Talk:Xvid

message: My apologies for saying "Reverted edits by Tnikkel" in my last edit - it should read "Reverted edits by 201.6.16.70", as the clueless edit was made by 201.6.16.70. J. M. 09:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: Under legal it says:
"However the legal usage of XviD may still be restricted by local laws. (See mailing list discussions [1], [2], [3].)"
The citations are over four years old and may no longer be relevant. Anyone know the current legal status of XviD?
:I was wondering that myself.  I've looked at the xvid webpage, and there has never been any discussion of licensing issues.  The closest I could find was  --I80and 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of legal status necessary

message: Okay, is it safe to have XviD and DivX on the same computer?
:Yes. Ashibaka tock 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probabily, but this is not necessary if you only want to decode them. For decoding only FFDShow shoud be fine for both. Manabu 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, generally FFDShow is preferable.  But I'd rather use the XVID codec to encode my files, because it plays on on my DivX DVD player pretty well, somethings outdoing the DivX quality.  For some reason, FFDShow XviD files become scrambled when I view them. Mazinkaiser666 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User Questions

message: In the article, there is a link with the title "Download the XviD Codec for Windows or Mac" linking to xvidmovies.com. The Mac codec you can download there is technically not a version of XviD; it's unrelated code that tells the DivX component to decode XviD. It's now obsolete, as DivX 5.2 and later do what it did. The only QuickTime component as far as I know that actually uses the XviD library is Christoph Nägeli's, at http://n.ethz.ch/student/naegelic/. Since the Windows version at xvidmovies.com is Koepi's, which is already linked to right above it, I suggest replacing the link with a link to Nägeli's component.—Dicey 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. J. M. 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XviD on Mac OS X 

message: How compatible is XviD with MPEG-4 (and in which direction?)?  Some of the references mention it in passing, but I can't seem to find a definitive cite (e.g. in the XviD FAQ).
202.55.146.66 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPEG-4 compatibility 

message: Xvid has a new homepage (more commercially oriented) and also a new name — apparently, it's not XviD anymore, it's now Xvid. So I think the article name should be changed from XviD to Xvid and the XviD words in the article should be changed to Xvid, too. Also, they have a new logo (which should replace the current one in the article), plus these changes and new things (the Xvid Solutions company etc.) should be mentioned there, too. — J. M. 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Xvid 

message: I have just realised that XviD is DivX backwards! LOL! Also, it is not made by the same people, Legal Problem??
::What legal problem? And I didn't know there was anyone (who knew what XviD was) who didn't know about the DivX<->XviD connection. It's also explained in the article. — J. M. 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XviD, DivX, LOL! 

message: Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Free Pascal - which celebrated it's 2.2 release not long ago. --Gronky 11:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the world turned a few times, as we all knew it would, and the selection moved on. It's now ImageMagick - the command line image editor/processor. --Gronky 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Free software]]: Xvid is now the selected article 

message: What does it mean, Xvid-Caph?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.172.132 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caph appears to be a group that releases pirated videos on P2P networks. Such videos are usually marked like "name.codec-group" in the filename (e.g. "Some_Movie.Xvid-Caph.avi" or something similar). —J. M. 04:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caph 

message: I find this notable and relevant. Leaf (company) --68.161.151.224 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies that were forced to release source code due to the GPL? 

message: Regarding the recent edits that you keep adding to the article, under various IP addresses:
# Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. The link to http://www.xviddecoder.com is obviously spam, as it firstly has nothing to do with the article, secondly, the description "unofficial Xvid decoder" is clearly misleading, as there is only one Xvid decoder, there can't be any "unofficial" one (because Xvid is a software product—for example, there can't be any "unofficial Microsoft Internet Explorer" either, there is only one).
#Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Your edits are totally clueless, completely wrong in every aspect and utterly confused in so many areas that it's difficult to list them all. But I'll try:
-The "Supported codec/formats" section does not make any sense because Xvid supports only one format—MPEG-4 ASP.
-Therefore, the "Supported codec/formats" section does not make any sense in the context of the whole article because it contradicts all essential information that's written in it.
-The "Supported codecs/formats" section does not make any sense because Xvid is a codec. A codec is a computer program (or a hardware device) that encodes/decodes data (to/from some format). Which means that Xvid supports only one codec—itself. "Supporting video encoded with other codecs" absolutely does not mean "supporting codecs". Xvid can decode video encoded with other codecs if the video is in the same format that Xvid uses—MPEG-4 ASP. Which is the general compatibility principle that Xvid shares with the whole computer industry. Compatibility is one of the most basic terms that any person who tries to edit computer-related Wikipedia articles should understand. For example, when you create a PNG image in Adobe Photoshop and succesfully open it in Corel Photopaint, it absolutely does not mean Corel Photopaint "supports Adobe Photoshop" or even "supports the Adobe Photoshop format" (and I'm not talking about PSD here, this is about PNG support). It only means it supports PNG. The difference between software products and formats is one of the most basic things any Wikipedia editor should understand before they try to edit a computer-related article.
-The "Supported codecs/formats" section does not make any sense because it does not list any formats or codecs. It lists FourCCs. FourCC is not a format, and FourCC is not a codec. FourCC is a four-character code typically used as meta information in AVI files.
-The recent "Playback of other formats/codecs" title does not improve things either, because you don't play back codecs. A codec is a computer program (typically a library) and you don't play back computer programs. Video players play video (that's encoded in some format—again, you don't play back the format, but the video).
-The "Supported codecs/formats" section would not make any sense even if it was renamed to "Xvid can decode video encoded with the following codecs:", because it would have to list all MPEG-4 ASP-compliant codecs on earth.
-The "Supported codecs/formats" section would not make any sense even if it was renamed to "Supported FourCCs", because Xvid does not support FourCCs (even if the VfW/DirectShow component can register itself for some selected FourCCs in the Microsoft Windows operating system—firstly, Xvid and the VfW/DS filter are two different things, secondly, Xvid is not a Windows-only product, thirdly, Xvid supports any FourCC even on Microsoft Windows, just like on any other operating system). Xvid decodes video streams. FourCCs are included in AVI files, but firstly, you can put ANY FourCC into an AVI file, and, if it contains MPEG-4 ASP video, Xvid can decode the stream (for example you can use mplayer -vc xvid file.avi). Regardless of the FourCC. For example, the FourCC can be XYZ9. Yes, Xvid can decode video that was marked as XYZ9. Not only in theory, this is common practice (for example, digital camera producers are fond of inventing their own FourCCs for MPEG-4 video captured by their devices, but Xvid can decode it, regardless of the exotic FourCC). FourCC means absolutely nothing, zero, zip, etc. FourCC is just four irrelevant characters that have absolutely zero influence on Xvid's ability to decode things (again, the fact that DirectShow in MS Windows says "unknown codec" for unknown FourCCs does not change this). So the section "Supported FourCCs" would have to list every possible combination of four characters, and I'm sure you understand that would be absurd. Secondly, FourCC is just an obsolete mechanism used in the archaic AVI format, but  does not exist in modern formats anymore. Xvid is an MPEG-4 codec. The standard MPEG-4 container is MP4. There is no FourCC in MP4, MPEG-4 video is marked as MPEG-4 video in MP4, no matter if it was encoded with Xvid, DivX, FFmpeg, QuickTime, 3ivx or whatever. Which is only logical, because MPEG-4 video is MPEG-4 video, period (if it's not MPEG-4 video, it's not MPEG-4 video—but Xvid is an MPEG-4 codec and supports MPEG-4 video, for both encoding and decoding). The same in Matroska, for example. Which, again, means that you can encode video with an unknown MPEG-4 codec called SuperDuperMP4Star, put it in an MP4 file, and play it back in an MP4 player, using Xvid for decoding. It absolutely does not matter at all if the Xvid authors have never heard of that SuperDuperMP4Star codec (and therefore the VfW/DS component does not support the FourCC that does not even exist in the MP4 file anyway). But this is a completely natural thing that applies to MPEG-2 codecs (again, encode with any MPEG-2-compliant encoder, decode with any MPEG-2-compliant decoder), MP3 codecs (encode with any MP3-compliant encoder, decode with any MP3-compliant decoder), or any other codecs, or generally to any other kind of software. So I don't even think it is necessary to discuss this most obvious principle here.—J. M. (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the summary is: Xvid supports one video format, MPEG-4 ASP.—J. M. (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't you think that reference that installation of xvid codec allows auto-playback (support) of other ones is irrelevant? That would have helped me for sure, if I treated Wiki as a source of information instead going through news archives and numerous forums. I mean I lost a lot of time because I didn't find any info when I needed it. Loner1979 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first and most important thing is that you cannot add nonsense to Wikipedia. Saying "Xvid allows playback of the following codecs/formats" and then listing a couple FourCCs is a prime example of patent nonsense. You can only say things that actually make sense. But this is the equivalent of saying "The Russian pope George Bush likes the following movies: The Beatles, Coca-Cola and Manchester United". Totally confused nonsense. Yes, the article could mention the DirectShow filter in Microsoft Windows can register itself for a couple of FourCCs. That would be accurate and true. Then, it's a question of adding this information sensibly, without delving into too much detail and taking too much space (because it is rather specific information that applies only to DirectShow/VfW and the AVI format, not to Xvid in general), while still being accurate. —J. M. (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (supported formats, external links) 

message: I think it may actually be the other way around... DivX is actually Xvid spelled backwards.
It would make more sense to name a video codec Xvid... like x-video, for example, than DivX.... In fact, X is the name of the Linux GUI and window system, so X-video codec would make even more sense.
And it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the company behind Divx took the free source code and modified it, to make some money.
Or can someone prove that DivX actually came out before Xvid did?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.81.18 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you mean by DivX. The "DivX ;-)" codec (yes, the smiley was a part of the name) was made in the late 1990s (it was the hacked Microsoft codec), but people were often calling it just "DivX", even though it was  (and is) not correct. Then, there was the open-source OpenDivX project where people tried to make a new MPEG-4 codec from scratch. People were commonly calling it "DivX", too, even though it was actually OpenDivX. And since closing the OpenDivX source code and re-releasing it as the proprietary DivX codec by the DivX company was the reason why Xvid came into existence (to take up where OpenDivX left off), Xvid was, indeed a reaction to DivX. Both DivX and Xvid were initially based on the OpenDivX source code. Furthermore, Xvid was called XviD back then. The capital D suggests that XviD was, indeed, DivX spelled backwards.—J. M. (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Xvid being DivX spelled backwards" 

message: Try as I might, NOBODY seems to have compared video-codecs in terms of quality (error-rate from original, uncompressed video) and of CPU power. NOWHERE gives a core-mark or Dhrystones value for this and all of the other codecs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU Usage & Picture Quality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xvid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081120113023/http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/M4VCrossRef.pdf to http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/M4VCrossRef.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080924190745/http://n.ethz.ch:80/~naegelic/index.php to http://n.ethz.ch/%7Enaegelic/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The patent list is valid, but the other link seems to have been removed. Thank you. FosterHaven (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xvid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070825055338/http://www.xvid.org:80/FAQ.14.0.html to http://www.xvid.org/FAQ.14.0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The same questions are available at , and the specific question in the reference has the exact same answer. That is why I've marked it accordingly; it's no longer needed. Thank you. FosterHaven (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified