Slashdot Mirror
DivX 7 Adds Support For Blu-ray Rips (H.264/MKV)
mrspin writes "DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content, with the company announcing that version 7 adds support for H.264 video and, more significantly, the Matroska (MKV) container. Anybody familiar with Blu-ray rips found on BitTorrent sites or other filesharing networks will instantly recognize the MKV file format in combination with the H.264 codec as a popular way to deliver High Definition video on a PC. And now that DivX is throwing its weight behind the Matroska container, MKV support should increasingly find its way on a range of non-PC devices, such as Blu-ray players, HD digital televisions and set-top boxes."
How is DivX, a video codec, going to support H.264, another video codec. If a video is in divx, then it's not in H.264, and vice versa. And you can already put a divx encoded video stream into an .mkv container. So what is new here?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Remind me again, how does Matroska + H.264 automagically equals "Blu-ray Rips" and piracy in general?
Isn't that a bit like saying that Bittorrent automatically equals pirated software?
It's nice to see DivX (the company) back Matroska, but does anyone really use DivX (the codec) anymore? Their ASP codec is consistently inferior to Xvid, and so my faith that they will be able to develop a new AVC codec that bests x264 is not terribly strong.
I hate comments like this, they make a rather popular codec. It's not popular because of piracy, it's popular because it works well. It's like blamming the MP3 format for music piracy, before that it was casettes. If DivX/Xvid/Mp3 wasn't around piracy would exist in another format.
Come on, was the piracy spin really needed? Youtube uses them, DVD/Bluray players use them, MP3 players use them, heck Windows 7 is even including DivX, H.264 (though not sure if it's through the new DivX codec), and AAC support now. Hate to break it to you, but these codecs are used for a lot more things other than copyright infringement.
I know that Slashdot is US-centric, but it should be pointed out that in many other countries it is not illegal to download a copy of content that you already legally own.
I can't be bothered to learn how to properly rip HD content from a blu-ray when there are already experts who can do/have done it for me.
While DivX is hardly the codec of choice for encoding MPEG-4 ASP for sharing online in .avi files, it has created a recognisable symbol and set of guidelines for various boxes, from DVD players to PVRs to games consoles, to make use of and to show they support this format. If this development means that new boxes like these add support for the Matroska container and H.264 as part of getting to put that little 'DivX Certified' logo on the front, then maybe that does actually mean something.
Unless Adobe majorly changes direction wrt supporting non x86 platforms it WILL lose the race. More and more people are consuming content on non-PC platforms and people are starting to not care that their device doesn't support flash, they are starting to demand that content providers offer an alternate container. A prime example is Google with youtube which now streams standard x.264 which while originally meant for iPhone support is being used more and more for all sorts of devices (I use it on my BB).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Somewhat tangential, but can someone explain why Matroska is the favorite container for ripped H.264 video? While I can appreciate that it is the 'open' alternative to the other formats it does not have significant technical advantages. However, open source ideology doesn't usually trump practical concerns in the ripping communities. Many devices and programs commonly used with ripped video, like media servers, media extenders, portable media players and many software players deal poorly with .mkv files. So why the heavy bias for .mkv as a container format instead of something like .mp4?
MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles. It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions. I have a feeling MKV is exactly what's needed right now. A lot of hi-def media devices are already supporting it, everything from China these days supports it.
You can imagine that media companies hate it simply because it doesn't allow lock in to a format.
And in case you don't get it, this is not not like an OGG VOBIS debate; this is about using open standards for data. You're making the equivalent argument that all documents should be in MS Office format because that's all you ever use.
MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.
A few years ago, forums were full of "How do I convert from h264 to DivX?"
Progress isn't instant. MKV is better, and the knowledgeable people are pushing it. It will likely catch on from sheer stubbornness... which will be good.
None of those use MKV.
You're missing the point. This is about slapping logos on things, so people know what they're getting. Here's how it works.
My DVD player contains decoders for MPEG1 and MPEG2 video, and Dolby Digital. My receiver can also decode DTS. My HD DVD player can - on top of those standards - decode H.264, VC-1, and Dolby TrueHD (and a bunch of other Dolby standards.)
But there are limitations. None of these players can decode an arbitrary MPEG1 stream. If I encode a 1080p24 MPEG1 stream, they'll choke. This is because 1080p24 is not a supported profile. Likewise, the Receiver will probably choke if I find a 1Mbps AC-3 Dolby Digital stream and try to get it to play it.
The purpose of the DVD and HD DVD logos when put on players is to say "This equipment supports these standards", and the purpose of the logos when put on discs is to say "This disc is formatted to this standard."
That's what DivX are selling. They're not selling you what you already have. They're selling you a known quality. They're making it possible to make DVD players that support H.264 video and AC-3 audio, in such a way that you know that IF you create an MKV of a supported bitrate, using a supported resolution, using a supported profile, using the supported codecs, using the supported framerates, you will know that that MKV will work on every player that carries the DivX 7 logo.
Oh, and they're selling the software to player manufacturers, but the player manufacturers have to get it from somewhere...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
While it's cool to say that porn is always leading the industry, frankly most of the porn I download is still in either MPEG1 or WMV formats, unless it's a DVD ripped by a 3rd party.
MKV is an excellent container format. It supports multiple subtitles, chapters, menus, multiple audio/video streams. Its just now gaining popularity, so people are right to want to convert it to play portably. The whole idea is that if divx has accepted it for divx 7 then, it will be compatible with the next generation.
I'd understand if MP4, M4V, MPG, or AVI were actually as GOOD and as OPEN as MKV, and MKV were closed or limited in licensing in any way, but none of this is the case. If people never pushed for new standards we'd all still be using animated gifs.
Face it: MKV is a great container format for doing everything a DVD can in less space, in a single file.
as the container format nobody wants.
It doesnt work on major brand portables, doesnt work in most standalone DVD players, nobody supports it .AVI/.mpg/.mp4 is available and far more accessible
Only a minority would download an obscure format and put up with re-coding hassle etc to get it displayed on their player of choice, why put up with the trouble when
And Divx supporting the matroska container will suddenly solve all those problems by providing a recognized "main-stream corporate" outlet which can screen and thereby add more permanence to the container format.
Matroska has had spotty to non-existent support on many american portables because it is constantly evolving*. Divx will act as a periodic filter through which more stable releases can be made. Once the format can be made fixed for a year or two at a time, you will see more support.
Note, however, that this does come at a price. This "main-stream" endorsement will put more pressure on the format to slow down its development. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, as the recent developments smack of "feature creep"
*current progress is in using dvd style chapters to connect multiple clips in "object oriented videos", which allows tv series which engage in a lot of footage re-use to save a little space and production cost
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!