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.
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.
That's simple : DivX is a video software, not a video format. It always has been. DivX 4-6 is based on one standard format : MPEG-4 Part 2 (aka MPEG-4 Visual, aka MPEG-4 ASP). So they are just updating their software to support the latest standard format, H.264 (aka MPEG-4 part 10, aka MPEG-4 AVC).
The equation video codec = video format is just a bad habit, and most of the time false today with proprietary things like Indeo ou RealVideo less and less used.
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.
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.
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.
I'm big supporter, and user, of x264, but I always thought MainConcept was the slightly better H.264 codec.
This codec comparison is a year old now, but I've always used these generally yearly tests as a yard stick. MainConcept and X264 are the clear winners, with MainConcept probably slightly ahead overall. If you're short on time, just start reading at page 30.
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
MKV also supports variable frame rate encodings, which is very useful for encoding animation.
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?
There is exactly nothing illegal about making copies of your own discs for personal use.
In the US, at least, the DMCA would beg to differ with that interpretation, for media protected by an anti-circumvention device. That would be pretty much anything relevant today aside from audio CDs.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.