Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

HoofHearted · Dec 16, 2000, 08:48 AM

If you don't know what 3ivx is, it's a new codec that is compliant with MPEG4 (similar to divx;-)). Three or four different teams have been racing to produce a mass-market, opensource MPEG4 codec to superseed Div;-), which was loosely based around a hack of Microsoft's MPEG4 codec.

Well, 3ivx is first to the line, with a beta just released.

And even more importantly it's out on Mac first! (Windows,*nix, BeOS and even Amiga versions are to follow, so this isn't a dead end street for Apple users).

Pick up the codec at http://www.3ivx.com, the site is having a few traffic problems at the moment (suprise), but it's worth it.

Download the codec and drop it on your system folder before restarting and playing some of the supplied movies with QT player. The current codec only decodes (ie plays), the encoder (ie for saving) is promised soon.

I did a quick (unscientific) test by resaving one of the sample movies in QT5 sorenson at the same fps/data rate. the quality was really noticeable worse.

so compared to sorenson, you can either have smaller movies for the same quality or better quality for the same size.

plus, when it's complete, it'll stream video, encode in half the time as sorenson, be usable by any app that uses quicktime and play on almost every platform.

go get it...

noliv · Dec 16, 2000, 10:57 AM

I've been waiting this codec for a long time :

Is this decoder able to read video encoded in divx or only videos encoded with 3ivx ??? I expected them to release the encoder at the same time...

------------------

Noliv

memento · Dec 16, 2000, 03:38 PM

I can't view the supplied movies. I've put the extension in the extensions folder and restarted, but when I try to open the clip, quicktime freezes. I'm using QT 4.1.2 and MacOS 9.0.4. B/W G3 300 with 320MB RAM.

stux · Dec 16, 2000, 05:23 PM

you might need to give QuickTime more memory.

QT requires 30 x width x height bytes of extra memory to play a 3ivx movie.

So give QT a few extra megs and see how it goes

ktolis · Dec 16, 2000, 06:09 PM

...get real people...the codec wont be any faster on the mac than the sorenson codec when it finalizes. The size abbout 30 to 35% smaller. For now the size is about the same as with sorenson but the encoding doesnt support all the mpeg4 standard so it compresses faster. At the end you will see that the codec is heavier that sorenson.

...has anyone tried on2 VP3 codec? i get good results similar to sorenson with less that half, sometimes less than one third the compression times as sorenson. graphics (e.g.screen capturing) is the best usage. it beats any other format. probably mpeg4 as well but I havent tested it yet...

oh and for the record : you CAN NOT compress an already compressed movie and request from the new file to be smaller. it will only get bigger. This is a fact that has to do with how the encoder removes information from the image. If you remove the one the codec needs to make the rest and put artifacts generated by another one there then the second codec will get the worst results you can get from it. you must have original footage to actually test a codec.

for the time we will have to satisfy ourselves with sorenson and on2 vp3. after all apple will come with mpeg4 right after it finilizes(around april-may2001) so expect something in 6 months time from now.

IMNSHO ktolis

------------------

stux · Dec 16, 2000, 07:45 PM

That's not actually true

Sure, you will get better results compressing from original footage. But it is really quite easy for an encoder to get better results by compressing second generation footage... size wise.

Its really quite easy, you see all the 'noise' would've been filtered by the previous codec...

Anyway, its quite possible to get smaller sizes and almost exactly the same quality with a codec... depending on the codec

Dec 16, 2000, 09:06 PM

i know that this is a dumb question but is 3viX compatable with the current DivX? Will it play a DivX movie or do i have to continue to use DivX player?

Burpethead · Dec 16, 2000, 09:19 PM

I got to see the sample movies, and I have to say it is the worst media format i have ever set eyes on, no sound, horrible fps, and if something happens in the background the movie stops playing. horrible.

Dec 16, 2000, 09:48 PM

I think you are being a little too critical. It's a Delta version of a decoder, for a new-ish format that has no optimization as of yet. For a video of that length, the file size is amazing.

Keep up the good work!

stux · Dec 16, 2000, 10:23 PM

Currently 3ivX can not play DivX video, so you will have to continue using DivX Player for now.

But one of our goals is to be able to do that one day... If its possible

Most things are possible

Dec 17, 2000, 04:26 AM

Stupid question...
I can't find the supplied video that you all seem to have.
Nothing but the codec in the .sit archive... no link on the site...

??

laigle · Dec 17, 2000, 04:37 AM

Quality is not that stunning.

Exporting the trailer with Sorenson and basic settings (data rate limit only) produced a file with eqauivalent size, and almost equivalent quality, which played much more smoothly.

Please note that I use QT5 preview 2 and the developer edition of Sorenson 2.1.
But remember that the new Sorenson codec (3.0) will only be included in the final release of Quicktime 5. It will provide better quality and require less compression time than Sorenson 2. (but at which price for the developer edition)

I only regret not being able to compress any movies in 3ivx, which would permit to actually compare 3ivx and Sorenson

Anyway, all this is good news for the quality of web video.

Regards,
Jerome.

Dec 17, 2000, 02:29 PM

Hey Guys those are 12 fps movies! no sound on purpose! a quicktime movie with that FPS and no sound same size would get the same result. it might be a bit bigger tho in file size.

deckard97 · Dec 17, 2000, 02:31 PM

my question is:

why even bother to have yet ANOTHER codec?
do you think you can stop the DIVX that's out there altogether? no way those PC people will switch to something else.

your 3vix codec will only be used by a handfull of mac users, until one of the big companies in the market actually do come with something remotely close to a standard that will ship with a player (QT5, WMP).

As for having a user download a codec to play a movie off your site is a dumb idea, all these codecs MUST ship with the players or else they are useless.

my 2 cents.

memento · Dec 17, 2000, 08:32 PM

"As for having a user download a codec to play a movie off your site is a dumb idea, all these codecs MUST ship with the players or else they are useless."

Don't forget about QT5's new component download feature. It allows for a codec to be easily downloaded and used.

Dec 18, 2000, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by stux:
That's not actually true

Sure, you will get better results compressing from original footage. But it is really quite easy for an encoder to get better results by compressing second generation footage... size wise.

Its really quite easy, you see all the 'noise' would've been filtered by the previous codec...

Anyway, its quite possible to get smaller sizes and almost exactly the same quality with a codec... depending on the codec

Sorry, but that is totaly untrue. The MOST important thing in video compression is the quality of the source video. If you use a pre-encoded source, then the second codec (even if you use the same one again) has to encode the compression artifacts created by the first encoding.

HoofHearted · Dec 18, 2000, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by SkullMac-PN:
Sorry, but that is totaly untrue...

He's probably too modest to mention it, but I think you're treading on thin ice because the guy you're arguing with (Mr Stux) actually created the 3ivx codec. Think you know enough about codecs to actually write one? Perhaps you do. Perhaps not.

But I think you're dead right that the best quality compression will only come from uncompressed source material, I just don't think that was the point Stux was making.

As for the "why another codec" argument, I see your point, but this is MPEG4 (and compliant as well, but that's a another argument), and MPEG4 is the future (at least in the medium term). And as Sorenson is a QT-only technology, what the world needs (and Mac user in particular to be on a par with other platforms) is a format that is truely cross-platform and opensource. 3ivx will run on pretty much any platform you care to mention. This isn't a dead end road for Macs, it's just that on Mac's it's a QT codec so it can leverage QT abilities. The Other teams (Project Mayo, opencodex, etc) are similarly trying to provide a opensource MPEG4 codec, probably more from a PC perscpective, but PC users just want an MPEG4 format like us, whoever get to market and pushes it first will get a chunk of pie. So why try to replace Divx;-)? Well, because at it's heart it's a hack, and Microsoft has pretty succesfully broken it with later versions of WMP.

As a mac user I just want to have access to the best codecs that are on other platforms (who want's to have the best codec if you can't distribute it?). 3ivx could be one solution.

By the way, I said my test was unscientific!! But the quality I got was good, I had trouble believing it was 12fps at first. it was on a G4 400 AGP with QT5pr2.

oscar · Dec 18, 2000, 04:33 AM

I believe that this codec requires quicktime pro, i think either 4 or 5 should work, but its the "pro" that is important

------------------
-See Yea!

Treuf · Dec 18, 2000, 05:17 AM

3ivx finally there ! Wow ...
Nice christmas present Mr Stux (:
It's impressive for a pre pre release. Keep up the good work !

deckard97 · Dec 18, 2000, 10:42 PM

Please, this has nothing to do with MPEG4.
I know this is confusing, but the Divx codec which is based on microsoft code is'nt related to the MPEG4 specification (as in MPEG2), i know the name can be confusing, but DIVX is NOT MPEG4.
the MPEG4 specification is far from complete.

Of course, we're all waiting on MPEG4 to be completed, but in no way investing in codecs such as Divx will help us get to MPEG4.

Sure, it's nice to have a little competition out there, but from a developper's point of view, i would never develop commercial or widely available products using video encoded with hacks and obscure codecs that we just don't know if they will still be there in 2 years.

HoofHearted · Dec 19, 2000, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by deckard97:
the MPEG4 specification is far from complete.

ah yes.. there seems to be alot of confusion about MPEG4 specs being complete or not, there have been countless debates in Ars and AI forums about which drafts of the specs have been finished, and I'm definitely not qualified to offer a complete answer. deckard97 might well be correct, it's just that I've heard opinions both ways.

It's definite that MS used an early draft for their MPEG4 implementation, and I was lead to believe that the final draft was complete. Stux, can you confirm or deny any of this?

noliv · Dec 19, 2000, 04:40 AM

Mpeg4 specs not defined?
That would explain why QuickTime doesn't support it... ?

stux · Dec 27, 2000, 09:33 AM

Let me set the record straight.

3ivx is a member of MPEG and thus has not only access to the MPEG4 spec, but input as well.

3ivX Delta 1 is as close to the MPEG4v3 spec as we could get it in this early time frame.

100% MPEG4 players should be able to play these early bitstreams, but there will probably be artifacts, since there are BUGS in the codec!

There are currently 3 specifications for MPEG4

v1 is FINAL. Has been final for about a year, or at least 6 months.

v2 is being approved,

and v3 is a draft.

v3 encompasses v1 and v2...

So since 3ivx is based on V3, it is v1 and v2 compliant.

DIVX is *NOT* MPEG4.

3ivx *IS*