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."

103 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. codec by Coneasfast · · Score: 5, Informative

    if you just want to download a codec so you can play movies (eg, with wmp) , go here.

    (i use mplayer for win32 now, so i don't use this anymore)

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why use the unfinished mplayer port when you can use Videolan Client? ;)

      http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

    2. Re:codec by Comsn · · Score: 4, Informative

      vlc halts playing any files for me (tested the last couple 7.x.x versions)

      mplayer unfinished? mind naming some examples? http://www.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/win32-bet a/

      also... vlc uses 20mb ram sitting there... mplayer 2-6mb for me

    3. Re:codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, unfinished. The win32 mplayer version that any windows user would be interested in is this one, http://www.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/win32-bet a/mplayer-windows-gui-0.001pre4.zip
      which so happens to located where you pointed and is still Alpha and not finished yet. Unless of course you consider buttons that don't work and other assorted problems normal. In fact the readme from the devs say specifically,
      "very experimental windows gui: alpha, probably won't work for your system".

      I also use the VLC 7 series daily with zero problems and it plays just about any video or audio format you would want. Don't know what your problems are but that's not my or most other peoples experience with it. Sounds like you have some codec conflicts or problems on your machine.

      I've been using Mplayer on Linux for while now so I'm not just out to bash it, but the version of it that most Windows users would consider using ie the gui one, isn't finished yet.

    4. Re:codec by gonzoxl5 · · Score: 2

      I've had no problems with VLC on Win2k in the .7x incarnations (some of the .5x variants were a bit ropey).

      From a support perspective - I've found VLC useful in a number of situations when users have had problems viewing video files in MS Media Player - a recommendation of a visit to videolan.org to download the VLC player has consistently led to success (viewing problems are usually related to missing codecs), its a small download, quick to install, unobtrusive and easy to use.

      I've also found VLC works well under OS X, useful tecnology in this respect as I beleive that Apple QT cannot be made AC3 compatible.

  2. Yea but.... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    does it matter if the codec isn't used commercially? Odds are that commercial publishers are not going to want any new format that doesn't have some kind of DRM, like it or not.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Yea but.... by ForestGrump · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Yea but.... by PaintyThePirate · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why Xvid.org doesn't release binaries. There is something somewhere that states that you can't compile it unless you have a licence for Mpeg-4. So, they release the source and expect you to compile it. That's also why sites like this exist, where you can get binaries.

    3. Re:Yea but.... by agent+oranje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though modded as flamebait, I'd say this is pretty insightful.

      XViD doesn't exist to make money... it doesn't exist for companies to sell their digital media to us... it exists as a good, open format which developers on any platform can play with, and any platform can play XViD movies without having to deal with royalty fees, DRM, and the likes.

      Believe it or not, there are uses for mp3s other than stealing music, and there are uses for XViD other than stealing movies. I don't want the content _I_ produce to be bogged down with DRM crap, and I don't want to be locked into an officially-licensed player five years down the line that only exists on a platform I don't even want to use. So what if commercial publishers don't want to use XViD because it doesn't have DRM - not everything on the internet was put there by commercial publishers. XViD is for people, not companies.

      --
      -agent oranje.
    4. Re:Yea but.... by jared_hanson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, since it is MPEG-4 conformant, it is supported commercially. QuickTime can play xvid encoded movie files with the included MPEG-4 plugin. I haven't tried many other players, but as long as their MPEG-4 implementation isn't completely borked, then they should play it as well.

      DRM is wholly different from the codec. Anyone can take and make a DRM wrapper around MPEG (and hence xvid) without too many problems. An analagous example would be Apple's DRM around AAC (which is part of MPEG-4, I believe).

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    5. Re:Yea but.... by phoxix · · Score: 3, Informative

      does it matter if the codec isn't used commercially?

      It doesn't matter.

      In fact at one point, Sigma Designs was caught stealing Xvid code for their hardware players

      Sunny Dubey

  3. Grab the 1.0 Compiled XviD 1.0 for Windows Here by da_anarchist · · Score: 5, Informative

    For Windows users, grab a compiled binary of XviD 1.0 Final with a nice installer at Koepi's Media Development Homepage. A lot easier than going through xvid.org as due to copyright issues they only host the xvid source, which must be compiled manually.

    1. Re:Grab the 1.0 Compiled XviD 1.0 for Windows Here by Danny+Dale+the+Not-S · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, they have a nice server! The DL finished before the dialog box finished loading...

      Now if only the Mozilla devs would ever get around to fixing that damn stupid bug that crashes Moz when you try to save a file every now and then...

      --

      Almighty Railgun
      You Speak a Lethal Gospel!
      Bloody Gibs Follow.
    2. Re:Grab the 1.0 Compiled XviD 1.0 for Windows Here by Danny+Dale+the+Not-S · · Score: 2, Informative

      try this link http://www.roeder.goe.net/cgi-bin/fetch?file=XviD- 1.0-09052004.exe

      --

      Almighty Railgun
      You Speak a Lethal Gospel!
      Bloody Gibs Follow.
  4. Re:play on words by ozric99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hardly, considering xvid started life as an open source replacement for divx.

  5. Re:play on words by xenocyst · · Score: 3, Funny

    i'm sure it is all pure coincidence

    --
    And, no, I should not have used the goddamn Preview mode first.
  6. DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Informative

    DRM is normally done at the packet level, not the codec level. One could easily apply, say, Windows Media or Intertrust DRM with a file encoded with XVID. XVID doesn't have any meaningful effect on DRM pro or con.

    Since XVID is a MPEG-4 Part 2 codec, any DRM system that can encrypt MPEG-4 can do XVID-encode files.

    1. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!
    2. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by paganizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by secolactico · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    4. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by theguitarizt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      It'll be the same as it always has been: WinZip, ICQ, WinAmp, and DivX ;-) never came pre-installed on people's computers; it was the early-adopters (computer geeks who aren't programmers) that adopted them.

      We needn't worry about 95% of desktop user, since they tend to follow whatever the friendly neighbourgood computer whiz shows them how to do.

    6. Re:DRM doesn't happen at the codec level by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      amazingly enough, XVID's popularity is pretty high up there. anyone doing high-quality video with the intention of releasing it online is virtually guaranteed to do it in either XVID or DIVX. with the miserable DIVX 5 release, I've become an XVID convert.

      I do music videos and various odd things and I have a good number of friends that also work with video on a frequent basis, with varying levels of seriousness; from a recreational video maker to a professional lighting tech. there's not a single one that doesn't use DIVX, XVID or WMV9, and those that use WMV9 and DIVX are rapidly dropping off in favor of XVID.

      In my personal expierience, it encodes a little faster than DIVX and significantly faster than WMV9, as well as providing better quality (less blockiness than either) when set side-by-side.

      There are only a few good mpeg4 codecs out there and DIVX and XVID are at the top. factor in that the DIVX site is misleading and seemingly does not give the option to install without spyware, many people are turning to XVID. that it's open-source is a plus for me, but the big reason I use it is because it's simply the best out there for my needs. and judging from the amount of times I see XVID in video release groups online, other people think so, too.

  7. Just like DivX, except.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just like DivX, except lacking in the GATOR software installation.

    1. Re:Just like DivX, except.... by gosh_d · · Score: 2, Informative

      DivX and XviD ;-) are different codecs altogether--that's like saying that Quicktime is Real Media in a silver box rather than a green one.

    2. Re:Just like DivX, except.... by Phosphor3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that you can get just the DivX codec, without any of the assocoated crappy spyware and media player, right?

      Click here and there is a link that says Standard DivX Codec(FREE). Nice, huh?

    3. Re:Just like DivX, except.... by DeeKayWon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about DivX 5.11, but 5.1 had the stupid "feature" that it would shut down the program using it if it detected an active debugger. For more see this page, about halfway down (the Sept. 25th post).

    4. Re:Just like DivX, except.... by devinoni · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can turn the watermark off, even on the free version. It does it to tell the person that it is being used to play the file. If you use DivX to decode XviD files you'll get that watermark, and yes you can get DivX to not play XviD.

    5. Re:Just like DivX, except.... by lunatik17 · · Score: 5, Informative
      You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, there is no ";-)" after Xvid. "DivX ;-)" was a cracked version of a microsoft Mpeg-4 codec.

      Divx and Xvid are two different implementations of the same standard. They are cross-compatibile.

      --

      Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?

  8. Doom9??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm still waiting for Doom3!

  9. Re:play on words by josh3736 · · Score: 4, Informative
    No -- DivX ;-) was named as such to make fun of the Circuit City DivX DVD players. (The ones that would only play a disc once)

    More Info Here

  10. Re:play on words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the parent poster meant x-vid as in "X, the metasyntactic variable" followed by "vid, short for video". As opposed to being an obscure sort of time travelling self-reference. It is possible and would be a funny irony, but I had thought "DivX ;-)" was somehow a reference to the failed commercial Divx service. Which merely passes on the question, of course.

  11. Re:play on words by 64Bit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    actually i read that a team worked on DivX and then when DivX went commercial a group of the original developers from that broke off and started the open source XviD.

  12. whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by Squeezer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no freaking win32 release on their webpage. you have to have a win32 compiler to compile and use it, or do like in the first comment and use that link, or get kazaalite codec pack or one of the many other codec packs that include xvid. if xvid wants to compete with divx, they will need to offer a win32 binary download.

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    1. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I remember correctly from DOOM9 forums this is done intentionally to avoid any troubles with MPEG-4 licensing. Whole XVID development is "purely for educational purposes".

    2. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by DeeKayWon · · Score: 3, Informative

      And where do you expect them to get the money to pay the patent licenses they'd need? By releasing only source code, they get considered an academic research project and don't have to pay for the patent licenses.

    3. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by sixide · · Score: 2, Informative

      If XviD wanted to compete with DivX, they'd also have to pay MPEG licensing fees and charge for their product. No thanks.

    4. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by devinoni · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can get Windows Binaries Here. If you notice, they provide no binaries for any operating system on their website. There is probably some legal reasons for this. The LAME MP3 encoder also provides no Windows Binaries on their site, yet LAME is a very popular MP3 encoder simply because it is superior to the commercial ones.

    5. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are three major distributions of XviD. Koepi's is the most popular, because his Windows compiles used to be considered the fastest; it is the one that has been posted above several times already.

      xvid.org's legal reasons for not providing a binary download are explained on the internet. If you don't want to deal with any of this, fine, but XviD is a damn fine codec, and I use it for every application where Divx 3 and Divx 5 _USED TO_ make sense, so if you want to see anything I encode, you're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. And there are many of us who use it just because of the licensing fees involved in using other codecs.

      Finally, you have the alternative of downloading ffdshow on windows. Other codecs can decode Xvid, but ffdshow's is a very good non-official XviD decoder that can also decode many other formats.

    6. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by cubic6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's illegal to distribute binaries of an MPEG4 encoder without paying fees to the MPEG Licensing Authority. Distributing source is ok, though. Unless you can talk MPEG into granting some kind of exception for Xvid, you're not likely to get any kind of binaries soon.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    7. Re:whats keeping xvid from doing mainstream... by alphapartic1e · · Score: 2, Informative



      you have to have a win32 compiler to compile and use it

      Free VC++ 7.1 compiler, C/C++ headers, C runtime library:

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/

      Free Win32 Platform SDK headers, libraries:

      http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sd kupdate/psdk-full.htm
  13. still waiting ..... by drfrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for mpeg-4 systems part of the spec to be implemented
    overview

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  14. Ripping now... by digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. Clean Sheet Commercial Application by Teancum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Clean Sheet Commercial Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      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).

      As you seem to have figured out, MJPEG is a pretty common choice for applications that want very high video fidelity. If your embedded hardware is lightweight but does DCT, this makes good sense. But if your "embedded" hardware is really a semi-decent general purpose CPU, it probably makes sense to go for mpeg2. You can get fidelity comparable or better than mjpeg within less bytes. Depending on the video's resolution, anything close to 6-10Mbps is quite excellent. For comparison, DVD bitrate is typically around half this, yet obviously it can still achieve great fidelity. So 6-10Mbps is usually a bit on the high side for mpeg2 video.

      The Ogg formats are also something to look into, and they are more for full A/V quality compression. Certainly a candidate for me.

      Audio, yes. Video and container format, no. The video implementation is basically a no-show, and I'm not expecting anything too great in the future. The container format is not especially terrible but it's nothing to crow about either.

      Also, your above statements seem to indicate you don't care a whole lot about the video's size. Then why should you care so much about the audio's size? Either way the audio will pretty much always be a fraction the size of the video. I find it very confusing reading your post, it's very hard to tell what benefits you're looking for. Vorbis audio is wonderful if you want very low bitrates. If you care little about bitrates, the difference will be too small to notice, though.

      Obviously encoding to an mpeg4 format lets you put nearly-equivalent quality video in the same amount of space, but the encoding time is at least several times higher. You have to ask yourself where you want to be on the CPU vs. Storage tradeoff spectrum. Personally I think XviD is a close second place to libavcodec's DivX implementation, btw.

    2. Re:Clean Sheet Commercial Application by manitoulinnerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      You briefly metioned OGG in the above and OGG itself isn't a codec, its a wrapper. OGG Vorbis is an audio codec that is quite good but a totally free video codec is still only in early development. That being said the OGG or OGM has some great features. A very interesting one is the ability to encode the differences in audio streams and therefore save sometimes considerable space. It is currently used most ofter with XVID but can be used with pretty much any video (or even audio) codec. http://www.doom9.org might be able to help you for with some of this stuff. As far as the What would i do with a clean slate, i would probably use OGG with vorbis as the audio and xvid as the video... there may actually be problems with xvid and the law but i don't really know about that. Good luck.

      --
      Burn Bright or Fade Away
    3. Re:Clean Sheet Commercial Application by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 4, Informative

      Towards the storage-heavy end of the cpu/storage spectrum, you could check out HuffYUV, a lossless video codec. It is especially handy if you have little CPU power and absolutely need a lossless codec, since it seems to compress to a higher ratio and at a faster rate than any other lossless codec available. Also, it's free, so have fun with it.

      --

      Software piracy is victimless theft.

  16. MPAA NOTIFIED; SWAT TEAM ON THE WAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    please remain at your current location until the arrest warrant is secured.

  17. Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Help! by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most DVD players can't play MPEG-4 at all. DVDs and SVCDs are both MPEG-2.

    2. Re:Help! by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Informative
      i think his question was "are they playable in a DVD player that has MPEG-4 compatibility"

      The answer is: that depends which encoding options were used, and which the player supports!. There are a vast number of options, but to make this understandable to the user, we have what are called "profiles". a common target is "advanced simple profile", IIRC, which is a base level of features that most players support. these can be selected as presets within the encoder config, to make things easier. many players, for example, do not support GMC or Qpel. this is not a disaster. for more details on what this means please see a good site such as Doom9. some players also have stuttering problems when certain parameters are exceeded. to avoid this i'd recommended to make encodes yourself (which you should be doing from your own DVDs under fair use anyway!) to ensure quality control and playback on your systems. Doom9 have an excellent forum for asking questions such as this, but your Q will probably mostly be answered in the FAQs first :) be warned there's quite a learning curve. I don't yet have a standalone player but i have some experience encoding for PCs and am considering purchasing one when I next buy a DVD player.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  18. Re:play on words by julie-h · · Score: 5, Informative

    DivX 5 was once Open DivX 4, but then they desided to go closed source again, and a fork of Open Divx 4 was made, which is what we now know as Xvid.

  19. Re:play on words by xigxag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was going to just mod this back down but really, I'm genuinely curious. Could someone explain to me how "mind-numbingly obvious" to the first part and "exactly wrong" (in fact, xvid was actually named because it's "divx" backwards) to the second part becomes (Score:4, Interesting)?

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  20. Better porn? by McAlt+0178 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anything that can make porn look cleaner yet dirtier looking at the same time is ok in my book... or er.. pants.

  21. OK, how do I use this with Adobe Premiere? by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The basic instructions only cover decoding. You're referred to another site for encoding. That site assumes you're stealing content from a commercial DVD.

    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.

    1. Re:OK, how do I use this with Adobe Premiere? by Yenhsrav_Keviv · · Score: 3, Informative
      I say ditch adobe premiere

      Save the raw, uncompressed video, and have virtualdub do the compression. Its way more powerful in terms of what it can do.

      If you don't know how to use virtualdub, check out this guide. It's a detailed guide on how to convert a dvd to avi, and it has one of the best intros to using virtualdub (i use it to teach newbies how to use virtualdub). Just select the xvid codec instead of divx.

    2. Re:OK, how do I use this with Adobe Premiere? by devnullify · · Score: 2, Informative

      The same way you would with any other VFW video codec?

      It's not particularly difficult, but I haven't used Premiere in ages so I can't really help you. Doom9 will give you good guidelines for configuring the codec properly, whether or not it is based on 'stolen' DVD content.

    3. Re:OK, how do I use this with Adobe Premiere? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your use of the word 'stealing' shows that you don't understand copyright laws and fair use. You help perpetuate the corruption of IP law in America. Please educate yourself.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  22. Re:The price of Bugatti's by julie-h · · Score: 4, Informative

    MPEG4 is just a format for how the data is stored and how the data should be read by the decoder. That's why you can use a DivX decoder for Xvid, MS MPEG4, 3ivX, etc. Each of these uses different algorithms inorder to come the final MPEG4 data standard. Some algorithms are better than others, so some codecs are therefore better.

  23. Mod parent up by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This codec is much better than the xvid.org one. I experienced constant crashing with the 'official' codec whenever I opened an xvid-encoded file or even browsed a folder containing said file in File Explorer; however, with the koepi codec it has been plain sailing all the way, and great image quality to boot. Should a video codec have the ability to crash whatever program is using it?

    Am I the only one who finds the lack of reliable and up-to-date codec info on the net very frustrating? It's always easy to find dozens of people with the same problem as you, virtually impossible to find anyone with an accurate answer.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  24. No chance of commercial support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Newer versions of the codec regularly crash when encoding video via all versions of Vegas Video. Sorry, just ain't gonna happen.

  25. Re:play on words by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  26. Macs by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suppose us Mac owner can just compile this? No .dmg in sight so far....

    1. Re:Macs by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not 'need' perhaps, but I think it's still somewhat common courtousy to not use QuickTime. Just for the fact that the majority are windows users, and only a small fraction of those are going to be using anything other than the terrible official player. It's the same reason I still release video encodes as avi, even though I both prefer mkv with libavcodec/vorbis and know that everyone else on linux can easily play it. Like quicktime, it'd be playable on windows, but a big pain for the majority of them.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:Macs by Goldfinger7400 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quicktime is just a media wrapper, I'd much like the ability to encode using the XVID codec for the tv shows I'm recording if nothing else. I think XVID offers some advantages over MPEG-4, I'd like to at least try it, my recordings so far have been ending up not as nice as the ones I "find" on the net sometimes.

      Am wondering what is necessary to make XVID into a quicktime compatible codec, so it's available to all the quicktime apps.

  27. Re:The price of Bugatti's by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's why you can use a DivX decoder for Xvid, MS MPEG4, 3ivX, etc.
    What are you smoking?

    Try reading the XVid FAQ

    For those who do not want to click:

    Can I encode some videos in Microsoft's MPEG-4 V1/V2 format and then watch them with XviD or vice-versa?

    No, you can't. Despite the name, MS MPEG-4 is not truly standard compliant MPEG-4 - rather it's Microsoft's own proprietary randition of MPEG-4 technology and is incompatible with the international MPEG-4 standard as specified by ISO. So unfortunately, XviD and MS MPEG-4 cannot interoperate.
    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
  28. Re:play on words by Inf0phreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 ^_^
  29. Quicktime integration? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Quicktime integration? by vincent99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple's codec sucks... 3ivx and XviD don't.

      --
      -- V
    2. Re:Quicktime integration? by beerits · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know there is no xvid quicktime component yet. Until one is written one you won't be able export a xvid movie from a quicktime based editor like iMovie. However you could export to some quicktime supported format and re-compress using a tool like ffmpegX.

  30. XviD + Matroska + Vorbis Damn hard to beat... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:XviD + Matroska + Vorbis Damn hard to beat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "and at 2kps-4kbs you are looking at some DAMN fine video"

      Wow, most people have trouble getting telephone quality audio through that. Is that one of those 'infinite compression' codecs?

    2. Re:XviD + Matroska + Vorbis Damn hard to beat... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Matroska container with XViD video and Vorbis audio is the best free way to go today. You may find licensing problems with XViD, but you are likely find that with any modern video codec, although VP3 (I think) has beem released as Free and that might be worth considering as an alternative with absolutely no legal entanglements.

      Also, for playback, if you are hosted on a Windows box, look at the FFDshow video filter and XViD decoder, its scaling functinality is excellent, much better than the hardware scalers built into consumer-grade video cards.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:XviD + Matroska + Vorbis Damn hard to beat... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 2, Informative

      "and at 2kps-4kbs you are looking at some DAMN fine video" Wow, most people have trouble getting telephone quality audio through that. Is that one of those 'infinite compression' codecs?

      oops. My bad. make that 2000kpbs-4000kbps. Thanks for catching that error.

  31. Re:Finally by tahtalim · · Score: 5, Informative
    What reverse engineering? Xvid was a fork of opendivx after it was closed (divx4 and now divx5). check mplayer's documentation about xvid.

    I now see that we desperately need meta-moderation.

  32. ffdshow by TheBurningDog · · Score: 4, Informative

    for playback, i use ffdshow . It has post processing filters built into the codec. The Deblock filter is priceless for low bitrate movies.

  33. Re:Xvid Options? by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 4, Informative

    D'oh, I forgot to preview.

    Several resources:
    1) You can go to doom9.net and check out the Guides section.
    2) Go here: XviD FAQ and check out the section called "What do all the different options mean." Note that a lot of the provided links are outdated now, but that should give you an idea for a lot of the settings.

  34. Installation Warning (if you use Koepi's binary) by crashnbur · · Score: 4, Informative
    I installed Koepi's version of the XviD 1.0 a few days ago, and I noticed a disclaimer:
    Since I lost all my data, I switched to another installer system. (Since XviD-1.0-RC1.)

    If you used the old NSIS installer (builds _before_ 1.0-RC1), please uninstall it manually before upgrading with these new installers. If you have done that already, upgrading with these new installers works like you expect it.

    Also, Win9x support is better now with this installer.
    I thought you might like to know.
  35. Popularity without being commercial by ItMustBeEsoteric · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're into anime fansubs of things that aren't in the US yet, you'd quickly see how. Anime-Kraze is subbing Chrno Crusade and Inu Yasha now, for example. They use XVid. When a new ep is released of those two, it's usually downloaded a couple thousand times on Bit Torrent alone, then spread over P2P thereafter.

    The codec proliferates quite nicely like that.

  36. Re:The price of Bugatti's by ^_^x · · Score: 3, Informative

    That may be the official word, but try changing the AVI file's FOURCC code to that of DivX. It'll play, just without the extra enhancement filters and noise reduction found in many Xvid codecs.

  37. bit of history by nappingcracker · · Score: 5, Informative
    i did a report on divx/xvid a few years ago, here is the gist of it:

    DiVX ;-) was first "project mayo" (codename) - mayo because its difficult to make, and pretty much hit or miss - divx was first a hacked mpeg-4 codec (m$ .asp actually - really ment for streaming high quality video over broadband, hacked to work offline and "standalone"), and contained "hot" code. so divx 3.11, the version that really first took off, was illegal. the codec really exploded with the file sharing boom namely morpheus and kazaa. next release , they got rid of the stolen code, and all was good, the codec had even better quality and many of the audio syncing problems had been taken care of. by this point i had ~150 gb of video at ~300 hrs.

    then, with the next release (5.x), and even more popularity, divx went commercial, and at first, i was upset, but they were pretty good about it, 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. i thought, well these guys deserve some money for all the work that went into this great codec.

    with version 5, divx and project mayo split (actually it was somewhere inbetween 4.x-5.x) and divx.com was born to handle distribution and all that other good commercail stuff, projectmayo.com went opensource, and became the sandbox for many projects based on divx (3vix, opendivx, etc) also, the Playa, the favored player of the project and built by the team continued to be developed here. .

    xvid was one of the spinoffs from projectmayo, and has become my favorite codec since i started using it. it seems to have the best "feel" to it, and is really really really good for animated films (to be fair, divx and the rest are really really good at animated films too, most codecs do, easy lines for the encoder to pick up and even out between frames). there are two main developers for xvid (its open so there are different builds) kopei, and nic. they both have their pros and cons, but you would be hard pressed to find them "in real life."

    most of this info can be gathered from the mentioned sites, with a little digging. if im wrong about any of this, meh. its pretty right on, though. some great resources for these codecs are the forementioned www.doom9.org is really one of the best collections of encoding how-tos and other doodads. should be required reading for any video DIY noobs. another great resource is www.divx-digest.com you can get all kinds of codecs and players there, try em all, its the best way to learn (divx-digest is a sister site to www.digital-digest.com) like i said, i really dig xvid, and divx's commercial ventures are really starting to pan out (featured in a couple of computer games/video games (lord of the rings pc maybe?), hopefully soon will be built in to dvd players- think 2+ movies in hi-res on one dvd!). please please please dont use wmv. i cant play wmv, as many non M$ people cant, and they take more cpu to decode (looks pretty and is easy though).

    before divx was known as divx, there was another company that released a project by the same name, where you would rent this cd/dvd disc thing and buy it to unlock it and watch it whenever you wanted, neat idea, poor execution, i only knew one persone that used it. they came in these little cardboard jewel cases. (before dvd players were all over, you had to get one that could play this divx )

    batteries not included, bad grammar and spelling included. see side label for details

    --
    |plastic....or gasoline?|
    1. Re:bit of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      with version 5, divx and project mayo split (actually it was somewhere inbetween 4.x-5.x) and divx.com was born to handle distribution and all that other good commercail stuff

      Actually as far as I remember there was no split. Last updates in projectmayo.com are from the beginning of 2001 and DivX 4.0 was released in the end of 2001. So, Project Mayo was simply killed and commercial DivX codec based on Project Mayo code released later. OpenDivX 4 never got past alpha stage.

      projectmayo.com went opensource, and became the sandbox for many projects based on divx (3vix, opendivx, etc) also, the Playa, the favored player of the project and built by the team continued to be developed here.

      Everything I just wrote can be applied to here as well. Pretty soon as DivX guys decided to go closed source and take the code (which wasn't expected to happen) Project Mayo was dead. It was a drawback for open source codec development but fortunately some people weren't so delighted of this change and started a fork called XviD.

      there are two main developers for xvid (its open so there are different builds) kopei, and nic. they both have their pros and cons, but you would be hard pressed to find them "in real life."

      Koepi and Nic aren't main developers of XviD. As far as I can tell, they are not developers at all. They just provide (possibly illegal to distribute) Windows builds of the codec for those who don't know how to compile it by themselves. Both are using the same core developed at xvid.org, they just have different interfaces.

      Who modded this up, duh.

  38. Re:play on words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    DivX ;-) is both a reference to Circuit City DIVX as well as the Div3 and Div4 codecs it supports. So, your metasyntactic comment is on (whereas the root poster is just a dummy).

  39. Hackers got xvid.org? by sridev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is what I see on the website...

    XviD owned ?? oohhhh yeahhh BloodBR ownz XviD - sorry admin leak@hackermail.com

  40. Re:ahh ! they been hacked! by sridev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if the website was hacked because of the attention it was getting from slashdot... as if being slashdotted was not enough!

  41. ffmpeg is better... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm astonished at all the Xvid fanboyism around here. Sure it produces better quality than Divx, but at the same time, it's damn slow.

    I must strongly recomend mplayer and libavcodec (lavc). I've done side-by-side comparisons with Xvid and Lavc using mplayer, quite recently. The two are very close, but I found Lavc was just a bit better. That's the opposite of what I expected, since Xvid takes many times longer to encode.

    With Lavc, I can encode in 2 pass mode in better-than half-realtime on my 1.6GHz Amd XP.

    I'm sure the performance isn't quite as good when compiled on OS X/Windows+Cygwin, but I'd have to bet it'll still be faster than using Xvid natively, and give you better-quality results.

    ffdshow is a VfW codec package of libavcodec, but I tried it and found that it just doesn't provide the same quality or performance. I'm not much into Windows anymore, so I really didn't spend much time trying to figure out why.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:ffmpeg is better... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm astonished at all the Xvid fanboyism around here. Sure it produces better quality than Divx, but at the same time, it's damn slow.

      Why would you bother using an MPEG-4 codec if you don't care about quality?

      Yes, XviD encodes fairly slowly. But you only have to do it once, whereas you enjoy the better quality of the job every time you watch it. They call this "asymmetric" encoding for a reason. Encode takes forever, decode doesn't.

      If you only care about an encoding taking as little time as possible, hey, cool, not a problem. But if you care about quality results - Let it run overnight, and it makes little difference if it takes a half-hour or six hours.


      I've done side-by-side comparisons with Xvid and Lavc using mplayer, quite recently. The two are very close, but I found Lavc was just a bit better.

      I find that hard to believe. Without repeating your results, I have to suspect you've fallen for a "trick" Lavc uses, such as slightly boosting the gamma, or adding a blur-then-sharpen filter to give the illusion of clarity while actually removing quite a lot of detail.

      Basically, with modern PC hardware and MPEG-4 codecs, "you get what you wait for". More CPU time, with some tolerance for various optimizations, generally means better quality.


      Personally, I care only about the quality of the end product. I look forward to a functioning H.264 implementation, even if it means encoding 90 minutes of source material takes two full days.

    2. Re:ffmpeg is better... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why would you bother using an MPEG-4 codec if you don't care about quality?

      It's not that I don't care for quality. It's that I'm not willing to accept a nominal quality improvement for a trade of many hours of time. I'd prefer to save time by using a higher bitrate and getting a larger file, rather than wasting a whole day of CPU time for a slightly smaller file.

      You ask, why do I use MPEG4. Well, if you've got some alternative that is far faster, where quality is nearly as good, fill me in.

      I find that hard to believe.

      Try it yourself if you refuse to believe me. I made the method very clear. MPlayer supports encoding to both lavc and xvid. Encode from a dvd or other high-bitrate MPEG2 source to both codecs at equal bitrates in 2-pass mode, and compare for yourself. Use trell and mbd=2 for lavc. Use mpeg_quant for both Lavc/Xvid.

      Basically, with modern PC hardware and MPEG-4 codecs, "you get what you wait for". More CPU time, with some tolerance for various optimizations, generally means better quality.

      Not exactly true. Some MPEG4 features use up a lot of CPU time for very little advantage. Disabling those can only nominally lower quality, while greatly increasing speed. Not to say that is what is happening in this case, just making a point.

      If you want to claim I'm wrong, try doing it with facts, rather than asumptions and overly broad generalizations.

      Personally, I care only about the quality of the end product. I look forward to a functioning H.264 implementation, even if it means encoding 90 minutes of source material takes two full days.

      Time is not important if you do a very small volume of mpeg4 encoding. I do not. I have a TV-tuner card, and I can keep my CPU busy almost constantly even with MPlayer/Lavc. If I used Xvid, I'd have to buy a dozen more machines to keep-up.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:ffmpeg is better... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah I'm surprised it took so long to mention lavc.

      So am I. I'm even more surprised that baseless anti-lavc sentiment gets modded up.

      Have all the real-deals left /.?

      You're probably correct, sadly. All the devs I happen to know have left /., some even announcing that they can't stand it here anymore.

      I also happen to think it's too much of a forum where the blind moderate the blind. Too much bad info gets moderated up, just because it echos a popular sentiment, or tries to sound 'official', and mods fall for it.

      More and more lately, I've been considering leaving. It's getting too difficult to try and argue against people with the IQs of brick walls. It seems to be fewer and further between that I come across anybody that is intelligent and/or knowledgable.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:ffmpeg is better... by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I'm astonished at all the Xvid fanboyism around here. Sure it produces better quality than Divx, but at the same time, it's damn slow."

      Why are you astonished? Its a really nice video codec that's open source and happens to perform very well compared to the competition. How is acknowledging this "fanboyism"? Its certainly not "damn slow", especially compared to the dog that is divx. Its also been tested and found to perform well both speed-wise and quality-wise by some of the most knowledgable people around.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    5. Re:ffmpeg is better... by ymgve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Xvid needs to be able to produce streams that a p133 can decode using only >50% system resources.

      Why should Xvid need to do this when no other MPEG4 codecs are able to do it? MPEG4 is CPU-intensive. It will aiways be.

  42. Re:XVID.org hacked as of 11:03 pm by ephemeraleuphoria · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of linking to a mirror you made of the 92 byte hacked page...

    Why not link to something useful, like a mirror of the original?

  43. XVID.ORG ownz0red or ...? by Stavr0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The site admin is trying to fight the slashdot effect by being funny...

    Guess we'll find out soon enough.

  44. Red by ilikejam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Red by CryoPenguin · · Score: 4, Informative

      (IANA Xvid developer. But I have worked with ffmpeg)
      It's not just red. Codecs tend to also have problems with bright blue.
      The reason: To improve compression, instead of storing color as RGB, they all use some form of YUV (i.e. "brightness", "redness", and "blueness".) Then, because the human eye is much more sensitive to brightness (Y) than color, they spend more bits on Y and leave the U and V channels at lower quality.
      Usually, this is good. But if the picture has some areas that are very red or very blue, and don't have much brightness variation, you can see the imprecision in coding U and V.

  45. Ogg Video by ArcRiley · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ogg Theora, the first patent-free video codec for Ogg, has been available for some time now and is not in "only in early development". It's based on On2's VP3, with several enhancements for better compression, and will be released as Beta-1 early next month. Basically, their last task is to finish documenting the stream format before the Beta release.

    "OGM" is a spin-off of Ogg from some time ago which hacks together Ogg (a great stream container format) and FourCC (the codec identity field from AVI) to easily add proprietary codecs (ie, DivX, XviD, other MPEG derivatives) to Ogg. Obviously, this is not endorsed by Xiph, the creators of Ogg and Vorbis, as they don't support patent-encumbered codecs.

    Also, Ogg is not an acronym, so capitalizing every letter is incorrect. This is a common mistake. :-)

  46. Sad!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  47. Correction by Phil+John · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  48. Re:play on words by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Informative

    But error again, because in DIVX 5 there isnt any code of opendivx 4 either.
    (opendivx used a modified reference implementation, but then someone come with its own implementation, being much better, so divxnetwork abandoned the already running project and created a newone based on the new code)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  49. Re:play on words by Frnknstn · · Score: 2, Informative

    xvid is indeed meant to be DivX spelt backwards, a fact that is more noticeable if you actually use the shift key on your keyboard. xvid is normally represented as XviD.

    --
    If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  50. Problem: by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IIRC the reason they do not offer binaries is for legal/IP reasons. There are so many patents covering every part of MPEG 4, by sticking to source code only they seem to have stayed "under the radar" so to speak.

    --
    I am NaN
  51. update 17/05/04 14:00 GMT by real_smiff · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Currently the site carries this message:
    2004/05/17 -- XVID site cracked. Unfortunately, right after we released the long-awaited XviD 1.0 final, the XviD web server got cracked and many files were deleted. Whoever did this, we actually don't find this funny at all. We're currently working hard to recover from this attack. However it will take us (at least) a couple of days to be back. Meanwhile, we've mirrored the 1.0 final announcement below and you can still download all the XviD 1.0 final source code packages from the files section at the bottom of this page. We're very sorry for this inconvenience! The XVID team

    I find this very sad and pointless. (I hope it doesn't do the Xvid credibility any harm). What a shame after all that work they've put in to get to v1.0, to have someone **** all over them like that. Not only did they replace the front page, they messed about in there, making it hard to get it back online. Thumbs down to the cracker, shame on you. Pick on some org that's not using its own free time to run a project for everyone else's benefit.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  52. I'm still at a loss... by Valkyre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is anyone bothering to work on a LOSSLESS compression codec? I can't describe how much I hate watching some of these movies, even in High-Bandwidth MPEG-2, and watching walls move at 1fps because they're not changing much, or the lack of detail whenever sand blows into the air. Come on, I've got 3ghz that I don't use 1/3rd of to play video and a graphics card that sucks more power than my desk lamp, I'd like to see them used and get some REAL quality improvement.

    --
    What the heck is a 'sig'?