Talk:Xvid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xvid article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Lossless conversion tools?

I'd like to extract the I-frames as JPEG without lossy recompression. (see jpegtran for the general idea) I have the video in AVI container files.

I'd like to remove audio from some of my videos.

I might want to losslessly crop or rotate too.

Command-line tools for Linux would be great.

AlbertCahalan 05:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Lossless crop is impossible, as you is changing the image. Imagine if the codec use one of the croped pixels for motion estimation for example. It is a mess. The same can be said for rotate.
For extract audio losslessly you can use Virtualdub, in Windows, or Avidemux, in linux. Manabu 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I can see that you are right about losslessly cropping a video, but I still think rotation should work. Why not? One should be able to simply flip some coordinates; this would include the motion vectors. AlbertCahalan 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to losslessly extract an I-frame as JPEG? I'd be 1/2 happy if I could at least get the Y channel to be lossless and the other channels not going through RGB, if perhaps there is a compression block alignment problem. AlbertCahalan 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

My apologies for saying "Reverted edits by Tnikkel" in my last edit - it should read "Reverted edits by 201.6.16.70", as the clueless edit was made by 201.6.16.70. J. M. 09:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to http://www.xvid.org/v1_1_comparison.pdf about the analysis of the rewritten REALmagic code points to a 404. This should be changed to point to a current version of that document or the link should be removed if no ocpies exist anymore.

[edit] Clarification of legal status necessary

Under legal it says:

"However the legal usage of XviD may still be restricted by local laws. (See mailing list discussions [1], [2], [3].)"

The citations are over four years old and may no longer be relevant. Anyone know the current legal status of XviD?

I was wondering that myself. I've looked at the xvid webpage, and there has never been any discussion of licensing issues. The closest I could find was [1] --I80and 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Questions

Okay, is it safe to have XviD and DivX on the same computer?

Yes. Ashibaka tock 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Probabily, but this is not necessary if you only want to decode them. For decoding only FFDShow shoud be fine for both. Manabu 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, generally FFDShow is preferable. But I'd rather use the XVID codec to encode my files, because it plays on on my DivX DVD player pretty well, somethings outdoing the DivX quality. For some reason, FFDShow XviD files become scrambled when I view them. Mazinkaiser666 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

The following is taken from the article:

XviD is a main "competitor" of DivX (XviD spelled backwards). While DivX is closed source and is designed to run on Windows, Mac OS and Linux, XviD is open source and runs on multiple platforms, including Windows, Mac OS and GNU/Linux.

The same platforms are listed, yet the wording seems to indicate that XviD has an advantage in that area.—Kbolino 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, XviD does have an advantage in that area. As an open-source product, it can be compiled on any operating system - Windows, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, Mac OS, Solaris etc. etc. Originally, the sentence in the article said that XviD was designed to run on Windows, Linux and Mac OS, while DivX was designed to run on Windows. The GNU/Linux was added later to DivX. So yes, now it says basically the same thing, but it was nonsense even before - XviD is not designed to run on Windows, Linux and Mac OS, XviD is simply a cross-platform library that can run on any OS (not only Windows, Linux and Mac OS). J. M. 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, DivX is only marginally usable in Linux - there was no DivX for Linux between 2003-2006 and now, in 2006, there's only some x86 version for developers with restricted usage, which still more or less means that DivX for Linux does not exist. J. M. 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I know what open source is, and I know that it can run on any compliant platform, but the wording in the article does not say that, which is what the reader will see. Perhaps you could clarify, as you have done for me?—Kbolino 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I clarified things a bit. Hope it helps.
Yep, thanks.—Kbolino 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
J.M., your clarifications seem to have been lost on the main page. It may be better to just re-do that paragraph with the much better explanation text you have provided above. --Todd 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the current explanation in the article basically says what I said, just much more concisely. Do you think it should be explained in more detail in the article? — J. M. 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think paragraph #3 should be changed because at that early point in the article, the reader does not know much of the details, and saying Xvid runs on all platforms when DivX runs on Windows, Mac. and Linux, is simply confounding the reader (they are thinking, what other platforms are there besides these three?). Maybe the cross-platform advantage should be dropped altogether at this point, even though I, as a sw. eng., personally understand the fine points you are making above. --Todd 22:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But still, I think it could be mentioned in a way that's less confusing. What about something like "While DivX is proprietary, closed source software, Xvid is free, open source software and, unlike DivX, can be used on many different platforms and operating systems." — J. M. 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus, of course, like I said earlier, there is basically no DivX for Linux. For a regular user — there is no known playback/encoding Linux software that supports DivX anymore. And the unofficial x86 DivX for Linux is obsolete, with a limited feature set and not officially available from the main website. Plus it's only for developers, not for regular users. This means that DivX is available only for Windows and Mac OS and that's also why I think the cross-platform advantage is important enough and should be really mentioned in the article. — J. M. 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a modification of your description: "While DivX is proprietary, closed source software with no known/practical Linux support, Xvid is a true cross-platform, free, open source software and, unlike DivX, can be used on many different platforms and operating systems, including Linux." -- Todd 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that this can make things more clear for some readers, I'm not sure if it's precise and neutral enough for Wikipedia — people may argue that you can use DivX on Linux if you want to — that is, if you download the "unofficial" version for developers and write your own encoding program that uses the divx4linux library, or if you use the ~3 years old divx4linux version with MPlayer/MEncoder version that's old enough (DivX support has been removed from MPlayer/MEncoder). I think it could be quite controversial. It might require longer, more detailed explanation and I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Anyway, I modified the sentence in the article and made it as simple as possible. Now, if you want to add anything, like the Linux explanation, feel free to do it — we'll see if someone reverts or modifies it. — J. M. 13:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks - this exchange has been very informative for me. Hope to meet you some day, I bet you know a lot about video technology. I only know a little, about MS DirectShow, a horrible way of displaying video! Regards -- Todd 22:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XviD on Mac OS X

In the article, there is a link with the title "Download the XviD Codec for Windows or Mac" linking to xvidmovies.com. The Mac codec you can download there is technically not a version of XviD; it's unrelated code that tells the DivX component to decode XviD. It's now obsolete, as DivX 5.2 and later do what it did. The only QuickTime component as far as I know that actually uses the XviD library is Christoph Nägeli's, at http://n.ethz.ch/student/naegelic/. Since the Windows version at xvidmovies.com is Koepi's, which is already linked to right above it, I suggest replacing the link with a link to Nägeli's component.—Dicey 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. J. M. 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPEG-4 compatibility

How compatible is XviD with MPEG-4 (and in which direction?)? Some of the references mention it in passing, but I can't seem to find a definitive cite (e.g. in the XviD FAQ). 202.55.146.66 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Xvid

Xvid has a new homepage (more commercially oriented) and also a new name — apparently, it's not XviD anymore, it's now Xvid. So I think the article name should be changed from XviD to Xvid and the XviD words in the article should be changed to Xvid, too. Also, they have a new logo (which should replace the current one in the article), plus these changes and new things (the Xvid Solutions company etc.) should be mentioned there, too. — J. M. 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XviD, DivX, LOL!

I have just realised that XviD is DivX backwards! LOL! Also, it is not made by the same people, Legal Problem??

What legal problem? And I didn't know there was anyone (who knew what XviD was) who didn't know about the DivX<->XviD connection. It's also explained in the article. — J. M. 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Free software: Xvid is now the selected article

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Free Pascal - which celebrated it's 2.2 release not long ago. --Gronky 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the world turned a few times, as we all knew it would, and the selection moved on. It's now ImageMagick - the command line image editor/processor. --Gronky 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caph

What does it mean, Xvid-Caph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.172.132 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Caph appears to be a group that releases pirated videos on P2P networks. Such videos are usually marked like "name.codec-group" in the filename (e.g. "Some_Movie.Xvid-Caph.avi" or something similar). —J. M. 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Companies that were forced to release source code due to the GPL?

I find this notable and relevant. Leaf (company) --68.161.151.224 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divx 4 Linux

Since J.M. felt the need to revert my changes, I guess I need to point out the obvious... The "facts" about Divx for Linux in the article are simply not accurate.

  • According to the cited link[2] Divx 6.1.1 for Linux was released on 02/12/2007, just over 1 year ago, that makes it about 6 months older than the most recent Windows version, and no-one is claiming that's out of date, discontinued, unsupported, etc.
  • The license grants everyone permission to use it for non-commercial, personal use, which is exactly the same restrictions as the license for Divx for Windows/Mac. It says nothing like "developers only".
  • It is not directly available from the front page of the website... So what?

Rcooley (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is more than 2 years old. They just updated the DivX Labs website in 2007, that's why the article confused you with the incorrect 2007 date. But it is the same old version from 2006, the same old DivX Labs article from 2006. More exactly, it was released on 2006-02-01, as you can see from the actual .tar.gz file.
  • It is not directly available from the official DivX download page, which clearly means the DivX company does not officially offer it anymore. DivX Labs is just that—DivX Labs. They used to offer the Linux version officially several years ago, but since then, they switched to the Windows & Mac only offerings. DivX for Linux is clearly dead, and has been for a very long time.—J. M. (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing—you forgot to cite the whole sentence: "This License Agreement grants you the right to use the Software for personal use only in order to evaluate and provide feedback about it to DivX, Inc." This means that software released on DivX Labs is not official DivX software for end-users, these are just technology previews for testing purposes. That's why I'm removing the DivX4Linux from the article once again, because there is simply no official DivX for Linux anymore.—J. M. (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You're correct about the date. I'm not so sure you're correct about it being discontinued, as opposed to just happening to be old and less frequently released than the Windows version...
However, you're certainly wrong about the EULA. EULA.txt does NOT even contain the word "feedback" at all. Rcooley (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The EULA does not say it, but then, the DivX Labs website itself says software products available there are not official DivX releases for end users, no matter if the EULA allows you to use them for anything you want. The last DivX version for Linux that was released officially by the DivX company was DivX 5.0.5—and that was in 2003 (which also tends to confirm that DivX for Linux is really dead, plus, they don't offer it anywhere anymore).
Anyway, as it seems to be a controversial topic, what about something like this: "Xvid is free software distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License. This also means that unlike the DivX codec, which is only available for a limited number of platforms, Xvid can be used on all platforms and operating systems for which the source code can be compiled." In my opinion, there are two advantages: first, it is undoubtedly true, secondly, it is shorter—I don't think the introductory paragraphs need to go into all those details about a competing product, it is quite distracting.—J. M. (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good on all counts. Rcooley (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)