Why do people collect DVDs?

[kami]

<< Well, it's really not worth it to me. It sounds like a wild goose chase. What if I'm never satisfied but have downloaded the highest quality divx?
>>


LOL no kidding eh. I am interested in seeing some of this miracle divx work but I'm not gonna go download 50gigs worth of stuff searching for something that looks half decent.

 

[pulse8]

<< kami(the mean and stubborn fanboy who really loves you all even though he comes off as an ass) >>



Are you SURE you're not just an ass?

 

[LethalWolfe]

<<

<< How will I know I'm getting the best? >>



You'll know it when you see it.

If the movie that you download doesn't satisfy you quality wise, download another one.

Trust me when I say that there are a whole lot of DivX'es out there with quality comparable to a DVD. >>



Can you find someone to host a sample (1-2min should be enough) of a "quality" DivX movie that you've encoded? It's not that I find your vehement defense of an inferior product amusing, I'd just like to see how well a "quality" DivX sample stands up to normal DVD.


Thanx,
Lethal

P.S. VHS and S-VHS both suck. But when S-VHS or VHS quality is my only option then it's my only option. But in places where I have a choice between Good (DVD), so-so(DivX), or bad(VHS) why would I choose "so-so" or "bad"?

 

[kami]

<< Are you SURE you're not just an ass? >>


No I'm really a nice guy

My sig is just a disclaimer people should remember when entering any LOTR-related thread on ATOT...

 

[voodooguy]

<< It's not that I find your vehement defense of an inferior product amusing >>



DivX is superior to DVD in many ways.

DivX uses MPEG 4, a much more advanced codec than MPEG 2 used in DVD's. MPEG 4 allows for streaming, loose coupling of audio codecs, equivalent perceptual quality at 1/6 to 1/8th the size, variable bitrate encoding for slow motion and fast motion scenes, and a ton of other features that MPEG 2 cannot even begin to match.

DivX is the future. DVD is the already obsolete past.

 

[pulse8]

You're blinded my friend. Just because it's a small size and it has more features means nothing. The day they start projecting movies in divx, then I'll be impressed.

There are many great features to many different codecs. When you make something, especially video, you're going to take a quality hit. I don't care what you have to say about that. Even mpeg-2 has quality issues for certain movies. I can see artifacts when watching certain DVDs that wouldn't be there they were uncompressed. Mpeg 4 was developed with the internet in mind. It was designed to get quality video that could be transfered over the internet.

Movie studios aren't looking to make the videos that much smaller in size, they are looking for the best compromise between storage size and video quality. If they could fit an uncompressed film onto a disc the size of a DVD they most surely would.

 

[crypticlogin]

As far as DVDs go, they also offer the added value of having the extras: trailers, features, commentaries, behind-the-scenes stuff, and everything else that makes a truly enjoyable movie worth that much more. Sure, the DivX bastion can watch their movies but that's it -- no subtitles, different language tracks, alternate angles, etc.

No Divx file can offer that right now.

 

[voodooguy]

<< no subtitles, different language tracks, alternate angles, etc.

No Divx file can offer that right now. >>



DivX'es support subtitles and different language tracks.

As for alternate angles, 70% of the DVD players on the market don't support that, either.

 

[voodooguy]

<< Movie studios aren't looking to make the videos that much smaller in size, they are looking for the best compromise between storage size and video quality. If they could fit an uncompressed film onto a disc the size of a DVD they most surely would. >>



What movie studios want doesn't matter. What the movie viewing public wants matters.

And DivX gives the movie viewing public what it wants. A DVD quality movie that fits on a CD, with none of the stupid extras that nobody ever watches anyway.

 

[LethalWolfe]

<< As for alternate angles, 70% of the DVD players on the market don't support that, either. >>



Errr... Not all DVD players can switch angles on the fly, but they all can play multiple angles via menu selection.


Lethal

 

[crypticlogin]

<< DivX'es support subtitles and different language tracks.

As for alternate angles, 70% of the DVD players on the market don't support that, either. >>



Great. 70% of the computers in the world couldn't play a properly ripped Divx worth a damn either so I'm still waiting for your 'superiority' argument to be substantiated.



<<

<< Movie studios aren't looking to make the videos that much smaller in size, they are looking for the best compromise between storage size and video quality. If they could fit an uncompressed film onto a disc the size of a DVD they most surely would. >>



What movie studios want doesn't matter. What the movie viewing public wants matters.

And DivX gives the movie viewing public what it wants. A DVD quality movie that fits on a CD, with none of the stupid extras that nobody ever watches anyway. >>



So tell me again, how is a CD a noticebly different size/shape/weight than a DVD disc? And I'd like to know your definition of the 'movie viewing public' and poll this thread who fits into that category and if they watch the commentaries of their favorite movie before you start throwing around baseless, unsupported, and ultimately, foolish statements.

 

[voodooguy]

<< So tell me again, how is a CD a noticebly different size/shape/weight than a DVD disc? >>



1) It's way, way cheaper. A CD is anywhere from 100 to 500 times cheaper than a DVD to produce.

2) A CD is compatible with hundreds of millions of additional computers and embedded devices compared to a DVD.

3) The difference is not one of size/shape/weight, but rather one of cost/compatibility. A diamond is often the same size/shape/weight as a pebble: Which one would you rather have?

 

[Nefrodite]

DivX is superior to DVD in many ways.


ugh yea as a high compression codec currently maybe. but as an entire package its inferior right now, lack of features, limitation to 1 cd in size(swaping discs is beyond lame). you claim that they support subtitles, yes as long as you encode directly into the video ruining it or keep it as a separate file playable by a couple divx specific software. extra audio costs you valuable bitrate which could be used for video.. which is really really borderline at 1 cd.

so tell me, is dolby digital better then dts because it compresses more???


As for alternate angles, 70% of the DVD players on the market don't support that, either.

are you kidding? i'm pretty sure all players have alternate angles now, 100% of software players do.

with none of the stupid extras that nobody ever watches anyway.

ok i must be part of the nobody crowd. there are some dvds with very good special features worth watching. unless you've seen nothing but horrible dvds, or have no favorite movies you'd like to know more about its a silly silly arguement. if you hate movies.. well don't bother watching. when is more not better. ppl complain about cd's not giving value for the dollar, many dvds are giving more and more for the dollar now, i can't complain.

all in all the arguement for divx is silly. if there will be a new format coming out, i want it to be HD-DVD. i don't want more of the same at lower quality with less features. thats bogus. i want more.

 

[cuteybunny]

ditto, with divx 8 movies can fit on 1 cd instead. using dvd format



<<

<< It's not that I find your vehement defense of an inferior product amusing >>



DivX is superior to DVD in many ways.

DivX uses MPEG 4, a much more advanced codec than MPEG 2 used in DVD's. MPEG 4 allows for streaming, loose coupling of audio codecs, equivalent perceptual quality at 1/6 to 1/8th the size, variable bitrate encoding for slow motion and fast motion scenes, and a ton of other features that MPEG 2 cannot even begin to match.

DivX is the future. DVD is the already obsolete past. >>

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think this all just boils down to personal taste. Some people are particular about cars or food, I'm particular 'bout movies and music. So, I like the quality of DVDs and the extras that come w/them. Movies/TV are my life (literally, I'm an editor so I probably pay more attention than most. Check that, I know I pay attention more than most.


Lethal

 

[kami]

Sorry to bust your bubble but divx is not "the future" for mainstream movie watching. The public has already made the switch to DVD and they wont switch again for a very long time. People dislike change and they'd also dislike buying a new player a couple years after they just bought a shiny new dvd player. divx is great for people who like to sit in front of their computers to watch movies and aren't totally anal about quality, but not much else. the average joe doesn't know and doesn't care what divx is.

also, the amount of special features is often a purchase point for dvds...people watch them.

 

[Nefrodite]

1) It's way, way cheaper. A CD is anywhere from 100 to 500 times cheaper than a DVD to produce.

ugh maybe when dvd first came out, as you've probably noticed, dvd prices have dropped. the price to produce a dvd disc compared to cd is insignificant.


2) A CD is compatible with hundreds of millions of additional computers and embedded devices compared to a DVD.

so what? a cd holds less too. when cds first came out the user installed base for cassette tapes was pretty impressive too. so what? if i want to play movies on a pos computer with a pos screen with nothing but cdrom..why bother. the computers probably so obsolete it can barely play vcds then.


3) The difference is not one of size/shape/weight, but rather one of cost/compatibility. A diamond is often the same size/shape/weight as a pebble: Which one would you rather have?

yea i'd rather have a diamond, esp if the cost difference were comparable to cd vs dvd, better quality at very little extra cost. What do you think the point of coming out with a new format is anyways? if everyone would be happy with divx level quality then we probably would have stuck with vhs movies. play a divx on a decent tv, or hdtv home theater and you'll be sorry. play it on a computer and the artifacts are already apparent. you gotta learn to aim higher. not everyone is happy with pos quality.

compression is a work around for the shortcoming of our storage mediums. i ask again, is dolby digital better then dts because it compresses more???

 

[voodooguy]

<< lack of features >>



As I already outlined above, MPEG 4, therefore DivX, has way more features that MPEG 2, therefore DVD, does not have, and will NEVER have. MPEG 2 is an OBSOLETE technology. Do you know what obsolete means? Look it up in the dictionary.



<< limitation to 1 cd in size >>



DivX is not limited to anything. With today's 80min, 90min and 99min CD's, you can have DivX'es up to 900Mb in size. If you want DivX'es even larger than that, you can keep them on your HD, or burn them onto multiple CD's. There really is no end of options, which is something that you do not have with DVD. Once DVD-R becomes mainstream, you will be able to fit 3-4-5 movies onto a single disc. Try that with obsolete MPEG 2 technology! NOT!



<< keep it as a separate file playable by a couple divx specific software >>



DVD stores subtitles in the same way that DivX does. As a separate file.

As for the number of players that support subtitles, there are more software players that support subtitled DivX than there are software DVD players. Unlike software DVD players, ALL DivX players are FREE.



<< extra audio costs you valuable bitrate which could be used for video.. which is really really borderline at 1 cd >>



If you speak English, why do you need the Swedish or the Japanese soundtrack? You download what you need.



<< so tell me, is dolby digital better then dts because it compresses more??? >>



When all you have is a stereo setup (as 90% of all consumers do) this question is really irrelevant.



<< there are some dvds with very good special features worth watching. >>



You watch them because you've paid good money for the DVD and you might as well not let the content go to waste. I know the feeling. I've tried to sit through some special features myself for the exact same reason. It gets pretty boring pretty fast.

I go to the theater "just to watch a movie". For decades, people have bought and rented tapes "just to watch a movie". When they air a movie on cable, Showtime, HBO, pay-per-view, or whatever else, you sit down "just to watch a movie". There is nothing wrong with wanting "just to watch a movie". DivX gives you just that. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[pulse8]

<< What movie studios want doesn't matter. What the movie viewing public wants matters. >>



That's silly! What the movie studios want is the same that that the view public wants! Why would they want something different?!? The movie viewing public, generally anyway, want the highest quality video that they can just drop into a machine, hit play and watch. Divx in NO WAY offers this. What part about losing information during compression do you not get? Video isn't very forgiving in this manner and unless you can produce a divx that does, then I'm not sold.



<< And DivX gives the movie viewing public what it wants. A DVD quality movie that fits on a CD, with none of the stupid extras that nobody ever watches anyway. >>



WHO WANTS THIS?? What person other than you and maybe some digitized video/computer geeks want this?? Why would ANYONE want a DVD quality movie on a CD when they CAN GET THE DVD ITSELF?? This is silly. You make no valid argument except that of personal taste that divx is "dvd quality", which has yet to be proven.

You also don't seem to understand the fact that the MORE you compress something, the lower the quality is.

 

[kami]

voodooguy, why don't you post a small divx file somewhere for us to check out..even if it's only 30 seconds or so...shouldn't be too big. one that you think shows how good divx can look and sound. preferrably something with both low motion and high motion scenes...because this is another one of divx's weaknesses...you either encode in low motion or high motion...if you encode in low motion you get crisp pictures but scenes with lots of motion are riddled with digital artifacts.

 

[voodooguy]

Blizzard has licensed DivX for use in Warcraft 3.

See some examples of high quality DivX here.

 

[voodooguy]

<< because this is another one of divx's weaknesses...you either encode in low motion or high motion...if you encode in low motion you get crisp pictures but scenes with lots of motion are riddled with digital artifacts. >>



You are obviously still stuck in Jan 2000.

The latest version of DivX 4 automatically does two-pass encoding, choosing low motion or high motion for each frame of video individually.

 

[LethalWolfe]

<< Blizzard has licensed DivX for use in Warcraft 3.

See some examples of high quality DivX here. >>



The only problem here is that there is not a DVD "original" source to compare this to.


Lethal

 

[mithrandir2001]

This timing of this topic is ironic because I received my first purchased DVD today. While I have had a DVD player for 15 months, I never felt the need (or rather, the financial justification) to own movies...renting has been perfectly fine for me. The only reason why I bought what I did - the First Season set for Twin Peaks - is that it won't be available for renting. It's a great set (buy the pilot episode separately) with gobs of quality...the bitrate hangs between 8-10Mbps all the time.

 

[kami]

<< You are obviously still stuck in Jan 2000.

The latest version of DivX 4 automatically does two-pass encoding, choosing low motion or high motion for each frame of video individually.


>>


i'm stuck in jan. 2000 because i didn't know divx could do "two pass encoding"?
i don't leech my movies so i can't keep up with the latest divx news...sooooorry