Talk:DivX

Project Rémoulade releases Encoder

In 2009, an alpha version of the DivX H.264 Encoder complete with tutorial was released as part of Project Rémoulade, see http://labs.divx.com/node/6992.

Free version of DivX Codec still available

The article states, "When accessed in April 2007, the Professional version of DivX was only available in the form of a paid release or a 15-day free trial with no adware included. The DivX Player remains available in a long-term free license."

This is a little misleading because it reads as if the DivX Codec is not available for free. After the Pro trial expires the DivX Codec switches to the "Community Codec", which provides most of the same functionality through the selection of encoding presets rather than allowing the user to tweak every option themselves. I.e. high quality DivX files can still be created for free.

XSUB details/how is proprietary defined in this context?

Since XSUB encoding is part of Dr.Divx, the source code for encoding it is available, and even under LGPL:

http://drdivx.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/drdivx/DrDivX/trunk/drffmpeg/libavcodec/xsub.c?view=markup

217.233.130.129 10:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Converting DivX into Avi files

What is a good website to convert DivX files into other files that you can edit in Movie Maker, etc? FREE by the way.

-G

Pronunciation

I'm surprised to see the pronunciation of DivX given as [daɪvˈeks], which I understand to sound like "dive ex." I have always heard it pronounced "div ex" or "divix," with a short 'i' as in the word divination. A quick Google search finds this discussion on the DivX forums, which appears to include employees of the company itself. No one mentions a long 'i' like 'dive.'

http://community.divx.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=264

A couple of other discussions I found also excluded the "dive ex" pronunciation. Is this a mistake or perhaps an international difference? emw 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The topic has moved here: [1]. So you are right that noone mentions the 'dive-ex' pronounciation that was re-added to the article on 25 October 2006 by 157.193.214.17. Some people say 'div-ex', some people say 'div-icks' and the guy from DivX says there's no definite answer, they (at DivX) all pronounce it in different ways. That's why I think the edit by 157.193.214.17 is wrong and should be reverted. — J. M. 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no reply, so I'm removing it from the article. — J. M. 04:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone I know pronounces it as the letters D V X, like "Dee Vee Ecs". Perhaps they're just weird though.

The TWiTs and all their podcasting friends all say, "Divicks," and only one person I know, who was dumb enough to think he could become an USAF officer at 27 when the deadline is 25, calls it, "Div X!" like that everytime. But once the TWiTs and Cringely say Divicks, the pronunication question is now over and that's the common way to say it. 24.48.160.108 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I've only heard it pronounced "div ex" which I would say is the most logical way to pronounce it going by spelling, DivX separating to Div X, the 'X' said as the letter name. The "div iks" pronunciation may be due to the accent of those saying it? I would say that perhaps "div ex" pronunciation should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

In section: "Quality" there is broken links:
DivX has been beaten by XviD in the 2003[1], 2004[2] and 2005[3] tests.
Those links leads to deadend --CONFIQ 15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

non-title

It should be MPEG-4 PART 2 not LAYER 2, right? --62.85.195.133

I don't see either one of those phrases in the article. --Mulligatawny 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

What does tongue-in-cheek mean ? --200.208.45.2 02:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/tongue-in-cheek --The number c 19:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Packed bitstreams

I'm removing the "compliant except for packed bitstreams" snippet because they're quite different issues.

"Packed bitstreams" refers to the reordering and pasting-together of consecutive frames within the AVI container to work around horrible limitations in the Video for Windows decoding API. ASP is the video compression algorithm and doesn't concern itself with in-file ordering or framing at all.

By the same token, I'm also removing the "compliant except for *.mp4 container" snippet because compliance with ASP (again, just the compression algorithm) doesn't imply compliance with the MPEG-4 container format.

Cheers.

—Ghakko 04:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bias

There was a biased slant to the opening description, particuarly the line that compared 700MB DivX files to full-size DVDs. I have re-written the beginning to what I believe is more neutral. -- Broken Arms Gordon 16:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What's in a name...

02:42, 16 November 2005 J. M. m (Put back the smiley deleted by 209.179.168.55 (DivX ;-) was not DivX, the wink smiley was a part of the name))

Can you show that it was a part of the name? -- Lardarse 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot - see the DivX ;-) name there, MPEG-4 in Brief (quote: "smiley face is really part of the name"), Afterdawn.com Glossary - DivX ;-) (quote: "DivX (without smiley) supports old DivX ;-) movies and also adds new features and better compression quality than "original" DivX ;-)".

The first DivX version was DivX 4. DivX ;-) was a different software product (hacked Microsoft codec), initially made by "Gej", then came the OpenDivX open-source codec (again, the name was "OpenDivX" and not "DivX"), which, again, was a different product made by a different group of people and only then, finally, a company called DivXNetworks released their own product which they named "DivX". Only products by this company (now DivX, Inc.) are called "DivX" - it's their trademark. J. M. 11:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Royalties

If somebody could explain the DivX royalty model, it would be helpful. Must DivX capable system vendors pay royalties to DivX? Does DivX depend on MPEG patents and do DivX royalties include a license to the required MPEG patents?

EKG

I came to this page looking for an explanation for what EKG is. When searching for the acronym one comes to a disambiguation page with these links

   * Electrocardiogram
   * Electrokompressiongraph

The second link just brings one to the DivX page but unfortunately the DivX article gives no explanation as to what Electrokompressiongraph is. It doesn't even mention the acronym. If someone could include an explanation to what EKG is I think it would help a lot.

--

The Electrokompressiongraph is an application used to edit multipass log files and enables the user to graphically apply biases to the data allotted to various sequences of video. Typical uses include improving quality of key scenes and reducing the bits spent encoding credits so that the encoder instead uses them to improve the picture elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.107 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

--Zigbigadoorlue 06:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a reference to the Electrokompressiongraph™ as well as the outmoded Dr.DivX where I thought was appropriate. Feel free to move it to where it needs to be. -JeebusSez 06:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality: What about Gator?

I put the neutrality flag up to draw attention to the fact that this article seems highly biased toward all the good features of the DivX codec.

For example, the line

   The latest generation, DivX 6, [...] expands the scope of DivX beyond "just a codec" ...

is clear advertising, for DivX is still "just a codec".

I also notice there is no mention of the adware installed with DivX. I ask that a section or at least a mention of that be put in.

1. Actually, the sentence seems to be true. DivX Media Format was introduced with DivX 6, which really expands the scope of DivX. Plus, even earlier DivX versions included the DivX Player, which was also used for their proprietary pay-per-view system, which, again, showed that there was something more to DivX than just the codec.
   
   The main problem is that it's not entirely clear what DivX really is (you certainly can't tell from the official explanations on their website, which is full of marketing lies and obfuscations). They currently offer several products - DivX Play, which includes the DivX codec and DivX Player, DivX Create, which includes DivX Converter, DivX Pro codec and DivX Player and DivX 6 for Mac. So what is DivX? Is it the whole bundle? Is it only the codec (is the official name of the codec "DivX" or "DivX codec")? They call the codec "DivX codec" or "DivX Pro codec", not DivX. So DivX looks more like a brand name - actually, it's their trademark. But DivX itself doesn't refer to a particular product. (That's why the first sentence in the article could be changed - DivX is not a codec, it is also not a format, it is generally a brand name of the products made by DivX, Inc. And then the DivX codec should be mentioned separately.)
   
   
2. You say "for example". So could you please offer any other example, besides this very doubtful one, which proves that the article is highly biased? You said that the article was "highly biased toward all the good features of the DivX codec". But if there are good features in DivX and they're mentioned (just mentioned, without any judgement) in the article, I don't see what's wrong with it. It's true and that's what matters. We could only argue about things that are not true or things that are subjective opinions rather than facts. J. M. 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

DivX.com has a documented history of bundling the Gator/GAIN spyware package with some of its software. The fact that this isn't documented in Wikipedia shows bias in favor of DivX.

References:

• http://www.pcpitstop.com/gator/Confused.asp
• http://news.com.com/2100-1024-995616.html
• http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5073826.html

DivX apologizes for Gator and claims it won't infect anyone else:

• http://forums.divx.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/201101651/m/593109352

A skeptical Slashdot reader:

• http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152843&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=12825639

216.23.105.20 07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adware was included in old versions of DivX Pro. So if you feel this should be mentioned in the article, you could add it to the History section, as it was a part of DivX' history. You should also specify the affected versions.J. M. 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, isn't it? People complained about the absence of GAIN in the article, only for someone mention it, but mention it in a form favorable to DivX Corp, or as they're called in the present moment. Ridiculous! Ludicrous!!! 201.19.198.43 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything favourable to anyone in the article, especially in the Gator section. Or do you see anything favourable to DivX, Inc. in this sentence: "Unfortunately, the Gator software would still install parts of itself without the user agreeing to this installation, and was notoriously difficult to remove after installation; this raised considerable consternation amongst DivX users"? I certainly don't. Also, speaking about bias, adding the "(signed anonymous PR DivX spokesperson)" line after a comment posted by User:Silveroblivion was pitiful deceit you should be deeply ashamed of (unless you can prove that Silveroblivion is a DivX PR spokesperson, you have no right to state it as a fact, besides, the comment was not anonymous). This sort of behaviour is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a serious source of information. Don't do this again. —J. M. 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality: What about it?

Why does the fact that Gator/GAIN software was included? It's no longer included in current releases so it makes no difference! Kyle 04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's the reason it should be mentioned in the article (in the History section). To make it clear that it's a part of their history and GAIN is no longer included in any DivX bundle. Some people may still think DivX includes GAIN software or other adware. J. M. 20:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about their other controversial antics?

I seem to remember a very big stink raised over how DivX asserted total control over the use of it's codec, leading to many places having to take down and/or re-encode their movies with a different codec... This should really be included as a warning to anyone seriously or even casually thinking about using this codec, not to mention the bug it places on videos encoded with it. Off the record, don't use DivX... use XviD instead so we'll all be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.142.29 (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you're talking about. But I know that Wikipedia articles certainly need stronger evidence than some vague statements like "I seem to remember that some people perhaps didn't like it for some reason, even though I don't remember why exactly." And helpful suggestions ("use XviD instead of DivX") also don't belong in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia can only present objective facts, not opinions. Readers are free to think whatever they want to think about it. As for the "bug" you mention - DivX doesn't place any watermark into video it encodes. The DivX decoder adds it to the picture during playback, to inform the user that the video is being decoded with DivX. Besides, users can turn it off in preferences. --J. M. 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I didn't put it in the article, I put it on the talk page. 68.10.142.29 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but then I don't understand why you're saying "This should really be included as a warning". When it's not clear what you're talking about, the warning is not convincing on the talk page either. --J. M. 04:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I put this here in the hopes that someone with a better memory would come along and verify this, I'm quite sure that it did happen, but I don't feel that this is requisite confidence to make an edit to the article. To elaborate, I believe the issue occured when sites offering pornographic videos were forced by the controllers of DivX to remove all videos on their sites which were encoded with the DivX codec because they didn't want their codec associated with such content. While this is entirely within their rights, I see such forced control as a reason to seek alternatives. 68.10.142.29 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some controversial aspects of DivX that I can remember: I seem to remember that there was controversy at first with DivX 4. The initial release showed a lot of code identical to MoMuSys' with comments and credits removed. When confronted, the team said that the credits had been remove to keep the code lighter and easier to read, and that they planned to put them back in the repository as separate "credit" files (which I think they did shortly after). I seem to remember that the initial DivX 4 was very similar to the code in MoMuSys with some features disabled and some modifications. There was also a lot of frustration from the community when the source code was suddently closed, which lead to the creation of XviD (this is discussed in the XviD page). And also that DivX 4 wasn't better than DivX 3 at first And also when they bought the DivX trademark within a few months made every trace of the old "DivX ;-)" disappear. At the time, people were confused as to which DivX to use: DivX 3 gave better results but it had disappeared from the map, and shouldn't DivX 4 be better than DivX 3? I'm not sure I can find anything to support that though... but that's what I remember form those days...

By the way, the DivX 3 format (MS MPEG4v3) was eventually reversed engineered and incorporated in the FFMpeg project. This is probably worth mentionning, since this is quite a tour de force (but I don't know who did it)... It's just too bad it came so late.

And one could perhaps mention the work of Stuart Espey (Stux *-Jedi) who got DivX 3 working on the Macintosh using the Windows Media Player binary (he wrote a player that would use the Windows Media Player binary to decode). He did on Mac what Gej had done on windows, except he could only get the decoder working. Microsoft eventually removed the DivX code from the mac version of windows media player (and would scan your whole hard disk to make sure the previons version was removed upon installing the new). There is a bug in quicktime with regard to AVI parsing (maybe it's been corrected by now, but this bug was known by Apple and has been in quicktime for a very long time - makes you wonder) and it would play the audio and video from DivX avi out of sync. Stux introduced "DivX doctoring" which would correctly parse the AVI files and save an equivalent MOV file that quicktime could play. This work eventually led him to start working on an alternative to DivX which became 3ivx.--66.36.147.23 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as bias

While DivX has long been renowned for its excellent video quality, its open-source equivalent XviD, also based on MPEG-4 Part 2, now offers comparable quality. In a series of subjective quality tests at Doom9.org, the DivX codec was beaten by XviD in the 2003, 2004, and 2005 tests. Objective testing, however, tells a different story with DivX achieving higher ratings than XviD.

Regarding that last link, "objective testing", that's not a good test, and objective benchmarks don't prove anything anyway. I propose to delete the last sentence in the paragraph quoted above. It sounds way too final and authoritative considering it's just a link to some guy's flawed test.

I'm worried my own deletion will come across as bias, which is why I'm talking about it here instead of just deleting it straight away. I'll probably wait a week before making this edit. Snacky 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For something like this double-blind subjective tests are a good idea. And good objective tests can be developed, but it requires extensive research to determine what makes something look good or bad to a human. Note how the Q value proposed does correlate with perceived image quality.

OK, I finally deleted it. I hope people will not repeat the practice of linking to some random forum post and surrounding their link with high-falutin' text like "Objective tests, however,..." Snacky 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

MS MPEG-4 v3

I see there have been many revert wars regarding which version of MS MPEG-4 was the progenitor of DivX 3.11. As it happens, the answer is MS MPEG-4 v3 (the "v3" has nothing to do with the parts of the MPEG-4 spec; it's a version of MS's own stupid spec/software/whatever). I thought this was common knowledge; if you'd like to see some links, try google, or just read http://www.avisynth.org/DivX . And a raspberry to all the people who kept changing it back without bothering to at least google.

What Divx is.

Do remember that a codec is not equal to a compression format, although many people seem to equate the two. Prior to the introduction of the DivX encapulation format the phrase "DivX video" was meaningless. Calling it an ASP-coded video would have been correct. That is because any codec supporting decoding of MPEG-4's ASP compression format can be used to veiw videos encoded by DivX. The term now has actual meaning, but is only correct when used to refer to video in the DivX encapulation format. I am really starting to worry about people confusing Compression formats, encapulation formats, and codecs. look at all the people talking about ogg files when they mean ogg vorbis files. Tacvek 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I consider this the greatest myth in computer history. I have years of (sad and painful) experience with this extremely widespread and immortal myth and its harmful effects.

IMO, this started with the absurd FourCC system in AVI, where every codec is supposed to have its own FourCC - even if it uses the same compression standard as many other codecs do (audio files don't have FourCC, so nobody thinks of a LAME-encoded MP3 file as "LAME file" or "LAME format" - yet, the same twisted logic is applied to MPEG-4 video codecs. Interestingly, not to MPEG-2 codecs, or MPEG-1 codecs... So it just doesn't make any sense.) So users are supposed to install many decoders for the same format. This fits the marketing interests of commercial companies that produce video codecs - when they sell an MPEG-4 codec for instance, their marketing departments try to please everyone with schizophrenic sentences like "Our company invented this revolutionary video codec called "XYZ" that is fully compliant with MPEG-4 standard, so check out the stunning quality of the XYZ format". Firstly, they intentionally confuse users with statements suggesting that they invented the format (which is revolutionary in the size/quality ratio - 5-10 times better than MPEG-2 on DVDs etc.; they don't say that MPEG-4 was in fact developed by MPEG). Secondly, while they cannot deny that their codec just encodes and decodes standard MPEG-4 video, at the same time they want the potential customers to think their codec is special in some way, not just one of many MPEG-4 codecs. So they say it is a format and users need their codec for using this "format".

Now, the early DivX ;-) 3.11 codec, which was immensely popular, made this way of thinking "a norm". There was the DivX ;-) codec, there was no alternative (at first), so it was obvious you had to use DivX ;-) for movies encoded with DivX ;-). Since then, almost everyone thinks that video codec is a video format. DivX, Inc. is well aware of this and takes advantage of it - the success of their DivX codec is largely caused by general lack of knowledge (and the huge success of DivX ;-), which was actually a non-standard Microsoft codec - the first codec the DivX company really developed was DivX 4, which was an MPEG-4 codec, unlike DivX ;-) 3.11) and the Great DivX Myth, which still makes many users (and unfortunately also clueless article authors) think that DivX is some unique state-of-the-art work of a genius and nothing comparable exists.

And when the XviD team made their own MPEG-4 codec, the internet is now full of "XviD movies", articles explain how to play or encode video "in XviD format" and other nonsense. And nobody knows there are many other MPEG-4 codecs, MPEG-4 video is simply called "DivX/XviD", no matter which codec (FFmpeg MPEG-4, 3ivx, Apple MPEG-4...) was actually used for encoding.

Which has disastrous consequences, distorts not only the video codec market, but also software market in other areas, harms important and excellent projects like FFmpeg (which is ignored by the whole world mainly due to this DivX/XviD myth), makes people download and install plenty of useless software (which causes many problems on their computers) and call other MPEG-4 codecs or video encoded with other MPEG-4 codecs "DivX" etc. etc. The effects are plentiful and far-reaching.

As for current DivX - it is still an MPEG-4 ASP codec and the container format they've developed for the 6.x version is still optional. In fact, I think most people still use DivX-encoded video (i.e. MPEG-4 ASP video) in the old AVI format. J. M. 04:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

MPEG-4 ASP is not H.263 ?

The article says "also known as MPEG-4 ASP (H.263), " but the MPEG-4_ASP page does not claim that MPEG-4 ASP is h.263. Probably, because it isn't.

--Xerces8 13:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. H.263 is closer to MPEG-4 SP (Simple Profile), anyway, I'm going to delete it from the article. J. M. 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stage6

Does someone want to write a bit about Stage6 or even create a new article for it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janipewter (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Wow I was just thinking about making this same request. Stage6 needs some recognition. Jv2k 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Stage6 should have an article of its own, not just a redirect to DivX. Think outside the box 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just added some content to the redirect page, Stage6. Think outside the box 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DivX logo color.png

Image:DivX logo color.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DivX Author

http://www.divx.com/divx/windows/author/

I think it deserves some mention here. — NRen2k5 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

need info on the new 1080HD encoding profile

In newer versions of the Divx encoder, there is a new profile called 1080HD. Someone needs to investigate it and post the info. --Jack Zhang 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed on the Xvid AVC codec

Citation is needed on the Xvid AVC codec. Discuss. --KJRehberg 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DivX 3 History?

The Early Work paragraph is not really clear: "he Microsoft codec, which originally required that the compressed output be put in an ASF file, was altered to allow other containers such as Audio Video Interleave (AVI). Rota hacked the Microsoft codec because newer versions of the Windows Media Player wouldn't play his video portfolio and résumé that were encoded with it."

Encoded with what? Rota encoded his work with the Microsoft MPEG4 Codec as ASF and newer Media Players did not support it? Why then hack it to support AVI as well? Or did he encode his Video Portfolio with another MPEG4 Coded and the Microsoft one did not support decoding anymore?

Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.253.115 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

DivX as an acronym?

I seem to remember that it could have stood for Digital Video exchange, but maybe it's just a whisper in my ghost. j.engelh (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

DivX stands for Digital Video Xtreme? [2] --195.60.133.246 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, DivX is not an acronym, and definitely not for Digital Video Extreme. Anyway, that wiki page is full of nonsense, totaly clueless, it mixes codecs, formats, and just shows the author has no idea what DivX is.—J. M. (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DIVX by CIrcuit City was not a DVD rental system

Changed the intro to clearly show that DIVX was not in the business of renting special DVDs.--Atlantisv2 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated Introduction

I have updated the introduction for DivX 7, but it still needs the rest done so I am going to leave the update template

I removed this text, since it didn't fit:

On the 6th of January 2009, DivX 7 was released. The MPEG-4 codec was scrapped in favour of a H.264 codec, bought from MainConcept. They moved their official file format to mkv, surpassing the restrictions of their previous format and now use AAC audio. The DivX Converter 7 still supports DivX 6 profiles, but DivX Plus HD needs to be selected to make a DivX 7 file. When using DivX 7 in the converter the only option available is to limit filesize, but a more configurable CLI client is available from DivX Labs. Since it can only create raw h.264 streams a mkv muxer must be used.

I removed this since it mentions things to do with DivX 6, maybe put back in history?

Many newer "DivX Certified" DVD players are able to play DivX encoded movies, although the Qpel and global motion compensation features are often omitted to reduce processing requirements. They are also excluded from the base DivX encoding profiles for compatibility reasons.

keeperofdakeys 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeperofdakeys (talk • contribs)

References

DivX, avi, mp4, Xvid

Divx, mp4 and avi are all over the internet from game trailers to pirate films and home made camcorder stuff, iPod, keep going... Okay. When you read about them they are often grouped together and talk about compatability as though they are basically Windows 2000 and XP (supposedly the same basics). Anyways what this is all about is.. computers run avi and camcorders that are only recent and still decent. I have a load of avi and mp4 short films. I want to buy a dvd player capable of putting those on my bigger screen without turning my noisy computers on. So I am fairly convinced that a dvd player saying DivX will will play avi so I go to check online. I just can't convince myself one way or another. Even here it says "Partial backwards compatibility with AVI" but if there is a solid connection between DivX and avi, such as "As standard DivX compliant software/firmware can decode the infinitely popular en mass use avi format" or "DivX compliant has been known to be programmed with avi capabilities" or "DivX software has been produced with the capability of decoding it's strongest relative, avi, but as yet, avi decoding is rare in DivX compliant dvd machines." I will go ring a shop now about it but as for reading online ebay, wikipedia, none of those I couldn't satisfy myself if avi decoding was or not coming standard in DivX. It's always in there but never exactly explained. Even avi provides us a sort of vague but sold connection between these two I would like to distinguish them properly if anyone can help at that pls. ~ R.T.G 12:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AVI is a container format. You don't decode AVI files, you demux (demultiplex) them. AVI is not a video format, it has nothing to do with video compression. AVI is only a wrapper for audio and video streams. Instead of having audio and video tracks saved in separate files, you store them in a single AVI file (AVI means Audio Video Interleave). You can imagine saving an MP3 audio track and an MPEG-4 video track in a single ZIP file. This also means that the fact your file is in AVI format does not say anything about the actual video format, and therefore does not say anything about compatibility, whether your player will be able to play the file or not (it can support the AVI file format, but it doesn't have to support the video or audio format inside). You have to know the actual video format. The actual video streams inside the AVI file can be encoded in a large number of video formats. Like MPEG-4 Part 2 (Advanced Simple Profile), which is the video format used by the DivX codec, as well as by many other codecs like Xvid, FFmpeg MPEG-4 etc.

MP4 is a container, too. Different from AVI, more modern, it is the standard container for MPEG-4 video. It is especially popular for storing MPEG-4 AVC video (aka H.264), the newer, better video format used also in DivX 7. H.264 is very popular these days, and if you want to purchase a hardware player, you should make sure it can play H.264 video.

Now, DivX is not a video format either. As the article introduction explains, DivX is nothing else than a company and a brand name of products made by this company. Xvid is not a video format either. Xvid is a codec—a software library that encodes and decodes video in the MPEG-4 ASP format. It is very important to understand the difference between formats and software products. Software products work with files or streams in some formats (for example, the DivX codec works with MPEG-4 video), but the software products themselves are not formats, even though it's an extremely popular, ubiquitous misconception.

Being DivX-compliant can mean two things: either the vendor is lying because DivX is a trendy word that sells (abusing the word "DivX" in all inappropriate situations is extremely common), or the product is really DivX-certified, that is, it is officially tested by the DivX company to meet the requirements set by the DivX profiles (described in the article).—J. M. (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DXGM

The DXGM section was re-added, and I can see three things that are wrong with it:

1. It was added in the DivX formats section. It simply does not belong there, as it has nothing to do with DivX. DXGM is a codec FourCC used by Electronic Arts, not by DivX.
2. It it not a format (codec FourCC and video format are two completely different things), so putting it in the formats section does not make any sense.
3. It would not make sense even if it was put in any other section, because it is irrelevant. DXGM is just one of many FourCCs used in AVI files for MPEG-4 Part 2 video. You can play any standard MPEG-4 video using any standard MPEG-4 decoder regardless of the FourCC. This is the most basic principle of multimedia, codecs and FourCCs. So I can't see why DXGM should have the privilege of being explicitly mentioned there, especially when it's not needed (see the previous two sentcences), and since there are so many other codec FourCCs that various people put in AVI files for marking MPEG-4 video, like:
   1. DIVX
   2. XVID
   3. FMP4
   4. 3IVX
   5. DM4V

and many others. All of them could be changed to any other FourCC and decoded with any other MPEG-4 decoder like the DivX Codec, because they all mark the same video format. So should we add a new section for every MPEG-4 FourCC into the DivX article? Mentioning only DXGM is unfair (especially as it's rather exotic), mentioning all FourCCs would be absurd.

So while the DXGM section highlights the sheer stupidity of the nonsensical FourCC system (that's why modern formats like MP4 or Matroska don't use codec FourCCs—they are used in the obsolete AVI format, but otherwise irrelevant; codec FourCC is just four characters in an AVI file that don't mean anything), it is the only purpose it serves in the article. For any other purposes, the section just does not belong there. That's why I'm removing it.—J. M. (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, J. M.

You have deleted a well-source part of a Wikipedia article, providing POV assertions as reason. Please note that it is a serious misconduct. I understand that every person has a personal point of view on the matter which is respectable for his own. However, here in Wikipedia there is no place for POV. Sources are saying that DXGM is a video format (according to Microsoft, it is called "Electronic Art Game Video") and that it is a DivX derivative. So, that is what we write in Wikipedia.(EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention: DXGM is here because of its similarity of context. DXGM is too small to merit its own article, so we put it in the most relevant section: DivX Formats.)

Besides, note that if your POV assertions are truly yours, then you must also explain as to why you have contributed to the original DXGM section after the merger. If it was irrelevant, why didn't you undo it in the first place?

Please understand that deleting a well-sourced section is not appreciated in Wikipedia. If you believe that the facts are otherwise, please provide sources.

Last but not least, what did us Wikipedians ever do to you to deserve your calling us "stupid" and your calling our edits "sheer stupidity"? What sin did we ever do to deserve being exempt from Wikipedia Civility Code of Conduct and to be denied the assumption of good faith?

Let us be polite and don't make edit-war. If you have a well-sourced proof for your statement, please introduce it here. If it was reasonable, I will submit.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, J. M., could you please provide a link to the part that says: Community forums are not accepted as sources? Because, I was under the impression that as long as a source can fulfill the requirements of general notability guideline, it is valid. Besides, many articles also use community forums as sources, such as Windows Vista and Windows 7 articles. Fleet Command (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't get involved with the actual arguments presented here, I just wanted to point out that I don't believe anyone was being called stupid - they were calling the FourCC system stupid... Jwoodger (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jwoodger. Thanks for your attempt in consolation. However, he has exactly written: "So while the DXGM section highlights the sheer stupidity of the nonsensical FourCC system!" I do not think you would fail to understand that congratulating someone for successfully accomplishing something negligible is an implicit but equally hurting act of insult through a figure of speech called "irony". Fleet Command (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Fleet Command. First of all, you did not understand a single word of what I wrote on this talk page and also in the edit summary, totally misinterpreted everything, and then came to totally flawed conclusions, without understanding anything about the subject, and attacking me on many fronts in a grossly unfair way. So, let's review your concerns again:

"You have deleted a well-source part of a Wikipedia article"

No. The part was not well-sourced and that was one of the reasons I deleted it. If you are not familiar with the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliable sources, please read it before you keep accusing me of something that's only your fault, not mine. The section is full of links to discussion boards/forums. Internet forum postings are explicitly mentioned there as unacceptable sources.

""However, here in Wikipedia there is no place for POV."

I know the Wikipedia rules pretty well, that's why I've been doing here what I've been doing here for the last 4 years.

"DXGM is too small to merit its own article, so we put it in the most relevant section: DivX Formats."

The section "DivX Formats" is completely irrelevant for two reasons: first, DXGM is a four character code, and the section does not deal with four character codes, second, the "DivX fomats" section lists formats created and used by DivX, Inc. (like XSUB or the DivX Media Format), and DXGM was not created or used by DivX, Inc. The logic is crystal-clear, I can't see how anyone could argue with that.

So if you want to merge the section somewhere, merge it into an article about computer games, Electronic Art or something similar. This is the No. 1 reason why I am removing the section: the section does not belong in the DivX article at all. Please do not re-add this irrelevant section again, please move it into a relevant article. There are many articles in Wikipedia and if you really feel this information must be included in Wikipedia, I'm sure you can find an article where it would at least a little bit relevant.

"providing POV assertions as reason."

No. What you think were my POV assertions was just technical explanation. The only POV assertion in my previous post was the notion that the FourCC system used in Microsoft Windows is stupid, but that was just an additional remark, I did not base my arguments on it, and I certainly did not try to push this opinion into the article in any way at all. My explanation, and the reason why I removed the section, was based on purely technical and logical stuff. You failed to disprove it. In fact, you did not even try to address most of it. Which, again, clearly shows your revert was unjustified.

"Sources are saying that DXGM is a video format"

No, the sources are not saying that. Sources are saying it is a four character code. The fact that you don't understand what the sources are saying does not change what they are saying. FourCC and format are two completely different things. DXGM is listed as a FourCC in FourCC databases, one of them is also linked to from the article. The proof is directly in the DXGM section, it's the link(s) to the FourCC databases.

Please note that the page says "Code: DXGM"'. If you feel that "Code: DXGM" means DXGM is a format, then I suggest reading it again. If you still believe it says it is a format, then I suggest hitting "Ctrl+F" in your web browser and trying to find the word "format" on the page. I certainly cannot find it.

Furthermore, if the video can be decoded with standard MPEG-4 decoders, then it's simply MPEG-4 video, it cannot be DXGM format, by definition. This is really simple, elementary logic. (Furthermore, even it it was a format, it was not created by DivX, and therefore does not belong in the article.)

"according to Microsoft, it is called "Electronic Art Game Video"

Again, you failed to understand the Microsoft page. The Microsoft page is not saying "DXGM is a video format called Electronic Art Game Video" (no, it is not, and if you believe it is, then read it again, and again, until you find out that it is not—it simply does not say anything about format at all, the word "format" does not exist on the page, you can use the Ctrl+F method in your web browser again to verify that). The Microsoft page is saying DXGM is a code linked to a codec called Electronic Art Game Video. A four character code (even if you don't call it FourCC, DXGM is, by defnition, a four character code, and FourCC means four character code). Yes, Microsoft (who is the "inventor" and the main authority of codec FourCCs in AVI/VfW) maintains a FourCC database on its website, too, and DXGM is one of the items, listed on a separate page, in a human-readable way. However, you can notice that DXGM is not an officially registered FourCC. One more reason not to list it in a serious article like this. (Please note that I'm specifically talking about codec FourCC, not FourCC in general—a FourCC can mark a data format in a container, like the general image data format, but a codec FourCC is what's used for tagging codecs: for example, DX50, XVID, DXGM etc.)

"you must also explain as to why you have contributed to the original DXGM section after the merger. If it was irrelevant, why didn't you undo it in the first place?"

Because initially, I thought the section could be turned into something meaningful. But then I realized it was hopeless.

"Please understand that deleting a well-sourced section is not appreciated in Wikipedia."

I understand that very well, that's why I am mainly removing badly-sourced sections like the DXGM section.

"If you believe that the facts are otherwise, please provide sources."

It's you who didn't provide acceptable sources. See above. All reasons for deleting the section I presented here are directly supported by the good sources in the section: the FourCC databases. That is, places that explain DXGM is four characters in AVI files that some people use for marking MPEG-4 video. And I will repeat this again: it's the number one reason I'm removing the section. The DXGM section was put into the DivX article by mistake, because someone mistakenly believed it had something to do with DivX.

"Last but not least, what did us Wikipedians ever do to you to deserve your calling us "stupid" and your calling our edits "sheer stupidity"? What sin did we ever do to deserve being exempt from Wikipedia Civility Code of Conduct and to be denied the assumption of good faith?"

I didn't say anything like that. Please don't attack straw men. There was nothing impolite, uncivil or offensive in my previous post. You just misunderstood it, that's the whole problem. Or it may be my bad English—if it is, I'm sorry. In the future, please refrain from pointing me at the Wikipedia policies for no reason, as you're only doing what those policies mention as unacceptable.

Now, you may apologize for your groundless attacks and false accusations or not, I don't really care. I don't take discussions personally. If you just realized it, that would be enough. But the fact is that you are completely wrong in everything you wrote. You don't understand what I wrote. You don't even understand what you were writing about. You don't even technically understand what the whole DXGM section is about. Yet, you feel the need to remind me of the rules which you violate, and blame me for your misconduct. Now, I know nobody is perfect and we all have right to be 100% wrong in something we're doing. And I assume you're not doing it intentionally, you're just doing it because you simply don't know what you are doing, and don't realize you don't know what you are doing. That sometimes happens to all of us. We're all clueless in some parts of our lives.

However, it is not acceptable when we're dealing with serious issues like editing Wikipedia articles. I am deleting the section again because everything I wrote was correct, and logically proved and explained, everything you wrote was wrong, and not proved by anything. And yes, please do not engage in edit wars, nobody wants that. I don't want that either. Just do not add the irrelevant section again, please.

Finally, if I may ask you something—please, try to learn the most basic technical things about multimedia before you attempt to edit a multimedia-related article again. Please learn what container format, video codec, AVI and FourCC is. It is the key to understanding everything we're discussing here. This is not a personal attack at all, this is just a gentle, polite (albeit a bit desperate) request. Everything you are doing here is just a direct result of your lack of knowledge. You simply do not understand these technical things at all, and you don't even understand the explanations, even if they're presented to you, or, worst of all, even if it's you who's presenting them. You are using links that show you are wrong to show me you are right. This is really exhausting, a waste of time for everyone involved. A clueless user (again, not a personal attack, but an accurate description) can really do serious damage in a technically-oriented article. And it is really painful to deal with (I have many years of painful experience dealing with this, and not only on Wikipedia), especially if they're being defensive or even aggressive in their cluelessness.

Generally, the first step for a person who doesn't know what he's doing is realizing he doesn't know what he's doing. The next step might be admitting it. Then, he can do something about it. Again, please don't take this as a personal insult, as a sign of negativity. This is just a very constructive, positive guideline that, if applied, can lead to improvement. If Wikipedia articles are edited by people who know what they're doing, the articles can get better. Wikipedia readers will benefit. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

J.M. if your main objection about adding mention of DXGM or other common fourccs for DivX is based on it not being in the right section, then why don't you simply move it to an appropriate section or create one? This sounds like an invented problem to me. Furthermore, saying these fourccs "have nothing to do" with DivX is specious is best; they may not be defined by DivX Inc., but neither is a Wikipedia article limited to specifications, official or otherwise. XviD, DXGM, etc. are all real codes being used for DivX, verifiably so, and even if it's not necessary to discuss individual details, it should at least be explained that video files bearing these fourccs are DivX encoded files. This is the correct article to discuss it in, because anyone who is searching for a fourcc is looking for the codec, not for a business name or other tangent. Btw, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for as broad an audience as possible (WP:PCR). If you are objecting to edits because they aren't "technically-oriented" enough for the article, the actual error is that the article is too technically oriented. If these fourccs are commonly "mistaken" as having something to do with DivX, the "mistake" is equally relevant to having a comprehensive understanding of the subject in the real-world context. In short, much of the explaining that you did above is stuff that actually belongs in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"J.M. if your main objection about adding mention of DXGM or other common fourccs for DivX is based on it not being in the right section, then why don't you simply move it to an appropriate section or create one? This sounds like an invented problem to me."

I already mentioned many objections, but OK, I will repeat them:

1. DXGM was not created by DivX. This article (not only the section) is about products created by DivX. DivX, as the article explains, is a company. A company that makes products with the DivX brand name. Adding DXGM to a section or article describing products created by the DivX company is the equivalent of adding a section about a baker named John Smith to the article about Adobe, and claiming that it is relevant, because John Smith created a logo for his bakery in Adobe Photoshop.
2. The section lacks verifiable sources. It says things that are questionable (even the original author was unsure about them, as Jwoodger pointed out when he removed the section as original research) and unsourced. And nobody has been able to fix it, after numerous requests. That's why the section must be removed, because that's how Wikipedia works. Re-adding an unsourced section, despite being repeatedly warned that it is unsourced, is vandalism. And removing edits made by vandals is perfectly legitimate and even desirable on Wikipedia, even without any discussion (but I do discuss everything anyway).
3. The only reliable source in the section disproves what the section says. The only reliable link in the section says that DXGM is a (four character) code, not a format.
4. Mentioning "MPEG-4 compatible" four character codes (FourCC) in AVI files in the article would only make sense if all of them would be mentioned, or at least the most famous ones. Listing all of them would be absurd (and impossible, because anyone can write any FourCC into any AVI file), and listing only the most popular ones would disqualify DXGM.

"XviD, DXGM, etc. are all real codes being used for DivX'""

Xvid (not XviD) is not a code, but a codec, a software library. XVID is a FourCC (which is used for marking video encoded with Xvid, although anyone can write the XVID FourCC into any AVI file, no matter which codec was used for encoding). DXGM is a FourCC, too. No, the MPEG-4-related codes are not "used for DivX". Please read the DivX article, read what a codec is ("a device or computer program"—for example, Xvid is a codec, a software library that encodes/decodes data), read what MPEG-4 is, what a FourCC is, read what AVI is, and so on. DivX is a company and a brand name of products made by the company. One of the products the DivX company makes is called "DivX Pro Codec", which is a software product that encodes and decodes video in the MPEG-4 format (ASP or AVC). DivX Pro Codec uses the DX50 FourCC for marking video encoded with it. DXGM has nothing to do with DivX (which is a company and a brand name of products made by the company). DXGM is a FourCC used in AVI files, marking video in the MPEG-4 format. The only thing DX50 and DXGM have in common is that they mark video encoded in the MPEG-4 Part 2 format. But like I already explained, there are tons of other FourCCs that people use for marking video in the MPEG-4 format. None of this has anything to do with DivX. DivX is not a video format, MPEG-4 Part 2 is. There are also tons of MPEG-4 Part 2 codecs. So to be fair, you would have to copy the DXGM section into all MPEG-4 related articles, because any MPEG-4-compliant decoder can decode MPEG-4-compliant video, including video marked with the DXGM FourCC. This, again, has nothing to do with DivX. This applies to any other MPEG-4 codec. An MPEG-4 codec is a (software or hardware) product that encodes/decodes MPEG-4 video. The DivX Pro Codec is one of those products, but there are many others, too.

"If you are objecting to edits because they aren't "technically-oriented" enough for the article, the actual error is that the article is too technically oriented."

No, I am objecting to the edits because they are factually incorrect (and the sources that the edits provide even prove it, which is really absurd). And irrelevant to the article.

"If these fourccs are commonly "mistaken" as having something to do with DivX, the "mistake" is equally relevant to having a comprehensive understanding of the subject in the real-world context."

Firstly, you would have to prove, by citing a reliable secondary source, that they are commonly mistaken. The section does not do it, and after having so many chances to do so, I assume it is not possible. Secondly, the article would have to explain that they are commonly mistaken. Which is something completely different from including the mistake in the article.—J. M. (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ham Pastrami: Hi, Ham Pastrami. Thank you, it was useful.

@J.M: Hi, J. M. I'd like to attract your attention to a number of issues which I have found in your reply.

• First: You keep saying "because I think" , "because everything I wrote was correct", "because I...". Such reasoning is POV. Please maintain the neutrality of the point of view.
• Second: You keep asserting that DXGM is not video format but merely a FourCC. Yet you are unwilling to provide any sources. If you have any please introduce them to us. However, do FourCCs not denote file formats?
• Third: We are your fellow Wikipedians but instead of assuming good faith in us, you treat us like sub-intelligent beings inferior to you. Why are you so reluctant to reach a consensus or seeking dispute resolution before deleting anything? Is it urgent to resort to extreme measures such as starting an edit war?
• Fourth: You speak about the reliability of sources yet you provide bogus links. You assert that Microsoft maintains a database of FourCCs yet you provide us with a link to an archived paper dated eight years ago! Your wikilink to reliability also does not totally outrule community forums as sources.

Fleet Command (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• First: No. my reasoning is not POV. My reasoning was explained in great detail, and supported with numerous logical explanations, links and arguments. You have not disproved any of them—you even failed to address them. And you had too many chances to do it already.
• Second: Firstly, it's you who did not provide any sources. Secondly, it's you who keeps re-adding the unsourced section, even though it has already been flagged as unsourced, and removed independently by two different people because of this. This is the standard Wikipedia procedure—unsourced sections are tagged as unsourced first, and if nobody is able to provide the missing sources, the section is deleted. Thirdly, you have been repeatedly reminded that you violate the Wikipedia rules by re-adding an unsourced section. Fourthly, you keep re-adding it anyway. This is a serious, ongoing violation of the Wikipedia rules, which equals vandalism—and if you keep on vandalising the article, I will have to present this case to the Wikipedia administrators and ask them to block you from editing Wikipedia articles.
• Third: I cannot assume good faith anymore. You (or anyone else) have never ever replied to any of the technical arguments I made, you have never ever been able to reply to any one of my reasons why I removed the section. The only thing you keep doing is attacking me, reminding me of the Wikipedia rules that you violate, and that's all. I cannot reach consensus with a person who refuses to reply to anything I say, despite being repeatedly encouraged to do so. You are simply unwilling to discuss the issue at all. You have never been able to disprove anything I wrote. So I have to take the initiative myself, and I am doing this in compliance with the Wikipedia rules. This is the standard Wikipedia procedure, too. Besides, a consensus has already been reached: the section was already removed by two different people, with explanations. You are the only one who keeps re-adding it, without explanations. You are the one who initiates an edit war.
• Fourth: Internet forum postings do not qualify as reliable sources, and the Wikipedia policies are clear about this. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, that is, "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Internet forum postings are not third-party reputable sources. Furthermore: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." There is no editorial oversight in internet forums. And finally: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." You may say that the word "largely" means there could be an exception. And indeed, there is, as the article explains: personal blogs or similar pages "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Your links certainly do not meet the verifiability requirements—you don't know who the people are, because anyone can register in a public forum under any name. Your forum links clearly violate the Wikipedia policies. You have been repeatedly warned that you violate it, yet you keep doing it. You know the rules, you have been reminded of them, so this is not unintentional. Therefore, I cannot assume good faith anymore. This is vandalism. And if you do it again, I will initiate appropriate actions.

So, to sum it up:

1. I already explained (several times) that DXGM was not created and used by DivX, and therefore does not belong in the article/section that describes products crated and used by DivX, Inc. Your reaction: nothing. You have never been able to disprove this most basic argument. And you already had too many chances. Therefore, any further discussion is useless.
2. I already explained (several times) that DXGM is by definition a (four character) code. Your reaction: you have never been able to prove that DXGM is not a code. You only tried to show me bogus links that said DXGM, indeed, is a code, while saying "You see? It is a format!" I already explained it in my previous posts. So, this is a closed topic, too. You have already proved yourself to be wrong, numerous times. This is an objective, verifiable fact.
3. I already explained that you violate the Wikipedia rules by re-adding the unsourced section. Your reaction: you keep violating the Wikipedia rules.

So this is my last warning: please stop vandalising the article and engaging in bogus discussion without addressing any reason why I'm removing the section. You keep doing it without being able to give any reason. This is, again, vandalism. If you continue vandalising Wikipedia, I will notify the administrators.—J. M. (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"clean room DivX"

• "In early 2000, Jordan Greenhall recruited Rota to form a company (originally called DivXNetworks, Inc., renamed to DivX, Inc. in 2005) to create clean-room DivX and steward its development. "

This doesn't seem to make any sense. Rota was the original developer of the first DivX, so a new DivX development that involved him would not be clean room. I can't fix this as I don't know the history; maybe "clean room" is accurate but other details are wrong or missing. Someone who knows about this should please clarify it in the article. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:58, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, although the term clean-room (as in "clean room design", see the correct link) may not be appropriate here. Saying Rota was the original developer of the first DivX is not accurate, for two reasons. First, DivX 4.0 was the first DivX version. "DivX ;-) 3.11 Alpha" (yes, the smiley was a part of the name) was not DivX. It was a different software product, with a different name, made by different people. The DivX company only borrowed a part of the name from the original "DivX ;-)" codec, because it was very popular at that time and made them instantly recognizable, which was good for business. But it was a different product. Second, the term "clean-room" here simply means that DivX 4.0 was made from scratch, by its creators, it was a legitimate software product. Unlike "DivX 3.11 Alpha", which was not really made by Rota. It was made by Microsoft (it was their non-standard MPEG-4 codec). Rota only hacked the Microsoft binary codec so that it could be used for creating AVI files. While the source code for the DivX codec was written by the DivX authors.—J. M. (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand what happened with Rota and the wink emoticon. What I'm saying is that if it were a clean-room development project, then "DivX ;-)" (the only DivX that existed at that point) would have gotten reverse-engineered; and since Rota made that one, his involvement makes it not clean-room. The fact that "clean room" isn't appropriate here is the only reason I'm saying it doesn't make sense. DivX 4.0 may have been written from scratch, but that's not what clean-room means -- at least not according to Wikipedia's article on it.Equazcion ^(talk) 07:10, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Rota did not actually made the original codec. The original codec was made by Microsoft. It was a proprietary, closed-source software product written by Microsoft. Rota only "cracked" it, and his cracked version was named "DivX ;-) 3.11 Alpha". But it was still the Microsoft codec. What they (the DivX 4.0 authors—again, DivX 4.0 was written by various people, not just Rota) had to reverse-engineer was the bitstream format. The Microsoft MPEG-4 codec was not really an MPEG-4 codec. It was an early non-standard implementation. Close to MPEG-4, but not 100% standards-compliant. It was not documented. The DivX team made their own MPEG-4 codec which was (and still is) MPEG-4-compliant. The DivX codec is a standard MPEG-4 codec (that is, it reads and writes MPEG-4 video). And of course the MPEG-4 specification is publicly available, so nothing to reverse-engineer here, no proprietary secrets. However, because they had to be compatible with the old "DivX ;-)" codec, too, which was extremely popular and there were many movies encoded with it, they had to reverse-engineer the "crippled MPEG-4" format used by the Microsoft codec. So the DivX decoder supported both standard MPEG-4 and the crippled Microsoft MPEG-4 video formats (the encoder only supports standard MPEG-4).

Now, let's see the clean room design definition:

"Clean room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights and trade secrets associated with the original design."

Four keywords: copying, reverse engineering, recreating, infringing. They did not copy the Microsoft MPEG-4 design, but they copied the input format handling. Reverse engineering was probably needed for that. Recreating is a word that could be used in this context, too—they simply made a new product that worked like the old product (that is, the decoder could decode video in the old format). And yes, making their own product instead of using a cracked Microsoft product is how they avoided infringing copyrights associated with the original product (which was not made by them).—J. M. (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that what was being reverse-engineered was the Microsoft alpha codec, rather than "DivX ;-)". If I understand you correctly, this should be clarified in the article; right now it reads ambiguously, as though "DivX ;-)" is what Rota was hired to reverse-engineer. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:20, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The Microsoft codec was not alpha. :-) "DivX ;-) 3.11 Alpha" was just a cracked Microsoft codec. It was just a funny, humorous name for that little hack. Rota (aka Gej) probably had to reverse engineer something which would allow the Microsoft binary codec work with AVI files, but what really had to be reverse engineered (later) was the bitstream format of MSMPEG-4v3 (which I suppose was undocumented). A codec is a software implementation, but a format means what the codec (i.e. a software product) reads and writes (decodes and encodes). Here's an interesting explanation:

"Gej went on to put together a team that produced an Open Source MPEG 4 CODEC called OpenDivX. Just as has occured in this article, somewhere along the way the ;) was dropped from the name DivX ;). This CODEC actually had nothing to do with DivX itself but because so much buzz had been generated about "DivX" he continued to work under the name. It turned out that this was merely a way of building hype and getting feedback and assistance in developing his secret project

...

Ironically DivX Networks had to do the same thing the 3ivx and ffmpeg teams had to do: Reverse engineer the bitstream for DivX 3.11 movies so as to enable playback of already encoded DivX movies without reliance on Microsoft code."

Which basically means what I said: what the DivX (originally OpenDivX) authors had to do is figure out the differences between the standard MPEG-4 (documented) and MSMPEG-4 (undocumented) formats. This allowed them to support both in their decoder. So yes, they (probably) reverse engineered the MSMPEG-4 bitstream format (not the codec itself, that would be useless— they had their own codec).—J. M. (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears we're not in disagreement. Like I said: The article makes it sound like "DivX ;-)" was being reverse-engineered, when really it was the Microsoft codec (or its output; I use "codec" interchangeably). I'm only suggesting that this be clarified in the article. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:01, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you please suggest a better version? Or you can clarify it in the article right away...:-)—J. M. (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to tweak if need be. I was waiting on fixing it til I had the facts straight, so thanks for all your extensive explanations, they were very helpful. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:25, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the whole section needs some rephrasing... The sentence "to re-create a new clean-room DivX based on the original Microsoft MPEG-4 Version 3" suggests three things:

1. It suggests that their goal was re-creating something. But their primary goal was creating something new.

2. The term "a new DivX" suggests that there was some "old DivX". Which is not true (see above, "DivX ;-)" was not "DivX", those are two different names of two different products). DivX (4.0) was the first product of that name.

3. DivX was not based on MS MPEG-4v3. The decoder supported the obsolete MS MPEG-4v3 format, but that was just an optional "legacy" feature (although quite important at that time), an added bonus for backward compatibility, not the main, long-term goal. DivX was (and is) based on the MPEG-4 standard. That was (and is) its main feature.

So I made some tweaks... I admit my current version does not read very well, the sentence is now quite long and convoluted, but incremental improvements are always welcome. :-)—J. M. (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I made an attempt to simplify your wording. I decided to drop the "clean-room" term altogether, as it was just convoluting the sentence and din't add much in the way of clarity or accuracy. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:16, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Much easier to read. And accurate. So I think this is it. :-) Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your help :) Equazcion ^(talk) 17:30, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

This is my explanation why I reverted FleetCommand's edits. Saying that "A variety of formats" is weasel wording is based on total misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Avoid weasel words guideline. Let me quote the definition:

"On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution."

Attribution is the problem. The only problem. Everything else just follows:

"Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable."

In other words, the "Avoid weasel words" guideline (please note that it is a style guideline, not a rule or a policy, so FleetCommand's argument that "weasel words are not allowed in Wikipedia" is wrong even if the article actually contained weasel words—what is or is not allowed is described in the policies, not in the guidelines) deals with something completely different. The "Avoid weasel words" policy only deals with two things: attribution and neutrality, which are the basic rules that Wikipedia follows, namely in the verifiability and neutral point of view policies (please note that these are actual policies, not style guidelines). Therefore, weasel words violate the neutral point of view and verifiability policies.

This is all explained in the Avoid weasel words guideline. All of the examples mentioned there deal with improper attribution:

"Some people say..."

"Contrary to many..."

"...is claimed to be..."

"Some feel that..."

and so on.

All these examples demonstrate the attributability problem: Who says that? How many people? Where? When?

That's the problem with weasel words. Weasel words are unsuccessful attempts to make judgements or opinions look neutral. Instead of saying "The DivX Plus Player can play files in an exceptional number of formats", it can be changed to "The DivX Plus Player can play files in a number of formats that is considered exceptional by some people". That would be weasel wording, i.e. masking opinions as neutral statements: By whom? Where? Give me links.

On the other hand, arguing that "The DivX Plus Player has native support for playback of files in a variety of formats" is weasel wording is just plain nonsense. That sentence does not violate the verifiability or neutral point of view policies in any way. Instead of listing all formats the software supports (which is not necessarily within the scope of the article, an encyclopedic article does not have to list all technical details, it can just provide a reasonable overview), it just says it supports multiple formats. Which is an uncontroversial fact that is very unlikely to ever be challenged.

Saying "it can do it in a variety of ways" instead of saying "it can do it like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this" is just a general concept that's perfectly legal to use on Wikipedia, often improves readability (it is not necessary to list all technical details in a long list, which is also explained in the WP:NOT policy), and is therefore widely used in an extremely large number of articles. For example:

"Formal bonsai containers are ceramic pots, which come in a variety of shapes and colors" (Bonsai: "a variety of shapes and colors" is, by FleetCommand's logic, weasel wording, because the sentence does not say which shapes and colours exactly they are.)

"The ability to sense infrared thermal radiation evolved independently in several different families of snakes" (Infrared sensing in snakes: By FleetCommand's logic, the expression "in several different families of snakes" is weasel wording, because it does not list the families of snakes that can sense infrared thermal radiation.)

"Rain-Blo is a brand of bubble gum that come in a variety of fruit flavors" (Rain-Blo: Instead of listing all flavours the bubble gum comes in, it just says it comes in multiple flavours, which, according to FleetCommand, only weasels do.)

"He played in a variety of local clubs, most notably the Hummingbird." (John Hiatt: Instead of listing all local clubs he played in during his early years, the sections only mentions Hummingbird as an example. FleetCommand considers this forbidden, because "in a variety of local clubs" is weasel wording, "Early life and career" sections must list all local clubs young artists played in.)

"Later, she started to take part in various talent shows and received laudable recognition.[1]" (Anette Olzon: instead of listing all talents shows she took part in, it just includes a reference, just like the DivX article. According to FleetCommand's logic, this is forbidden, because all sentences on Wikipedia must list all details to avoid violating the weasel words guideline.)

And so on and so on. I hope it is quite clear by now. So, to avoid edit warring, please do not revert the edit again with bogus reasoning, and do not revert it in 4 steps with 3 empty "edits" to make it more difficult to revert. This is not how a well-behaving Wikpiedia editor should act. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Four month ago Toehead2001 (talk · contribs) proposed DivX Plus HD to be merged into this article. Until now, there was no appropriate mirroring tag on this article to alert everyone in this page of the merger. I have mirrored the tag.

Now, as for the merger proposition, please share your thoughts. Should this merger be carried out? Please note that your silence in this matter may be regarded per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote it SHOULD NOT be merged, due to the growing length of this root DivX article, and I believe the DivX Plus HD article allows for more details around the technologies related to the topic, including hardware, chipsets, and compatible technologies (e.g. x264). Porfitron (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I believe Toehead2001 is not so keen on the merger either (judging by the fact he has not yet acted.) Removing merger tag now. Fleet Command (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

DX50

I redirected DX50 to DivX as it is the FourCC code for DivX 5.0. Treylander 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous history

Apologies if I am being thick, but I don't understand the History section:

"In early 2000, Jordan Greenhall recruited Rota to form a company (originally called DivXNetworks, Inc., renamed to DivX, Inc. in 2005)"

"In early 2001 ... the project forked. That summer, Rota left the French Riviera and moved to San Diego "with nothing but a pack of cigarettes" where he and Greenhall founded what would eventually become DivX, Inc."

Was this company formed in early 2000 in a place unspecified, or in summer 2001 in San Diego? JominyDave (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Competitors section - clarification please?

Please can someone clarify this:

"The open source library libavcodec can decode and encode MPEG-4 video that can be encoded and decoded with DivX (and other MPEG-4 codecs, such as Xvid or libavcodec MPEG-4)."

I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable about video formats and codecs, but I am interested, like many readers of this article, and this sentence seems pretty tough going :) JominyDave (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

libavcodec is a codec library from FFmpeg. It is a software library that can encode and decode video in a variety of formats. It is used in many multimedia products, especially in open-source software (the vast majority of open-source multimedia players rely on libavcodec). One of the many video formats libavcodec supports is MPEG-4 Part 2 (ASP). That is, libavcodec is a software product that can encode and decode MPEG-4 video. The DivX Codec is a software product, too. A different product made by different people (the DivX company), proprietary software, but is uses the same video format all other MPEG-4 codecs (such as libavcodec MPEG-4, Xvid etc.) use. Xvid is yet another open-source codec library that encodes/decodes video to/from MPEG-4 ASP. Which means that video encoded with libavcodec (or Xvid...) can be decoded (played back) using the DivX Codec, video encoded with the DivX Codec (or Xvid) can be decoded (played back) using libavcodec (or Xvid, or the DivX Codec, or various hardware decoders/players)... They're all different, competing software products made by different people, but they're compatible, because they all use the same video format, MPEG-4 ASP. (The DivX Codec now supports the more modern MPEG-4 AVC format, aka H.264, too.) So a video codec is a software (or hardware) implementation of some format (standard, specification). A video codec encodes/decodes video to/from some format. When codecs use the same format (as is the case with the most popular codecs, as most of them just use some version of the MPEG standards), they are compatible. The video formats these codecs use were not invented by the creators of the codecs. MPEG-4 Part 2 was developed by MPEG, not by the authors of DivX, Xvid or libavcodec. They just read the specification and implement it in software.—J. M. (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried a little bit of improvements. In process, I deleted quite a bit of not-so-relevant information. How does it look? Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK, but I think there's still some ambiguity:

1. Whose competitors? It now says the products "compete with DivX", but DivX is not any particular product. DivX is just a common brand name shared by the whole DivX product line (DivX Pro Codec, DivX Plus Player etc.) The section still deals with the direct DivX Codec competitors (Xvid, libavcodec), as the DivX Codec is still the most famous product from the DivX product family (even the article intro says "This article is about the video codec", even though it's not true anymore, as the article describes all the other DivX products, too). So maybe it should specifically mention that these are the DivX Codec competitors.
2. While the sentence "neither libavcodec nor ffdshow are standalone video players or video converters; thus they are not directly usable by consumers" is true, I think it can be a bit misleading for some readers, because it can make people think this only applies to libavcodec/ffdshow, while in fact the same thing applies to Xvid and the DivX Codec, too (again, if the section only compares the codecs, apples and apples). So maybe the sentence should either be more specific— that is, explain what exactly the "not directly usable by consumers" sentence means, or make the sentence more general so that it applies generally to the whole section, to all three codecs (that is, some general explanation that a codec by itself does not play or edit video, as it's not an application).

—J. M. (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're generally right, although as for item #2, you should remember that DivX Plus 7 comes with both a player and a converter. Fleet Command (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I thought it was important to say "DivX Codec, "DivX Plus", "DivX, Inc." or whatever instead of just "DivX", which does not really mean anything (just a brand name).—J. M. (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, better now? Fleet Command (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. :-)—J. M. (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Competitor's Section, Added a free Competitor

Just added mention of Combined Community Codec Pack, it being a free codec/player bundle directly usable by consumers and all... Random2001 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I object. Combined Community Codec Pack is not a competitor; it is just a bundle of multiple competitors. And, I deleted most of your contributions because you had suddenly started a rigmarole about DirectShow. What were you thinking I wonder? Fleet Command (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article states that ffdshow does not come with a player. There is no mention in the article anywhere that ffdshow doesn't need a player because its a dshow codec and therefore WMP can play it. CCCP is a competitor in the sense that anything you can do with DivX you can do with CCCP as it includes all the software needed to play videos and encode them. Random2001 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cut this geek talk about DirectShow that nobody understands. Obviously, you are a fan of CCCP (or even one of its producers) and you are here to advertise it. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. And CCCP can't take undue credit for what FFDShow does. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also may its just me, but I think there should be a mention somewhere of how no one uses DivX anymore since its been superseded by x264 and xvid for encoding and any directshow compliant player (including windows media player) combined with the ffdshow, x264 or xvid dshow codecs for playback. Random2001 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No one? Where is your source? Fleet Command (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an entire page for CCCP...I referenced it. I know I'm new to this, but what exactly is the problem in saying that there are free alternatives to paid software? Random2001 (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are asserting that no one is using DivX and you lack a reliable source for that. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the superseeded part, I guess a better way of saying it is that DivX is MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile (ASP), which is the predecessor to MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVP). x264 is a reference implementation of MPEG-4 (AVP), e.g. any AVP decoder can decode video encoded with x264. I dunno if DivX pro is the same. In any case, the article needs some balance to show that there are alternatives that are at minimum as good and don't cost a dime for consumer users. Random2001 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform for free alternatives. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably should of read your edits first before the discussion page...Thanks for adding the XviD stuff, but XviD is relatively old and has been superseded by MPEG-4 AVP for most devices (BluRay, embedded media players such as ipods, etc). If you want a fair comparison you should be comparing x264 to whatever comparable DivX product that is out there now. Random2001 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And your final line "Note however that unlike DivX Plus, neither Xvid nor ffdshow include standalone video players or video converters; thus they are not directly usable by consumers.", is blatantly and entirely wrong Random2001 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Xvid and FFDShow come with a standalone player? Or are you denying the fact that DivX Plus comes with DivX Plus Player? Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Its getting kind of irritating adding to three threads at once, so I'm just going to say everything here. First of all, I want to say that for editing a page on video encoders, your knowledge is sorely lacking. I'm starting to think you're employed by DivX's PR department. I do not mind getting my edits reverted especially if there is a problem with them but I'd rather it be done by someone who knows something about the page's content. x264 and XviD are completely different and the fact that you think including information on both is considered redundant would be comparable to saying including information on DivX and DivX Plus HD is redundant.

Second, my problem with the competitors section has nothing to do with being a "fanboy" of CCCP or any other free alternative. My problem used to be that you weren't listing any free competitors in the competitors section. That is now fixed, so thank you. Currently my problem is that you are listing outdated information. XviD and DivX are both implementations of MPEG-4 ASP which is part of the last generation of codecs. This isn't something that is talked about in the mainstream media, so I don't know where to reference this, but it is true whether you believe me or not. The current generation use features present in MPEG-4 AVC. I recommend reading either the official standard or some literature on MPEG-4 Part 10. Listing comparisons to XviD, while accurate, is irrelevant. You should of realized this when you saw that doom9 stopped posting comparisons 6 years ago.

If you really want an accurate competitors section the current generation of codec standards including VC-1, VC-2, H264, and other comparable standards should be listed. Then it should be noted that there are not only commercial implementations of these codecs, but also free versions which can be installed and used by consumers easily.

Finally, I am happy to do a WP:BRD, but first at least get baseline knowledge in what you are editing.

Random2001 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about x264 and XviD being in one class. However, I deleted x264 because another H.264–based codec (FFDShow) is already mentioned in the article as a competitor. For other H.264–based codecs, people can visit the links given in the navbox and See Also hatnotes. Mentioning an additional example (without a good reason, such as overwhelming notability) is advertisement. You can mention all of them to keep a neutral point of view of course, but for this article, doing so is adding undue weight. Mind you, I wouldn't mind having had x264 as an example from the beginning. But replacing one example for an another equally-qualifying one is pointless.

Next up, yes, I do believe you that XviD is MPEG-4/ASP-based, but DivX software includes an MPEG-4/ASP-based codec (i.e "DivX Codec") and so an example of such a competitor is required. Oh, and MPEG-4 ASP is not really deprecated; it is just not the best option for sharing small high-quality video on the web.

As for listing comparable codecs, we already have such a thing. Windows Media and QuickTime are mentioned, which implement VC-1 and H.264 respectively. But you can go ahead and replace Windows Media Encoder with Microsoft Expression Encoder because the former is not really a convertor but the later is. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm getting a bit overly irritated at all this, mostly by your insistence on unilaterally reverting my edits and then replacing them with entirely new content. Whats the best way to resolve these sorts of things? Random2001 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, just talk before you go changing things. Consult others. Believe it or not, I am easy to persuade with reason. Fleet Command (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand you have taken ownership of this article (and I applaud it), but it is not my job to educate you about the meaning of all of my edits just so they do not get reverted. If you want to take ownership of this article you need to read up on the "geek talk" because this is a "geek talk" article. DivX is a codec, any editor who works on a codec page should know about codecs. Random2001 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you say you want alternative free ones? I added WebM too! Fleet Command (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well it looks pretty good now. I still think though that MPEG-4 ASP is deprecated, but I can't prove it so I'll let it lie... The only reason to use a less CPU intensive codec like ASP is for when you are compute power limited which generally means embedded devices. The vast majority of embedded devices though now either have accelerators or the processing power for H.264 and comparable decoders including ipods, phones, gaming consoles, computers, HDD recorders, etc. I can't think of a single device anyone would want to use ASP as a primary codec on except 10 year old computers that do not have enough decoding power for H.264 MP.

Also I still think referencing a 6 year old comparison of ASP is useless. The standard has been around so long that any ASP codec will probably give comparable video.

Random2001 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Six years old? But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is seeks to be a couple of centuries old. Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...but you have to remember technology at the moment is progressing at break neck speed so things become unimportant really quick...I do computer architecture research (unrelated but same idea) and after 5 years the research is deprecated, after 20 years it's obsolete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a history book. Random2001 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but an encyclopedia IS a history book. Fleet Command (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Containers Versus Streams

Containers have nothing to do with raw encoded streams. Raw streams can be contained within containers such as Matroska or MPEG-4 Part 14, but there is no requirement for this. Random2001 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are right. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Introduction

The opening content includes "This article is about the video codec" but the Table of Contents reveals that the article is about many other things also.

180.200.146.146 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How does it works

Any base details about the video compression algorithm.2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The DivX codec uses standard MPEG-4 Part 2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression (it does not have its own video compression format). You can read about the MPEG-4 compression elsewhere. Of course, the exact algorithm the DivX encoder uses (to create the MPEG-4 video) is known only to the DivX developers, as it is a proprietary, closed-source product.—J. M. (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DivX. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/article/125772-7/the_25_worst_tech_products_of_all_time.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/personality/elle/20071130-systemupdate.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DivX. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130207061843/http://labs.divx.com/divx-plus to http://labs.divx.com/divx-plus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326233349/http://investors.divx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=357661 to http://investors.divx.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=357661
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223010804/http://www.doom9.org/codec-comparisons.htm to http://www.doom9.org/codec-comparisons.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DivX. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20021215232639/http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/15/divx_part1/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/15/divx_part1/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118150800/http://labs.divx.com/node/14711 to http://labs.divx.com/node/14711
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925195012/http://labs.divx.com/divx-plus-web-player-hiq to http://labs.divx.com/divx-plus-web-player-hiq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"DX50" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DX50. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Unwanted byproducts in DivX Installer

It was a common think back in the early 00s and a few years in the 10s. Because like its mentioned pretty clearly the codes of Microsoft sucked alot of the time untill 8 and 10. So what I dont get, why is nobody aware of this or better asked why does the article look so shiny peacefull without critical view?: All sources here mention that in the early years atleast and sometimes also less then 10 years ago DIVX was containing (atleast its installer) ad- or spy-ware or was atleast considered bloatware. But nothing in this article mentioning it. Nada.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/whatever-happened-to-divx.2391675/ https://frozenpixels.wordpress.com/quality-divx-vs-xvid/ https://blenderartists.org/t/divx-codec-mac-adware-spyware/346686

German "WinFuture" even had an article with the title "DivX 5.2 released -finally without ADware!" ("DivX 5.2 veröffentlicht - endlich ohne Adware!). WinFuture is a tech community. https://winfuture.de/news,15638.html --2A02:8388:4501:1F00:D9C6:A832:21F7:C19C (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)