DivX vs. DVD: What's the real difference?

For all my non-techie folks out there; what’s actually the deal with the difference between a DVD and a DivX file?

Theoretically speaking: if I’ve got a movie sitting there as a DivX file, is there any actual difference—besides the obvious fact that the audio and video quality might be kind of trash—when you compare it to a standard DVD?

Also, can a regular old DVD drive even play DivX movies?

Like, say you pop a disc (or maybe it's a DVD!?) into your PC and suddenly the media player just kicks off automatically: does that mean the movie is an actual DVD, or what am I looking at here?

A standalone DVD player can run DivX files, but a PC without a DVD drive won't be able to play a standard DVD.

That's not really how it works... it’s more about the software version you're running; if the program supports both, it doesn't matter if it's DivX or a DVD, it'll play just fine.

The difference is massive.

The term DVD is a catch-all for the technology introduced a few years back to finally kill off the VHS tape. It can refer to the physical disc itself (the Digital Versatile Disc) or the specific data format stored on it. Essentially, the DVD format consists of a collection of files compressed using the MPEG-2 audio/video codec—which provides that sweet spot between image quality and storage efficiency—"packaged" into .vob and .ifo files. This allows a standard DVD player to read them as a full movie complete with menus and extra features. DVD technology has become the universal audio/video standard, embraced by every major studio releasing titles and every manufacturer making home theater gear. Compared to VHS, the leap forward is huge: you get multi-channel surround sound perfect for a home theater setup, drastically sharper visuals, and interactive multimedia. A single-layer, single-sided DVD holds about 4.7 GB, though you can double or even quadruple that capacity with dual-layer or double-sided discs. For most people, however, 4.7 GB is more than enough (considering a standard CD only holds about 650-700 MB). There are various other iterations like DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM, but that’s a whole different rabbit hole.

When it comes to squeezing audio/video into the smallest possible footprint, DivX is probably the most famous compression format out there. Its biggest selling point is that it delivers decent enough quality to fit an entire average-length movie onto a single CD, bypassing the need for a DVD altogether. DivX is just one of many codecs within the MPEG-4 compression family. Granted, the picture quality is significantly inferior to the DVD format (as is the audio, which is stuck at stereo), but it’s still leagues ahead of VHS or older formats like Super Video CD and VCD. Besides DivX, you have other comparable options like Xvid, Windows Media Video, and others. Unfortunately, since DivX isn't an officially licensed commercial format, you won't find movies released on DivX media, and most standard DVD players won't play it—only a select few specialized players will. While it's incredibly convenient for burning copies and watching movies on a budget, the plummeting prices of DVD recorders will eventually end the reign of low-quality DivX and its ilk, because soon everyone will be able to burn everything directly to DVD.

I was bored, so I figured I'd write something... 😁

Richard Howard2 said:The picture quality isn't quite hitting the level of a DVD format (same goes for the sound, which stays stuck at stereo), but it’s still a massive step up from VHS or older stuff like Super Video CD and VCD. Besides DivX, you've got plenty of other formats out there that aren't any worse, like Xvid, Windows Media Video, and so on.

Nice job—you laid everything out really clearly. I just wanted to point out a few tiny little things, just to make sure we're all on the same page... if you go with a high bitrate, the DivX picture can actually look pretty close to a DVD. Honestly, I've seen some DVDs out there with terrible quality. On a standard monitor or an old TV, you might not even notice the difference, but on a modern LCD? Man, you definitely will. I can guarantee you that a "standard length" movie on two DVDs would look great on a nice screen. Once we get MPEG-2 on actual DVDs, maybe then the quality on a single disc will be truly amazing... but we aren't quite there yet. And the resolution isn't exactly cutting edge either...

DivX is basically just an MPEG4 compression algorithm, similar to Xvid and the rest of them. When you use these codecs, the video gets tucked into container files like AVI, OGM, or MKV... inside those files, the audio component can be compressed using pretty much any codec you want. So, a "DivX file" isn't actually stuck with stereo. You could have a Dolby Digital track from a DVD in there, or anything else—from mono to 6-channel, 8-channel, or even 25 channels (which doesn't exist yet, I'm just saying it's a possibility 😉)...

Richard Howard2 said:The difference is massive.

DivX is the most famous compression format for saving space. Its main advantage is fitting an average movie onto a single CD instead of needing a DVD, all while maintaining decent quality. DivX is just one type of MPEG-4 codec. The picture quality is significantly lower than DVD format—as is the audio, which stays stuck in stereo—but it’s still much better than VHS or formats like Super Video CD and VCD. Beyond DivX, there are other formats like Xvid and Windows Media Video that aren't any worse. Unfortunately, DivX isn't an officially recognized format, so movies aren't released on DivX media, meaning most DVD players won't support it. Only a few do. While it's convenient for copying and cheap viewing, the plummeting prices of DVD recorders will eventually end the reign of low-quality DivX and its peers, since everything can just be burned to a DVD.

A major mistake...

MPEG-4 video is far superior to MPEG-2, meaning it beats DVD. Therefore, DivX and other MPEG-4 containers are BETTER than DVD. It all comes down to how much space you need to store high-quality video. MPEG-2 requires several GB, whereas an MPEG-4 movie fits on one CD.

DVD won't end the DivX era because the current DVD is already obsolete. A new format is coming that will utilize MPEG-4 video and MPEG-4 audio. Right now, there are two competitors: Sony Blu-ray and Toshiba HD-DVD. Both have their pros and cons. Recently, the two sides seem to have reached an agreement to propose a unified format. Whatever medium succeeds today's DVD, the video and audio will be MPEG-4.

Carl Brown4 said:...

hmm, look, it’s not even about the DVD being "old school"—it’s more about how things used to be. And it isn't just about file size either, though let's not split hairs over whether DivX counts as a container or whatever.

..bottom line, multimedia is everywhere these days. 😁

Long live Xvid.
On some movies, you can barely even tell it isn't a DVD

Carl Brown4 said:That’s a huge mistake...

MPEG-4 video is way better than MPEG-2, which means it blows standard DVDs out of the water. Basically, DivX and other MPEG-4 containers are SUPERIOR to DVD. It all comes down to how much space you need to store high-quality video. You need several GBs for MPEG-2, whereas an MPEG-4 movie fits easily on a single CD.

DivX won't kill the DVD because the DVD as we know it today is becoming history. A new format is coming that will feature both MPEG-4 video and MPEG-4 audio. Right now, we have two main rivals: Sony Blu-ray and Toshiba HD-DVD. Both have their pros and cons. Recently, it looks like the two sides decided to settle on a single unified format. Whatever medium succeeds the DVD, the video and audio will be MPEG-4.

No amount of DivX, even spread across two CDs, can compete with a well-made DVD.
The DVD would only finish off DivX once you can say "easy as pie" that everyone can afford them and we all have faster, cheaper internet connections.

James Roberts87 said:No amount of DivX, even spread across two CDs, can actually touch a properly made DVD.
A DVD would basically finish off DivX before you could even say "cookies," assuming everyone can afford them and we all have slightly faster, cheaper internet connections...

I think you're actually pretty far off there. The real headache with DivX is that you're re-encoding a video that’s already lost some quality, since MPEG-2 is a lossy compression to begin with. Then there's the fact that people expect a picture to look mind-blowing when it's been compressed so heavily. I mean, DVDs are encoded with variable bitrates that go way above 4000 kbps! If you do that, even a DivX file will look amazing. Plus, the folks encoding to DivX often skip two-pass encoding or forget to select MPEG-2 quantization instead of H.263. Anyway, check out http://www.divx.com/hd/—they've got high-resolution, high-bitrate DivX movie trailers on there, so just see for yourself how good the picture quality can actually get! 😉

I usually go with one disc for movies under ninety minutes—using two-pass encoding, of course—but if it’s running longer than an hour and a half, I’ll just burn two discs... still using two-pass rips. Specifically in Xvid

darkviper7 said:I usually stick to one disc for movies under ninety minutes using two-pass encoding. Anything longer than that gets split onto two discs, also with two-pass encoding. For Xvid

Stay cool! 😁 Man, DivX and I... it was love at first sight. 😍

James Morris7 said:Man, oh man! 😁 Ah, DivX and me... it was basically love at first sight. 😍

😍

Carl Brown4 said:A new format is on the horizon, bundling MPEG-4 video and audio together. Right now, we've got two heavyweights fighting it out: Sony Blu-ray and Toshiba HD-DVD. Both have their pros and cons, obviously. But it looks like both sides finally decided to play nice and propose a unified standard. Whatever comes after the DVD, expect MPEG-4 to be the go-to for video and audio.

To add my two cents: an agreement is basically in the works for this new disc, moving toward one single standard!
As of right now, the only official High Definition movie format for this new tech is Windows Media Video 9 (MPEG-4)!

You could also look at it this way:

DivX (Xvid) is basically the MP3 of video.
A DVD is just music played off an audio CD...

So, which one do you think actually holds more weight or gets used more often these days?

brighthawk20 said:You could also look at it this way:

DivX (Xvid) is basically the MP3 of video.
DVD is more like listening to an audio CD...

So, which one do you think is actually more popular or widely used?

Though, that second combo definitely offers much better quality.

James Roberts87> A DVD would definitely finish off DivX, considering you say everyone can afford them now that we have faster, cheaper high-speed internet.

😕

I mean, a decent DVD burner goes for less than $167, while CD burners can hit $67. You can pick up DVD media for about $0.60, whereas CDs are around $0.33. Honestly, when you look at the big picture, the price gap is almost negligible.

The only real catch is that you can cram six movies onto a single DVD using DivX, compared to just one on a DVD format... but with how cheap media is these days, I guess it actually makes sense to just switch.

James Roberts87 said:No amount of DivX can compete with a properly mastered DVD.
A DVD would have killed off DivX in a heartbeat if everyone could actually afford them and we all had faster, cheaper broadband.

You're completely mistaken. MPEG4 (DivX) is objectively superior to MPEG2 (DVD); otherwise, the MPEG association wouldn't even bother releasing it after years of refining MPEG2.

Even if we had the high-speed internet you're dreaming about, why clog up the bandwidth with unnecessary traffic? If the quality is the same, I'm picking the half-sized MPEG4 every time.

Paul Foster262 said:To add my two cents: Agreement is nearly reached regarding the new disc; they are moving toward a single unified standard.
Right now, the only official High Definition movie format for this new disc is Windows Media Video 9 (MPEG-4).

There are two main contenders for the "official" format. We have MPEG-4 part10 (either AVC or H.264), which is relatively recent—not to be confused with the MPEG-4 used in DivX—and Microsoft VC-1. For perfectly logical reasons, MPEG-4 is winning because more companies are backing it. I suspect both formats will eventually be included in the future specification meant to unify the Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, but MPEG will likely dominate.

brighthawk20 said:It works just like this:

DivX (Xvid) is basically MP3.
DVD is just music from an audio CD...

So, which one is actually better or more popular?

There are several sound formats used on DVDs. Surround sound on a DVD is encoded using Dolby Digital, which is compressed similarly to an MP3. On the other end of the spectrum, you have DVD-Audio, which is theoretically superior to a standard audio CD.

For instance, Beck's latest album, Guero, was released on DVD. That disc features the tracks in multiple formats:
- stereo Dolby Digital
- surround Dolby Digital
- stereo PCM (24-bit/48kHz, making it better than an audio CD)
- surround PCM

The specific format used depends entirely on what the DVD player can handle.

Carl Brown4 said:You've got it all wrong. MPEG4 (DivX) is clearly superior to MPEG2 (DVD). If it weren't, the MPEG association wouldn't bother releasing it after years of perfecting MPEG2!

Even if we had the lightning-fast internet you're dreaming about, why clog up the bandwidth with unnecessary data? If the quality is identical, I'm going with the half-sized MPEG4 file every single time.

It’s pretty simple: the picture isn't actually the same.
I watch movies on my TV, not just a computer monitor.
On the small screen in my bedroom, I don't really notice a difference.
But when I switch to the living room and turn on my Samsung 35 inch flat screen at 100Hz,
the difference becomes incredibly obvious.
Same thing happens when you're watching on an LCD.