DivX version 5.0 released.

March 4, 2002 12:59 PM

DivX version 5.0 released. Faster, smaller, and more compatible, but curiously, in Standard (free) and 'Pro' versions - only $30 mind you.. Unless you want the ad-supported version.. Still, the standard version is quite snazzy.
posted by Mossy (11 comments total)

Whats new and a comparison of the two versions here. I think the standard version will do me more than nicely.. And Psychovisual Modeling has a cool sound to it :)
posted by Mossy at 1:01 PM on March 4, 2002

Whenever someone says DivX, I still think of this
posted by LinemanBear at 1:22 PM on March 4, 2002

I used to think of the failed pay-per-view format, too. But these days, when someone says DivX I think of this.
posted by poseur at 2:21 PM on March 4, 2002

I think it's pretty funny to try to make money off software that was originally designed to make copying DVDs easier. More power to them, but if I use Divx5 Pro, it will be a cracked version.
posted by daveadams at 2:27 PM on March 4, 2002

daveadams - so then the only reason you could possibly want a smaller, higher quality video codec would be to copy DVDs? Yeah, that sounds about right. I guess places like atom films, etc wouldn't have any interest in something like this.

Do you also believe that DeCSS was originally developed to make copying DVDs easier (hint it was designed to make playing DVDs on *nix boxes possible)?
posted by willnot at 2:54 PM on March 4, 2002

DivX5 Pro comes free as a Pro version, just with ads :) DivX is damn useful for squishing my movie (not DVD) files - like winzip, but for, erm, movies..
posted by Mossy at 2:58 PM on March 4, 2002

Well, it's not just that divx was for pirating videos, it was orgionaly a hacked up version of windows media designed to allow higher bit-rate encoding.

Anyway, Divx isn't really that great of a company, they basicaly proclaimed themselves to be "Open Source" and then changed their minds, taking back everyone's code (which their license allowed them to do)

I'll stick with the Divx I have, which works fine. Hopefully Ogg Tarkin will be usefull when it comes out and we can switch to something truely free
posted by delmoi at 3:16 PM on March 4, 2002

daveadams - so then the only reason you could possibly want a smaller, higher quality video codec would be to copy DVDs?

No, I think it's great they have the best codec around. I'm glad they're doing it. I just think it's funny.
posted by daveadams at 6:23 PM on March 4, 2002

Oops, missed those tags.
posted by daveadams at 6:23 PM on March 4, 2002

OSXquery.
posted by rodii at 7:39 PM on March 4, 2002

Also it should be pointed out that you have to pay a license to use DivX-encoded materials commercially. This would include example movies showing what your shareware graphics software can do, or a 3D artist's portfolio. (I know, I asked, was told the fee - not huge, but certainly not free, then went back to using MPEG-1 files on my website).
posted by SiW at 4:59 PM on March 5, 2002