Someone reviewed v on Jul 5, 2022

Pros: 555

Cons: 555

Bottom Line: 555

more10s reviewed v1.1.3 on May 3, 2008

Good stuff.

comeoffit reviewed v1.1.3 on Jan 1, 2008

What happen to the official website? Ever since I install Koepi's XviD codec my Vista Home Premium has been running slowly.

XweAponX reviewed v1.1.3 on Oct 7, 2007

Seems like the "Dead Link" was ressurrected by one of those fake Xhit lame Mirroring websites that foogin mirror what people type in GOOGLE. That pisses me off thank you.

If the MPAA had anything to do with the removal of Keopi's Site, then they Xuk. They Xuk anyway, XuXers! It is just a CONTENT PLAYER that attached to WinAMP, WMP, and Cyberlink PowerDVD player.

I don't understand why .0 face sez this is a bad Codec, S'allright. I've used Keopi since XviD emerged from DivX on two fins and shed its fishtail and Darwin letters. Keopi's the best: As far as XviD goes. XviD is simply not as good as DivX was when it was new. The newer codex of DivX Xux X(h)it! My favourite DivX codec is Alpha 3.11- I stopped keeping up when DivX 4 or so was released and it has that lame MANDATORY player built in. No, that Xucked! So I went back to building mt Rips with that Autorun that used to come with DivX disks- The Autorun that asked you if you wanted to install DivX... And installed 3.11. It also had a lil NFO viewer, those were the days heh?

Most of the XviD releases I have downbloated are inferior to the DivX released of the same thing, and so they should be. I just don't think these kids can encode very well! I rarely had a DivX that had the amount of Audio and Video artifacts I've seen in my XviD collection.

The problem is of course, these kids try to get the product to fit on 1 CD, and then they create on overburned ISO image. That is usually the problem.

Well, I like Keopi. But if someone ain't like Keopi, then just download some of the codex from that page Celtic Dude posted, those are mostly good.

What it comes down to is having to have several installed, and hopefully at least 1 of the codex deals with the film you are looking at, at the moment.

Point Zero reviewed v1.1.3 on Sep 22, 2007

Horrible codec, get version 1.0.3, that's the best one. all newer ones have real ugly output.

Best ones here : http://tirnanog.fate.jp/mirror/XviD/

dhry reviewed v1.1.3 on Sep 7, 2007

Link dead. Koepi's homepage down.

photonboy reviewed v1.1.3 on Jul 8, 2007

Works great.

Done correctly, Xvid and Divx are essentially identical. Getting the best quality comes from choosing the optimum encoding settings (which includes having a good software program.)

I used to use AutoGK with Xvid and switched to Dr. Divx and also the Divx Create program. *WARNING: I don't know if every standalone player will play Divx6 so test this by encoding a small file and using a Rewriteable DVD (that you know works). At first I thought no, but it's possible that Divx Create is designed to be Universally playable on all Divx machines. I'm just not sure (mine plays Divx6 so I can't test this theory.)

I used AutoGK for encoding DVD-Video, but I thought it can also recode other files?

There's also "Mediacoder" and a few others but I don't know if you can choose your own Encoder.

Also, if you have a dual/duo core CPU you'll probably want to hit CTRL-ALT-DEL to see if it's being used. Video encoding programs are limited solely by CPU speed which is partly why there'll be a market for quad-core CPU's.

Also, experiment by encoding a good quality VOB such as a movie Trailer ripped from a DVD-Video. Experiment with your settings to balance encoding time with quality.

Link: www.free-codecs.com
Links: Google and also use Wikipedia to find links

Dsfargeg reviewed v1.1.3 on Jun 29, 2007

Koepi's build really is the best out there.
This is much better than DivX.

joeshmoe7 reviewed v1.1.2 Final on Nov 2, 2006

I've had nothing but bad experiences with DivX. Xvid on the otherhand always worked great. Good work!

DudeBoyz reviewed v1.1.2 Final on Nov 2, 2006

Good, but until this thing comes with an easy to use tool like Dr Divx so n00bs can transcode their TV episodes and other stuff into it without using their brains, it may not catch on as quickly as it might otherwise.

jk- reviewed v1.1.2 Final on Nov 2, 2006

xvid is vastly better than divx. divx comes with bundled spyware, it costs money, auto-installs packet filters that screw up your cd/dvdrom and there is no way to easily remove them. xvid, on the other hand, is free and has no spyware! thanks xvid crew!

WRFan reviewed v1.1.2 Final on Nov 1, 2006

koepi's build is definitely the best xvid build out there, but actually divx uses less cpu power than xvid, so I always switch the fourcc to divx before playing mpeg4 movies. this way the divx decoder is used for decoding purposes

matt2971 reviewed v1.1.2 Final on Nov 1, 2006

In response to the previous poster; from my understanding, when you play the same file using the xvid codec or using ffdshow there won't be much quality difference, because the quality is mainly determined by the way it was encoded, rather than the way you play it.

The main difference is that using the divx codec, or especially the xvid codec, to play a file, takes a lot of CPU time, whereas using ffdshow (which can decode anything that divx or xvid, or a host of other codecs created) to play the file seems to use a lot less processing power. You notice this on older PCs - using xvid might cause jitter in the playback, whereas ffdshow does not.

"The open source library libavcodec can decode MPEG-4 video encoded with DivX (and other MPEG-4 codecs, such as XviD or libavcodec MPEG-4). Combined with image postprocessing code from the MPlayer project, it has been packaged into a DirectShow decoding filter called ffdshow, which can be used with most Windows video players and reportedly achieves higher image quality while generating less CPU load than the DivX codec[2]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DivX_;-)

So with ffdshow, you get the same result for less cost, and also more versatility, since ffdshow will also render a whole lot of other formats.

Additionally, some oddly encoded xvid files that cause players to not play them properly when using the xvid codec will play fine using ffdshow.

However, it's always been the case I believe that when you actually create (encode) the file, xvid produces a better quality result than divx for the same file size. I don't know if this is still the case with newer divx versions.

Additionally xvid is also open source and not bundled with a player or ads anything else.

So far as different versions of xvid - that's cos it's open source I guess. I always use this Koepi's version. There's not much difference if you're just using it to render rather than encode I would think, although I believe there are versions especially optimized for PCs with certain features like SSE versions and the like.

I have to say, I'm an IT bod by trade and know at least a little about most IT subjects, but digital/PC video has to be one of the most complicated things to get your head around, simply because of the seemingly endless formats of codecs and containers and renderers and players, each one with it's limitations and idiosyncrasies. Most IT subjects get like that when you delve deep enough, but with this one, you hit those complications almost right away... It's a minefield!

photonboy reviewed v1.2.127 Build 25022006 Beta on Mar 15, 2006

I'm getting fed up with all the builds with no easy way to determine which one is best.

Xvid is still very popular, but I expect Divx to eventually replace it mainly due to the work at www.divx.com and the advertisment of "Divx Compatible" on the DVD players.

I just have the Xvid codec that came with AutoGK 2.27 installed, but I'm no longer really using it.

I've compared ffdshow, divx, xvid and whatever VLC media player uses. I can't see any clear difference in quality at all. VLC media player is great for slower computers.

High Definition is going to become an issue soon, especially for slower computers. The need for great compression will be even more important since the video content in High Definition contains NINE TIMES the number of pixels in 16:9 format. My 3000+ Athlon 64 can play Windows Media High Definition but not the Highest Apple Quicktime HD. Those aren't avi files but I'm illustrating a point. For transferrence of High Definition files over the internet, I expect 720p (720 horizontal lines) to become a preferred method for "sharing" high definition as the best size/quality ratio.

I suspect Xvid won't keep up in this area and Divx at all for will take over. I love Xvid, but it's dying folks.