Page 1 of 2
History of Divx
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:15 am
by Tempus
Again something some of you will know and some not. Bob this was the article I was telling you about before
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1229756,00.asp
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:04 pm
by [PX]IronFist
By this time next year, DivX will be in the public lexicon.
It always kind of amazes me how long it takes for things to become main stream. For me (and I assume for most of us) DivX is old news, we have been using this compression technology for atleast 3 years, where as the general public is only catching on to it now.
Just another reminder of how far ahead of the technology curve we all are. Sometimes I wonder how regular people can use the internet and not know about this stuff, but I guess that is the norm, and we are the exception.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:35 pm
by Tempus
you also have to remember that a lot of the people on the internet are retards anyways.... that and/or basically computer illiterate...
on top of that some are just not into the 'undernet' side of things... like my dad... BA in comp sci (updated as of a yr ago) but wouldnt have any idea about compressions/ ripping that kinda thing... just the way things work...
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:57 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Ah, but do you encode with Ogg Vorbis?
We can always push the envelope further. It's what being a computer enthusiast is all about...........for me, anyways.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:45 pm
by Tempus
for sure... pushing the envelope is great! and i have started to look into Ogg.... I am actually just getting back into the swing of things in terms of my movie collection
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:55 pm
by Ghost [PX]
I looked into Ogg about 9 months ago. Then it showed major promise, but I dont see it taking hold anytime soon.
The fact that you would have to re-rip all your songs from an original cd to make it worthwhile will turn off alot of people...
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:03 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
They have apps that go mp3->Ogg now.
Heck, I found a prog that will batch all one's mp3's -> mp3pro.
Now I just need to remember where I stored the link to it
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:01 pm
by Ghost [PX]
You could go from Ogg->mp3 for a while, but you lose quality. The same occurs when converting from mp3->mp3Pro.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 5:15 pm
by [PX]IronFist
mp3pro has always been a little too lossy for me.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:23 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Well, if you're gonna moan about quality, go buy the CD.
FM quality is good enough for me (heck, since I usually listen to classic rock most of the CD's are at that quality anyways).
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:25 pm
by [PX]IronFist
I just think that Mp3 is the best solution, small size and quality which is almost identical to CD.
The loss in quality isn't really worth it for the few megs you save.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:29 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
10 gig mp3 = 20 gig mp3pro
Seems worth it to me.
Plus, Ogg Vorbis has superior quality at a smaller price than mp3. It's actually the best overall solution. It's just not that common.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:37 pm
by [PX]IronFist
THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Ogg Vorbis has superior quality at a smaller price than mp3.
I think the "superior quality" of Ogg Vorbis is highly questionable. Anytime you are screwing with the actual audible notes of a song (which is all that's left after Mp3), the quality has the potential to degrade.
It's great (ie. better than Mp3) at low bitrates, which means that it's good for streaming technology. Once you get into higher bitrates it tends to perform less well.
THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:10 gig mp3 = 20 gig mp3pro
I would much rather have better audio and have it take 20 gigs, 10 gigs isn't really that big a deal when you have alot of space.
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:23 am
by Ghost [PX]
Actually, Ogg performs better at higher bitrates since it has more room to work with. The quality fo the encoded song is much better with Ogg, and the file sizes smaller.
I tried it myself to see. Same song at 192kbits from same cd. about a megs difference and no difference in sound at all.
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:06 pm
by [PX]IronFist
Well, by less well, I mean basically identical to Mp3. If there is no improvement I see no reason to switch to this format if I am only going to save a few 100 K (a 10% savings is typical).
Mp3 has been around for 9 years and people wonder why none of these new formats have caught on. It's because their better, but not that much better, and no one is going to convert all their songs to a new format to save a few gigs.
I think the only way this other stuff will take off (Mp3pro, Ogg Vorbis, ACC, ...etc) is if the creaters of Mp3 start charging more royalties or restricting the use of the format (possibly under pressure from the RIAA).