Print

[Elemino]

Man I must be old. I remember when divx codec became popular and remember hearing where it originated. Either I'm old or a lot of you are very young.

I also remember the name of this codec confusing people because the name Divx had been used before... anyone of you remember where the original divx name was used?

[CsL]

QUOTE(Elemino @ Jan 19 2009, 11:50 PM)

anyone of you remember where the original divx name was used?

http://en.wikipedia....ki/DivX#History :

QUOTE

The "DivX" brand is distinct from "DIVX" (Digital Video Express), an unrelated attempt by the U.S. retailer Circuit City to develop a DVD rental system requiring special discs and players.

http://en.wikipedia....rcuit_City#DIVX

QUOTE

Circuit City developed and launched DIVX in 1997 as a competitor to DVD. DIVX discs cost $5 each but could only be played for 48 hours before having to pay a continuation fee to continue viewing. Opposition to the format and limited acceptance by the public led Circuit City to discontinue the format in 1999.

[metalcoat]

You forgot about the part where due to Circuit City's poor policies and management they went bankrupt and are now in the liquidation stages.

[spinr34]

divx is a joke. i support this non-partnership between divx and microsoft. the longer, the better.

[Martinchris23]

Here's the press release of MS's reply:

http://www.microsoft...se/01192009.asp








 

[Elemino]

@ CsL... that was a trivia question. You were supposed to answer from memory, not look it up!  

[krawhitham]

QUOTE(metalcoat @ Jan 19 2009, 11:34 PM)

You forgot about the part where due to Circuit City's poor policies and management they went bankrupt and are now in the liquidation stages.

They never recovered from paying off Disney and others to support their divx discs

[ubiman]

QUOTE(erexx @ Jan 19 2009, 03:50 PM)

You really think they would just easily open the door to ripping your own HD movies and streaming them?
For now TVersity does a good job when it works... but I hear your pain.
Just be patient...
Nope.
Sorry but you going to have to do the math again.
I didn't say Blu-Ray or HD-DVD content... in any case...

Here are some numbers for you.
2 x 1 TB drives is about 1862GB of formatted space (or about 931GB each...)
Most DVD's average 6.5GB or less.
Most CD's are <750MB
Most Blu-Rays or HD-DVD are <25GB

And NO its does not take a Gigabit ethernet.
Max thru put for MPEG is 7MB sec.
Most DVD movies average 4~6MB a second.
A clean 100MB switched ethernet works just fine.

You don't need a 360 or PS3 to pull off really smooth DVD movie streaming.
An Xbox, 100MB ethernet and decent filer is all you need.
I do know that.
I think you are the one who is confused.
Edit: Why would I even consider decompressing an MPEG or VC-1 and streaming that?
It would not only be a waste of time, it would not look any better.
Decompressing an MP3 is NOT going to give you the original WAV file that is on the CD. /Edit

The MPEG-2 that you and I get off of a DVD is the BEST consumer source material that we going to get.
Same with a VC-1 move off of a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.
The WAV we get off the CD is the best we are going to get.

But its NOT the original source.

We will probably never see the master material, we will always get a redux version in a new plastic wrapper.
What we get is a Transfer from the original source.
That source might be 35mm film or Digital Movie camera's, DAT tape and so on.

The newbie community needs to wake up to the difference between something that has been transfered from a master using a codec like VC-1 or MPEG to a consumer media like Blu-Ray or DVD.

AND something that has been re-coded often using the SAME codecs in order to make the file more portable which almost always result in the loss of information from the original source.

I don't see the need to compress or re-compress any of my media any more.
A Tversity Matroska wrapper is in the works for mkv... hopefully that works out.
Something else will probably come along with time.

Dude, what do you think MPEG is and what it does?

Here is a hint: It's not a lawn mower and it doesn't cut grass.

[ThaCrip]

QUOTE(quarky43 @ Jan 19 2009, 03:03 PM)

Screw divx support.  I want better x264 MP4 Matroska AAC AC3 support...  the sooner we can get more mass adoption of the far superior codecs and containers the better off we'll be.

It would be great to have advanced native support for Matroska files.

that's the bottom line cause we already have a great system for DivX/XviD stuff which is the original XBox1 running XBMC.

the only real advantages the XBox360 has over original xbox is that it could support all the fancy Hi-Def stuff (cause it has the CPU power where as original xbox dont) but instead MS gives us handicapped crap.... this reason alone is why i wish the 360 would be hacked so it could run it's own version of XBMC etc on it.

cause MS needs to get .mkv (h264) [x264] support since that seems to be the standard for compressed HI-Def stuff.

i think ms just likes 'control' over people and likes to mess with there heads , that's probably why they dont release .mkv support etc.... or maybe it some sorta BS legal issues?

[cellpunxer]

QUOTE(jdsony @ Jan 20 2009, 12:32 AM)

Well I guess I can give you that MPEG2 is better in that it streams better and it requires little processing power but x264 gives you more in the same size. At the same time I find WAV is slightly better than FLAC despite it being lossless but again it takes roughly twice the space.

I agree the 360's limitations are poor when it comes to media. Give us MKV and get rid of the 4gb file size limit. Microsoft doesn't seem to realize what people want.

DIVX? Who cares. Someone might have 7 years ago. I still have a binder full of DIVX movies but I don't plan on watching them anytime soon. I'd rather opt for DVD quality or higher movies.

Im quite sure that Microsoft is WELL aware that more than a few of us want .mkv support and the removal of the 4gb file size limitation. Considering it would benefit everyone downloading and watching  "scene releases" on our 360, I highly doubt MS would would have support for this. Could you imagine what the effect would be on the amount of rentals of the HD movies available on the marketplace?

[johnnyrico]

doesn't the 4 gig limitation only apply to data on USB connected devices, which is FAT32 related?

what I want is some divX/xvid support for the media center extender, cause using transcode 360 frankly sucks ass.

[majik655]

QUOTE(johnnyrico @ Jan 20 2009, 04:37 AM)

doesn't the 4 gig limitation only apply to data on USB connected devices, which is FAT32 related?

what I want is some divX/xvid support for the media center extender, cause using transcode 360 frankly sucks ass.

Can't you just use tversity to stream instead of the MC extender?

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(Exist2Resist @ Jan 20 2009, 04:21 PM)

TVersity is the pits, have you seen what it does to HD content when streamed? It looks horrible and sub-par.
No thanks, i'll keep my pc connected to my TV and watch HD that way coupled with the 4850, it looks good.

I stream all my HD encoded stuff via TVersity in all its 1080p glory.

If you're having to recode on the fly, then maybe you should have encoded your stuff as WMV VC-1, since it's much better supported.

[MrFish]

QUOTE(johnnyrico @ Jan 20 2009, 12:37 PM)

doesn't the 4 gig limitation only apply to data on USB connected devices, which is FAT32 related?

I still find it hilarious that the 360 supports mac HFS+ (which Microsoft had no hand in), and doesn't support NTFS, Windows' native filesystem.

According to the internets, HFS+ disks plugged into a 360 don't have the 4GB file or 2TB partition limits caused by fat32. But I've not tried it.

I just find it funny that by doing that you can use your Microsoft Xbox 360 ™ with Mac and Linux, but not with Microsoft™ Windows™ XP™ or Microsoft™ Windows™ Vista™.

[MrFish]

QUOTE(Exist2Resist @ Jan 20 2009, 04:21 PM)

TVersity is the pits

TVersity is on my shit list, not for any kind of quality problem, but simply for having one of the worst, stupidest, most ill-conceived architectures in the whole world ever. By default, TVersity runs as a service and a client program, which run in different environments (the service is started by the service control manager, and the UI by the user's shell), but assume they'll see the same resources, even though they don't. This is a dumb thing to be doing; the correct way would be to pass all I/O through the daemon and have an UI that interacts with the daemon, the user, and nothing else. This is what every virus scanner does, and with good reason.

This novel architecture will bite you in weird, unexpected places: got files on a NAS and the temerity to require a password to access them? Screwed. The UI will be able to see them, and the service won't, but that won't stop it trying, and won't stop it spitting up the most obscure error message you'll see in your entire life. Navigate happily to your files in the GUI, only to have the daemon cough up blood when you add them.

Got a server and want to avoid this whole stupid problem by running the daemon in the user's context? Prepare for stress: the daemon won't start in a command window unless you give it a command-line flag that's documented nowhere. "/?"? "--help"? Nope. Documentation? Nope. Obscure corner of some forum on the website.

Oh, and finally, it sucks for only working once, ever. A simple reboot was all that was necessary to make it stop working for good. I can't help but see that as a good thing.