DVD-Software.info

[Christian Link]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:18:20 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no> wrote:

[Larc]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:01:49 -0500, RivaScoot <email@usenet.com>
wrote:

| >BTW, you may want to check your clock/calendar.
|
| What's wrong with my clock/calender?

For one thing, time stamps indicate that you replied to my post 9
hours and 33 minutes BEFORE I posted it! I know my clock is correct
since it's set to connect to time-a.nist.gov and self correct every
hour.

If I were forced to guess, I'd say your computer clock is probably
exactly 12 hours slow.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

[Ivan IV]

"Christian Link" <C.LinkSPAMBLOCK@GMX.net> wrote in message
news:jbhbr0ljio3v5o5n24khpq26pena6egk0d@4ax.com...

[SL]

I have the phillips 642 player and of course a pc. I used to encode to Divx
5.x. I then went with Xvid. Why?, because it produces the nice same
result every time and all I need is the one codec. It is available for free
at all the popular sites Ive seem to come across. I notice less pixelizing
on larger screen tv's with the Xvid (2-pass) encoding on black scenes.

I always assumed Xvid was superior as it came out later. Not a good guide
to use, but I did. Friends that no absolutely nothing about either seem to
agree the Xvids I use are a little "crisper" looking. Some (actually most)
they cannot tell from the real DVD. It is only fair to mention this is
using the Phillips 642 player. The Lite-On player that is its comparison
offers the same results Ive found.

It almost boils down to your personal preference.

SL
"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
news:p9obr0ln9f0on6e2ao5oep7t00v62ko6hr@4ax.com...

[aster]

"Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news: g39br05m06hn0tka909umc0dj17vit9rnt@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:02:34 +0100, "erik" <erik@somewhere.com> wrote:
|

|
| You don't have to pay or steal. The DivX codec is free! :-)
|
| http://www.divx.com/divx/download/
|
| Larc
|

Divx encoder is free but contains a spyware. If you try to remove
it with a tool like ad-aware, the encoder refuses to work.

The next release of divx (release 6) will be provided for free
for a limited amount of time, 6 month (to be verified)

aster

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:09:34 GMT) it happened Larc
<larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in
<lf6br05t1ofnrlkl1ff4lvmcuhv4nhu8ar@4ax.com>:

[Billy Joe]

Larc wrote:

[Larc]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:50:24 +0100, "Ivan IV" <someone@somewhere.no>
wrote:

| This logo appeared there when I tried the free DivX 5.2.1. I usually use the
| codecs together with AutoGK or VirtualDub and configure all necessary
| parameters from there. I do read documentation as the last resort. The logo
| thing was nothing fatal, so I just ignored it as something slightly annoying
| that I do not use often anyway. As I wrote I do not use DivX codec for
| encoding, so I did not waste my time on learning something I won't be
| needing anyway. So there.

DivX doesn't insert the logo in the encoded movie, but only displays
it as an overlay on playback. All you have to do is open config.exe
in the DivX folder. Select the Quality Settings tab and check
"Disable Logo." Apply. Poof! It's gone. ;-)

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

[Larc]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:53:38 -0800, "Billy Joe" <see.sig@invalid.org>
wrote:

| From your original post:
| "I encoded a movie with VirtualDub first using DivX and then
| XviD. Finished AVI files are the same size. "
|
| My statement stands, bit rate * play time = file size, so it's
| irrelevant that you used two different codecs and got the same
| file size. Get it?

I don't believe I originally said I used the same bitrate on both
AVIs. So it would be important to know (a) both were the same movie
(same playtime) and (b) the resulting files were the same size, those
two facts together enabling one to infer that bitrates were the same.

This is a "rose by any other name" discussion. We're both making
precisely the same point from different perspectives. Encoding equal
portions of exactly the same material in both formats and winding up
with two files of the same size would generally indicate that a very
similar bitrate was used for both, wouldn't you agree? If your
statement couldn't hold up mathematically inverted, it wouldn't be
valid to start with — which it is!

| > I can't either, but some swear that XviD is better. That was
| > the main reason for my test. According to results of this
| > one test, there seems to be no apparent quality reason for
| > anybody to use the less standard XviD over the more
| > widespread DivX.
| >
|
| Yes, we often see what we want to see.

I see what I see. I conducted this test with no preconceived notions
and with the idea that I'd start using XviD instead of DivX if I found
it to be better.

| > I played both on a Philips DVP642 and on two different
| > computers looking for differences. I saw none between the
| > two formats on any of the playback devices, although there
| > were differences between playback devices.
| >
|
| You're changing players AND displays, I only changed players and
| used the same display. This led me to believe that the decoding
| algorithms used in each player are entirely (even significantly)
| different.

I was only interested in comparing apples with apples. The fact that
DivX and/or XviD may look better on one monitor than it does on
another was completely irrelevant to me. Comparison of the two
formats on the same monitor for each system was imperative; cross
comparison between systems on a single monitor was not. I was only
concerned with what I saw in order to help me decide which format I
would use and thought others might like to know my findings. Posting
this information was also an effort to learn if I could have
overlooked something.

| As a general observation, the DVP642 has more trouble rendering
| non-vertical motion against vertical objects - city chase scenes
| can appear quite pixilated; even lawn grass can look odd, if the
| blades are evident and the camera was in motion.

I find that to be true with my 642 only when the bitrate setting is
significantly less than 1200 or 1300 kbps. A recent experience with a
movie scene involving a horse being broken bore that out. Processed
at about 900 kbps, some pixilation was evident. But the same scene
processed at 1400 kbps showed no visible pixilation when played on my
642. Pixilation in "hazy" areas tends to hold on to a more marked
extent with increase in bitrate, but there is a point at which it too
ceases to be noticeable. YMMV, but I'm specifically talking about MY
642 and MY TV.

In this regard, I've been curious what the difference would be, if
any, with the AVI images displayed on a HDTV when played on the 642
using progressive scan. Although HDTV is still on my shopping list
waiting for further price decreases, a friend does have one and also a
642. I may prevail on his good nature and do the DivX/XviD comparison
on his system.

| For most encodings I now use ~1300 kbps video and either 192
| kbps MP3 audio, or copy in the available AC3 when the sound
| track warrants. When I do commit files to optical media, I use
| DVD+RW. This provides about 7 hours of a/v per DVD5 disc. BTW
| that's 10 one hour network TV shows, after commercials are
| edited out. (While that translates to 30% of the air time, it
| also translates to 3/7ths of the entertainment time!!)

Bitrate for me is largely determined by what I plan to do with the
finished product. If I'm doing it for myself only, then I usually
encode at a minimum of 1200 kbps and burn that along with other DivX
encodings to a DVD. If I plan to share, I'm more aware of CD size
limitations and process for one or two discs. In any event, I never
encode in fewer than two passes (and seldom in more than that either).
I usually encode MP3 audio at 128 kbps CBR, saving 192 kbps for
occasions when the source material clearly demands that kind of
fidelity.

BJ, as I mentioned earlier, I posted my findings for this rather
limited test with the thought that somebody might be interested in the
results. They were meaningful to me, but I'm not prepared to defend
them to the death because I honestly don't give a tinker's damn
whether anybody else puts any stock in them or not. This is something
I did for me! ;-)

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

[Larc]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:35:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

| >That's against it, IMHO. Anything that's open source can be changed
| >by anybody. There's no central control over it as there is with DivX,
| >so there's nothing to stop different versions from cropping up all
| >over. And the greatest plus for most users with open source — free —
| >isn't a real benefit in this case since the DivX codec is free as
| >well.
| Thats incorrect, you can keep any version that you like and use that.
| I have for example 3 versions of mplayer on my system now.
| With softlinks I can start mplayer, mplayer2, and mplayer3 (the latest cvs).
[snip]

I'm aware of that, but it's the version somebody else is using that
concerns me most. I recently downloaded an XviD file that I was
unable to play with the latest XviD codec because the codec they used
had evidently been bastardized. I would legally be free to tinker
with the XviD codec enough that you wouldn't be able to play a movie I
encoded with it. All I'm interested in is being able to play any XviD
I get my hands on. There are currently too many doors open that would
make defeat of that ability easy.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

[J.P.]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 03:37:38 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
wrote: