So I had some spare time to do a little comparing of H.264 and DivX yesterday. I knew that H.264 was more efficient than DivX but not by this much... I downloaded "American Gangster" (FXG) to compare with the same movie encoded in H.264 via HandBrake (I own the DVD). The DivX version of "American Gangster" hasd a bitrate of 831 kbit/s (128 kbit/s MP3 stereo). The H.264 version of "American Gangster" that I did ended up having a bitrate of 812 kbit/s (128 kbit/s AAC stereo). So the H.264 encode actually had a smaller bitrate, but still very close. These are the settings for the HandBrake H.264 encode: Type: MKV Frame Rate: 24p Anamorphic: Strict Audio: 128 kbit/s AAC stereo Target File Size: 700MB Holy-moly-cows was H.264 better than the DivX encode. It was very close in quality to the original DVD! The DivX one has clearly visible blocks in dark solid colors as well as in solid blue skies while the H.264 one didn't have much if any at all. I'm very surprised with how much better the H.264 encode was compared to the DivX one. Why does the "file-sharing" community still rely on DivX when H.264 is so much better?