Divx

[RCBH928]

so we can say that Quicktime extension, .mov contains mpeg-4?
if so, why they make it so complex to play different "containers"? Why they don't make everything .divx or .mpeg-4 . They are the standard, no need for avi mov and wmv.

MP4 on the other hand is a more recent container, chiefly advocated by Apple, that can encapsulate more stream types. Most often it'll be MPEG4-AVC (aka H.264 or x264 among other things) video inside it which is vastly superior to ASP thanks to its optimised compression routines (Which also requires more computing power to execute, therefore explaining why it's not mainstream yet in DVD players) along with an AAC track (again, superior to MP3). As an example you can store a DVD-quality rip with surround audio in less space than it would require ASP/Xvid to achieve comparable quality. Youtube HD videos are encoded in H.264 and are a testimony to AVC's superior encoding capabilities.

Well , how much less? Significantly less?
like 50% less?
I care a lot about this because I only have 12GB of bandwidth to use each month, then my connection drops to 512kb

[MrPopo]

so we can say that Quicktime extension, .mov contains mpeg-4?
if so, why they make it so complex to play different "containers"? Why they don't make everything .divx or .mpeg-4 . They are the standard, no need for avi mov and wmv.

Think of it this way. Let's take a Microsoft Word document that's written in Russian. The actual Microsoft Word document is the container. The information is in Russian, which is the codec. In order to play a movie file you have to be able to open up the container and interpret the codec. If you're on Linux you might not want to use the Word doc container, so you instead use the Open Office document as your container. But both documents can have the same information written in Russian. But another document type might not have support for non-ASCII characters. So it would be unable to use the Russian "codec".

As for Quicktime, the reason it exists is that Apple likes doing things its own way. So even though they might have been able to use a different container they decided to go with their own format.

[Pulsar_t]

Well , how much less? Significantly less?
like 50% less?
I care a lot about this because I only have 12GB of bandwidth to use each month, then my connection drops to 512kb

It largely depends on one's perceived assessment of the quality yielded by H.264. I would say an SD resolution movie of 90 minute length would look quite close to its source if you encode it using an advanced profile of H.264 in 500 megs or less, whereas it's quite difficult to reach a comparable level of quality using Xvid, unless you bump up the size to double that. But to achieve such compression levels you'll need a powerful CPU and a fair grasp of compression nuances (many guides are available online), otherwise using standard settings will most probably result in a blocky mess reminiscent of Youtube videos.

[Limewater]

Well , how much less? Significantly less?
like 50% less?
I care a lot about this because I only have 12GB of bandwidth to use each month, then my connection drops to 512kb

I don't quite get what you're saying here. If you're looking at downloading video, you usually don't have much real say in file sizes and codecs. Or is 12GB your monthly upload cap, and you're wanting to send video to friends?

What are you trying to do?

[RCBH928]

Well , how much less? Significantly less?
like 50% less?
I care a lot about this because I only have 12GB of bandwidth to use each month, then my connection drops to 512kb

I don't quite get what you're saying here. If you're looking at downloading video, you usually don't have much real say in file sizes and codecs. Or is 12GB your monthly upload cap, and you're wanting to send video to friends?

What are you trying to do?

I am not trying to do anything, I am wondering about the technology

If people use this kind of compression , then when I download videos from them it will be lighter on my connection.
Same if I was doing the compression myself.

Maybe I want to rip a movie , I dunno...

[executioner]

Its mind blowingly weird that someone doesn't know about divx or xvid until now. Proves you have never pirated a movie, good for you. It has been widely used for encoding and releasing movies on the internet for almost 9-10 years now, the first divx movie I ever got was The Matrix. Its amazingly weird...

[RCBH928]

aren't you guys afraid to pirate?
I do, but police and law is extremely lenient over here.

the $250,000 fine warning on every DVD is extremely scary, and in America they sue you for anything!

[vlame]

aren't you guys afraid to pirate?
I do, but police and law is extremely lenient over here.

the $250,000 fine warning on every DVD is extremely scary, and in America they sue you for anything!

there are laws?

[executioner]

Before we at another pirating debate, there's good news in the adoption of mkv container on media devices and blu ray players. Hopefully everybody will jump on this bandwagon soon. Even divx 7 is said to support it on the upcoming release.

http://www.matroska.org/news/index.html

Not related but this reminds me when there were no car stereos with mp3 supports, and you had to built an mp3 pc for the car or when the first discmans (none of the well know brands, just weird unknown ones) with mp3 came out get them in your car and have lists of your music or just play random music because at first there were no lcd displays with id3 tags support. Good days!