Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

DivX Codec Port Contest 106

Posted by emmett from the ka'ching-sosumi dept.
mr.e@home.com writes: "Flashingyellow.com has started up a contest to port the DivX MPEG-4 codec to the Macintosh platform. The goal is a completely open-sourced, cross-platform codec for use with Quicktime (hoping the Linux port of Quicktime ever gets completed). Prize is $5000 and an iMac DV Special Edition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DivX Codec Port Contest More

DivX Codec Port Contest

Comments Filter:
  • Why go through all the pain of reverse-engineering a video codec and then NOT releasing it under a truly free license? Why should the Stallman disciples have all the fun? Please, let's not infect the Mac platform with the GNU public virus! Make it available under the BSD license or a similar free license.

    --
  • Yeh, so is mp3? I have tried it, it is great! You can get near a DVD qualety movie on a cd!
  • I tried to do this. I got a terse reply from Sorenson saying it was all Apple's problem, and NO response whatsoever from Apple.

    I suppose if I did hear anything, it would be the old "You're the only one who has ever asked about this" while (one of my pet peeves: they never are able to provide documentation showing that this is really true).

  • Last I checked, the video portion of the DivX codec set was Microsoft's proprietary implementation of MPEG4. While it's true they have yet to pounce on the original DivX :-) (I think the smiley actually is officially part of the name, but is silent when spoken), isn't it possible they might get mad about an Open-Source version? Consider who we're talking about, after all.

    Then again, chalk this up as yet another reason to do it: Pissing Off Micro$oft. Not to mention the MPAA; if this becomes popular I'd be willing to bet it'll throw MPAA into a tizzy, ratrher like MP3 with RIAA.
  • HQ Streaming baby, HQ streaming.

    What about movies sold over the net?
    Or when online music selling really shoots off, music videos.

    And what about having several movies on one DVD?

    BTW it's called DivX ;-)
    Wonder why that ;-) is there? ;-)

  • Ever have a machine lacking a DVD-ROM? One on which you couldn't watch DVDs? Maybe a laptop without such a drive, and you wanted to watch a movie on the road. Or at work on your lunch break. The uses for such a delivery method are countless.

    Mind you, that is aside from the whole piracy bit. ;-)

    ------------------
  • I think it's supposed to be ironic; A popular use for the DivX codec is bootlegging DVDs or other movies. its ironic because they called the format that could screw over the movie industry (to the same extent mp3 screws over music industry, which is not really known) is named after that technology that screwed with consumers.
  • What is wrong with xanim ?? It plays quicktime movies

    Except any new ones. Remember Star Wars [starwars.com] and the Lord of the Rings [lordoftherings.net]?

    I have been told that Quicktime is a wonderful open standard. The reality is opposite; the sorenson codec, which is now the defacto standard, just won't decode on my linux box. Practically all new quicktime movies are unplayable. Any supposed openness of Quicktime has been de-commoditized by apple.

    I sent a pretty-please email to apple a while back. So should everybody.
  • I was under the impression that asf was mpeg4 and DivX is mpeg4 which would make video quality the same?
    perhaps the ASFs you saw were just encoded at lower quality than the DiVXs.
  • I never understood what the deal was with people who are loyal to a codec. They refuse to see any weaknesses in _their_ codec.

    The worst, I find, are some of the nAVI people.

    I like DivX and was very excited when it came out (looked better than VCD and was half the size), but I'd jump to anything better in a second.

    Do you have more information about SuperVCD?
  • >If you're a movie enthusiast, you'll know what I'm talking about.

    Thats an excellent point. But thats like saying MP3s don't give you CD quality. Its close enough.

    And the small file sizes are the most sexiest part of it :)
  • Compared to it's bitrate. I don't know if it scales up to as high bitrate as DVD, but at least I think a mpeg4 movie scaled that have 5 times the resolution of a normal dvd movie, would be better. Although, I gueess you would need a powerfull computer...

  • yeah it plays all my 5 year old quicktime clips with the cinepak codec, but nothing modern. I seriously hate having to download modules and compile them in, MS definately has you beat here, Their media player supports everything. Xanim can't even play standard mpeg files, try some of the 30fps ones at www.nineinchnails.net. I thought mpeg was an open standard? That commercial mtv mpeg player is alright, but linux is so damn slow in playing them. Forget trying to watch anything full screen. Under windows that would take about 30% cpu usage. Personally for multimedia I think BeOS has everyone beat.
  • If VCDs were ever in?

    As long as DVD players play VCD and not some weirdo mpeg4 variant, VCDs are the only acceptable thing to get.

  • Actually, it appears that the name of the codec is "DivX ;-)"
    --
    Ski-U-Mah!
    Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
  • I'm all for the DivX codec (I have 3.11alpha on my machine). However, has anyone thought to think of the legal consequences?

    As I understand it, DivX uses a hacked version of Microsoft's MPEG4 technology with a synchronous MP3 sountrack. I remember Microsoft making a fuss about it a while ago...

    All I'm saying is that you might want to think before you leap. While it may be a great technology, it isn't properly licensed. So all of your efforts are in legal terms, vein...

    What do you think?

    / k.d / earth trickle / Monkeys vs. Robots Films [homepage.com] /

  • smpeg does a pretty nice job too, and is more open. Loki apparently adopted it and brought it up to snuff because they needed one :-)
  • what about MPEG-2???
    We have no MPEG-2 drivers for quicktime yet. I have this unbelievably wonderful G4 right here.. between the Rage 128 and Altivec, it is probably more equipped to handle MPEG-2 style math than any other personal computer ever made.. and i can't download a simple .m2v movie off the internet and run it. I don't know why Quicktime doesn't support it, as would seem the natural thing to do, but it doesn't, and i assume it has something to do with DVD. Apple does have a perfectly working MPEG-2 decoder in the Apple DVD player, but that won't run files off the hard drive. I can't normally run DVD player because i have macsbug installed and rebooting just for that seems kind of silly, but that doesn't matter since it wont' run files off a hard drive anyway. I have no use for DVDs, of course, it's just that that was what was in the machine. You'd think that now they are charging for quicktime, they could go to the bother of including things like MPEG video encoders or MPEG-2 playback to justify the cost, but.. guess not. Well, actually, if you compare it to _REALPLAYER_ you get a LOT for your money.. so i guess i shouldn't complain.. but..

    blah.. of course making an MPEG-2 encoder would be somewhat redundant since it's clear apple HAS one they just won't DO anything with it. And of course making an MPEG-4 decoder for any platform would mean that it could be relatively quickly ported, and the mac would be a logical first choice because there are a you could write only the codec without having to worry about the structure (quicktime has it already), and the structure is one that many people knowledgable about such things as graphics programming would be likely to be familiar with..

    still a tiny bit of a misdirected effort if you ask me.. i personally think the $5000 and theimac should go to whoever manages to finally come out with some HFS+ support for linux/BSD. :P

  • Judging by the posts here, with people talking about trading movies, etc., I think we can safely state that a large number of Slashdot people are NOT using DeCSS to view DVDs on Linux, but are using it to trade (read: pirate) movies. So much for the "It is impractical to pirate DVDs, DeCSS doesn't make pirating any easier" arguments. This "DivX" standard (which has as little to do with the GNU vision or free software as does the tea in China) blows those arguments in to the water.

    The thing that most disturbs me is that I feel a certain sense of dishonesty from the slashdot crowd. On the one hand, the Linux community on Slashdot rightly decries the repression of DeCSS, pointing out that it should be OK for open-source operating systems to view DVD content. On the other hand, we get a community of Slashdot posters who give the RIAA plenty of evidence that DeCSS is not being used for just Linux interoperability.

    I think it is very difficult for groups like OpenDVD.org and what not to make a case for allowing DeCSS to exist in a climate with posts like this:

    The DivX codec & widespread use of it is actually fairly new. I heard about it about a month ago, and went on IRC to try to find one to see what it was all about. There were only about 8 people trading them in the divx channels. It's becoming much more prevalent, and in about two months, you'll be able to find 'em just about anywhere. I get mine off gnutella now, altho it takes a week or so per movie cuz nobody seems to leave their computer up continuosly on gnutella.

    The DivX codec is actually extremely good. But it is only as good as the person who ripped the DVD.

    near perfect DVD rips onto a single CD.

    I've seen full length movies compressed into 660 megs with the Divx codec and they look nearly as good as DVDs, very impressive; looks like VCDs are on their way out

    A popular use for the DivX codec is bootlegging DVDs or other movies.

    I fully expect to be moderated down for not taking the Slashdot party line on this issue. If people want to support DeCSS because it allows them to copy DVDs, I think Slashdot should stop the dishonesty and flat out tell the press and others that they don't feel the MPAA, RIAA, and others should do anything to stop widespread copying of their intelectual property. Perhaps Slashdot should use the VCR argument and other similar arguments. But please don't try BSing people by only mentioning the "Linux Interoperability" argument when programs like DeCSS face court challenges.

    - Sam

  • You'd really think they'd do it under the LGPL.
    First off this is something that one would think is going to be most useful LGPLed since it is essentially a library, not as an actual application, and thus GPLing it will merely limit its usefulness and at times cause extreme cumbersomeness... I doubt GPLing an mpeg-4 codec will entice anyone to release code under the GPL, but it will probably entice a lot of people to not USE the codec.. thus probably meaning they won't make any improvements to the codec itself.

    but secondly and more importantly SINCE THE CODEC IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS A PLUG-IN TO QUICKTIME-- ESSENTIALLY BEING "LINKED INTO" AND IN ANY CASE CONSTITUTING A "WHOLE WORK" WITH QUICKTIME-- wouldn't releasing it under the GPL violate some things?

    Or would the violation only apply if someone [apple] attempted to distribute quicktime _with_ the OSS liscence [a la LAME]? Would this be simply to keep apple from benefiting from a codec they didn't contribute to, by ensuring it can't be part of standard quicktime? Wouldn't that simply result in apple developing their own MPEG-4 codec?

    Please correct any flaws in my logic.. but really i think the LGPL STILL is the correct choice for this kind of thing [standalone librarystyle mpeg4 codec, esp. one intended to be used as a plugin to a propeitary product] because it would make it the most useful for everyone while still ensuring any modifications to the codec itself are still kept open (as opposed to BSD style liscenses where everyone from microsoft to Real would rob the code blind..)

    i'm sure nobody will ever read this post.. nobody reads /. discussions after a certain point.. blah
  • I remember the good old days where as long as no Microsoft code used, this would be counted as just basic reverse engineering and covered by fair use. BUT along came the DMCA so that might screw things up a bit?? Maybe not; the way I see it the coders would have to take a Divx file and figure out what it does in the exactly the same way the Bleem! guys took PS games and made an emulator and thats still legal. What I really don't understand is this: How can some guys (one guy?) take an average MS codec and without access source and make it so sweet? What are MS doing?? Why, with there massive R&D resources couldn't they get the same results?
  • I can testify that the Divx codec is very good quality, of course its not DVD quality as compressing and already compressed format down 10 times is never going to retain 100% quality. If you watch a DVD and then a Divx, then yeah, anybody can see the difference.

    Where Divx really shines is if you put it against the current situation of movie piracy: Video CDs are normally 2 disks of Mpeg 1 per movie so, twice the size and lower quality. The .asf's that are floating around GNUtella are a little smaller than Divx files but FAR lower quality, most are just about watchable. Watch one of these and then a Divx and the difference is amazing.

  • If there can be a contest to crack open a Microsoft codec, hows about a contest for Sorenson. VA linux puts up a nice new workstation, maybe a little cash too. Of course it would have to be GPL.
  • How well does DivX compare to Sorenson? }:-)

    This kicks serious tail. The free-software world will finally gain a next-generation alternative to MPEG. Completely free and nonproprietary . . . at least I hope patents don't cause a problem (I understand there are many surrouding MPEG-4).

    The future of free, high-quality A/V codecs looks bright. First Ogg Vorbis, and now this. Goodbye xanim binary modules, hello fully open-source SDL-accelerated DVD-quality full-screen video player!
  • As stated it is the sorenson codec that is causing the compatibility problem. Xanim will quite happily play QT4 movies, on the condition that they use a codec supported by xanim. In fact QT4 movies can even be played by the QT3 player on the Mac, since the movie format is the same.

    If an open-source codec that allowed good compression, while maintaining a quality image, I am sure that we could leverage an advantage over Sorenson and maybe even force Apple's hand.

    QT4 does add certain minor abilities, like being able to embed sprites, 3D objects, etc., but then again at this point in time it does not appear to be a major loss.

    BTW If you head off to http://www.apple.com/developer you should find the

  • DivX ;-) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Check out
    http://divx.ctw.cc/
    for more info about the hacked format

  • Would an open source implementation be legal? (Score:4)

    by SpinyNorman ( 33776 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:37AM (#1083629)
    If DivX is a Microsoft extended version of MPEG-4, then isn't it likely to be protected by both Microsoft and other MPEG-4 patents?

    Is MPEG-4 any less encumbered by patents than MPEG-2?

    Note that some patents (such as H.263) are so broad as to apparently ensure that ANY implementation will infringe.
  • Since DivX is based on the over-patented MPEG4 standard. What we really need is a fully free format to play highly compressed motion pictures something like Ogg/Vorbis [xiph.org], only for video instead. Actually the future goal of the ogg project, is a complete set of free, open multimedia formats, with corresponding free (like in (l?)gpl) libraries.

    Btw, as I have understood it, Microsoft's implementation of MPEG4 is open, but only to developers who have paid a huge um, and that have signed a head-cutting nda.

  • DivX creation guide (Score:3)

    by jeffstar ( 134407 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @05:42AM (#1083631) Journal
    Digital Digest [digital-digest.com] has this bit about creating DivX files from dvd even. You can get all the necessary software for windows from the site too, including the stuff you use to downmix from 5.1 to 2 channels of audio and so on.
  • Video is hacked MPEG-4 but the author also included MP3 compression for sound, and now it also includes WMA audio compression. So.. compare this to AFS.

    You get:

    superb quality

    STEREO 96kbit/s - 312kbit/s sound

    at 10:1 size compared to DVD.

    This is truly the most innovative (heh) format around. The DivX ;-) url is http://divx.ctw.cc [divx.ctw.cc]

  • The DivX codec & widespread use of it is actually fairly new. I heard about it about a month ago, and went on IRC to try to find one to see what it was all about. There were only about 8 people trading them in the divx channels. It's becoming much more prevalent, and in about two months, you'll be able to find 'em just about anywhere. I get mine off gnutella now, altho it takes a week or so per movie cuz nobody seems to leave their computer up continuosly on gnutella.

    The DivX codec is actually extremely good. But it is only as good as the person who ripped the DVD. Many of the movies getting traded out there are about 450,000,000 bytes. If you want to see what it can really do, get one of the ones that is 700,000,000. There's a big difference. There's also sound problems, if the person encoding it wasn't careful to sync up the audio. A lot of times, DVD sound is a few microseconds off, and some people just don't care to fix it.
  • Quicktime for Linux already exists. It is just not being released yet because Apple wants to see if Linux is a "threat"
  • Well, I have used DivX ;-) extensively and found that it produced pretty good results on some DVDs... (Such as Pink Floyd's The Wall) While other films such as Natural Born Killers didn't like the codec no matter what bitrate I threw at it. (Maybe due to all the black and white in the film?) But anyways, I still think that DivX would be pimpin in linux ;) I mean, I'd still rather watch one, than swap about 7 or 8 cds that have unencrypted .VOB files on em (a major payne)
    -MoOsEb0y
  • you either use the keyboard or attach the USB mouse of your choice (I like my logitech 3-button+seperate wheel). iMac's mace great linux boxes :-)
  • MP3 is nowhere near CD quality and anyone who has a half respectable stereo system can tell. Highs are always cut off on MP3 and midrange's seem enhanced to make up for the lack of highs. I remember when MP3 first came out people would say it's BETTER than CD even though it was sourced from CD. Then people said it's just as good as CD. It's not, it's lossy, it will never sound as good as a CD. People just like MP3s because they can pirate them and not have to buy a CD. Same with this DivX stuff, I've seen countless people say it looks exactly like a DVD. I haven't seen it, but I know it doesn't. Just another format for cheapskates to be able to pirate things they don't want to buy.
  • It mostly depends on how you encode it, and the bitrate you use for your mp3's. Basicaly fiting a 1h30 movie on a 650 mb CD, would give you a pretty good quality movie. You can choose different options while encoding which gives you different results wether its a fast action movie, or a non action movie. Now if I could only get my hands on dual 1 ghz PIII to encode this stuff faster...
  • Is there any justification for them taking the exact same name (capitalization differences aside) as something universally hated among the techy crowd?

    I wasn't aware that we ran out of every other possible combination of letters. I suggest MivZ
    -----
  • MPEG 4 is not locked to a specific codec. I've seen movies in both formats and let me tell you that DivX kicks ass compared to asf at the same filesize. A DVD-rip with DivX @ 650Mb kicks ass with vcd @ 2x650Mb.
  • The only way to get a worthwhile project like this done is to offer money for their services, kind of like the real world.
  • Flat-head.
  • Ok, just to set a few things straight here:

    1) This has been said already, but the DivX codec has absolutely NOTHING to do with the failed attempt by Circuit City to rent out dvd's on a pay per view basis.

    2) Video - Video is encoded using a hacker version of the microsoft mpeg4 codec, YES, it is similiar to asf, but before you start screaming about file size and quality being so different from asf, that is because DivX is incapable of being streamed, the entire file must be downloaded before viewing unlike asf which has the index bytes included at regular parts in the movie, the divx codec does NOT include this, resulting in smaller file sizes for the same quality (Note: I'm not sure about the technical name for the index data, but this is correct as far as i know)

    3) Audio - Simple, encoded in MP3 / WMA

    4) Streamin - See #2 for why this dont work

    If you want to see an example of how high DivX can go for quality, get over to http://divx.ctw.cc [divx.ctw.cc] -> trailers -> the matrix, its one of the highest quality ones online right now.
    Hope this helps guys, alot of people seem to be stuck on the DivX / divx and the asf.
  • Before I start, let me get this straight:

    I want

    • 10 times the loot
    • written permission from all patent and copyright owners
    • all the money and support needed to cover my ass in case someone lied to me about required permissions
    • something to port other than binary code
    If you can't provide all that, think of possible substitutes and explain them here.
  • How does DivX compare with ASF for low bitrate streaming (20 kbps, 34 kbps)?
  • And maybe Apple are correct, Linux is a threat? Just look at the discussions here: Although the competition if from a Mac site and even one of the prizes is a MAC, more people here are getting excited regarding a linux version of the finished code than a Mac version. Maybe this is just because more /.'s run Linux however?
  • Why go through all the pain of reverse-engineering a video codec and then NOT releasing it under a truly free license? Why should the Stallman disciples have all the fun? Please, let's not infect the Mac platform with the GNU public virus! Make it available under the BSD license or a similar free license.

    I agree the GPL would be too restrictive and would hinder the adoption of the "open" codec among companies, but I don't think the BSD license is the way to go. A company could "embrace and extend" and break compatibility (Real for example) to force people to use THEIR player, etc. Instead I propose using the LGPL, the codec would stay clean, commercial apps could link to it, and everyone is happy.

    -- iCEBaLM
  • What are those people thinking? You just can't trap capable coders with money and hardware. They have that already (or know how to get it if desired). If you are really interested in getting the job done, change the offer:

    "Port the DivX codecs to the Mac and meet a spice girl of your choice... err ... meet Britney Spears!" (need to match the subject line...)

  • What a prize! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do our work and you get a gumdrop! yay!!! Anyone else find iMacs hard to consider when buying a workstation?
  • The source code to be ported is in an archive format that isn't even available on the Macintosh... Gee thanks...

    You can get Mac RAR tools here [macrar.free.fr]

  • The finished codec must be released to the general public either under the open-source GNU General Public License
    And the other license is ..............
    $5000 and an iMac doesn't sound like the right sort of incentive for this sort of thing does it? Let's see apple add one of these MP G4 boxes we keep hearing about :-)

  • wow! (Score:1)

    by rwade ( 131726 )
    Wow, 10:1 compression from a dvd, sounds like worthwhile project to me.

  • DivX isn't meant to replace or compete w/ DVD codecs, and the DVD-Quality is simply hype that you're not really supposed to believe (or at least shouldn't).

    The real purpose of DivX can be found in alt.binairies.movies, a place where degraded video quality is an accepted trade off over ungodly download times. Plus, 1/2 the stuff "released" as a DivX .avi is a camcorder recording from Row 7, so again quality is not the point here.

  • A quick quote from their website.

    "A special thanks to The Macintosh News Network for driving some traffic to our site this morning."

    I believe the phrase is "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
  • I agree with 95% of what you say, but you pose a couple of questions, for which there are available solutions.

    I can't normally run DVD player because i have macsbug installed and rebooting just for that seems kind of silly

    The nice guys at Bare Bones came up with a fix... "DVD Player Helper" which you can download from http://www.barebones.com/free/free.html [barebones.com] .

    Apple does have a perfectly working MPEG-2 decoder in the Apple DVD player, but that won't run files off the hard drive

    It's not perfect, but there is a software MPEG-2 player available for the Mac available at: http://fred.elma.fr/Soft_DVD/Soft_DVD.ht ml [fred.elma.fr].

    i personally think the $5000 and theimac should go to whoever manages to finally come out with some HFS+ support for linux/BSD. :P

    *shrug* HFS+ filesystem support is opensource, in Darwin now, that's about as much help as I think people should need.
    --

  • DivX. Good?

    But DivX evil.

    DivX. Empowering users with an efficient *and* high quality algorithm?

    But DivX oppresses viewers!

    DivX. Open source?

    But DivX is the antithesis of openness!? DivX was movies you'd be able to rent forever, until the company went out of business like we all said it would.

    DivX? DivX?! Cognitive Dissonance, can't talk now...

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Will this let us view ASFs? (Score:3)

    by linuxonceleron ( 87032 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:11AM (#1083657) Homepage
    If there is an Open Source version of MPEG4, will we be able to view our asf files. I know I have a lot of, uh, important movies in that ASF format that I would *really* enjoy watching in Linux ;)

  • When the first porn movies are released in this format, will thay call it DivXXX ?-)

  • mmmmm open source should be great.... the future looks good for open source... anyone have an ETA or an approximation as to how long it would would take to get at least a beta release out? and what kind of platforms it will run on?

  • DivX not DIVX! (Score:5)

    by ravenwing_np ( 22379 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:13AM (#1083660)
    Before you start shouting bloody murder, read the FAQ on the page. DivX is Microsoft's implmention of the MPEG-4 video standard that has been embraced and extended. DIVX is that awful DVD scheme from Circut City. You have been warned.

  • DivX Quality? (Score:4)

    by jlj ( 141473 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:48AM (#1083661)
    From the divx.st site: "DVD-Quality". Let's get one thing straight: DivX does not give you DVD-quality, and IMHO it doesn't even come close to DVDs. If you're a movie enthusiast, you'll know what I'm talking about.

    And yes, MPEG4 is a standard. Microsoft has implemented that standard. Their implementation is not called DivX. DivX (which has nothing to do with Circuit City) is Microsoft's MPEG4 codec which has been modified to allow the use of MP3 and WMA audio. (No, it's not blessed by MS :)

    As you probably understand, I don't like DivX that much. It gives you great quality at a small filesize, but it's nowhere near DVD-quality.

    I don't understand why anyone would spend time working on that port anyway. Go contribute to something like OVD ("Open" counterpart to DVD) instead. Checkout linuxvideo.org [linuxvideo.org] for more info.
  • Wonder if you could use DivX to make some good of out those old DIVX discs just lying around...

    "Futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"

  • Apperantly, so many patents apply that there is an attempt for a joint-licensing scheme, according to this press release [m4if.org] of the the mpeg-4 industry forum [m4if.org].
  • MPEG-4 looks like it would be a very sweet codec to use if it was truly an open codec, and not one of these pieces of software that requires more money than the GDP of some small countries in order to use it. Now I see nothing wrong with short-lived (10-15 years) patents for physical items like a drug or a new polymer, but a few lines of code, something that can be reimplemented much easier than most big software houses would like to admit, it's almost at the point of being silly.

    Now with MPEG-4, once it's cracked, it'll probably be like the issue with Unisys over GIF, or the fiasco over fractal compression. Everybody in the know knows how silly the software patent issue is, and unfortunately, I don't see it getting any better.

    All that said though, the contest sounds noble, though you're dealing with a few very closed juggernauts, who have a marked tendancy to act very interesting when their stronghold is threatened.

  • Hey now, I'll take an iMac, if you can find one that doesn't have one button and a cylindrically symmetric mouse. How the hell do you cut 'n' paste with only one button?!?!?

    Easy: Select, Command-C, Command-V. Plus it's almost guaranteed that cut and paste (as well as drag and drop) will work seamlessly between most programs (as long as you're not doing something stupid, like pasting a JPEG into a text editor). Its one nice aspect of the Mac that X (and the various add-on toolkits and desktop enironments) and (to some degree) Win32 still need to work on.

    As for a two-button mouse...

    Go to any Mac dealer and buy a two-button Mac compatible USB mouse. Anything from MacAlly's cheap replacements to Microsoft's Intellimouse Explorer (yes, the one with the laser) will work. Heck, you can probably use any USB mouse with the iMac (or G3/G4, or USB-equipped PowerBook) without much trouble

    The 'one-button-mouse' argument isn't really a valid criticism of Apple: some people (like my father) like the simplicity of just one button -- and this is Apple's target market. I bought a four-button Kensington mouse so I could more effectively launch grenades in Marathon 2, but aisde from that I quite like only having to deal with one button.

    The iMac is targeted at a specific type of user: criticising it for not having the expandability or complexity of a screwdriver-shop Athlon doesn't make that much sense: both machines are designed with different users in mind.

  • what DiVX is, and a proposal (Score:5)

    by daw ( 7006 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @06:16AM (#1083666)
    Okay, just in case anybody's still confused, here's what DiVX really is: Microsoft includes a codec for MPEG 4 video compression with recent releases of Windows Media Player. I don't know how standards compliant this codec is, nor if the standard is really finalized anyway.

    The problem with this codec from the perspective of your average Windows user is that it's locked to prevent it being used with even vaguely open file formats such as avi. Like the Windows Media Audio codec, you're supposed to be able to use it only with one of Microsoft's new closed file formats -- asf? -- which enforce "rights management" -- which makes it difficult to use the codecs to recompress DVDs and distribute them all over the world on GNUTELLA, which is what everyone wants to do with them.

    DiVX is just a patch to the binary DLLs that relaxes this restriction, so you can create and play back avis using MPEG 4 compression. It also comes packaged with a pirated version of the fraunhoffer mp3 codec for audio, and a similarly cracked WMA audio codec in recent versions as well.

    Regarding porting, it would probably be semi-easy to "port" DiVX to i386 Linux using Wine to interface with the DLL. AFAIK, Microsoft has a fairly standardized API for pluggable video codecs, and DiVX complies to this. I think a very useful and realistic project would be writing the glue to call these codecs from a linux app (Winelib has the ability to link in DLLs I think). This would give anyone using i386 Linux easy access to playback/encoding of all of the video codecs that come with Windows now and in the future, within xanim or whatever. And since the best Windows video compression program for DVD piracy -- FlaskMPEG -- is already GPL'd except for the codecs it has to link in, it would be easy to port to Linux as well. Admittedly we'd be stuck with binary codec libraries, but as all these codecs are heavily proprietary and patent-encumbered it's probably the best we can do anyway. Obviously this binary-recycling approach won't work for the contest of porting to the Mac, but frankly I think that's pretty hopeless anyway.
  • I'm a big mac user, and I think this is awesome. I've been waiting for it to happen for about 3 months. I would have offered a prize myself, but I don't have $5000 laying around, or an iMac for that matter! :) One thing that I would love to see is a standalone DiVX player. DVD players can play VCDs, SVCD, and even some DVCD (which I'm not quite sure what they are...), so wouldn't it really kick this off if there was a DVD player that could play DiVX movies? All you big DVD companies that made the MP3 players (Raite and Shinco), give it a thought. Also, is the codec going to be only for viewing DiVX? Or will it allow us to encode our own DiVX? I would hope it would be both. We'll, that's my 2 cents. Let me know what you think! serff
  • DivX has just gotta happen on Linux, it's the only reason I have left to reboot!!
  • Head on over to the official page at http://divx.ctw.cc/ Or I whacked up a more user-friendly version a while back (includes a mirror as well) for my buddies at http://www.sk3tch.com/divx/ Great stuff...beats every format hands down with the exception of ASF which is a close call...not sure which I like better... Sk3tch
  • >MP3 is nowhere near CD quality

    I know.

    My point was that the lack of quality in MP3s never prevented it from becoming popluar. The quality is "good enough". Same thing with DiVX vs. DVDs.

  • screw macs. port that bad boy to BeOS so I can watch 10 movies at the same time with no loss in performace while browsing the web.

    or something.

  • Aww, people explained that it was a different DivX before any really good flames could develop...

    Party poopers.
    --
  • Compared to it's bitrate. I don't know if it scales up to as high bitrate as DVD, but at least I think a mpeg4 movie scaled that have 5 times the resolution of a normal dvd movie, would be better. Although, I gueess you would need a powerfull computer...

    This is actually incorrect, and anyone with an eye accustomed to watching DVDs on properly calibrated setups will argue with this.

    The problem with DivX isn't it's resolution, but the way that it compresses things. The logo on their web page already exhibits motion artifacts on the rack focus, which suggests that there would be some serious artifacts in the backgrounds of Geri's game if they actually showed the trailer.

    Additionally, the image is extremely soft. Detail is lost around the edges (as if they convolve the source signal with a 5x5 gaussian kernel or something similar during encoding to decrease the amount of space video will require after transforming it).

    Also, color banding is present along flat surfaces. This isn't as noticable in 100 kbps DivX as in 12kbps Sorensen video, but it's visible enough to be unwatchable for movie enthusiasts.

    And finally, watching The Matrix in anything but 5.1 sound loses so much due to the transition it almost isn't worthwhile.

    At 1/10 the compression, DivX definitely provides impressive quality, but don't fool yourself into believing that the codec provides DVD-quality video. It is highly optimized for medium-bitrate situations and streaming (e.g., MPEG4), not for high-bitrate environments (e.g., MPEG2). This of course means that DivX scaled to DVD bitrates wouldn't really improve it all that much from its current position.
  • I thought ASF was microsofts mpeg4 and DivX was pretty much the same thing except with mp3/wma audio.

    and VCD is just normal old mpeg ?
  • <i>Anyone else find iMacs hard to consider when buying a workstation?</i>

    It seems to me they would make great X-terminals }:->
    ---
  • To respond to what you said in point number 2, DivX movies *can* be previewed. It is not too well known, but simply go to the File's properties (in Explorer) and click on Preview. The screen is a little smaller, but this does show that it is possible to stream or preview the file before the download is complete.

    From what I understand, it is the fact that it is an AVI file that it can't be played in Windows Media Player before the download is complete.
  • Specifically, DIVX is a hacked M$ mpeg4 codec. It does compression in mpeg4, but allows audio to be in mp3 format or what ever. See http://flashingyellow.com/faqs.html or for the self initiating challenged

    DivX is a very new video compression codec built around Microsoft's MPEG-4 video codec and the MP3 audio codec. It is not only extremely efficient (10:1 compression from a native MPEG-2 DVD stream) but the quality is nothing short of astounding. Unfortunately, the only version out there right now is for Window's and utilizes Window's Media Player, not making for a very good cross-platform situation.

  • Are there the right functions in Apple's QuickTime SDK to write a Sorensen to nice video format proxy server? Would this break any patents / copywirtes?

    If this did work, it could be useful for a lot of people.

    Anyone intrested?

  • As for a two-button mouse...

    Two buttons? Ugh. I'm too used to three (so I can middle click in Netscape or KDE to open something in a new window). Also, how can you get by without a scroll wheel? No two button mice for me, thanks.

    The bus came by and I got on
    That's when it all began
    There was cowboy Neal
    At the wheel
    Of a bus to never-ever land

  • First of all, since the misinformation has already begun to spread, the Divx codec is not related IN ANY WAY to those stupid rental discs.

    Secondly, I've seen full length movies compressed into 660 megs with the Divx codec and they look nearly as good as DVDs, very impressive; looks like VCDs are on their way out (as if they were ever really in...)
  • Can't people come up with a better name than DivX? To me the name brings back awful memories of times past when a certain retailer tried to foist some pay per view scheme on the public. My skin crawls whenever I see that word, and I have to look closely to be sure of what the hell I am looking at is not what I think it is.
  • Not quite. RedHat reveals all the source that it has to release, makes its distro available for download, and allows for myriad distros based off of it (see Mandrake and all the PPC-based distros except Debian). This is very different from a truly proprietary vendor, which won't do any of these.
  • From the DivX Faq [flashingyellow.com]:

    Q: Isn't DivX that thing from Circuit City? A: Nope, DivX, is just a little too easily confused with DIVX, a now defunct DVD rental format pioneered (created just to piss people off?) by Circuit City.

  • No please not for the KDE/GNOME project! I don't want to be forced to install multitudes of libraries, Corba and/or run some desktop environment just to watch multimedia stuff.

    It may use any toolkit (such as gtk) but should not force you to run a particular desktop/windowmanager.

    btw I use twm (since 12 years) and will never abandon it.
  • Yay. You get 2 points on the board.. Um, someone moderate this post the hell up!
  • Well, as far as I could figure out, it's a nifty compression scheme that can compress DVD-Video 10:1.

    I think it should have some good support for streaming DVD if the time comes where there is enough bandwidth available.

  • Re:DivX Revival (Score:4)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:21AM (#1083687) Homepage
    The MPEG 4 divx standard is totally unrelated to the DIVX fiasco. The name sharing is confusing but since one of them no longer exists it doesn't really hurt to reuse the name, I gues.

    Anyway mpeg4 divx is a compression standard which apparently delivers good compression rates at the price of performance. Both encoding and decoding is more expensive than mpeg2. The result however is not bad. Apparently it is possible to compress a dvd to fit on one cd. Also the quality is not bad apparently although I have heard various reports about that ranging from "nearly as good as DVD" to worse than VCD. I suppose it depends very much on the type of movie you encode.
  • Yeah, but what is it good for? Besides piracy why would I ever want to dump a DVD to CD?

  • Competition? (Score:3)

    by Vanders ( 110092 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:22AM (#1083689) Homepage
    Intead of setting coders against each other to port the MPEG4/DivX codec, shouldn't they be encouraging them to work together, share the work load and the source code between the developers, and um, get the job done quicker?

  • linux port of quicktime (Score:4)

    by blakestah ( 91866 ) <blakestah@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:23AM (#1083690) Homepage
    hoping the Linux port of Quicktime ever gets completed

    What is wrong with xanim [pubnix.com] ?? It plays quicktime movies, and uses ALL available codecs. Apple is preventing usage of the most common Sorensen codec under linux, and also failing to port their player to linux. In short, they are trying to dominate online movies while ACTIVELY blocking any use of their movie format under linux. Several other codecs provide Mark Podlipec with NDAs, and he links their codecs in as binary libraries - thus not revealing their source.

    From the xanim home page
    I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others. You may want to nicely send a single email message to Sorenson and Apple asking about unix and/or xanim support for the Sorenson video codec.

    Sorensen email: support@s-vision.com
    Apple: wish@hype.quicktime.apple.com

  • This contest seems like a wasted effort since Apple's QuickTime file spec was submitted and ACCEPTED to the MPEG as the basis for MPEG4.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple will eventualy release MPEG4 codecs native for the Mac. Still, its good to see people bringing open source efforts/attention to the MacPPC platform.

    I'm still waiting for the PowerPC Open motherboards to show up.

    --
  • $5000 + an IMac is not a good price for something advanced like mpeg4. Almost any programmer can code a word-editor, or even a simple image manipulation program, given enough time, but when it comes to the more advanced audio and video codecs... it's heavy stuff. And this is also something you also almost always have to work with on a full-time basis, to produce any usefull code at all. I once tried to learn how MPEG1 works, and while reading the specs, I must admit I understood little of it.

    Anyway, even though all odds are against me, I would like to learn this stuff. And I need good pointers to documentation about it (not describing MPEG, but more about basic video-compression techniques).
  • I know I would be less apt to download a perfect quality movie illegaly of the internet (not that I do) if they did away with stupid bullshit like comercials on rental tapes, which I'm starting to hear reports of apearing on dvd.
    Tyranny = Government choosing how much power to give the people.
  • Maybe some of our filthy rich .org Linux companies should also donate a prize?:)

  • Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The quality of Divx/mpeg4 is very much dependent on the quality of the source that is used. Encoding a dvd usually renders a quality close to the original, while trying to encode a video source will give you disastrous quality.

    Also size is a factor. Fullscreening a 352*288 divx encoded movie clip is not very pleasant.

    But if you have a windows box, go pic up a few examples of divx encoded movie trailers here:

    http://divx.ctw.cc/

  • Someone moderate that one up as Funny or Insightful or something.

    I love the irony here. It's not unlike using Linux to keep old hardware in service, but it's much more insidious because an open-source Divx codec runs precisely counter to the entire intent of the system.

    In any case, I don't know that it can be stopped: DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability, and this has got to be (IANAL) a crystal-clear case of same. It's not piracy; people who got burned on Divx just want to be able to watch their movies.

    Go with this, folks...

    /Brian
  • Indeed, i guess that DivX is the next big thing after mp3s. With more and more people being able to use broadband access ...
    After the RIAA, there comes the Holywood&co :)

    Then what would be next? Some streaming video action?

  • note: I refer to linux constantly, despite that not being the intended target of the contest - it's just that it'll end up there, too - and I could care less about QT and Macs right now. Sure, that's rather biased of me - but I can admit it, at least.

    DivX is nothing more than a hacked version of the Microsoft MPEG4 codecs (there are three of them), allowing people to use the codecs w/ AVIs, not just ASFs. I have yet to see someone use DivX for something OTHER than video piracy in some form or another.

    Sure MPEG4 would be great, but I'd rather be able to watch DVDs under linux and pipe the audio out through my SB Live! to my Technics SH-AC500D decoder, than watch ASFs (or as DivX is intended, AVIs) that use the MS MPEG4 codec.

    Since DivX is really a hacked MS codec, the prize is really for taking upon the burdon of reverse engineering a microsoft product and thus being the target of endless persecution, all for $5000 and an iMac DV SE. When MS is done with you, you won't even have your OLD computer.

    Having a MPEG4 codec for Linux that is compatible with that of MS's wouldn't be so bad, for those wanting to create media servers that run linux and not MS OSes. That's a justifiable reason for it.

    Also, I think Flashingyellow is likely to get burned as well, because they're not only asking for a reverse engineered and ported MS codec, but one from the hacked version thereof, which is almost certainly illegal to create and distribute (I'm sure there's a license agreement somewhere stating that).

    The only reason to specify DivX is that it allows read/writing AVIs - but then, if you're going to reverse engineer it anyways, that's a simple thing to take care of. No need to specify DivX. Except that, perhaps, they'd get MS's attention a wee bit faster by refering to it for what it is, the Microsoft MPEG-4 codecs.

    OK, I'm not sure if I said everything I intended to, but... I can't think of anything else to say, NOW..
  • Also, I think DVD piracy is stupid (after spending all that time on ripping and encoding the DVD, you could have worked a minimum wage job to pay for it!) and NOT AT ALL a justifiable reasion for reverse engineering the MPEG4 codecs.

    The MPEG4 codecs can be useful in other ways, that aren't so blatently illegal. I.e., recording your own home videos, or music videos (quasi legal/illegal), etc.

    And don't give me that "I'm just backing it up" crap, we all know that's bullshit. "backing it up" to VHS I can see, but MPEG4? That'll look like such crap, I wouldn't wanna watch it.
  • Is the Low motion and high motion codecs. yeah, its mpeg-4, but the codecs are what make the difference. mpeg-4 is just the way the player talks to the codecs.....

  • I've got quite a few items encoded in DivX. This CODEC is just SWEET. The audio ends up coming out very nice, and the video quality beats the hell out of ASF (which I thought looked pretty good for the filesize). I just configure the codec to eat up a whole CD, and the resultant video comes out looking great.

    The movie industry recently said that bandwidth and stuff just isn't available to pirate movies yet.....say hello to DivX. Note that I am not supporting movie pirating; it's just that the industry simply cannot ignore the issue any longer.

  • Re:DivX not DIVX! (Score:3)

    by Radiation ( 18684 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2000 @04:31AM (#1083708)
    Sorry to tell you, but DivX is not a microsoft product, it's a hack based on microsofts version of MPEG-4. This http://divx.ctw.cc/ is the developers site.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close