# DivX 6.2 updated with improved codec and new DivX player

I just posted the article DivX 6.2 updated with improved codec and new DivX player.

`````` We have  received word that this popular software has been updated once again with the  following enhancements.                     Introducing        DivX 6.2 Get the latest and greatest       ...
``````
``````Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11798-DivX-6_2-updated-with-improved-codec-and-new-DivX-player.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11798-DivX-6_2-updated-with-improved-codec-and-new-DivX-player.html)

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.``````

“Encoding times reduced by up to 350% compared to DivX 6.0 on some systems” Woow! So if it took 1 hour to encode a movie and you reduce it by 350% then it will be compressed way before you even consider compressing it at all ! Now, that is truly a leap forward in tech… Congrats DivX for being the fastest compressor in the universe ! :d

(60)/(3.5)=17.14286 minutes or 17 minutes and 8.57 seconds

And how did you calculate 350% ? Since you got confused by minutes I’ll take another real life example in \$\$\$ If something costs \$100 and you get a 50% discount that would make it \$50 If you get 100% discount then the cost is \$0 If you get 200% discount you actually earn \$100… Your math is wrong mate… Still do enjoy the DivX calculation because it will soon spread to other codec calculations…

You’re confusing time with % of reduction… and in case you don’t realize, 350% is a reduction of 3.5 times the normal time it takes to encode… Cost = Price - (Price * n) \$100 - (\$100*.5) = \$50…50% discount \$100 - (\$1001) = \$0…100% discount \$100 - (\$1002) = \$-100…200% math is fun

yeah this person is right 350% would be right, you just cant apply it to money or you get owed! Just like CD burning speeds 80 min cd = 1.53 at 52 x recording time, BUT take 80 Devided by 100x you get 0.8 which i think is like 1min 20 sec. so before you make fun of someones math, check your self so you dont look like a moron. No Offence :B

it seems like divx is playing games. i think that can happen if you use dual processor board with dual-core cpus, as divx worked on smp & ht support. so the encording time reduction is very YMMV kind of deal. with my single processor system, i would only see very minor improvement like 2%, but i am pretty sure with multi-core/multi-processor systems, the improvement would be dramatic

Is this stuff compatible, with my “old” reader DVD Philips 737, “Certified Divx Player”? If not…

I think the Divx folks made a common and all too easy mistake with their claim. You cannot reduce ANYTHING by more than 100%. But I doubt it’s intentional. The mistake is in how you express the difference between the new and the old. If it had been taking 100 minutes to encode a file, and it now takes 28.5 minutes to encode the file, the new time is a reduction of 71.5% of the old time. But the new encoding process is also 3.5 times faster than the old one. The mistake would be in calling 3.5 times faster a 350% reduction. This happens all the time when folks try to make comparisons. I took 100 minutes to walk to work this morning, but I only took 50 minutes to walk home. Did I walk twice as fast on the way home, or 50% slower on the way in? Was I 100% faster going home, or 1/2 as quick coming in. All are correct. The moral? Don’t trust the numbers, verify with your own testing.

yep! For instance…a 400 GB hard disc drive is really only 371 gigs when formatted. :c

With HD, there’s another confusion to people where HD makers count 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes but Windows count 1GB as 1024x1024x1024 bytes. This has nothing to do with the discussion above.

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m still loving the old divx. div3 FOREVER.

never change a working codec? :B

Isnt Divx 6.2.2 create been out for quite a while already?

you are confusing GB with GiB. gigabyte is divided through 1000. windows divides through 1024 which results in gibibyte. but this is completely offtopic and has nothing to do with the 350% here.

damn, that should be a reply to Crabbyappleton’s post…

I guess the point I was making with my post is this is all a marketing thing. Just like the 350% comment from DivX.

I think that the 350% improvement is calculated this way: let’s say that with this new version a encoding takes 5m, so with the older version it takes 17.5m (350% of 5m) :X

oh and by the way, the reason for the hard drive showing less space available is because when you format a hard drive, in the format procedure some space is consumed by the file system.