Talk:Xvid

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

http://n.ethz.ch/%7Enaegelic/index.php http://n.ethz.ch/student/naegelic/ done--Efa2 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

o u want your company noted? Markthemac (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Recent edits (supported formats, external links)

Regarding the recent edits that you keep adding to the article, under various IP addresses:

1. Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. The link to http://www.xviddecoder.com is obviously spam, as it firstly has nothing to do with the article, secondly, the description "unofficial Xvid decoder" is clearly misleading, as there is only one Xvid decoder, there can't be any "unofficial" one (because Xvid is a software product—for example, there can't be any "unofficial Microsoft Internet Explorer" either, there is only one).
2. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Your edits are totally clueless, completely wrong in every aspect and utterly confused in so many areas that it's difficult to list them all. But I'll try:

-The "Supported codec/formats" section does not make any sense because Xvid supports only one format—MPEG-4 ASP.

-Therefore, the "Supported codec/formats" section does not make any sense in the context of the whole article because it contradicts all essential information that's written in it.

-The "Supported codecs/formats" section does not make any sense because Xvid is a codec. A codec is a computer program (or a hardware device) that encodes/decodes data (to/from some format). Which means that Xvid supports only one codec—itself. "Supporting video encoded with other codecs" absolutely does not mean "supporting codecs". Xvid can decode video encoded with other codecs if the video is in the same format that Xvid uses—MPEG-4 ASP. Which is the general compatibility principle that Xvid shares with the whole computer industry. Compatibility is one of the most basic terms that any person who tries to edit computer-related Wikipedia articles should understand. For example, when you create a PNG image in Adobe Photoshop and succesfully open it in Corel Photopaint, it absolutely does not mean Corel Photopaint "supports Adobe Photoshop" or even "supports the Adobe Photoshop format" (and I'm not talking about PSD here, this is about PNG support). It only means it supports PNG. The difference between software products and formats is one of the most basic things any Wikipedia editor should understand before they try to edit a computer-related article.

-The "Supported codecs/formats" section does not make any sense because it does not list any formats or codecs. It lists FourCCs. FourCC is not a format, and FourCC is not a codec. FourCC is a four-character code typically used as meta information in AVI files.

-The recent "Playback of other formats/codecs" title does not improve things either, because you don't play back codecs. A codec is a computer program (typically a library) and you don't play back computer programs. Video players play video (that's encoded in some format—again, you don't play back the format, but the video).

-The "Supported codecs/formats" section would not make any sense even if it was renamed to "Xvid can decode video encoded with the following codecs:", because it would have to list all MPEG-4 ASP-compliant codecs on earth.

-The "Supported codecs/formats" section would not make any sense even if it was renamed to "Supported FourCCs", because Xvid does not support FourCCs (even if the VfW/DirectShow component can register itself for some selected FourCCs in the Microsoft Windows operating system—firstly, Xvid and the VfW/DS filter are two different things, secondly, Xvid is not a Windows-only product, thirdly, Xvid supports any FourCC even on Microsoft Windows, just like on any other operating system). Xvid decodes video streams. FourCCs are included in AVI files, but firstly, you can put ANY FourCC into an AVI file, and, if it contains MPEG-4 ASP video, Xvid can decode the stream (for example you can use mplayer -vc xvid file.avi). Regardless of the FourCC. For example, the FourCC can be XYZ9. Yes, Xvid can decode video that was marked as XYZ9. Not only in theory, this is common practice (for example, digital camera producers are fond of inventing their own FourCCs for MPEG-4 video captured by their devices, but Xvid can decode it, regardless of the exotic FourCC). FourCC means absolutely nothing, zero, zip, etc. FourCC is just four irrelevant characters that have absolutely zero influence on Xvid's ability to decode things (again, the fact that DirectShow in MS Windows says "unknown codec" for unknown FourCCs does not change this). So the section "Supported FourCCs" would have to list every possible combination of four characters, and I'm sure you understand that would be absurd. Secondly, FourCC is just an obsolete mechanism used in the archaic AVI format, but does not exist in modern formats anymore. Xvid is an MPEG-4 codec. The standard MPEG-4 container is MP4. There is no FourCC in MP4, MPEG-4 video is marked as MPEG-4 video in MP4, no matter if it was encoded with Xvid, DivX, FFmpeg, QuickTime, 3ivx or whatever. Which is only logical, because MPEG-4 video is MPEG-4 video, period (if it's not MPEG-4 video, it's not MPEG-4 video—but Xvid is an MPEG-4 codec and supports MPEG-4 video, for both encoding and decoding). The same in Matroska, for example. Which, again, means that you can encode video with an unknown MPEG-4 codec called SuperDuperMP4Star, put it in an MP4 file, and play it back in an MP4 player, using Xvid for decoding. It absolutely does not matter at all if the Xvid authors have never heard of that SuperDuperMP4Star codec (and therefore the VfW/DS component does not support the FourCC that does not even exist in the MP4 file anyway). But this is a completely natural thing that applies to MPEG-2 codecs (again, encode with any MPEG-2-compliant encoder, decode with any MPEG-2-compliant decoder), MP3 codecs (encode with any MP3-compliant encoder, decode with any MP3-compliant decoder), or any other codecs, or generally to any other kind of software. So I don't even think it is necessary to discuss this most obvious principle here.—J. M. (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think at least one of the edits was useful for me, at least, as a consumer, not a technocrat, which explained to me the problem with videos in div3 codec. Unfortunately, the above belletristic is not readable (too much), can we maybe have a summary instead? Loner1979 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the summary is: Xvid supports one video format, MPEG-4 ASP.—J. M. (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that reference that installation of xvid codec allows auto-playback (support) of other ones is irrelevant? That would have helped me for sure, if I treated Wiki as a source of information instead going through news archives and numerous forums. I mean I lost a lot of time because I didn't find any info when I needed it. Loner1979 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The first and most important thing is that you cannot add nonsense to Wikipedia. Saying "Xvid allows playback of the following codecs/formats" and then listing a couple FourCCs is a prime example of patent nonsense. You can only say things that actually make sense. But this is the equivalent of saying "The Russian pope George Bush likes the following movies: The Beatles, Coca-Cola and Manchester United". Totally confused nonsense. Yes, the article could mention the DirectShow filter in Microsoft Windows can register itself for a couple of FourCCs. That would be accurate and true. Then, it's a question of adding this information sensibly, without delving into too much detail and taking too much space (because it is rather specific information that applies only to DirectShow/VfW and the AVI format, not to Xvid in general), while still being accurate. —J. M. (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

XViD build numbers

I've got ffdshow which displays the video encoder info. It always shows XVID build numbers instead of version number. The biggest number I've got is "Build 41". Is there a way we can correlate build numbers with version numbers? Thanks. 88.105.108.133 (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The info was added but removed by User:J._M. for unclear reasons. I've added it again. There's plenty of room in the article, the referenced sources are as sound as one will find. doom9 is a usual hangout for video software developers, including Xvid and x264 developers, and commercial video-related developers, and is one of the primary video-related forums on the internet. The only other "source" to quote is the Xvid source code files, including historic.

Regarding "worthiness", are CD, DVD, and BD read speeds worthy of whole tables? That info is listed in the related articles, yet is more trivial to arrive at than Xvid encoder identifiers stored in the video stream. And there's room for both. I certainly find the Xvid build identifier info useful, as did the above commenter. ¤ ehudshapira 01:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Xvid being DivX spelled backwards"

I think it may actually be the other way around... DivX is actually Xvid spelled backwards.

It would make more sense to name a video codec Xvid... like x-video, for example, than DivX.... In fact, X is the name of the Linux GUI and window system, so X-video codec would make even more sense.

And it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the company behind Divx took the free source code and modified it, to make some money.

Or can someone prove that DivX actually came out before Xvid did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.81.18 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by DivX. The "DivX ;-)" codec (yes, the smiley was a part of the name) was made in the late 1990s (it was the hacked Microsoft codec), but people were often calling it just "DivX", even though it was (and is) not correct. Then, there was the open-source OpenDivX project where people tried to make a new MPEG-4 codec from scratch. People were commonly calling it "DivX", too, even though it was actually OpenDivX. And since closing the OpenDivX source code and re-releasing it as the proprietary DivX codec by the DivX company was the reason why Xvid came into existence (to take up where OpenDivX left off), Xvid was, indeed a reaction to DivX. Both DivX and Xvid were initially based on the OpenDivX source code. Furthermore, Xvid was called XviD back then. The capital D suggests that XviD was, indeed, DivX spelled backwards.—J. M. (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

CPU Usage & Picture Quality

Try as I might, NOBODY seems to have compared video-codecs in terms of quality (error-rate from original, uncompressed video) and of CPU power. NOWHERE gives a core-mark or Dhrystones value for this and all of the other codecs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xvid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081120113023/http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/M4VCrossRef.pdf to http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/M4VCrossRef.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080924190745/http://n.ethz.ch:80/~naegelic/index.php to http://n.ethz.ch/%7Enaegelic/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The patent list is valid, but the other link seems to have been removed. Thank you. FosterHaven (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xvid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070825055338/http://www.xvid.org:80/FAQ.14.0.html to http://www.xvid.org/FAQ.14.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The same questions are available at www.xvid.com/faq/, and the specific question in the reference has the exact same answer. That is why I've marked it accordingly; it's no longer needed. Thank you. FosterHaven (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)