Originally posted by jezzmo
*hi5 bak*
that said, divX doesn't necessarily constitute a DVD rip.. i have downloaded some divx's which were recorded with vidcam in cinema, and were only slightly better (but significantly) than TMD (and heaps better than SMR).
I know SMR uses their own hacked MPEG-4 codec called nAVI. It's quite similar to DivX. Obviously, the codec used does not correlate in any way to the source of the movie. Like my previous post said, the quality of the end-product involves two factors: (a) the movie source (dvd, vhs, cam), (b) the encoder and encoding quality (divx, navi, wmv).
TMD/SMR/DivX/blabla has nothing to do with the movie _source_. A movie sourced from DVD may look just as good encoded by SMR's codec (with the right quality settings at encoding time) as encoded by DivX. Before you go all high-fivey on me, please check your facts.
edit: that said, i don't know whether i'm right or not... it may be use divx codec (which is kinda surpristing), which is lowered quality because its taken in a cinema...and yeh it is also a group of people who do it.
DivX, TMR's codec (whatever it is) and SMR's codec are all hacked versions of MPEG-4. Why would TMR using a divx-like codec be surprising? What does DivX have to do with where the movie came from?