DivX 7 Adds Support For Blu-ray Rips (H.264/MKV) 294
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."
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So, remind me again... (Score:2, Informative)
And, yes, anyone familiar with BitTorrent will instantly recognise pirated software -some prefer to talk of software being shared, what with no pirates being involved in the activity.
Re:So, remind me again... (Score:5, Informative)
Neither the summary nor the article said anything about piracy, whether "in general" or otherwise. You made that association on your own.
Are we reading the same article?
From TFA:
DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content
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
Now, unless you are aware of a completely legit interpretation of the words "Blu-ray rips on filesharing networks" that I am not aware of...
Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Yes, people still use Divx. Go to the alt.* groups on Usenet to see how many. I watch a foreign TV that is unavailable in the USA and I watch it via Divx encodes that people who live in the broadcast country make and place on Usenet.
As far as "inferiority" to Xvid goes, that was true years ago, but today I doubt that you'd be able to tell any difference between Xvid encoded material and stuff correctly encoded with the commerical Divx codec.
This makes no sense.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:MKV is instantly recognized (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why is Matroska used? (Score:3, Informative)
The short answer is that AVI does not have proper support for the b-pyramids in H.264. You can put H.264 into AVI but this involves putting the b-frames into the same packets at the i-frames and this causes the timecodes and seeking to get messed up. Additionally AVI only allows a single audio track, which is a problem for multiple-language releases. Also many AVI players can not handle VBR audio properly. Subtitles are another issue. So yes, there are significant techinical reasons for using MKV instead of AVI.
Re:MKV is instantly recognized (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept (Score:4, Informative)
I'm big supporter, and user, of x264, but I always thought MainConcept was the slightly better H.264 codec.
This codec comparison [compression.ru] 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.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
MKV also supports variable frame rate encodings, which is very useful for encoding animation.
Re:Why is Matroska used? (Score:3, Informative)
AVI seems to have alot more overhead than MKV. There is a utility to convert AVI files to MKV files and I noticed the resulting file was often a a megabyte or two smaller than the original AVI file. When you're targeting a storage medium with a relatively limited amount of space (e.g. DVDs, MP3 players, etc.) I suppose it could help fit a bit more content on there.
I noticed occasionally I'd have audio sync problems on the converted files though so I stopped doing it since a few megabytes here and there doesn't mean much when you have a terabyte drive.
Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 (Score:4, Informative)
FLV was never a streaming container in the first place. In fact, being nothing more than a unmanaged HTTP download that you watch while it still loads, it's a very crappy way of "streaming" data. I can do that with most formats, by downloading them to the disk, and then playing them in my favorite media player. I did this with MP3s since 1999.
I did not even have to re-download it, every time I wanted to play it.
FLV can't even come close to MKV in things of media containers. MKV supports multiple streams of video, audio, subtitles, or in fact anything that you can think of (eg a stream for some special effects device), stream tags, timecodes, cues, stereoscopy, stretching/compressing, attachments (eg cover, background information, reviews), segment linking and chapters. Oh, and of course, because it's EBML, you can add your own "tags" and functionality as you like, without affecting the compatibility to old programs. And it's made for very flexible streaming.
Re:What Gray Content? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
OMG. Is this the ministry of disinformation?? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Why is Matroska used? (Score:1, Informative)
Because Matroska is much, much better than any other container format, including the Quicktime-based MP4.
Matroska supports linked ordered chapters. That's potentially sharing one (separated) copy of an OP and ED between all the episodes in a series, potentially, saving bits to be used on the rest.
Matroska is the only container that properly supports both variable frame-rate video and variable bit-rate tracks and still allows seeking.
Matroska is the only container that supports embedded fonts (for styled Advanced SubStation alpha subtitles); or, indeed, other embedded content like SVG overlays.
Not to mention multiple video, audio and soft-subtitle tracks (either bitmap or, preferably, text or styled subs) in as many languages, angles or tracks as you want.
It even supports DVD-style menus, though I don't think anyone's actually implemented that part yet.
And it does all this while being more efficient than almost any other container. Smaller files.
The reason why those programs deal poorly with .MKV files is simply because they're poor programs unable to deal well with state-of-the-art rips. We don't want to be stuck with an inferior format like .AVI ever, ever again. And the reason the pirates are using it is the same reason everyone else is using it; not for an ideological reason, but because it's damn good at what it does.
DivX throwing their weight behind it will hopefully mean that more hardware contains proper, compliant Matroska support. Good.
Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 (Score:3, Informative)
But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!
Books ? Games ? Talking ?
Re:So, remind me again... (Score:5, Informative)
I have 1000 DVD's all "tagged and bagged" in my media center.
It's all tied together through the home network so that a
number of "thin clients" attached to TV's and any computer
attached to the home network can see all of that.
That is VERY convenient.
I don't have any BD-ROMs yet, but I will. They will get
sucked into the media center like everything else. They
might even end up as MKVs.
HELL, based on this news it might end up shuffled around
so that it's in MKV rather than AVI.
BTW, every one of those ripped DVDs is within reaching
distance of where I am sitting presently.
Re:Codec vs Container (Score:3, Informative)
QAM is not a container format. It is a modulation scheme (as implied by the name).
A QAM (in the video world) normally carries an MPEG Transport Stream, which is sort of like a container, except that it's a sequential stream. But the MPEG TS does carry a mux of video, audio, and data such as subtitles, so it would be more analogous to a container format than QAM in this context. And, in fact, there is a container format that is a direct sibling to the MPEG TS, the MPEG Program Stream, which is the "container" that DVDs use. (Sorta. File size limits prevent the use of an absolutely pure MPEG PS.)
A container is used to cram all the components of a program into a random-access file. QAMs are linear streams, so the two don't directly correlate.
Okay, having said all that I did a little research, and many do call a TS a container. Either way, a QAM certainly isn't one. Also, everything I said applies equally to ATSC. (Though ATSC is a standards body, so the waters are somewhat muddier.)
-Peter