, the other half on another.
    Notice that in DVDDecryptor you can set the cut size.
    However I noticed that that doesn't apply to the
    sound file for a demux, for some reason.

    I think the best conversion is like so:

    vob -> m2v+ac3 -> mpeg2 (one or more 4.5 gig files) => 2 DVD-Rs

    because this preserves the original quality perfectly
    as there is no transcoding.

    Also, playing back an mpeg2 file should allow you to
    scan forward and back.
     
    Yef, Mar 20, 2005
    #10
  11. On a sunny day (20 Mar 2005 04:50:04 -0800) it happened "Yef" <>
    wrote in <>:

    >Personally it's the poor quality of the Divx video and audio
    >that bothers me about it.

    That is complete nonsense, you must be doing someting really wrong.
    Be more specific about what you use, and HOW you use it, your source
    material, and maybe people can help.
    Just being here trying to crush DivX is no good, it makes you look stupid.
     
    Jan Panteltje, Mar 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Yef

    pertnoy Guest

    If you don`t how to encode Divx properly, use Dr. Divx, previous poster said
    his divx files are usually bigger than 700 megs,because of crap quality on
    peer to peer ( if you use Dr. divx properly it will make perfect quality
    movies at 700 megs everytime). I made about 100.


    news:1111332694.e5e139c3f26c6608e65701d601f85291@teranews...
    > On a sunny day (20 Mar 2005 04:50:04 -0800) it happened "Yef"

    <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    > >Personally it's the poor quality of the Divx video and audio
    > >that bothers me about it.

    > That is complete nonsense, you must be doing someting really wrong.
    > Be more specific about what you use, and HOW you use it, your source
    > material, and maybe people can help.
    > Just being here trying to crush DivX is no good, it makes you look stupid.
     
    pertnoy, Mar 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Yef

    Biz Guest

    "pertnoy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you don`t how to encode Divx properly, use Dr. Divx, previous poster

    said
    > his divx files are usually bigger than 700 megs,because of crap quality on
    > peer to peer ( if you use Dr. divx properly it will make perfect quality
    > movies at 700 megs everytime). I made about 100.


    Not a chance. 700 mb isnt near enough for movies over 90 minutes at full
    resolution. In fact I cant make a full resoultion movie with AC3 sound in
    less than 1400mb, ever. The audio alone is about 300-400 mb. If you cant
    see the difference between your crappy copies and the original, I suggest
    you get your eyes checked, you're going blind...
     
    Biz, Mar 20, 2005
    #13
  14. Biz wrote:
    > "pertnoy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>If you don`t how to encode Divx properly, use Dr. Divx, previous poster

    >
    > said
    >
    >>his divx files are usually bigger than 700 megs,because of crap quality on
    >>peer to peer ( if you use Dr. divx properly it will make perfect quality
    >>movies at 700 megs everytime). I made about 100.

    >
    >
    > Not a chance. 700 mb isnt near enough for movies over 90 minutes at full
    > resolution. In fact I cant make a full resoultion movie with AC3 sound in
    > less than 1400mb, ever. The audio alone is about 300-400 mb. If you cant
    > see the difference between your crappy copies and the original, I suggest
    > you get your eyes checked, you're going blind...
    >
    >

    I find I average roughly 1.5GB for a two hour movie (1200Kbps for Video
    and AC3 passed through). The quality is great when viewing it on my TV
    from the XBox. In fact I find Family Guy/Simpsons episodes almost
    indistinguishable at that bitrate. As mentioned prior, quality does
    largely depend on your software & settings, etc. but if you know what
    you're doing you get great results.
     
    Nicholas Andrade, Mar 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Yef

    Just Me Guest

    "I think the best conversion is like so:

    vob -> m2v+ac3 -> mpeg2 (one or more 4.5 gig files) => 2 DVD-Rs"

    What program would I use to get this done? Thanks.

    "Yef" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have seen single layer DVD-Rs for $0.50 each.
    > I don't have any problem with the idea of putting
    > half a video on one DVD, the other half on another.
    > Notice that in DVDDecryptor you can set the cut size.
    > However I noticed that that doesn't apply to the
    > sound file for a demux, for some reason.
    >
    > I think the best conversion is like so:
    >
    > vob -> m2v+ac3 -> mpeg2 (one or more 4.5 gig files) => 2 DVD-Rs
    >
    > because this preserves the original quality perfectly
    > as there is no transcoding.
    >
    > Also, playing back an mpeg2 file should allow you to
    > scan forward and back.
    >
     
    Just Me, Mar 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Yef

    Billy Joe Guest

    In ref:
    5sl%d.425539$

    Biz <> wrote:

    > "pertnoy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> If you don`t how to encode Divx properly, use Dr. Divx,
    >> previous poster said his divx files are usually bigger than
    >> 700 megs,because of crap quality on peer to peer ( if you
    >> use Dr. divx properly it will make perfect quality movies at
    >> 700 megs everytime). I made about 100.

    >
    > Not a chance. 700 mb isnt near enough for movies over 90
    > minutes at full resolution. In fact I cant make a full
    > resoultion movie with AC3 sound in less than 1400mb, ever.
    > The audio alone is about 300-400 mb. If you cant see the
    > difference between your crappy copies and the original, I
    > suggest you get your eyes checked, you're going blind...


    Consensus !!

    700 MB per hour of Divx/Xvid including AC3/MP3 audio currently
    makes for a pretty damned good viewing experience - assuming
    that the source material was of sufficient quality.

    Whether or not interlace needs to be dealt with will vary by
    source material, targeted display equipment, and user
    preference.

    BJ
     
    Billy Joe, Mar 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Yef

    Yef Guest

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    > >Personally it's the poor quality of the Divx video and audio
    > >that bothers me about it.


    > That is complete nonsense, you must be doing someting really wrong.
    > Be more specific about what you use, and HOW you use it, your source
    > material, and maybe people can help.


    Some movies turn out fine. Other movies have interlacing problems
    and sound that makes a cluck sound when people begin to speak.
    I'm not the first person to say that Divx doesn't work every time.
    Furthermore if you want to show that you're not just being
    ignorant yourself, tell us all what software YOU use that produces
    such perfect output. FYI: I don't use payware.
     
    Yef, Mar 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Yef

    Yef Guest

    SmartRipper produces m2v and ac3 correctly.
    DVDDecrypter _does not_, I have learned. The sound file is too short.

    I have used Womble successfully to create an mpeg2 file
    that is very large. However that is a payware program. There must be
    a free program for this.
     
    Yef, Mar 21, 2005
    #18
  19. Yef

    Yef Guest

    Using what program(s)?
     
    Yef, Mar 21, 2005
    #19
  20. Yef

    Biz Guest

    "Billy Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In ref:
    > 5sl%d.425539$
    >
    > Biz <> wrote:
    >
    > > "pertnoy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> If you don`t how to encode Divx properly, use Dr. Divx,
    > >> previous poster said his divx files are usually bigger than
    > >> 700 megs,because of crap quality on peer to peer ( if you
    > >> use Dr. divx properly it will make perfect quality movies at
    > >> 700 megs everytime). I made about 100.

    > >
    > > Not a chance. 700 mb isnt near enough for movies over 90
    > > minutes at full resolution. In fact I cant make a full
    > > resoultion movie with AC3 sound in less than 1400mb, ever.
    > > The audio alone is about 300-400 mb. If you cant see the
    > > difference between your crappy copies and the original, I
    > > suggest you get your eyes checked, you're going blind...

    >
    > Consensus !!
    >
    > 700 MB per hour of Divx/Xvid including AC3/MP3 audio currently
    > makes for a pretty damned good viewing experience - assuming
    > that the source material was of sufficient quality.
    >
    > Whether or not interlace needs to be dealt with will vary by
    > source material, targeted display equipment, and user
    > preference.
    >
    > BJ
    >
    >

    700 mb/hour I agree. The earlier poster was saying 700 mb for the whole
    movie. Most movies are 90 minutes or longer. If you want good quality
    sound, and not that crappy mp3 or mp2 audio, 700mb/hour is about the lower
    limit. Although if your source is 720x480 NTSC, you usually have to reduce
    the width to at least 704, which results in a significant loss in PQ to my
    eyes. PS, I dont watch these things on a 19" PC monitor, I watch on a big
    screen.
     
    Biz, Mar 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bWlja3l0ZWpzaW5naEB5YWhvby5jb20=?=

    Unnecessary Network trafic generated between only two comp out of

    =?Utf-8?B?bWlja3l0ZWpzaW5naEB5YWhvby5jb20=?=, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    588
    S. Pidgorny
    Oct 29, 2004
  2. vincent101
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,060
    Frank
    Aug 11, 2003
  3. sentry

    Re: Has DivX become unnecessary?

    sentry, Apr 24, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    510
    yesitsme
    Apr 25, 2005
  4. Erich93063
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,215
    Mutley
    Nov 4, 2007
  5. shilla
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,759
    DasFox
    Jan 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page