Why is xvid still being used?

This may be a newb question but it is something I’ve been meaning to ask. Now that the AVC/h264/x264 codec has arrived and flourished why do I still see people using xvid to rip SD DVD’s? I realize that the best (if not only) option when ripping from an HD source is x264 and I thought that would ring true for standard def content as well. Yet I still see new DVD rip releases using xvid.

If I wanted to convert a DVD to an .avi file is there a down side to using x264 (2-pass) compared to xvid?

Thanks

[QUOTE=ilnot1;2408165]This may be a newb question but it is something I’ve been meaning to ask. Now that the AVC/h264/x264 codec has arrived and flourished why do I still see people using xvid to rip SD DVD’s? I realize that the best (if not only) option when ripping from an HD source is x264 and I thought that would ring true for standard def content as well. Yet I still see new DVD rip releases using xvid.

If I wanted to convert a DVD to an .avi file is there a down side to using x264 (2-pass) compared to xvid?

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Maybe it comes down to that is their choice they want to use. Plus since we don’t know their situation and where they are from to determine why they choose what they choose. So what I say be lucky they even do it so you can view and watch it.

People can use whatever they want, I don’t really have an issue with it. My only question is, given the same file size, does xvid produce better quality video, than x264 (2-pass), in some (SD) situations? If not, then I guess they’re doing it for reasons other than quality; maybe ease, time, familiarity, reproducibility, and maximum compatibility. Obviously all of these are legitimate.

Like before without knowing whom or who created personally we will never know why choose as they did. But as before I do know H264 is very good if not one of the better format to go assuming the files doesn’t get too big or required a good high performance GPU that can offload video to the GPU from CPU to play it back with HD feature.

You got a DVD player that plays x264? Plenty of them play XviD.

As long as your playing it through the PC, H264 is fine, but if you want to play from disc or USB through a DivX standalone, you have to make sure it supports it. As far as I have read not many do.

Of course maximum compatibilty when it comes to standalones and less resources needed both for encoding and playbacl. I also prefer mp3 over AAC anytime given the few KB saved to achieve the same quality and cheap storage space these days.

Apart from compatibility, the reason can also be that encoding time is much shorter with XviD/DivX/FFmpeg, or that an H.264 encoded movie uses significantly more CPU while being decoded (played).

If you don’t have multi-core state of the art hardware, H.264 may simply not be an attractive option.

I guess I didn’t realize that so many people still download movies on their computer just to burn them and watch on a DVD player. I thought it was only a couple of percent of the P2P public. And I realize almost all players are not h.264 compatible.

@ DrageMester
I realize that x264 takes longer to encode than xvid but I think you’re overselling how much computing power it takes to for playback, however much it is it’s not prohibitive. I have a 6 year old AMD Athlon XP single-core and it plays everything up through 720p fine. So even low power celerons and semprons should be able to play SD x264 encoded movies with no problem.

[QUOTE=ilnot1;2409623]I realize that x264 takes longer to encode than xvid but I think you’re overselling how much computing power it takes to for playback, however much it is it’s not prohibitive.[/QUOTE] Try playing back a H.264 encoded movie on a netbook and you’ll see how much CPU power it takes. Playing even a Standard Definition H.264 is impossible in QuickTime due to the CPU being maxed out. VLC will handle it at less than 100% CPU, however.

The Atom N270 processor only has approx 1/3 of the CPU power of my 4 year old laptop and 5 year old desktop computer.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2409645]Try playing back a H.264 encoded movie on a netbook and you’ll see how much CPU power it takes. Playing even a Standard Definition H.264 is impossible in QuickTime due to the CPU being maxed out. VLC will handle it at less than 100% CPU, however.

The Atom N270 processor only has approx 1/3 of the CPU power of my 4 year old laptop and 5 year old desktop computer.[/QUOTE]

That’s why it has special name “netbook”, to denote that it cannot be used as a real computer or even low-end laptop.

[QUOTE=ilnot1;2409658]That’s why it has special name “netbook”, to denote that it cannot be used as a real computer or even low-end laptop.[/QUOTE] But it’s great for travel because of the size, and that’s why it’s relevant to take this into account when encoding movies.
BTW we don’t agree on what a “real” computer is; IMO a netbook is just as “real” as a laptop or desktop - it’s just optimized for deifferent things (size, weight, cost).

I see no reason myself to encode movies I have on DVD for watching at home - why would I?
I’ll just pop the DVD in the DVD player!

But encoding movies to take along on trips makes perfect sense.

There are no doubt benefits to netbooks that many find appealing but I guess I don’t see how people could or would expect a to use netbook as a mobile media center. The fact that it won’t play the types of video files you’d want - which play on every “real” computer - shouldn’t come as surprise. This is why I don’t believe these devices should be taken into account when determining how to encode files, except of course when you are encoding for your own personal netbook use.

The reason I encode DVD’s that I own is to save space on both Hard Drive and DVD+R’s. If it only costs me a hair’s less in quailty to get 1/3rd or 1/4th the original size, I’ll take it a lot of the time.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2409663]I see no reason myself to encode movies I have on DVD for watching at home - why would I?[/QUOTE]
Because I hate being DJ? My originals are stashed away in the basement and I can watch them all on my HTPC at a click of the remote.