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."
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.
I don't know man, I think both DivX & Adobe have hidden costs even if both like you to view them as "open." I would put my money on Adobe coming through with better player/container support & marketing. On top of that, I don't know of any plans for DRM in Matroska.
So while this is great news for the people who want to put their home videos out there with software that doesn't support DRM (is the average user really going to care though?), I think that the MPAA & porn industry are going to be the deciders here (as they usually are).
My prediction: Flash 9 will become so pervasive that everyone will use that as a container instead of asking their users to download & install a DivX codec.
My work here is dung.
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.
Xvid seems to have taken over as the 'gray area' encoder of choice from what I've seen.
And do people still pay much attention to the actual "DiVX" people? Even when I used Divx it was all mplayer/mencoder, ffmpeg, vlc, etc.
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.
Does this mean the DivX support on the PS3 will be updated to support it as well? If that is the case then ... er... I need a bigger usb drive. Maybe Sony should give up the resistance to making the PS3 a solid multimedia device (ie. add more format support) and just start making disk drive add-ons themselves for the extra buck :)
Obviously I've been asleep a while. I wasn't aware that DivX acquired MainConcept.
Well, MainConcept isn't horrible, but it still lags behind x264. It's to x264 what DivX is to Xvid. (Let the flaming begin!)
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.
DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content,
Not sure what gray content you are referring to. I'm assuming this is about legal shades of gray, but there aren't any in terms of content (or at least not the ones you are probably talking about):
There is exactly nothing illegal about making copies of your own discs for personal use.
There is a law against distributing ripping software (the DMCA), but it doesn't sound like you're talking about that.
There is a law about distributing the content itself, but that isn't gray - it's illegal.
The only gray areas are content used for criticism and education.
'course - entirely possible I've misunderstood what "grey" is supposed to mean - maybe a hipster term for re-encoding or something.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What I don't get about MKVs is that they take so much bloody horsepower, even in SD. I have a 1.5ghz Mac Mini I use as an HTPC. I've been able to play 480p and even some 720p HD on it with very few issues. However, I got a few SD MKVs. Both would stutter and choke on it. What the hell? Either VLC and MPlayer are very poorly optimized in MKV playback or that codec requires a ludicrous amount of horsepower to run. Quicktime with Perian managed to run it, but it appears there's a bug in Perian which will make the movie run at double speed while the audio remains the same if you watch it long enough. What's the deal? I've played back plenty of standard H.264 files just fine. What makes MKV so special?
MPEG4 (aka DivX/Xvid) has not always been there either. I remember the early days when everyone clamored for mpg or qt format over DivX as they didn't need the codecs.
With DivX's "support" of H.264 and MKV, how long do you think it will be before the set-top boxes and the portables start coming out with support for that. Not too long if I don't miss my guess.
Especially with the move to more "legal" online content, I think there will be less resistance, not to mention more support, for a higher quality option.
"Gray Market" traditionally doesn't imply "illegal", but rather "unapproved". If you buy a product overseas because the manufacturer doesn't want to sell it in the US (yet) or or want to charge more in the US, that's "gray market". Some people use the term to refer to any mechanism for any mechanism for bypassing restrictions manufacturers restrictions, others limit it to imports.
MKV is a container format. It's not impossible for a container format to induce overhead, but in all likelihood that isn't the case.
The codec would be something like h264,xvid,indeo,theora,etc for video, aac, mp3,vorbis,wav,etc.
I don't know about Quicktime, but avi is horribly limited. Ogg seemed to have promise for a container format, but for whatever reason MKV came about with support for some killer features menus and vobsub format subtitle tracks. I have never seen an mkv with menu, but I have heard it exists.
It would be interesting to know the codecs involved.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
DivX makes an announcement that thier DivX player can now support a format that even Media Player Classic can play with an open source codec?
First off, MKV is a container which can add features to an encoded video stream such as chapters, subtitles, additional audio streams etc.
The corresponding DivX container (Introduced with DivX6) is far inferior with its limited support for audio codecs and its insistence on DivX video encoding profiles.
DivX the codec is simply a MP4 based video/audio encoder.
You can wrap virtually any video or audio format in an MKV container and it should work just fine. I see no reason why DivX encoded movies could not be wrpped in an MKV container!
I have never tried to encode DivX into an MKV container for several reasons:
1. DivX is not the best MP4 Codec out there, XviD is better and freely availiable (It is a fork of the original OpenDivX).
2. DivX started bundling thier codecs with all sorts of crapware some time ago which really tuned me off the codec.
3. x264 is already availiable for high definition encoding.
4. DivX encoding will cost you money with the Pro version.
5. It is bloatware.
Basically DivX are trying to make money by charging inexperienced users for functionality that is already freely availiable.
If you want to watch virtually every availiable format without problems with a choice of video players I suggest the Combined Community Codec Pack (http://www.cccp-project.net/).
Or you can go ahead and pay the ignorance tax that is DivX.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Some people seem to have forgotten roots ;)
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?
... or at least the ones that handle the media that can be read by the Xbox 360.
Please add MKV support to the Xbox 360. Don't touch anything else.
Thanks!
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
It's not failed, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's finally doing what mp4 never managed, that is killing AVI. Anime fansubbers would never use anything else these days - the only other container with reasonable softsub support is OGM, and that has a list of problems as long as my arm (if you want something tangible, it can't handle variable framerate). It's also the format of choice for high-quality rips of more regular content, both from new HD formats and even from DVDs - it has lower overhead, better tools, greater codec support, and is simply the best current container format by far. Of course there are a number of idiots who can't figure out how to play it, but that will be the case with any new technology.
I am trolling
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.
but the pirates do use it. its the defacto standard for scene released bluray rips in 720p and 1080p format, due to it being a convenient container for packaging multiple audio signals, subtitles and x264 encoded video and being all FOSS. its also a very popular format for anime, due mostly to its multiple audio and subtitle strengths.
the piracy scene decided on x264 mkv for various reasons but wide compatibility probably wasnt one of them. potential for wide compatibility, open standards and high quality were probably bigger concerns. im pretty sure there werent any hardware xvid players around when they decided that that was the best option for dvdrips.
the playstation 3 and xbox 360 can play x / h264 but not within the mkv container. this means its pretty simple and quick to convert on your pc, but more importantly it means that the console's hardware is fully capable of such playback, its merely a software limitation and this'll get sorted in time.
If every little ripper out there didn't feel the need to have the bestest files on the intarweb by turning every knob to 11, having infinity+1.1 audio channels in the ogg codec for every audio stream and every-option-on h.264 with bitrates higher than the original studio masters and every subtitle, including the original Klingon, in the blingy-est graphical overlay format, people might have liked the container format.
For shows "not available here" it'd be nice to be able to find them in a sensible format, like 13/26 episodes per dvd capacity and a bitrate that won't choke an eight core submersion cooled computer.
None of those use MKV.
DivX is the best format to use for archiving TV shows you've recorded. It will usually half to third the size of a one hour show and the quality reduction isn't very noticeable(as in, the lady doesn't notice). It is a native format of the media extender and its bigger, high-def brother.
However, I do have to somewhat agree with you about both DivX and Mp3 getting their roots in piracy. I distinctly remember the first time I heard one of those new fangled mp3's in like 1997. Sneaker Pimps 6 Underground. The whole song, 4 megs and tons more on this new fangled XDCC thing on IRC. What could possibly go wrong :-) DivX? Years later, random Simpsons episodes, 50->100 megs a piece with a tolerable reduction in quality. Also available on that new refined XDCC thing.
@joedcc list
!joedcc "Blah blah blah.mp3"
MKV is popular with anime in regions that don't speak Japan largely because of how well it supports multiple streams within one container. It's far from dead.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
For one small crowd of the internet (anime watchers), h.264 in MKV is the de-facto standard for soft-subs, with .avi being abandoned by all but the laziest or most incompetant users.
Remember when most videos distributed online were realVideo or .mov? Yeah, that .avi container/xvid codec will never catch on...
Took a while for that distinction to sink in. Here is another container format you'll be hearing about a lot more in the coming months. QAM and ATSC. QAM is only a signal modulation and can be used to stream any kind of container format--usually some variant of ATSC. Think of it, I guess, as like the low-level ethernet stuff--ethernet doesn't care if you use TCP/IP or IPX/SPX. ATSC is kind of like TCP/IP or IPX/SPX, it defines how information is sent over the low-level stuff, but for the most part it doesn't care what the information is (MPEG2, H.264). ATSC typically only carries MPEG2, but I guess it has been updated to carry H.264/MPEG4. I guess it can only carry AC-3 audio streams and not mp3.
If you really want to force yourself to learn about video and audio codecs and containers, force yourself to use ffmpeg on the command line for a while. It's docs and number of switches can seem daunting at first, but just remember what you are trying to do is tell it what codecs to use, what bitrates to use, and any modification to the video/audio stream (aspect ratio, resolution, framerate, etc). If you type "ffmpeg -formats | less", you'll get a list of what your version of ffmpeg can read and what containers and codecs it can write to. Keep in mind not every container can hold all the codecs; you'll have to consult wikipedia for that. The whole exercise will make you think about every aspect of your transcoding experience.
PS: is it me or does chrome have a horrible spellchecker?
People who complain about the mkv container are the same idiots who never used it. These are probably the same people that bitched because people used mp3, not completely free, over ogg, completely free. But yet they would rather you use a none gpl, {mp4,avi} container over one that completely gpl {mkv}.
I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.
Only amateurs and noobs use mp4 and avi anymore for containers. People that know what they are doing use mkv.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Simple. Spec MP4 (the standard container) doesn't support AC3. You have to recode it to AAC 5.1 which is lossy and a pain in the ass.
Plus the authoring tools for MKV are better. Not to mention the subtitle support if you are a fan of foreign films.
I find that highly unlikely.
I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.
That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.
I am trolling
Does that mean that Sony will soon provide DivX 7 support on the PS3 and PSP? I wrote about the potential here - http://lodge.glasgownet.com/2008/12/29/ps3-and-matroska-could-be-soon/
Could we soon be streaming MKV files over the network to it, or playing them directly, with no transcoding?
... to show, how ridiculous their DivX "format" is. What is DivX? It was an encoder for an old version of MPEG4. (Like XviD, 3ivX, and many others.)
Now it's an encoder for H.264? Well, we already have x264 for that, and it work great.
This is a name, with a whole company behind it, is search for a purpose where there is none.
As long as they insist of "being their own format" (which they aren't, and never were), acting as if you needed their own player and file extension (for AVIs, or now MKVs?), and similar tactics, I will boycott them. Which isn't very hard, because I never needed them in the first place. I encode in Matroska + H.264 + AC3 or Vorbis for years now. And before that, it was XviD + AC3 or MP3 in AVI (for lack of other options).
There is no DivX.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.
Incorrect. AAC is the successor to the MP3 format, being standardised as a part of the MPEG2 and MPEG4 specifications. AC3, however, is an audio compression format developed by Dolby. They're just about as completely unrelated as you can get while still performing the same function. The only link is that Dolby actually did participate in AAC development at one point.
AAC is technically superior to AC3 at all bitrates, I believe, but AC3 is a much simpler codec: you essentially get more bang for your buck with AC3 where decoding complexity is concerned.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
It is not illegal to download content at all!
What is breaking a contract, is to actually give (offering is not enough) content to others (implicitly with no license), when the license under which you got it does not allow this.
And even if this happens, you still have to clarify how to handle that breach of contract. Only if you refuse to come to terms with the other party, you will end up in court. And then it's not only up to them to define what you have to do, to make that breach Ok. It's just as much up to you. And the judge watches that you two come to terms on a legal, and hopefully fair level.
Everything else is deliberate disinformation. Which of course is used to make you conform to their terms before going to court, and to manipulate the badly informed judge in court, so you won't get your part of the freedom, legality and fairness. And it's horrible, how many people here on Slashdot got already conditioned into that mindset, and are unknowingly spreading it.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
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.
umm wtf are you smoking the mkv container isn't loosing anything it's a high def format most of my protable players don't even support that. That's more of a failing of the device then the container. If divx puts the container support in their package then hell every device that supports divx that comes out in the future would support mkv. This would make mkv the new standard for divx type high def content. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU. Besides I'm a pirate and all the HD stuff I get is either an ISO or in MKV format. some people use other containers but where I lounge thats one of the main formats for HD.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Any video card, or any monitor/TV, that includes HDMI must support HDCP. There are monitors and video cards that support HDCP over DVI but don't have an HDMI port, but if you want to be absolutely sure, that's probably the best way.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
AAC is technically superior to AC3 at all bitrates, I believe, but AC3 is a much simpler codec: you essentially get more bang for your buck with AC3 where decoding complexity is concerned
Yes, AAC is very much superior to ac3. I routinely recode 5.1 ac3 to 5.1 he-aac and stuff it into a mkv container. The space it saves vs the loss of audio quality from recoding is worth it. I actually have no beef against the aac codec. I think its an excellent successor to mp3/ac3.
The real gripe I have is with the asshats that came up with the mp4 container. Acc maybe better than ac3 but ac3 is the standard audio codec used on dvd's To not make it apart of the regular mp4 specs is just fucking insane.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
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!!
I wonder how well the technology-impaired will handle all these different file formats when they eventually find their way into mainstream devices.
Then again, how many .MKV and H.264 users (COUGHpiratesCOUGH) are morons when it comes to technology?
Well, they could just actually commercially build an mplayer STB.
I've been considering it a long time, but the overlords who wield telephone pole sized clubs labeled DMCA will never let me.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I have an old box hooked up to my parent's TV that is setup with XBMC and so far I've never yet had an issue with playing MKV...you might want to give that a try, see if it plays better on your system?
--bornagainpenguin
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
It's possible the point will be moot, as Microsoft might even include mkv support out of the box for Windows 7. As of now, the current Beta does not play mkvs out of the box, BUT, the registry includes class keys for .mkv files, something previous versions of windows did not. Windows 7 already supports mp4 containers and h264/x264 and xvid codecs out of the box. It's possible Microsoft is working on their own mastroska splitter for use with their media foundation codecs for inclusion in the RTM.
It would be nice if Microsoft made it unnecessary the need of third-party applications to handle the current codecs and file formats.
We all need to remember our roots! ;-)
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
A software limitation? I keep hearing that the reason MKV playback is so shitty (audio lag/etc) is because "your *hardware* is crappy."
x264 is very processor intensive to decode; you'd need a Core 2 duo running at (not sure here) probably 2.4-2.8 GHz to successfully decode that content at 720p. Not sure of other resolutions. Most people who are able to decode with slower processors likely have hardware decoders in their video cards which do most of the heavy lifting. When I built my media PC, I skimped on the processor (1.6GHz C2D clocked at 2.2) and made sure the video card could decode AVC (aka x264) in hardware.
My laptop, A 1.7GHz P mobile which can smoothly run WMVs at 720p (but not at 1080, also not sure of the actual codec...the stuff from MS website) can't even sniff at running a 720p x264.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
QuickTime has supported streaming H.264 since well before Flash, and it's coming in the next version of Silverlight as well.
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/H264-and-AAC-support-coming-in-Silverlight/
DivX has a very different useage model than Flash (downloads with a player app instead of streaming to a browser plugin). They're hardly competing head to head.
As for container support, Flash is just MPEG-4. The Adobe model is to use "dumb" media formats and control high-level display functions via the Flash application itself.
That said, a MKV parser could be written for Silverlight via managed code, including caption overlay support, multilanguage audio, etcetera. The Silverlight MediaStreamSource API allows for parsers and protocols to be written in managed code, while still using the native decoders built into Silverlight.
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/First-MediaStreamSource-example-is-up/
That'd be a cool project to see!
My video compression blog
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/First-MediaStreamSource-example-is-up/
Well, not all from Blu-ray, though :).
It's a bad article. There's nothing intrinsically infringing about MKV + H.264. And there's defintely nothing Blu-ray specific about this, unless they're saying that it can handle a MKV that encapsulates the unrecompressed original Blu-ray bitstreams. Is anyone actually using THAT for piracy? I thought most download HD was still 720p.
My video compression blog
Does DivX/MKV content play in MPlayer? Specifically, the PPC version with the SPE drivers for the PS3?
--
make install -not war
... a convenient container for packaging multiple audio signals, subtitles and x264 encoded video and being all FOSS. its also a very popular format for anime, due mostly to its multiple audio and subtitle strengths.
the piracy scene decided on x264 mkv for various reasons but wide compatibility probably wasnt one of them...
A number of fansubbers interacted heavily with the Matroska development team during Matroska's development. Many streams was a given due to the inherent design, but the extra interaction ensured a good, simple, and elegant subtitle design. Subtitles are just another packetized stream, with times and durations handled completely by the container. There is also a heavy focus on complete flexibility in which codecs can be played together. (If you can get it into Matroska, you can play it with any other codec.)
its nothing like last time divx came out. in the bad old days of mpeg4's early days people had trouble encoding videos. there was a dearth of choices for encoding stuff, people had to rely on hacked ms codec. then the xvid alternative was still in development, and divx stepped in and filled the gap. there is no such need this time. h264/mkv is easily done by grey market standards and support for playback is also everywhere in the community.
bingo, mkv is the defacto standard for webrip videos. it has filled a gap quickly for hd rips. it is not like the previous situation where no codecs were easily available for mpeg4 rips. people had to rely on hacked ms codecs for a while which was not good, and divx made it easier. but this time its unnecessary. devices simply need to support h264 and mkv, no divx middle man required. some already do, like the western digital player.