Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> DivX is too good to not using it... 
>(Is this correct English?  Guess not :-( )

Most Amerikanskys (self included) would say
"DivX is too good to not be using it".
which would also be incorrect because of the
split infinitive "to be".
Correct would be
"DivX is too good to be not using it".

dik

Post a reply to this message

or DivX is too good not to use.

Dick Balaska wrote:
> 
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> > DivX is too good to not using it...
> >(Is this correct English?  Guess not :-( )
> 
> Most Amerikanskys (self included) would say
> "DivX is too good to not be using it".
> which would also be incorrect because of the
> split infinitive "to be".
> Correct would be
> "DivX is too good to be not using it".
> 
> dik

Post a reply to this message

or divx is good to use 8)
gibus

Post a reply to this message

In article <evr1os4but0ehvbfjmbs7ar8gif4c24if9@4ax.com> , Peter Popov 
<pet### [at] usanet>  wrote:

> When QT4 wasn't out yet (nor MPEG 4) I read a few
> articles which pointer the latter as the most probable base for the
> former.

It is the other way around (except I am misunderstanding you): MPEG-4 is
based on the format of QuickTime.  The QuickTime format (.mov, .moov) itself
has nothing to do with any codec, it is a metaformat for any data and is
still the same since QuickTime 1.0.  New QuickTime versions basically only
differ in the codecs and codec versions they come with, and of course bug
fixes :-)

The MPEG-4 standard uses the same format but new codecs.  You will notice
this when you open any MPEG-4 for file with QuickTime, it will tell you
either that the stream is corrupted (older QuickTime versions return strange
error messages to programs) and new versions will (at least should) tell you
that a codec is missing.

     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message