Slashdot Mirror
DivX Codec Port Contest
mr.e@home.com writes: "Flashingyellow.com has started up a contest to port the DivX MPEG-4 codec to the Macintosh platform. The goal is a completely open-sourced, cross-platform codec for use with Quicktime (hoping the Linux port of Quicktime ever gets completed). Prize is $5000 and an iMac DV Special Edition."
Why go through all the pain of reverse-engineering a video codec and then NOT releasing it under a truly free license? Why should the Stallman disciples have all the fun? Please, let's not infect the Mac platform with the GNU public virus! Make it available under the BSD license or a similar free license.
--
As long as DVD players play VCD and not some weirdo mpeg4 variant, VCDs are the only acceptable thing to get.
it's in my head
smpeg does a pretty nice job too, and is more open. Loki apparently adopted it and brought it up to snuff because they needed one :-)
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
what about MPEG-2??? .m2v movie off the internet and run it. I don't know why Quicktime doesn't support it, as would seem the natural thing to do, but it doesn't, and i assume it has something to do with DVD. Apple does have a perfectly working MPEG-2 decoder in the Apple DVD player, but that won't run files off the hard drive. I can't normally run DVD player because i have macsbug installed and rebooting just for that seems kind of silly, but that doesn't matter since it wont' run files off a hard drive anyway. I have no use for DVDs, of course, it's just that that was what was in the machine. You'd think that now they are charging for quicktime, they could go to the bother of including things like MPEG video encoders or MPEG-2 playback to justify the cost, but.. guess not. Well, actually, if you compare it to _REALPLAYER_ you get a LOT for your money.. so i guess i shouldn't complain.. but..
:P
We have no MPEG-2 drivers for quicktime yet. I have this unbelievably wonderful G4 right here.. between the Rage 128 and Altivec, it is probably more equipped to handle MPEG-2 style math than any other personal computer ever made.. and i can't download a simple
blah.. of course making an MPEG-2 encoder would be somewhat redundant since it's clear apple HAS one they just won't DO anything with it. And of course making an MPEG-4 decoder for any platform would mean that it could be relatively quickly ported, and the mac would be a logical first choice because there are a you could write only the codec without having to worry about the structure (quicktime has it already), and the structure is one that many people knowledgable about such things as graphics programming would be likely to be familiar with..
still a tiny bit of a misdirected effort if you ask me.. i personally think the $5000 and theimac should go to whoever manages to finally come out with some HFS+ support for linux/BSD.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You'd really think they'd do it under the LGPL.
/. discussions after a certain point.. blah
First off this is something that one would think is going to be most useful LGPLed since it is essentially a library, not as an actual application, and thus GPLing it will merely limit its usefulness and at times cause extreme cumbersomeness... I doubt GPLing an mpeg-4 codec will entice anyone to release code under the GPL, but it will probably entice a lot of people to not USE the codec.. thus probably meaning they won't make any improvements to the codec itself.
but secondly and more importantly SINCE THE CODEC IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS A PLUG-IN TO QUICKTIME-- ESSENTIALLY BEING "LINKED INTO" AND IN ANY CASE CONSTITUTING A "WHOLE WORK" WITH QUICKTIME-- wouldn't releasing it under the GPL violate some things?
Or would the violation only apply if someone [apple] attempted to distribute quicktime _with_ the OSS liscence [a la LAME]? Would this be simply to keep apple from benefiting from a codec they didn't contribute to, by ensuring it can't be part of standard quicktime? Wouldn't that simply result in apple developing their own MPEG-4 codec?
Please correct any flaws in my logic.. but really i think the LGPL STILL is the correct choice for this kind of thing [standalone librarystyle mpeg4 codec, esp. one intended to be used as a plugin to a propeitary product] because it would make it the most useful for everyone while still ensuring any modifications to the codec itself are still kept open (as opposed to BSD style liscenses where everyone from microsoft to Real would rob the code blind..)
i'm sure nobody will ever read this post.. nobody reads
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
How well does DivX compare to Sorenson? }:-)
This kicks serious tail. The free-software world will finally gain a next-generation alternative to MPEG. Completely free and nonproprietary . . . at least I hope patents don't cause a problem (I understand there are many surrouding MPEG-4).
The future of free, high-quality A/V codecs looks bright. First Ogg Vorbis, and now this. Goodbye xanim binary modules, hello fully open-source SDL-accelerated DVD-quality full-screen video player!
iSKUNK!
As stated it is the sorenson codec that is causing the compatibility problem. Xanim will quite happily play QT4 movies, on the condition that they use a codec supported by xanim. In fact QT4 movies can even be played by the QT3 player on the Mac, since the movie format is the same.
If an open-source codec that allowed good compression, while maintaining a quality image, I am sure that we could leverage an advantage over Sorenson and maybe even force Apple's hand.
QT4 does add certain minor abilities, like being able to embed sprites, 3D objects, etc., but then again at this point in time it does not appear to be a major loss.
BTW If you head off to http://www.apple.com/developer you should find the
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If DivX is a Microsoft extended version of MPEG-4, then isn't it likely to be protected by both Microsoft and other MPEG-4 patents?
Is MPEG-4 any less encumbered by patents than MPEG-2?
Note that some patents (such as H.263) are so broad as to apparently ensure that ANY implementation will infringe.
Digital Digest has this bit about creating DivX files from dvd even. You can get all the necessary software for windows from the site too, including the stuff you use to downmix from 5.1 to 2 channels of audio and so on.
Is there any justification for them taking the exact same name (capitalization differences aside) as something universally hated among the techy crowd?
I wasn't aware that we ran out of every other possible combination of letters. I suggest MivZ
-----
Ok, just to set a few things straight here:
1) This has been said already, but the DivX codec has absolutely NOTHING to do with the failed attempt by Circuit City to rent out dvd's on a pay per view basis.
2) Video - Video is encoded using a hacker version of the microsoft mpeg4 codec, YES, it is similiar to asf, but before you start screaming about file size and quality being so different from asf, that is because DivX is incapable of being streamed, the entire file must be downloaded before viewing unlike asf which has the index bytes included at regular parts in the movie, the divx codec does NOT include this, resulting in smaller file sizes for the same quality (Note: I'm not sure about the technical name for the index data, but this is correct as far as i know)
3) Audio - Simple, encoded in MP3 / WMA
4) Streamin - See #2 for why this dont work
If you want to see an example of how high DivX can go for quality, get over to http://divx.ctw.cc -> trailers -> the matrix, its one of the highest quality ones online right now.
Hope this helps guys, alot of people seem to be stuck on the DivX / divx and the asf.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Before you start shouting bloody murder, read the FAQ on the page. DivX is Microsoft's implmention of the MPEG-4 video standard that has been embraced and extended. DIVX is that awful DVD scheme from Circut City. You have been warned.
From the divx.st site: "DVD-Quality". Let's get one thing straight: DivX does not give you DVD-quality, and IMHO it doesn't even come close to DVDs. If you're a movie enthusiast, you'll know what I'm talking about.
:)
And yes, MPEG4 is a standard. Microsoft has implemented that standard. Their implementation is not called DivX. DivX (which has nothing to do with Circuit City) is Microsoft's MPEG4 codec which has been modified to allow the use of MP3 and WMA audio. (No, it's not blessed by MS
As you probably understand, I don't like DivX that much. It gives you great quality at a small filesize, but it's nowhere near DVD-quality.
I don't understand why anyone would spend time working on that port anyway. Go contribute to something like OVD ("Open" counterpart to DVD) instead. Checkout linuxvideo.org for more info.
Now with MPEG-4, once it's cracked, it'll probably be like the issue with Unisys over GIF, or the fiasco over fractal compression. Everybody in the know knows how silly the software patent issue is, and unfortunately, I don't see it getting any better.
All that said though, the contest sounds noble, though you're dealing with a few very closed juggernauts, who have a marked tendancy to act very interesting when their stronghold is threatened.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Easy: Select, Command-C, Command-V. Plus it's almost guaranteed that cut and paste (as well as drag and drop) will work seamlessly between most programs (as long as you're not doing something stupid, like pasting a JPEG into a text editor). Its one nice aspect of the Mac that X (and the various add-on toolkits and desktop enironments) and (to some degree) Win32 still need to work on.
As for a two-button mouse...
Go to any Mac dealer and buy a two-button Mac compatible USB mouse. Anything from MacAlly's cheap replacements to Microsoft's Intellimouse Explorer (yes, the one with the laser) will work. Heck, you can probably use any USB mouse with the iMac (or G3/G4, or USB-equipped PowerBook) without much trouble
The 'one-button-mouse' argument isn't really a valid criticism of Apple: some people (like my father) like the simplicity of just one button -- and this is Apple's target market. I bought a four-button Kensington mouse so I could more effectively launch grenades in Marathon 2, but aisde from that I quite like only having to deal with one button.
The iMac is targeted at a specific type of user: criticising it for not having the expandability or complexity of a screwdriver-shop Athlon doesn't make that much sense: both machines are designed with different users in mind.
--srj/mmv
Okay, just in case anybody's still confused, here's what DiVX really is: Microsoft includes a codec for MPEG 4 video compression with recent releases of Windows Media Player. I don't know how standards compliant this codec is, nor if the standard is really finalized anyway.
The problem with this codec from the perspective of your average Windows user is that it's locked to prevent it being used with even vaguely open file formats such as avi. Like the Windows Media Audio codec, you're supposed to be able to use it only with one of Microsoft's new closed file formats -- asf? -- which enforce "rights management" -- which makes it difficult to use the codecs to recompress DVDs and distribute them all over the world on GNUTELLA, which is what everyone wants to do with them.
DiVX is just a patch to the binary DLLs that relaxes this restriction, so you can create and play back avis using MPEG 4 compression. It also comes packaged with a pirated version of the fraunhoffer mp3 codec for audio, and a similarly cracked WMA audio codec in recent versions as well.
Regarding porting, it would probably be semi-easy to "port" DiVX to i386 Linux using Wine to interface with the DLL. AFAIK, Microsoft has a fairly standardized API for pluggable video codecs, and DiVX complies to this. I think a very useful and realistic project would be writing the glue to call these codecs from a linux app (Winelib has the ability to link in DLLs I think). This would give anyone using i386 Linux easy access to playback/encoding of all of the video codecs that come with Windows now and in the future, within xanim or whatever. And since the best Windows video compression program for DVD piracy -- FlaskMPEG -- is already GPL'd except for the codecs it has to link in, it would be easy to port to Linux as well. Admittedly we'd be stuck with binary codec libraries, but as all these codecs are heavily proprietary and patent-encumbered it's probably the best we can do anyway. Obviously this binary-recycling approach won't work for the contest of porting to the Mac, but frankly I think that's pretty hopeless anyway.
Aww, people explained that it was a different DivX before any really good flames could develop...
Party poopers.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
First of all, since the misinformation has already begun to spread, the Divx codec is not related IN ANY WAY to those stupid rental discs.
Secondly, I've seen full length movies compressed into 660 megs with the Divx codec and they look nearly as good as DVDs, very impressive; looks like VCDs are on their way out (as if they were ever really in...)
Can't people come up with a better name than DivX? To me the name brings back awful memories of times past when a certain retailer tried to foist some pay per view scheme on the public. My skin crawls whenever I see that word, and I have to look closely to be sure of what the hell I am looking at is not what I think it is.
The MPEG 4 divx standard is totally unrelated to the DIVX fiasco. The name sharing is confusing but since one of them no longer exists it doesn't really hurt to reuse the name, I gues.
Anyway mpeg4 divx is a compression standard which apparently delivers good compression rates at the price of performance. Both encoding and decoding is more expensive than mpeg2. The result however is not bad. Apparently it is possible to compress a dvd to fit on one cd. Also the quality is not bad apparently although I have heard various reports about that ranging from "nearly as good as DVD" to worse than VCD. I suppose it depends very much on the type of movie you encode.
Jilles
Intead of setting coders against each other to port the MPEG4/DivX codec, shouldn't they be encouraging them to work together, share the work load and the source code between the developers, and um, get the job done quicker?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
hoping the Linux port of Quicktime ever gets completed
What is wrong with xanim ?? It plays quicktime movies, and uses ALL available codecs. Apple is preventing usage of the most common Sorensen codec under linux, and also failing to port their player to linux. In short, they are trying to dominate online movies while ACTIVELY blocking any use of their movie format under linux. Several other codecs provide Mark Podlipec with NDAs, and he links their codecs in as binary libraries - thus not revealing their source.
From the xanim home page
I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others. You may want to nicely send a single email message to Sorenson and Apple asking about unix and/or xanim support for the Sorenson video codec.
Sorensen email: support@s-vision.com
Apple: wish@hype.quicktime.apple.com
I've got quite a few items encoded in DivX. This CODEC is just SWEET. The audio ends up coming out very nice, and the video quality beats the hell out of ASF (which I thought looked pretty good for the filesize). I just configure the codec to eat up a whole CD, and the resultant video comes out looking great.
The movie industry recently said that bandwidth and stuff just isn't available to pirate movies yet.....say hello to DivX. Note that I am not supporting movie pirating; it's just that the industry simply cannot ignore the issue any longer.