HandBrake Abandons DivX As an Output Format 619
An anonymous reader writes "DivX was the first digital video format to really win mainstream acceptance, doing for movies what MP3 did for music (both good and bad). Eventually even Sony, the king of proprietary formats, caved into pressure and added DivX support to its DVD players and the PlayStation 3. Now HandBrake's developers have made an interesting choice for version 0.9.4 — they ditched support for AVI files using DivX and XviD. Your only option now is to convert DVDs and other media to MKV or MP4 files, with the option to save as Apple-friendly M4V files. So why is HandBrake ditching AVI and XviD support when it's a format that's won such widespread acceptance? In the words of the developers, 'AVI is a rough beast. It is obsolete.'"
HandBrake? (Score:1, Insightful)
Another software I never heard of shoots itself in the foot for no reason whatsoever.
I guess I'll stick with DVDx and mencoder.
foot.shoot(); (Score:5, Insightful)
Dropping all formats that Windows play by default is IMO a bad decision. It may make the CCCP Project [cccp-project.net] more popular and spur more people to install Quicktime (yuck), but it'll also drive away lots of inexperienced users.
Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I haven't used DIVX in years (Score:5, Insightful)
All we need now is for .flv to dry up and blow away...
Re:I haven't used DIVX in years (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mind the actual .flv format as much as watching the videos with the crashy, memory-hungry CPU hog that is Flash. Playing back flv containers in VLC is perfectly fine. The video is mostly H.264 anyway.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:HandBrake? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, handbrake is a front end for the de-facto standard for creating multimedia files... get to know them and you won't care which flavor of the month format is being used. Personally I stopped using handbrake years ago because the developers always seem to be dropping X for some lame reason.
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:3, Insightful)
As a developer nothing pisses me off like a user expecting me to have every version of my code installed on every conceivable platform ready to be debugged and rereleased with fixes, it's just not practical (especially for FOSS projects).
So yes it's annoying as hell, but having around all the old code and dependencies when you want to keep moving to code forward is equally annoying; it's either you or them getting frustrated, and since it's their choice and there's no money involved to force their hand you're out of luck.
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but it wouldn't rxactly be a terrible burden on them to leave the older releases on the server, maybe with a "we don't support these anymore" notice.
Re:HandBrake? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not informative.
XviD is an MPEG-4 Part 2 implementation; it is one of many.
x264 is not a standard at all; it is an encoder for the H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 standard, which is just as open as MPEG-4 Part 2.
This is a necessity; H.264 is suitable for encoding low-bitrate, low-resolution video or high-bitrate, high-resolution video. It is useful for 20 mbit/sec high definition streams, or 256 kbit/sec videoconferencing.
The standard defines various levels that various hardware decoders implement. [wikipedia.org]
Possibly because they were out-of-spec, or not in a container the player supports. x264 isn't responsible for the user's ignorance.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows doesn't play anything by default. Who cares?
Re:Windows 7 plays H.264 by default (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's an annoyance, but when you are the premiere open-source solution for something as like video encoding, I think there is (or at least should be) a duty to at least keep the older releases around. Especially if they are a dropping features that were supported in the older versions. If the developers arrangement is so cluttered that they can't be bothered to keep the old releases available, then that points to ineptitude and makes for poor relations with the user-base. File management is not that hard compared to the groundbreaking features these developers are implementing. If they can't be reasonable and/or nice about things, perhaps someone else will step up to the plate and fork the project, because that's probably what it would take to get things into a sane state of being.
Annoying the users just opens the window for someone else to step in.
you could say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:2, Insightful)
But AVI is an obsolete container (which is why Microsoft stopped using it).
Given that AVI is still the most widely used video container, either you don't understand the meaning of the word obsolete or you're engaging in some I reject your reality and substitute my own behavior as a disciple of Adam Savage.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on how people actually use video containers, AVI isn't really obsolete yet. This is sad but true.
Sure you've got a fringe of people that push this stuff past the point where AVI falls over or where Quicktime falls over. Those people are few and far between. Apple itself really doesn't push the capabilities of container formats. So whining that AVI is obsolete is highly disengenous.
Re:"As a output format" (Score:2, Insightful)
To me it seems that if you accept it as an input format you should be able to output it as well.
I am not a programmer so take this next bit of post for what it is... pure conjecture lol
But it seems like if your decoding something then the same amount of work is already done for doing output?
Also I agree if something is a program made to convert video then it should do as many formats as possible.
I am on Windows so I use a program called Format Factory, and it supports like a bazillion formats (well all the ones I have ever ran into)
http://www.pcfreetime.com/ [pcfreetime.com]
Re:This is of course wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Rubbish.
DivX 5, which is a MPEG-4 ASP video inside an .AVI file, did not contain support for chapters, subtitles, or anything like that. This is what the Handbrake guys are removing support for. It's also the format that pretty much any DVD player will play.
DivX 6 added their own custom, proprietary extension to .AVI files. These have a different extension and, on Windows, bypass the standard .AVI splitter entirely. The format is undocumented, isn't supported by anything but DivX's own software player and a tiny selection of DVD players, and is entirely unknown outside of DivX's corner of the world.
There's no point in reverse-engineering their format, since DivX themselves dumped the format entirely with DivX 7. They now use MPEG-4 AVC in a Matroska container. It's a waste of time to support an even more obscure sub-format of an outdated, poorly supported container format.
Similarly, there's no point in inventing their own format to add this information to an AVI file. Nothing else will be able to read the information, so it might as well not be there. It'd be pointless, and a complete waste of time.
The alternative? Remove AVI support entirely - nobody uses it anyway - which makes the code much simpler to maintain. They can actually add features without worrying about breaking the AVI support that nobody uses.
Re:Windows 7 plays H.264 by default (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, the Handbrake guys are saying Xvid is the past, H.264 is the present. Quoting what an OS that is 7 years old can do is just reinforcing what the Handbrake folks say.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HandBrake? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't change the fact that a device with divx support will play nearly every divx/xvid file, and h264/x264 players are SOL with the majority of the encodes I've seen so far. Many only work properly on a computer, and not on mobile devices or dedicated gear (even though changing two encoding options while leaving the bitrate/filesize the same makes the file play...).
If it weren't for the fact that Android doesn't seem to have implemented a divx/xvid codec at all, I'd probably still be using it (and be watching my TV rips without needing to transcode first).
xvid is less demanding (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling people that give you software for fucking free "douchey", is well, pretty douchey.
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no threat from that at all, and if it turns out there is it's easy to implement legacy support and destroy all momentum the fork has at any moment.
This is really common, the boring fixes and maintenance really do just weigh you down and sap your enthusiasm, even while you're busy working on something that is much more difficult
Again I also hate being on the receiving end of this, I'm not saying it's good, but this is the reality of it. It's not out of spite but just because hobby projects can't survive if you need to maintain multiple versions and support legacy standards you're not interested in.
If you think Handbrake has a "duty" you should see hobby projects like SQLite, which are just the same. I submitted a pretty serious bug report regarding SQLite 2.x (the latest 2.x) and drh told me I should use 3.x instead, and SQLite 2.x has a lot more installations than Handbrake.
That's just the nature of a hobby project; if you want to tap into all that free work you've got to go with it, because no-one is going to maintain a fork with the dedication of the hobbyist themselves
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:4, Insightful)
h264 is so incredible you don't need divx anyway.
My Pioneer DVD player doesn't play h.264. Neither does any other DVD player, except perhaps those that cost four figures (I haven't looked into that).
h.264 might be incredible, but I have no way of playing it on my TV.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:5, Insightful)
obsolete -adjective
no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
Guess it was ignorance of the meaning of the word then. Like it or not, AVI is still widely used. Until it isn't, it will not be obsolete. You need a new word. Might I suggest one of the following: anachronous, antiquated, antique, archaic, behind the times, dated, old-hat, out, outdated, outmoded, passé, unfashionable
Judging from the vehemence of your response though, I'd probably go with unfashionable. You clearly have an emotional stake in video container formats for some reason, so that would be the most honest.
Re:foot.shoot(); (Score:2, Insightful)
Your DVD player doesn't play VHS either...
Old formats die, new formats replace them and this usually requires getting new equipment.
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of DVD players play DivX not h262 (Score:1, Insightful)
Lots of DVD players play DivX not h262. This would be one major reason to keep it.
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:4, Insightful)
But if he insulted you because you told him "wtf, Metro? no I want *that* newspaper over there not this piece of shit" then you entirely deserves to be insulted.
Re:Sounds to me like handbrake wants to be for war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They don't like supporting it (Score:1, Insightful)
There are also plenty of not DivX Plus certified devices that can play H.264/AAC/MKV perfectly. The WD TV [wdc.com] and other cheap media players like Popcornhour and Xstreamer support it.
Re:Because H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC is Mature! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you buy a product in this day and age that doesn't support the most ubiquitous and popular portable video format: MP4. It's not a fancy new format. there were portable devices playing both MP4 ASP and H.264 AVC in 2004.