Xvid Vs. Divx

[Mr. Mainstream]

overall which do you think is a better video format?

[Malakai1911]

You might as well change your title to "Xvid > DivX, The Poll".

Because that's how it is.

[Killawat]

i've had my share of Xvid and Divx and am impressed with the compression quality of Xvid, with it being able to store 20 mins of Dvd quality sound/vid within 150 megs. Not a big difference but overall quality is nice.

[origin]

first of all xvid is divx spelled backwards. I did vote for xvid only because it is a more lucrative (popular) video compression format used amongst users on p2p networks but also still maintains average (acceptable) or at times exceptional visual quality. also it is open source.

l8

[fireforce555]

I like divx myself. Xvid is a bit jerky on my machine for some reason and it causes errors in TMPEGEnc while divx doesnt. It does a good job at maintaining a high quality picture for even high motion scenes without pixilizing.

[CompuGeek]

XviD is more of an open standard, so I like that.

But, if you're thinking about getting a standalone DVD player that plays MPEG-4, they work much better with DivX than Xvid.

:sw

[.::BeatFactory::.]

Out of those two I prefer Xvid just because of the overall "betterness" of Divx.

Although I'd rather use 3ivx: www.3ivx.com because it'll play both formats without any extra codecs.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Xvid has more features right out the box but for ripping my dvd's I like Divx better. I have trouble configuring all the extra stuff in Xvid to get it to look right. If you get a video from someone who knows how to rip, the quality is almost the same and you shouldn't really notice the difference. Xvid can be a bit sharper but sometimes grainy. Divx tends to smooth things out and is less buggy. Problem is. alot of people don't know what their doing, so you get a bunch of crap movies. Two disc rips are just uncalled for unless a movie is over 120 minutes. I have seen 3 hours vids though that look damn good at under 700M. But anyways, I'll get off my soap box now,my vote goes to Divx.

[CCSDUDE]

Xvid has more features right out the box but for ripping my dvd's I like Divx better. I have trouble configuring all the extra stuff in Xvid to get it to look right. If you get a video from someone who knows how to rip, the quality is almost the same and you shouldn't really notice the difference. Xvid can be a bit sharper but sometimes grainy. Divx tends to smooth things out and is less buggy. Problem is. alot of people don't know what their doing, so you get a bunch of crap movies. Two disc rips are just uncalled for unless a movie is over 120 minutes. I have seen 3 hours vids though that look damn good at under 700M. But anyways, I'll get off my soap box now,my vote goes to Divx.

I prefer 2 disc XviD AC3 rips myself as they do look awsome if someone with brains does it. I just rejoin the parts via VDub mod and add it to the rest of my joined rips on a DVDR. Figure 1.4 gigs give or take per movie gets you 3 movies on a DVD plus a bit of room for some mp3's/clips/images/a tv show..whatever.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Oh there is no question that bigger is most always better. But alot of movies are in the 90minute range and I can usually make a perfect rip with just one disc. It really depends on the movie genre also. Action movies or movies with alot of special effects (or alot of humping! lol) benefit from a two disc rip.

[method77]

I used xvid a lot but the new divx 5.11 pro is the best right now

[my name]

all the divx i have are smooth and sahrp but alot of the latest xvid are less sharp, i came across some sharp xvid but most arnt. mybe that is beacuse most encoderes arnt sure about what to check on xvid but ill discount points from the codec for not beeing clear enough.

plus- i think xvid is more popular both beacuse its just newer and its name sounds cooler but not much else.

[Mels_Smileys45]

And also on ANY given DVD the movie video file NEVER exceeds .99Gig. They usually have the widescreen, fullscreen and all the other extras on one DVD. If the video file doesnt exceed A Gig, why recompress to a 1.4G file? Seems pointless to me. If your gonna do that just leave it in MPEG form and save some space.

[kita]

The latest XviDs coming out are crap.....
Anyhow I thought XviDs original purpose was to a fit a movie on a single CD, while still achieving the same quality as the best DivX.

[CompuGeek]

And also on ANY given DVD the movie video file NEVER exceeds .99Gig.

Not quite, the DVD specifications say that 1 Gig is the maximum file size on a DVD. Your average movie is spread out over 4 to 6 VOB files on the disc for a grand total of about 4 to 6 Gigs for just the main movie.

:sw

[CompuGeek]

I can't see Mels_Smileys45's reply here for some reason, but I'll just copy it from my email notification:

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Your right about it being devided into VOB files but the rest is not right at
all. Everytime Ive evrer ripped a DVD the movie was located in one file broken
up into VOB. You can see this if you use a program like DVDx. If one movie took
up the whole disc there would be nothing left for all the extra stuff you get
with a DVD, I.E. widescreen version, full screen, movie trailers, the making of
the movie, deleted scenes, director commentary ect.
***************

Nice try, I rip DVDs too. A DVD holds about 9 gigs. About half that is the movie (around 5 gigs or so) and the rest is all the filler you mentioned (aka special features).

:sw