


DivX Codec Port Contest 106
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 $5000 and an iMac DV Special Edition."
Not the GPL please! (Score:2)
--
Re:divx is an illegal implementation of m$'s mpeg4 (Score:1)
Re:linux port of quicktime (Score:1)
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).
Um, is this legal? (Score:1)
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.
Re: illegal? this is called innovation.. (Score:1)
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 ;-) ;-) is there? ;-)
Wonder why that
Re: illegal? this is called innovation.. (Score:1)
Mind you, that is aside from the whole piracy bit.
------------------
Re:What a horrible name to call it (Score:1)
Re:linux port of quicktime (Score:1)
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.
Re:Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:1)
perhaps the ASFs you saw were just encoded at lower quality than the DiVXs.
Re:SuperVCD will rule!! (Score:1)
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?
Re:DivX Quality? (Score:1)
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
Actually it's much better... (Score:1)
xanim is horrible (Score:1)
Re:The Divx codec is amazing... (Score:2)
As long as DVD players play VCD and not some weirdo mpeg4 variant, VCDs are the only acceptable thing to get.
Re:DivX not DIVX! But Why? (Score:1)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
HELLO? Legal consequences anyone? (Score:1)
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] /
Re:xanim is horrible (Score:2)
um, MPEG-4? What? (Score: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
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.
Well, now we know what people really DeCSS for (Score:1)
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:
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
GPL makes no sense.. here's why (Score:2)
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
Re:Would an open source implementation be legal? (Score:1)
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
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
Hey, hows about a Sorenson contest (Score:1)
Re:Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:2)
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!
Re:linux port of quicktime (Score:2)
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)
http://divx.ctw.cc/
for more info about the hacked format
Would an open source implementation be legal? (Score:4)
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.
DivX is good. We need something better... (Score:1)
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)
Re: illegal? this is called innovation.. (Score:1)
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]
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
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 is complete! (Score:1)
not quite dvd quality, but.... (Score:1)
-MoOsEb0y
Re:What a prize! (Score:1)
Re:DivX Quality? (Score:1)
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
Re:DivX not DIVX! But Why? (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that we ran out of every other possible combination of letters. I suggest MivZ
-----
Re:Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:1)
have you noticed (Score:1)
Re:I krush your hed! (Score:1)
DivX codec and streaming.... (Score:2)
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.
I'll do it! (Score:1)
I want
Low bitrate streaming? (Score:1)
Re:Quicktime for Linux is complete! (Score:1)
Re:Not the GPL please! (Score:2)
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
Britney Spears (Score:1)
"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)
Re:DivX not DIVX! (Score:1)
You can get Mac RAR tools here [macrar.free.fr]
GPL and .... ???? (Score:1)
$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)
Re:DivX Quality? (Score:1)
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.
Quick quote (Score:1)
"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!"
Re:um, MPEG-4? What? (Score:1)
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 Revival (Score:1)
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)
Re:What a horrible name to call it (Score:1)
DivX and open sorce (Score:1)
DivX not DIVX! (Score:5)
DivX Quality? (Score:4)
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.
Use DivX with DIVX? (Score:1)
"Futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis"
Re:Would an open source implementation be legal? (Score:1)
Codecs, Patents, and other issues (Score:2)
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.
Re:What a prize! (Score:2)
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)
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.
A standalone DiVX player (Score:1)
DivX?! Yeah, Yeah! (Score:1)
For more info on DivX ;-) [for newbies] (Score:1)
Re:DivX Quality? (Score:1)
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.
Imacs = trash (Score:1)
or something.
DivX? DIVX? (Score:2)
Party poopers.
--
Re:Actually it's much better... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:1)
and VCD is just normal old mpeg ?
Re:What a prize! (Score:1)
It seems to me they would make great X-terminals }:->
---
Re:DivX codec and streaming.... (Score:1)
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.
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
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.
Sorensen server (Score:1)
If this did work, it could be useful for a lot of people.
Anyone intrested?
Two buttons? (Score:1)
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
The Divx codec is amazing... (Score:2)
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...)
What a horrible name to call it (Score:2)
Re:Not the GPL please! (Score:1)
Re:DivX ? (Score:1)
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.
Re:xanim is horrible (Score:1)
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.
Re:DivX not DIVX! (Score:1)
Re:DivX ? (Score: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)
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.
Re: illegal? this is called innovation.. (Score:1)
Competition? (Score:3)
linux port of quicktime (Score:4)
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
Contest seems like a Waste... (Score:1)
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.
--
On video codecs and the price (Score:1)
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).
Re:Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:1)
Tyranny = Government choosing how much power to give the people.
Some other sponsors? (Score:1)
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
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/
Re:DivX Revival (Score:1)
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
Re:The Divx codec is amazing... (Score:1)
After the RIAA, there comes the Holywood&co
Then what would be next? Some streaming video action?
DivX? BAH! (Score:1)
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..
Re:DivX? BAH! [addendum] (Score:1)
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.
what makes DivX better.... (Score:1)
Excellent Quality for the filesize (Score:2)
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)