Slashdot Mirror
XVID 1.0 Released
Freedom66 writes "The 1.0 version of XVID codec is available. XviD is an ISO MPEG-4 compliant video codec like DIVX codec. It's an open source project which is developed and maintained by lots of people from all over the world. On the 31st December, Doom9 has made a codec comparison and XVID was at this time, one of the best codecs."
Just like DivX, except lacking in the GATOR software installation.
But who cares? Those corporations don't give the consumer the "good stuff" anyway. I know what it is like being in college and without a car. It makes life difficult to actually rent a movie. So we download them.
And to watch a tv show? (yea, the lounge...its always taken by someone else)
Suprnova is a student's best friend.
I want a reliable source to get my shows from, something more reliable than a random bum who is kind enough to encode the shows (vcd? crappy analog tv?) I'd gladly pay a small fee to be able to download shows directly from the networks (to offset the cost of "innovation") Hell, leave the ads in! I'll be glad to watch them too.
I just want to watch my show.
-Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Ok, good point. I still wonder about how popular a codec can be if its not used commercially. This may not be the goal of the authors, but it does influence whether the format is cross platform or not. I can see movie distributors, microsoft, et al not wanting to use open source anything, considering open source (and the GPL in particular) are seen as the platform of choice for hackers, crackers, pirates and other lower forms of life.
Rediculous, yes, but "free" still scares a lot of companies, and many other companies make a tidy living by capitolizing on, and feeding, this fear.
So I still wonder how accepted an open sourced codec will be in the short run, since 95% of desktop users run Windows, without requiring someone to manually install a codec.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
95% of desktop users may run windows, but who cares?
The target is people who use desktops primarily for media, and of those, I would guess the majority are capable of installing a codec.
The main factor on acceptance will be if it's actually used by 10 million eMule and torrent users to share movies; if it's comparable to DivX, and less of a pain in the ass (I don't consider DivX to be much of one myself, but apparently it is to some people), then it will become a standard.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
for mpeg-4 systems part of the spec to be implemented
overview
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Cool... I'm at this moment ripping "BladeRunner TDC". Transcoding with the xvid library is almost done. Quality is really very good versus some of the commercial applications out there for Windows. For example, the deep blue scenes in "Finding Nemo" tend to look blocky and sort of like a mosaic with a commercial Win2K program. Using DVDRip with xvid (on a Fedora Core 1 machine) the same scene is a lot smoother and the color gradients are not nearly as noticeable.
On a related note, I'll soon be trying out some of the pre/post filters for DVDRip. They do take a LONG time however. I've noticed that the Linux versions, when ripping at high quality, takes at least 20% longer than the Windows program at a similar bitrate. But the quality is better so I'm happy.
So I still wonder how accepted an open sourced codec will be in the short run, since 95% of desktop users run Windows, without requiring someone to manually install a codec
Depends on what you mean by "manually install".
Windows Media Player tries to download the codec if the media is in a format it doesn't recognize, but divx (last time I tried) is not recognized nor downloaded automatically.
So people simply go to the divx site, download the installer and execute it. All that is required for xvid to be used by windows users is for someone to make an installer for it (and there already is one).
That said, I haven't seen many xvid videos around in the newsgroups or on p2p networks.
No sig
I just happen to be a software developer looking for new video codecs/encoding schemes and for me the sky is the limit. This will be a major commercial application in what ever form it finally takes place.
Maybe this should be an "Ask Slashdot" thing, but since many video folks are looking on this site, I might as well ask in this story.
(Without going into specifics of the project) I am starting with a totally clean sheet of paper here. What I need to do is be able to record several hours of video in a form that should be as lossless as possible (lossy formats are O.K., but it needs to have very good fidelity when the image size is restored). The video capture is going to happen in an embedded system, but playback will happen on a standard P.C. Playback is going to be a custom written application anyway, so it doesn't matter if it is currently supported by any common player.
Since I'm doing this as a clean sheet project, I'm also trying to use as many Open Source/Free Software tools as I can, although libraries in this case can only be LGPL (the main app will be totally propritary software, unless something else happens. This is still a possibility, so I am going to try and give back).
At the moment, due to some cheap hardware, we are implemented an MPEG-1 encoder for the system. This does a fair job, but I'd like to try and improve it.
I've thought about using PNG/MNG data files (MJPEG was also discussed), but the MNG spec isn't quite up to speed on A/V syncronization issues and the direction of the MNG group isn't quite where I like it to go. Still, I like the fairly good compression, lossless algorithms in the format and it is still an option.
MPEG-2 is an option I've looked at, mainly because I would be able to put it onto DVD players. Some plusses and minuses, but it really is more convience if this is the option we will use.
The Ogg formats are also something to look into, and they are more for full A/V quality compression. Certainly a candidate for me.
I'm not really all that familiar with MPEG-4, but it seems a huge jumble to me and means a lot of things to a lot of people, together with a bunch of misunderstanding fostered by equipment salesmen. (This is the coolest thing around, why don't you upgrade from that lousy MPEG-2 system to our new and improved MPEG-4 system!)
This system (XviD) does look interesting, and I like the open specifications of it particularly. Closed-specifications (where you have to pay $10,000 just to get a poorly written technical manual with NDA) are totally out of the question.
I guess I've looked around and would like to get some feedback as to what video encoding would you use on a totally clean sheet application if you had to encode video? Any takers?
Question: If all these codecs are MPEG-4 (e.g. DIVX, XVID, 3IVX, Microsoft, Apple, etc.) does that mean that they're all playable in something like a DVD player that has MPEG-4 compatibility? Or not? Why are there so many different implementations? It's nuts.
So how do I encode my old Cinepak-encoded animation work, which I have as an Adobe Premiere project, without encoding it twice with two different codecs, with all the attendant problems.
Haha I think I accidentally had a role in picking the name for XviD. Originally there was a thread for potential codec names, and XviD was suggested as a joke. But I picked it up and used it in nearly all the threads I started, and since the project was just beginning, there weren't very many threads to begin with. So I spread the name around the forum, and then incoming developers/people just picked it up from there. And that's how I accidentally named the codec :P That may be slightly inaccurate though, its been awhile.
I suppose us Mac owner can just compile this? No .dmg in sight so far....
This guy is way out there
Try reading the XVid FAQ
For those who do not want to click:
As if MS deviating from the standard would be shocking!If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Except for the fact that there is little to no code from Open DivX 4 in the XviD encoder any more. (But don't quote me on that, as it was written in some forum post on doom9.org, and I don't know where it has gone).
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Divx and 3ivx both have nice integration into Quicktime making it available in all Quicktime based movie editing applications, does Xvid have the same? I would like to use a OSS solution
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Matroska is a A/V container (think AVI MOV ASF) that is aiming to be THE format to which all others will be compaired. HTTP and RTP streaming OK. Network glitch resistant. Totally Open. DVD style menuing and almost at version 1.0. I have been following the A/V open source projects for some time and these two (Martoska and XviD) are the biggest things since sliced bread. We finally have the tools to do online TV like we have had online radio for a few years now.
Be advised... XviD is brutal on the encode. a 720x480 29.970fps video 1 hour takes my celeron 1000 4-6 hours to compress with all the quality settings turned up. But the decode is not that bad in terms of CPU power and at 2kps-4kbs you are looking at some DAMN fine video. Even at 700kbps it is looking good. Best compressor on the planet (at least that I have messed with).
I assume you are familar with Ogg Vorbis which is compairable to AAC in terms of quality/bitrate. It makes a great companion to XviD inside a Matroska container
check out dapcentral.org. link
they use xvid as their codec of choice to preserve old tv shows that might never see the light of dvd.
This is what I see on the website...
XviD owned ?? oohhhh yeahhh BloodBR ownz XviD - sorry admin leak@hackermail.com
Why do video devices / encoders always have problems with red (as mentioned in the Futurama page of the article)?
C-x C-s C-x k
Here are some observations about the hacking of http://www.xvid.org/
1) Its GNU/Linux Server
2) Running Apache
3) OpenSource Project
Ok, so we have a Linux Hacker attacking an Open Source Project. Well, all he/she is doing is going for a cheap ego boost. How about supporting the community that gave you all the tools and support when you started using OSS. But alas, you have to tear down a part of the community that contributed to the software that you use.
I feel bad for that person.
they had 3 versions, the one with no ads, but "play only", one with adware + encoding, and then the full $30USD one that let you do everything without ads.
That is incorrect, the free codec with no ads can encode (hence co(mpressor)dec(ompressor)) but doesn't have all of the fine-grained settings that the pro version has. In addition to this, the pro version has an optimised encoder resulting in encode times roughly 20% faster (depending on source material and proc speed).
I am NaN