DivX 7 With H.264 Support, worth the exitement?

[Neillithan]

For the record, I will be using the terms "H.264" and "AVC" interchangeably. When you read either of those words, assume that I'm referring to the same thing no matter how politically incorrect I am. I honestly don't care how poorly I misuse them.

This is more of a thoughts and musings type post that I hope will spawn some discussion, so I'll start by saying that I'm not a pro or a genius at video encoding and terminology.

DivX 7 is getting ready to come out and I did a bit of research on it, it seems like they're embracing H.264. I expect they'll trademark "DivX HD" or something and try to push the new DivX HD format. We'll begin to see DivX HD Certified players arrive on the market.

My question, is it really worth the excitement? From what I can gather, they are going to be using the .mkv (matroska) container, which IMO is a great thing. However, this poses a problem with existing videos already using the .mkv container.

Currently, HD movies and videos using the .mkv container usually have no restrictions when it comes to video and audio compression settings. To my knowledge, .mkv files come in 2 flavors of AVC: High@L4.1 and High@L5.1. L4.1 is playable on all blu ray players assuming you change the container to something that plays nices with Blu Ray players. L5.1 is a gamble. Depending on the compression settings used, the video will either play or not play. Will DivX be able to play "all" existing .mkv files?

For DivX to be standardizing the .mkv container seems like quite an undertaking, or is it a massive mistake? Are they just introducing more complications?

It may be too soon to tell what compression settings "exactly" DivX 7 supports, but I'm not getting my hopes up. We've seen Quicktime boast H.264 playback only to support a very limited range of AVC potential.

Real Bloat player (I believe) is jumping ship to H.264, but who knows what proprietary methods they're employing to get their grubby little hands in our wallets.

Now DivX has an opportunity to revolutionize HD video, but will they? Will they further diversify videos or will they be the driving force .mkv needs?

It's not like there is going to be an XviD HD offspring of DivX HD. I don't think they want to open source their code this time around. Funny thing though, considering H.264 is already open source, how do they seriously expect to compete? By embracing H.264, it seems more like admitting defeat.

Maybe you guys know something I don't. Please enlighten me.

Thanks,
-Neil

[Dark Shikari]

For the record, I will be using the terms "H.264" and "AVC" interchangeably. When you read either of those words, assume that I'm referring to the same thing no matter how politically incorrect I am. I honestly don't care how poorly I misuse them.You're allowed to use those interchangeably. We won't complain until you start using H.264 and x264 interchangeably or something silly like that.
My question, is it really worth the excitement? From what I can gather, they are going to be using the .mkv (matroska) container, which IMO is a great thing. However, this poses a problem with existing videos already using the .mkv container.Currently, HD movies and videos using the .mkv container usually have no restrictions when it comes to video and audio compression settings. To my knowledge, .mkv files come in 2 flavors of AVC: High@L4.1 and High@L5.1. L4.1 is playable on all blu ray players assuming you change the container to something that plays nices with Blu Ray players. L5.1 is a gamble. Depending on the compression settings used, the video will either play or not play. Will DivX be able to play "all" existing .mkv files?No, it won't play any of them, because it requires Level 4.0, not Level 4.1. Now, if a specific implementation of the DivX spec in a player doesn't actually check the header and simply tries to play it anyways, odds are many encodes will work, but since the spec doesn't say to do so, there's no guarantee it'll work on anything.
For DivX to be standardizing the .mkv container seems like quite an undertaking, or is it a massive mistake? Are they just introducing more complications?MKV is already standardized; the bitstream spec was frozen long ago.
It may be too soon to tell what compression settings "exactly" DivX 7 supports, but I'm not getting my hopes up. We've seen Quicktime boast H.264 playback only to support a very limited range of AVC potential.H.264 High Profile Level 4.0, max 3 B-frames, any resolution 1920x1080 or below that's mod8 (note: interlaced resolutions are limited to a few specific values, progressive are not). Framerates 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30 are allowed. None of this is final, nor complete.Real Bloat player (I believe) is jumping ship to H.264, but who knows what proprietary methods they're employing to get their grubby little hands in our wallets.No, they're using RV30/40, which are proprietary ripoffs of early H.264 drafts (which, mind you, are so ugly they make H.264 look like a clean spec).It's not like there is going to be an XviD HD offspring of DivX HD. I don't think they want to open source their code this time around.Except this time, it already exists; its called x264.Funny thing though, considering H.264 is already open source, how do they seriously expect to compete? By embracing H.264, it seems more like admitting defeat.H.264 is a spec, a spec can't be "open source." Perhaps you mean "x264 is an open source implementation"?

[Neillithan]

Wow. Okay you answered pretty much all of my questions and I'm actually shocked to know the answers.

No, it won't play any of them, because it requires Level 4.0, not Level 4.1. Now, if a specific implementation of the DivX spec in a player doesn't actually check the header and simply tries to play it anyways, odds are many encodes will work, but since the spec doesn't say to do so, there's no guarantee it'll work on anything.

Divx 7 only plays High@4.0? Wow. That's hardly an goal worth the effort. That's like trying to shoot a target with nuke, there's no way to miss.

So, by not being able to play 90% of existing .mkv files, DivX is making a huge mistake. They're going to fool people into thinking .mkv is a DivX extension and sooner or later DivX will be rife with complaints of playback issues. At least, this is what I forsee. I could be wrong.

MKV is already standardized; the bitstream spec was frozen long ago.

By standardizing .mkv, I used the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is, right now .mkv is unpopular, unsupported and pretty much unknown. If you want any kind of real compatability with devices, you have to use .mp4 or .m2ts for Blu Ray players. DivX will finally popularize the .mkv file format but instead of bringing light to it they will bring darkness, at least that is what I gather from your response.

H.264 High Profile Level 4.0, max 3 B-frames, any resolution 1920x1080 or below that's mod8 (note: interlaced resolutions are limited to a few specific values, progressive are not). Framerates 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30 are allowed. None of this is final, nor complete.

My comment about what compression settings DivX 7 will offer, I was curious if they're offering anything new? Will DivX HD videos offer some kind of superior compression algorithms to churn out every last detail or will they simply add partial AVC playback?

H.264 is a spec, a spec can't be "open source." Perhaps you mean "x264 is an open source implementation"?

I guess when I refer to H.264 being open source, I really mean AVC. AVC is open source, right?

Thanks for your fast response,
-Neil

[Dark Shikari]

Divx 7 only plays High@4.0? Wow. That's hardly an goal worth the effort. That's like trying to shoot a target with nuke, there's no way to miss.The reason is that many STB chipsets don't support L4.1, so they're doing it to make support cheaper.So, by not being able to play 90% of existing .mkv files, DivX is making a huge mistake. They're going to fool people into thinking .mkv is a DivX extension and sooner or later DivX will be rife with complaints of playback issues. At least, this is what I forsee. I could be wrong.But you misunderstand their business model. Companies like DivX make money by taking an existing standard, making a somewhat-arbitrary subset of it that doesn't include existing encodes, and promoting it as their own format. See Nero Digital and Quicktime for other cases of this.By standardizing .mkv, I used the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is, right now .mkv is unpopularUnpopular? It is the most widely used container format for HD video on PCs.unsupportedThe Popcorn Hour will play 1080p MKVs with H.264 video. Its $180.My comment about what compression settings DivX 7 will offer, I was curious if they're offering anything new? Will DivX HD videos offer some kind of superior compression algorithms to churn out every last detail or will they simply add partial AVC playback?No, DivX is not some new format, its H.264. Thus, it can't add any new compression features, and it isn't as if their encoder is really competitive just yet. Odds are everyone will just use x264 to encode for the boxes anyways.I guess when I refer to H.264 being open source, I really mean AVC. AVC is open source, right?H.264 and AVC are literally two names for the same thing. H.264 is a spec. AVC is a spec. A spec cannot be "open source."

[leeperry]

My question, is it really worth the excitement?
well, for ppl who wanna watch pirate MKV's on standalone player, I guess so.

it's been discussed here with a guy from the DivX team :
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15026100#post15026100

basically DivX Networks cashed in bigtime on divx3(stolen asf dll from m$), and now they wanna cash in on MKV pirate movies.

it's a great business scheme, from the mind of a genius obviously :)

now they need all the pirates to betatest their software for free, so they can sell licences to hw manufacturers...for tons of cash :cool:

[Sharktooth]

leeperry... even in that thread it's you and only you speculating divx wanna make cash from pirate movie...
still mkv is a uber-robust, uber-versatile and open... to sum it up, the smartest container format around.
mp4 practically supports only TTXT subs (an almost unused subtitle format), while MKV supports basically everything... and that's true for other kind of streams too...
also h.264 was a natural evolution of MPEG4 ASP...
also most pirate MKVs are not DivX compliant (as it has been already said, DivX 7 compatible devices can play only level 4.0 h.264 streams, while most scene rips are unrestricted, 5.1 or 4.1...) so, that said, your speculation is completely unnecessary and untrue.

[Dark Shikari]

while MKV supports basically everythingBut DivX7 doesn't. It only supports SRT and SSA, and furthermore--it only supports completely unformatted subtitles, so its really no better than TTXT.

[DigitAl56K]

From what I can gather, they are going to be using the .mkv (matroska) container, which IMO is a great thing. However, this poses a problem with existing videos already using the .mkv container.

...

Will DivX be able to play "all" existing .mkv files?


Not all existing files (in hardware). I think that is impossible to accomplish and you've already recognized the problem:

Currently, HD movies and videos using the .mkv container usually have no restrictions when it comes to video and audio compression settings.


In this situation it's simply not possible to create an interoperable platform across many device categories unless every manufacturer is willing to quickly move to the most high-end expensive H.264 decoders on the market. As you pointed out, even in that case content encoded at level 5.1 is still going to be a gamble.

What we're trying to achieve is a high quality HD format with an assured playback experience on a very wide range of devices (think DVD players, set top boxes, connected devices, even Mobile devices eventually) with the aim of making available devices at reasonable price points. The goal is not to make every device support every variation of H.264 and it's important to understand that difference. The question we're trying to answer is, "Can we create a very high quality format using the benefits of these new technologies, finding a good balance between the features they offer and device interoperability, all without sacrificing compression too much?". This was also the goal with DivX 6 and prior. As the DivX Certified program launched we faced an uphill battle amongst the technology purists who wanted the most complete MPEG-4 ASP implementations possible, yet if we had gone that route actual hardware would only have been available years later, there would be less choice, it would cross fewer device categories and devices would have been far more expensive slowing the growth of the platform and reducing the value for those adopting the format.

Dark Shikari is correct that our draft profile currently specifies level 4.0 but the subsets/constraints we're choosing are not "somewhat-arbitrary", they're the result of ongoing discussions with our partners to determine what the DivX 7 ecosystem might look like depending on the constraints that we set. As DS mentioned, level 4.0 is one constraint that will lead to content interoperability across the set top box market.

We've seen Quicktime boast H.264 playback only to support a very limited range of AVC potential.

Apple do not have to worry about interoperability too much. You encode for your iPhone, or your iPod, or your AppleTV. The content doesn't really move beyond that walled environment. All of these devices, btw, support different profiles/levels than one another.

Now DivX has an opportunity to revolutionize HD video, but will they? Will they further diversify videos or will they be the driving force .mkv needs?

I think we're going to offer very much the same value proposition that we did in previous generations of DivX. As a content creator you always have choices before you and perhaps an over-simplification of the traditional problem comes down to this:


I have HD video to distribute
I can encode it using the best possible settings and mainly constrain its use to the desktop, or
I can lose 1-2% of the best possible efficiency, still have it look absolutely nose-to-screen perfect, but have it work on hundreds, perhaps thousands of devices, no problem.


Is it a big sacrifice to make versus the long-term benefit gained? I'd like to know that a year or two down the road the content I'm investing my time encoding and distributing today is going to be playable anywhere by anyone with no crazy conversion processes involved. I'd like my brother, sister, mother, and friends to be able to go into a store and pick something off the shelf for $100 or less and be able to watch all the files I've sent them in past with no problems.

basically DivX Networks cashed in bigtime on divx3(stolen asf dll from m$), and now they wanna cash in on MKV pirate movies.

DivX wants to create interoperability of content and devices. We want to work with hundreds of manufacturers to do that so that you can move your content between your video camera to your desktop to your DVD player and so on. We want to make sure that the experience you have on these devices is consistently good so that content creators can be assured that their viewership will have a great experience with their media.

But DivX7 doesn't. It only supports SRT and SSA, and furthermore--it only supports completely unformatted subtitles, so its really no better than TTXT.

No, the beta version of DivX Player 7 doesn't support formatting, yet ;)

[dukey]

i agree with pretty much everything DigitalAl56k says ..
and level 4.0 high profile is ..

1920x1080 30 fps at 25mbit !
Hardly poor specifications by any means.
BBC HD broadcasts at 1440x1080 at 16mbit .. and looks amazing.

[Neillithan]

Unpopular? It is the most widely used container format for HD video on PCs.

Allright, I'm not trying to nitpick but are you purposely trying to misunderstand this? You took that quote way out of context. When I said "unpopular", I meant in the device and market world. When you go to Youtube and you try to upload a .mkv file, guess what? No. You can't. Can you put a .mkv file on your Ipod? No. Can you Stream a .mkv file on your Media Center PS3? No. Why? I can think of no other reason than it being unpopular. I feel like I'm hitting a soft spot but am I really far off from the truth? It's going to take years for .mkv to gain traction and it's going to need the help of a huge movement, a movement like DivX 7. Feel free to butcher my words but don't waste your time. I am absolutely right.

It's just sad that DivX 7 is going to pollute exist .mkvs. Right now, .mkv is an untapped area in the market world. .mkv has the reputation of supporting the latest and greatest and now DivX 7 comes along trying to put DivX "stamp" on MKV files. DivX has the driving force to put .mkv on the map, it's just sad they're doing so in a way that will pollute .mkv files everywhere. DivX should invent a new extension and call it .dmkv (d for divx) yet still have general support for .mkv files, that way people can easily discern DivX videos from .mkv. It would be the equivalent of using the .divx extension when it's clearly a relabeled .avi.

The Popcorn Hour will play 1080p MKVs with H.264 video. Its $180.

When I went looking for a media server capable of playing H.264 .mkv files, I found Popcorn hour. When I took a closer look, I realized it only played Level 4.1 (I believe) .mkv files. That's the problem with the world of HD right now. There are so many blu ray players and media extenders boasting playback of H.264, but the truth is, they don't play everything. Am I asking for too much? I think not.

Here is how I see things. I see hardware makers deliberately choosing an arbitrary level of AVC to purposely break playback of existing video files so that you will in turn, reencode your videos in their "supposedly" superior format. This is my idle speculation but I believe it's a unspoken business practice in the video world. Everyone, everywhere is doing it. Streaming video flash sites claim superior video quality, but yet they will reencode your videos even if they're already in an acceptable format. Why?

As the DivX Certified program launched we faced an uphill battle amongst the technology purists who wanted the most complete MPEG-4 ASP implementations possible, yet if we had gone that route actual hardware would only have been available years later, there would be less choice, it would cross fewer device categories and devices would have been far more expensive slowing the growth of the platform and reducing the value for those adopting the format.

DivX infers it's impossible for them to support the full range of benefits of of todays new popular video format. Impossible or Hard? How about this theory. They deliberately choose a low spec just to keep us in the dark for many years to come.

CoreAVC plays all AVC videos. I have yet to find a video unplayable by CoreAVC. It really does make the perfect HTPC and it doesn't require 8 CPU multithreading to work.

I can go on and on but the truth is, I'm right if you just try to look past the obvious and let your own speculation take over. DivX isn't going to revolutionize anything now. They did it with DivX but DivX HD is just going to be some low spec of AVC. By opting for .mkv they're going to pollute existing videos.

-Neil

[Dark Shikari]

Allright, I'm not trying to nitpick but are you purposely trying to misunderstand this? You took that quote way out of context. When I said "unpopular", I meant in the device and market world. When you go to Youtube and you try to upload a .mkv file, guess what? No. You can't. Can you put a .mkv file on your Ipod? No. Can you Stream a .mkv file on your Media Center PS3? No. Why? I can think of no other reason than it being unpopular. I feel like I'm hitting a soft spot but am I really far off from the truth? It's going to take years for .mkv to gain traction and it's going to need the help of a huge movement, a movement like DivX 7. Feel free to butcher my words but don't waste your time. I am absolutely right.Say what you mean, rather than being unspecific and having others interpret your words to mean what they say, rather than what you meant. But here's the facts:

There is almost zero penetration of HD, file-based media in the current market.

iPods, DivX players, all that: its all standard-def. That's why DivX thinks they should use MKV: its not as if any other container is any more common in the hardware world for HD.It's just sad that DivX 7 is going to pollute exist .mkvs.How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players.When I went looking for a media server capable of playing H.264 .mkv files, I found Popcorn hour. When I took a closer look, I realized it only played Level 4.1 (I believe) .mkv files. That's the problem with the world of HD right now. There are so many blu ray players and media extenders boasting playback of H.264, but the truth is, they don't play everything. Am I asking for too much? I think not.There is no chipset in existence that plays 5.1. If it existed, it would cost thousands of dollars. The vast majority of "not level 4.1" files are really level 4.1 compliant anyways; you just have to change the header flags.
Here is how I see things. I see hardware makers deliberately choosing an arbitrary level of AVC to purposely break playback of existing video files so that you will in turn, reencode your videos in their "supposedly" superior format.No, they choose a level because it costs enormous sums of money to implement a chipset that can decode ultra-HD video in realtime, and there's no point in doing so when nobody needs it.Everyone, everywhere is doing it. Streaming video flash sites claim superior video quality, but yet they will reencode your videos even if they're already in an acceptable format. Why?Given that I personally know the guy who handles Youtube's encoding, I'd think I'd know this better than you: its because its just much easier to do it that way, because people tend to game the system. At Youtube, for example, people would upload FLV files with hexedited headers to breach the max bitrate limits.By the way, Zoome lets all users upload up to 1.5 megabit H.264 without re-encoding, and Nico Nico Douga lets premium users upload H.264 without re-encoding.
CoreAVC plays all AVC videos. I have yet to find a video unplayable by CoreAVC. It really does make the perfect HTPC and it doesn't require 8 CPU multithreading to work.Try implementing CoreAVC in an ASIC.DivX isn't going to revolutionize anything now.Well this is one thing I agree on.


You really need to do some basic research and learn how hardware players work before making ill-informed speculation. Levels exist for a very, very good reason.

[Neillithan]

There is no chipset in existence that plays 5.1. If it existed, it would cost thousands of dollars. The vast majority of "not level 4.1" files are really level 4.1 compliant anyways; you just have to change the header flags.

The HD Video world is very diverse and you should know that better than anyone seeing as you're an x264 dev.

Encoders that support x264 are beginning to default to L5.1 and over the last several months, I've seen new movements to consider L5.1 the unrestricted compression settings realm. Hardware makers simply refuse to go the route of L5.1. You say it's because it will cost them thousands of dollars.

I'm going to go out on a limb when I say this, but why in gods name does it require a new chipset? CoreAVC plays L5.1. Libavcodec which is used in so many things plays everything. All you need is a CPU fast enough which doesn't need to be extravagant like 3.0 ghz like Microsoft would have you believe.

How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players.

I feel like you're just not going to "get" this one. It's more about existing .mkv than new .mkv. Since .mkv is so unpopular right now, once DivX starts promoting .mkv as their new container format, it's only a matter of time before the average consumer draws the conclusion that .mkv belongs to DivX. This will lead them to think that all .mkv files everywhere will play on DivX HD certified players. Not true and not cool.

This, in my opinion, is the equivalent of polluting or poisoning.

Say what you mean, rather than being unspecific and having others interpret your words to mean what they say, rather than what you meant. But here's the facts:

...

You really need to do some basic research and learn how hardware players work before making ill-informed speculation. Levels exist for a very, very good reason.

I already said that I'm not a genius or pro at video encoding and terminology, but there's no reason to think these things can't be explained in a way that is understandable to those beneath you. For the most part, you make perfect sense but you're looking at the literal meaning of my words too closely. I don't want to take jabs at you but your failure to comprehend twice did not have to result in such a superiority-like demeanor. You could have simply accepted the fact that I didn't use the right terminology to address the meaning of the words "popular" and "standard".

I think I have fulfilled my curiosity. DivX doesn't plan to be a Home Theater video player capable of playing back everything. It hurts them more than it hurts me. I still have my PC.

-Neil

[Dark Shikari]

Encoders that support x264 are beginning to default to L5.1 and over the last several months, I've seen new movements to consider L5.1 the unrestricted compression settings realm. Hardware makers simply refuse to go the route of L5.1. You say it's because it will cost them thousands of dollars.

I'm going to go out on a limb when I say this, but why in gods name does it require a new chipset? CoreAVC plays L5.1. Libavcodec which is used in so many things plays everything. All you need is a CPU fast enough which doesn't need to be extravagant like 3.0 ghz like Microsoft would have you believe.Again, you still don't understand the point of levels.

A level is a limit. If a stream actually maxed out the limits of level 5.1, your computer wouldn't play it--in fact, an 8-core Core 2 probably wouldn't play it either. Most of the encodes out there (pirated) are probably 4.1 or 4.0-compliant.

"Supporting 5.1" does not mean "playing streams that have the 5.1 flag." It means playing all streams up to the limits specified by 5.1, in realtime. For an example of such a stream, see this high resolution clip (http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/force.php?file=./HighRes.mkv). Can your computer play it? I didn't think so.

I don't expect everyone to go out of their way to learn what levels mean. However, if you intend on discussing the topic, it is perfectly reasonable for others to expect you to spend 10 minutes in order to know what you're talking about before you put your hands to the keyboard.

I'm not going to bother with this anymore: you continue to ignore those who respond to you and insist that your preconceived notions are correct--that the spec is wrong instead. And, since it seems you cannot understand the concept of levels as specified in ITU-T H.264/AVC Annex A, I would strongly advise you to stop posting on the topic, since most of your posts just don't make sense due to the fact that you do not understand what levels mean.

Oh, and x264 autodetects the correct level for the encoding, so the point is moot anyways. It won't use level 5.1 unless you serve it some really insane resolution input.

P.S. I'm generally rather patient, but you managed to be annoying, rude, and insulting enough to convince me, one of the few people on this forum who has both the knowledge and cares enough to answer all these questions, to stop helping you in less than a dozen posts. Might I point out that this isn't an honor. But remember, the DS is a forgiving DS. In the end, even fools can be enlightened if they only acknowledge their foolishness and learn from their mistakes.

[Neillithan]

Unnecessary and harsh. That's all I'm going to say.

Dude that video is 96mbps. Of course nothing is going to play that in real time. I just have to point out the absurdity of you posting that video just to prove your own point. You don't need a video to be L5.1 to be unplayable. Just make a 1080p L4.1 video 96mbps/sec and you'll encounter the same playback issues. There's no reason why hardware players can't play L5.1 videos. Playing them in real time is a different story but who is stupid enough to put videos in such a high bitrate like that?

Just stop. I sound like a procrastinator but much of what I say is in response to your absurd responses which portray themselves as objections. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean you should be an arrogant wisdom touting bully.

ugh.. again. Oh, and x264 autodetects the correct level for the encoding, so the point is moot anyways. It won't use level 5.1 unless you serve it some really insane resolution input.

I shouldn't even be telling you this but resolution isn't the only factor. I have to stop while I'm ahead. Thanks for ruining this thread.

-Neil

[neuron2]

Neil, you seem to be a bit uninformed about practical realities. Consider 5.1 versus 4.1. The former requires almost 6 times as much memory just for the decoded pictures buffer. Set-top box makers go to great pains to save a nickel per box; do you think they can justify such a massively larger memory footprint?

I also want to ask you to stop throwing insults around, per forum rule 4.

[Dark Shikari]

a 1080p L4.1 video 96mbps/secI wasn't going to post anymore, but this made me laugh hysterically.

Are you ever going to actually look up what the levels mean? :p

[Neillithan]

Yes.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/7876/l41mx9.th.jpg (http://img395.imageshack.us/my.php?image=l41mx9.jpg)http://img395.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Go ahead, butcher me to death.

[neuron2]

Where did that come from, please? I don't see it in the AVC spec. The latest actual AVC spec shows 50Mbps max for 4.1 (Table A-1 – Level limits).

Did you follow my point about the memory footprint?

Nobody wants to butcher anyone. We are seekers after truth here.

[Neillithan]

L5.1 and L4.1 is my way of discerning 2 different complexities of video encoding. Whether or not it's a practical reality is not my concern. It's the fact that existing hardware refuses to display any kind of picture if the video doesn't conform to the limitations set by the hardware player. Right now hardware players simply blacklist any kind of video that is L4.2 and greater rather than attempting to play them. My PC plays all videos regardless of complexities, resolutions and bitrates. That's why I can never jump ship to a media extender or a Media Center device. They're simply too limited.

Someone else, less informed than my uninformed self will simply ask, "Why doesn't the video play? It doesn't play." They don't know why but I at least have an inkling as to what the reason may be. Dark Shikari and yourself would have me believe I shouldn't question the nature of things unless I have a degree in rocket science.

Screw that.

[Milvus]

Where did that come from, please? I don't see it in the AVC spec. The latest actual AVC spec shows 50Mbps max for 4.1 (Table A-1 – Level limits).

Did you follow my point about the memory footprint?

Nobody wants to butcher anyone. We are seekers after truth here.

Seems like a wikipedia screenshot... :rolleyes:

2 problems :

- Wikipedia is not the officiel spec, they can be errors. It's just a good introduction at much.
- >50Mbps apply to High 10, High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4 Predictive Profiles. Probably not the kind of videos you can find outside a professional workflow, as intermediate formats...

[avivahl]

Small note... his picture came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Levels
The 150Mbit/s is at the "Max video bit rate (VCL) for High 10 Profile" column
and the 200Mbit/s is at the "Max video bit rate (VCL) for High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4 Predictive Profiles" column.

I personally have no idea what they both mean. :D

[neuron2]

Whether or not it's a practical reality is not my concern. Well, Neil, you're not a CEO of a hardware box manufacturer trying to make products that can be sold at a profit.

My PC plays all videos regardless of complexities, resolutions and bitrates. Such a machine costs hundreds to thousands of dollars. It is simply not a viable idea to think you can sell standalone devices at such a price.

Dark Shikari and yourself would have me believe I shouldn't question the nature of things unless I have a degree in rocket science. It's not rocket science. There's no way affordable standalones and set-top boxes could be made to support 5.1. You can ask anybody knowledgeable in the field. I work for a semiconductor maker that sells into this industry. I know what is viable from a HW perspective. You are welcome to refute this with some facts.

Screw that. That will do wonders for your reputation.

[Dark Shikari]

I personally have no idea what they both mean. :DThey're all "professional" formats not intended for ordinary hardware (or even software) players. High is what most STBs and software decoders support, for which the L4.1 max bitrate is 50 megabits.

[Milvus]

I personally have no idea what they both mean. :D

That mean it's a kind of video you will probably never need to watch on a standalone, and joe six-pack will never have in hand.

Standalone don't support 5.1 not only because it would be very hard and expensive, but also because it's useless, even if you are a 1080p maniac.

[neuron2]

Some constraints of the High 10 profile also result in a significantly lower compression ratio, which can be important for fixed size media, such as DVDs, and for limited broadcast channels.

[DigitAl56K]

Neillithan,

Just as CoreAVC does, the DivX H.264 Decoder also decodes more than just High 4.0 content. Hardware is a different story though.

The comments Dark Shikari and neuron2 make are correct. Supporting higher levels does introduce a much greater burden on manufacturers in terms of devices capabilities and cost. Widespread support of everything up to level 5.1 is infeasible. Look back to my earlier post where I'm speaking to interoperability across many manufacturers, confidence amongst consumers and content creators and low-cost solutions in many device categories. Think to yourself, "How do we get there from here?". You said it yourself,

When I went looking for a media server capable of playing H.264 .mkv files, I found Popcorn hour. When I took a closer look, I realized it only played Level 4.1 (I believe) .mkv files. That's the problem with the world of HD right now. There are so many blu ray players and media extenders boasting playback of H.264, but the truth is, they don't play everything.

If you're not very technically informed devices either play H.264 or they don't. But the world of H.264 is diverse, and earlier I used some of Apple's devices as just one example of a lineup from a single manufacturer where if it was not for Apple's somewhat closed content ecosystem consumers might be mystified as to why files from one device don't play on another.

DivX wants to build a consistent platform. We want to bring all manner of capable devices into an ecosystem where creators and viewers don't have to target specific devices but only a known profile that we can assure will work reliably everywhere. And that's bigger than just H.264. It's the container. It's the audio format. It's the subtitles and the metadata and all other aspects of the experience.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to re-encode my media for every single device I ever buy. I don't want my friends to have to either. I know some of my friends wouldn't know where to start in fact. I don't want my PC trying to transcode all my videos on the fly for my connected device every time I watch them because a year ago I decided I could get an extra 0.5% compression by using an extra b-frame. I want my media to look fantastic, sound amazing, and play the instant I want to watch it with no fuss.

On the other hand, nobody is taking away your freedom to encode your files the way you like. If these values are less important to you then that too is okay. But wouldn't it be nice if you ever shared your files with others that they could enjoy the great experience that a common platform offered? :)

I really have not found anything that doesn't look spectacular in 1080 using level 4.0.

[Neillithan]

P.S. I'm generally rather patient, but you managed to be annoying, rude, and insulting enough to convince me, one of the few people on this forum who has both the knowledge and cares enough to answer all these questions, to stop helping you in less than a dozen posts. Might I point out that this isn't an honor. But remember, the DS is a forgiving DS. In the end, even fools can be enlightened if they only acknowledge their foolishness and learn from their mistakes.

Seriously, you ignored all of my initial heeds and you have the nerve to say I'm annoying, rude and insulting? I just tried to spawn a discussion not a chain of objections.

You misinterpreted my responses and further misinterpreted. I called you out for being partial in your responses because you look at only the literal meaning of my words and then you tell me I should clarify. I did clarify and you became upset.

In the midst of my responses, apparently my inability to correctly use video terminology annoyed you enough to
start truly insulting me. You called me a fool.

To top it all off, I get told to stop insulting people.

Lets compare insults shall we?

DS: Annoying, rude, fool and foolish versus
ME: Arrogant wisdom-touting bully

Both are mean spirited, yet I'm told to knock it off. I guess you wouldn't dare tell a well renowned forum member to stop insulting so long as the little guy is the easier target.

I've visited this forum many times for discussion and help and all I get in return are threads that end like this.



Screw that.
That will do wonders for your reputation.

Even you fall victim to looking at only the literal meaning of words. Need I clarify that one? It was a neutral statement and you assume it's contemptuous of this forum? Why? There's no reason to interpret that as such.

I loathe this place.

[Leak]

It's not rocket science. There's no way affordable standalones and set-top boxes could be made to support 5.1. You can ask anybody knowledgeable in the field. I work for a semiconductor maker that sells into this industry. I know what is viable from a HW perspective. You are welcome to refute this with some facts.
I'm going out on a limb here - but shouldn't it be possible to use one of the lowest end current-gen ATI (or nVidia) GPUs to manufacture something like that?

Radeon HD 4350 cards (which come with ATI's UVD2 engine) start at 35 EUR around here, and that's the price for the GPU, video RAM and the board...

[Neillithan]

I'm going out on a limb here - but shouldn't it be possible to use one of the lowest end current-gen ATI (or nVidia) GPUs to manufacture something like that?

Radeon HD 4350 cards (which come with ATI's UVD2 engine) start at 35 EUR around here, and that's the price for the GPU, video RAM and the board...

Well, they're right in the sense that Level 5.1 has the potential to bring any current system to its knees. To prove his point, Dark Shikari posted a 10 second video at some absurd resolution like 3840x2160@50fps with a bitrate of 96 megabits per second. Apparently, 5.1 is supposed to be outrageously high quality requiring a super computer from the future, but most people who use L5.1 don't encode their videos near the magnitude of that complexity. L5.1 should be playable and for the videos that go beyond sane compression and HD setting, it doesn't matter.

My PC has a dual core 3ghz AMD, 4gigs of ram and an 8800 GTX OC and it has no trouble playing 1920x1080@60fps. For a PS3 or an Xbox 360, I'd assume their H.264 playback to be on par with my PC, yet they only support L4.1 videos. Why? There is no reason for the limitation.

[DrNein]

What advantage would 5.1 capabability offer over 4.1 for consumer videos? It seems it is not necessarily better for the purpose and we should not conclude we are missing something because a higher spec is available -especially if it unnecessarily raised costs.

[nurbs]

Why do you think supporting level 4.1 is a huge limitation? The majority of people will never get a hand on a source exceeding level 4.1 anyway since blu-ray (and probably broadcast hdtv too) fall under that limitation. With these sources you wouldn't reencode with settings that require a higher level anyway since it would only reduce quality and then you might as well keep them untouched. Also just because a file is labeled level 4.1 or level 5.1 doesn't mean the content actually requires that level. Most of the 720p files that hit filesharing networks probably don't even exceed level 3.1 if the encoder used a sane number of reference frames (<=5). The quality that can be gained by exceeding that limit is minimal (unless maybe on cartoons). I do agree that the decoder should not just look at the level and refuse to play a file, but thats a minor problem since the level flag can easily be changed to represent the actual content of the file.

[neuron2]

I'm going out on a limb here - but shouldn't it be possible to use one of the lowest end current-gen ATI (or nVidia) GPUs to manufacture something like that?

Radeon HD 4350 cards (which come with ATI's UVD2 engine) start at 35 EUR around here, and that's the price for the GPU, video RAM and the board... Now add the case, power supply, other required things like tuners, smartcard interfaces, multiple video connectors, HDMI, USB, and all the other things set-top boxes have nowadays. And be aware that boxes are provided free or at very low cost to consumers by services such as DirecTV. The pressures on manufacturers to keep costs low is incredible. You wouldn't believe the competition between manufacturers to sell their boxes to service providers.

As several posters have pointed out, 5.1 support is just not necessary to play the kinds of videos that these devices are called on to play. It's a wholly unjustifiable expense in a penny-pinching environment.

The bottom line is that if putting six times the memory on a box along with the more complex chipsets required to support 5.1 was a viable competitive strategy, it would be done, tinfoil hats not withstanding.

[STaRGaZeR]

To prove his point, Dark Shikari posted a 10 second video at some absurd resolution like 3840x2160@50fps with a bitrate of 96 megabits per second. Apparently, 5.1 is supposed to be outrageously high quality requiring a super computer from the future, but most people who use L5.1 don't encode their videos near the magnitude of that complexity. L5.1 should be playable and for the videos that go beyond sane compression and HD setting, it doesn't matter.

I think you still don't understand how this works. If a player is labeled as L4.1 compliant, it has to be able to play all compliant L4.1 videos. Therefore, if you want a player labeled as L5.1 compliant, it has to be able to play all compliant L5.1 videos. You fail to understand that the video DS posted is L5.1 compliant, so if you want validated L5.1 support in your player of choice it has to be able to play it. That is why it is not viable. The problem comes when people use an insane (and useless) number of reference frames for their encodes. Everything else is compliant with L3.x or L4.x, but because of the ref frames you'd need L5.1 to fully support it.

However, Blu-ray being L4.1, I don't know why DivX is restricted to L4. Also I'd have been nice that Blu-ray supported L4.2, allowing 1080p60 and 1080p50.

[DigitAl56K]

I'm going out on a limb here - but shouldn't it be possible to use one of the lowest end current-gen ATI (or nVidia) GPUs to manufacture something like that?

I can't think of much outside of the PS3 and Xbox360 that might implement such a thing. HW players already use special IC's with dedicated decoders. They're going to be about as cost efficient as you will get.

[Turtleggjp]

I think that the reason they didn't support L4.1 is so that their (certified) players focus on content created by DivX 7, rather than the videos that are already out there, including HD-DVD and Blu Ray movies. Not only are there potential legal issues involved with this (no one wants to put out a hardware device capable of playing back decrypted Blu Rays, Popcorn Hour being the exception) but if they did then people would wonder why some movies (AVC) can be easily converted to play on DivX players, while others (MPEG2, VC-1) cannot. If they supported all 3 formats, then I think that is going beyond what they intended to create, not to mention even more expensive.

As for the L5.1 issue, there's just simply no need for such support. True L5.1 video (like the sample provided by DS) is way too expensive to support today, and would defeat DivX's goal of an affordable player for all. Now, what they could have done is display a warning when trying to play a file that is marked as L5.1 saying "This file might be more than I can handle, do you want to try anyway?" That way, if it fails to play correctly, you were warned, but if it can play it, then great. Granted, when feeding a hardware device more than it can handle the results may be unpredictable, so this may need to be an "expert option" only to be used by those who know what they might be getting into.

[DigitAl56K]

Turtleggjp,

4.0 profile enables very high quality 1080 video and allows a much more extensive device support. Contrary to your point around Blu-Ray there is no legal issue I'm aware of around the choice of level. The maximum video bitrate for level 4.1 is 2.5x that of 4.0.

[Atak_Snajpera]

For those who are obsessed by 4.1 profile:
20Mbps is more that enough for 1080p stream so why you want 50Mbps?!?!!?!? I'm with DigitAl56K ...

[Tagert]

I agree with the gentlemen above me.
The profile support is well enough :)

[Turtleggjp]

Turtleggjp,

4.0 profile enables very high quality 1080 video and allows a much more extensive device support. Contrary to your point around Blu-Ray there is no legal issue I'm aware of around the choice of level. The maximum video bitrate for level 4.1 is 2.5x that of 4.0.

I understand that there is no legal issue in implementing a chip capable of decoding L4.1 video. However considering the primary source of such video is Blu Ray discs, which we aren't supposed to have free access to :sly:, I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device. Since you are not trying to be a Blu Ray caliber player, I agree that L4.0 should be enough for the average user, which is whom you are targeting with your product.

[neuron2]

>I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device

4.1 support is pretty standard for dedicated AVC decoder ICs.

[Turtleggjp]

>I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device

4.1 support is pretty standard for dedicated AVC decoder ICs.

That doesn't surprise me, but where do all these chips end up? My guess would be licensed Blu Ray players, PS3, Xbox, etc.

[neuron2]

Satellite and cable set-top boxes. E.g., DirecTV, Dish, and Cisco (SA).

[kosmonaut]

I understand that there is no legal issue in implementing a chip capable of decoding L4.1 video. However considering the primary source of such video is Blu Ray discs, which we aren't supposed to have free access to :sly:, I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device. Since you are not trying to be a Blu Ray caliber player, I agree that L4.0 should be enough for the average user, which is whom you are targeting with your product.

There really is no conspiracy here. The hardware guys, to the best of my knowledge, don't really think that way. There are all sorts of legimate ways to produce content besides from Blu-Ray rips, and there are likely to be many, many more in the future. Even the CE manufacturers that are connected to content producers like Sony don't really act that way in my experience, FWIW.

[Doom9]

@DigitAl56K: What were the reasons for 4.0 vs. 4.1 when Blu-ray requires 4.1 and thus there are already viable solutions out there to play 4.1 (starting with the few millions of Blu-ray standalones and all the PS3's.. and let's not forget the NMT fraction (though I'm not confident to say they really can handle 4.1). This isn't like when the first DVD players came out that could play more computationally expensive content than DVDs.. the hardware to play 4.1 content is already out in the millions.

[SeeMoreDigital]

...and let's not forget the NMT fraction (though I'm not confident to say they really can handle 4.1).I'm happy to confirm that both my (Sigma SMP8634 chip-set based) hardware players are able to play AVC high@L4.1 video streams muxed within: .AVI, .MP4, .TS, .M2TS and .MKV

EDIT: Here's the chip-sets spec: -

http://i37.tinypic.com/29avdhe.png


Cheers

[DigitAl56K]

What were the reasons for 4.0 vs. 4.1 when Blu-ray requires 4.1 and thus there are already viable solutions out there to play 4.1 (starting with the few millions of Blu-ray standalones and all the PS3's.. and let's not forget the NMT fraction (though I'm not confident to say they really can handle 4.1).

All of those are high-powered devices that cost (minimum) $200 each, with some of that being subsidized hardware. We also want to see the format supported in STBs and eventually even in portable devices.

Let me ask you this:

Will up to 20Mbps AVC give you poor quality 1080?
How many device categories will achieve decoding of 20Mbps streams vs. 50Mbps streams in the next few years?
Internet streaming anyone? We already did it with Stage6, others are also attempting it. <20Mbps is certainly do-able, and perhaps it's even more plausible with AVC vs. ASP.


Keep in mind the goal: Achieve high quality HD video in as many places as possible with a guarantee around the content experience, including how well your video plays and how much effort you have to expend trying to make it work.

I wonder if some of those asking for 4.1 are archivists above everything else. In this case your archived media is unlikely to operate well except on the desktop or the device category it was originally intended for.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I'm happy to confirm that both my (Sigma EM8624L chip-set based) hardware players are able to play AVC high@L4.1 video streams muxed within: .AVI, .MP4, .TS, .M2TS and .MKV
Did you encode at 50Mbps?

[Doom9]

The Popcornhour 100 is $179. At Black Friday, we'll have a Blu-ray player for $128.
My first DivX capable player cost me $300 back in the day.

And somehow I don't see the $50 DVD player play DivX7 in the near future...seeing how things developed on the DivX5 front, I find it much more likely that prices will move along the lines of Blu-ray prices and thus I'm asking if it makes sense to try and establish another hardware category that's just below the
already established standard. Does it really make sense for hardware makers to produce two chip lines instead of one, where they have the chance to put the 4.1 chip in millions of devices even today? And from a user perspective, you're repeating history with potential buyers invariably falling into the not compatible or not quite compatible trap. Anyone remember GMC? And that wasn't a particularly important feature to begin with. I feel eerily reminded of the discussion when the DivX certification was first created - only then, the argument about chip cost had more merit as we didn't have a up and coming disc format paving the way for 2 years.

And last time I checked my ISP's website, I could actually have a 50mbit connection. Granted, it's expensive as hell, but there are quite a few places where a 100mbit connection for a reasonable amount of money. And just because the bandwidth isn't there shouldn't mean the hardware shouldn't be able to decode something.. streaming isn't the only way to deliver content (back when the first DivX capable players came out it took me hours upon hours to download 700MB..).

And subsidized? You're talking about the PS3, right? Because the rest of it, the Blu camp is having us pay through the nose now they've done away with the cheap competition.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Did you encode at 50Mbps?Actually, I'm playing Blu-ray and HD-DVD back-ups. Along with BBC-HD (DVB-S2) captured streams....

But I'm happy to test any samples you guys may have.

[turbojet]

If the goal is to allow HD video to play on a majority of players. Wouldn't the industry standard m2ts be the answer?

I've never seen any advantage of mkv over bluray other than 6-7% overhead, cropping and internal chapter support, m2ts needs a playlist. None of which I care about if it means lack of current/future playback. I do see some things in m2ts that doesn't exist in mkv like multiple angles and menu support. As for single file playability m2ts plays in the players already mentioned, sometimes it will play while the mkv won't with the same audio\video stream. Why? Because all of these players use chipsets that only support transport streams and a 'software hack' needs to be done to read mkvs, which opens up a possibility of bugs.

As has been stated before, except for a certain group of video enthusiasts mkv isn't used/accepted.
How is the public going to be convinced to buy a divx7 player over a regular player?
Will divx7 players be simply another 'software hack' to current chipsets?
Will there be material you can buy/rent for less than bluray and offer the quality that makes the purchase competitive?
Will the players be competitively priced with the regular players?
Does the video enthusiast really have a reason to encode to divx7 (mkv) over bluray for standalone playback?
Why was mkv chosen over ts (more than likely the HDTV source) as the first HD container before bluray/hddvd existed?

DivX certified players I believe were a big success mainly because the size of the files were fractionally smaller than the DVD itself by using MPEG4 ASP over MPEG2. With DivX7 I don't see this benefit, so I'm looking for something that will get me to bite, as of yet I don't see it.

[Atak_Snajpera]

But I'm happy to test any samples you guys may have.
1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode

[SeeMoreDigital]

1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA modeHi Atak,

Your sample file stutters when left in the .MP4 container. But played fine when re-muxed into the .TS container.

That said.... I reckon it's right on the Sigma's chip-set/board designs limitations.


Cheers

[crypto]

1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode
Nice. May I ask what HD cam was used?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Canon HV20
Source was 1440x1080i MPEG-2 @ 24Mbps

[crypto]

Really impressive. Thanks for the info.

[sneaker_ger]

Since Divx will support ASS/SSA subtitles in mkv in the future I'm asking myself wether custom fonts (as mkv attachments) will also be supported or not?

[Doom9]

Don't you have a harder sample? My CPU complained that it has nothing to do playing that video.. the CPU was basically idle and my (passive) 9600GT did all the work. MPC-HC really was worth the upgrade - now playing a 50mbit AVC stream uses as much CPU as playing a lowly 700MB XviD rip.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Don't you have a harder sample? My CPU complained that it has nothing to do playing that video.. the CPU was basically idle and my (passive) 9600GT did all the work. MPC-HC really was worth the upgrade - now playing a 50mbit AVC stream uses as much CPU as playing a lowly 700MB XviD rip.
This sample is for people using hardware players. It was supposed to test if spec are really true.

[CruNcher]

The Popcornhour 100 is $179. At Black Friday, we'll have a Blu-ray player for $128.
My first DivX capable player cost me $300 back in the day.

And somehow I don't see the $50 DVD player play DivX7 in the near future...seeing how things developed on the DivX5 front, I find it much more likely that prices will move along the lines of Blu-ray prices and thus I'm asking if it makes sense to try and establish another hardware category that's just below the
already established standard. Does it really make sense for hardware makers to produce two chip lines instead of one, where they have the chance to put the 4.1 chip in millions of devices even today? And from a user perspective, you're repeating history with potential buyers invariably falling into the not compatible or not quite compatible trap. Anyone remember GMC? And that wasn't a particularly important feature to begin with. I feel eerily reminded of the discussion when the DivX certification was first created - only then, the argument about chip cost had more merit as we didn't have a up and coming disc format paving the way for 2 years.

And last time I checked my ISP's website, I could actually have a 50mbit connection. Granted, it's expensive as hell, but there are quite a few places where a 100mbit connection for a reasonable amount of money. And just because the bandwidth isn't there shouldn't mean the hardware shouldn't be able to decode something.. streaming isn't the only way to deliver content (back when the first DivX capable players came out it took me hours upon hours to download 700MB..).

And subsidized? You're talking about the PS3, right? Because the rest of it, the Blu camp is having us pay through the nose now they've done away with the cheap competition.

Imho the Situation with AVC isn't as comparable anymore as the Situation we had back then when DivX became successful there is basicly no such a widespread DSP support currently from Asia (which was the reason we had cheap solutions available and DivX became successful @ all).
ASP was basically a in the Wild thing AVC is much better kept under wrap (by the circles behind it) and protected to secure Licensing @ all costs (also a reason of course Hollywood accepted it). So even with DivX going that way now i wouldn't expect cheap solutions as we saw back in ASP days anytime soon also with the NAFTA in mind :(

The idea of creating our own Community based Standard seems much much more ideal to me, though it would need alot of work but im sure it's doable and im also sure so far that Hardware Developers would support it widely and even if they don't with all the possibilities of General Purpose Chips (like widespread GPUs) we could do acceleration independent of DSP logic (though it still has to be seen how fast that really is as neither Nvidia/ATI Decoding are GPU based but DSP logic itself inside of the GPU) :).
People should never forget without us DivX Networks/Inc wouldn't be there where it is today.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Don't you have a harder sample? My CPU complained that it has nothing to do playing that video.. the CPU was basically idle and my (passive) 9600GT did all the work. MPC-HC really was worth the upgrade - now playing a 50mbit AVC stream uses as much CPU as playing a lowly 700MB XviD rip.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=142430
have fun man ;)
[/ot]

[Doom9]

well.. I guess I could load it into PowerDVD or TotalMediaThreatre but mostly I use MPC HC - so if that doesn't handle the file I'm not off to a good start.

[DigitAl56K]

I think our discussions frequently lose sight of use cases and interoperability. We're currently discussing H.264 at rates up to 50Mbps (which is completely over the top for almost any content) and questioning why we don't use m2ts, for example.

Do we all agree that:

20Mbps is more than enough for virtually any 1080 video to look nice and sharp
More devices should be able to do level 4.0 than level 4.1, now (STBs) and in the future (portable players)
Decoding 50Mbps will burn batteries much faster than 20Mbps in portable devices and increase heat
The maximum average rate to fit 90 minutes of video on a dual layer DVD is about 12.5Mbps including audio
50Mbps will not stream reliably over wireless G. Keep in mind that N is draft and many devices have quite a lag in supporting new wireless standards. Most N routers (under $100) also share the 2.4Ghz band with G devices, reducing throughput. Most 5Ghz routers run into the $100-200 price range and dual band routers are $200+
It may be a long time before the majority of people have internet connections approaching anywhere near 50Mbps. My home connection is 5-7Mbps and it hasn't improved any in the past 3 years. ISPs are also trying to throttle rather than increase capacity.
We'd all like to see a lot of hardware supporting MKV with guaranteed support for metadata, chapters, multilingual audio, etc.
Consistent subtitle support is important. Nobody likes keeping their subs in 3 different formats in case the other two don't work properly
AAC is nice surround solution with much friendlier licensing than most other formats (Vorbis aside), and will work with many more receivers than Vorbis will for the near-medium term future


Developing a format specification involves thinking about not just about what top-end/DVD devices will do today but what devices can be brought into the ecosystem tomorrow. Considering all of the technologies that we want to work with, if we draw a "interoperability" line in the sand in terms of requirements and we think about all of the devices now and future, what falls on either side of that line as the requirements change?

We should make reasonable accommodations to bring as many platforms into the ecosystem as we can and try to reduce the cost of implementations where possible. The choices that we make today affect the rate of growth in the reach of all of the content we create, affect the level of consumer choice, and the affordability of products that let people bring these new technologies into their homes or take them on the go.

Online content continues to move forward in supplanting expensive physical distribution and we should advocate solutions that make sense in this space. We can continue to discuss how certain device classes or IC's support level 4.1, but then we already know this to be true. This anecdotal information doesn't move us forward towards a big picture solution.

[Dark Shikari]

20Mbps is more than enough for virtually any 1080 video to look nice and sharpI have a number of real-life clips from shows like Planet Earth that actually choke (quants >30) at 50 megabits, let alone 20.

By the way, High Level 4.0 is 25 megabits, not 20.

[DigitAl56K]

Our proposed profile is 20Mbits with the goal of incorporating many STB/DTV decoders.

[Doom9]

But can any settop box (and I haven't actually found any specs for the AVC streams in DVB-S2.. and the max transponder rate per channel is higher than 20mbit though) be leveraged to play anything from a harddisk or from a network?

Decoding 50Mbps will burn batteries much faster than 20Mbps in portable devices and increase heatIs that an assumption or proven fact? We probably should ask neuron2 to chime in here

The maximum average rate to fit 90 minutes of video on a dual layer DVD is about 12.5Mbps including audioBut we could use a lot more for peaks.. with 1 CD DivX rips we have an average bitrate of say 700kbit.. but the maximum bitrate can go up way above 2 times that.. so with 12.5mbits we're already maxed out at 160% of the average bitrate.

50Mbps will not stream reliably over wireless GWell.. whomever tries that is.. well... not so smart (and that's sugarcoated until there's no tomorrow). Wireless never has been and never will be a suitable way to transfer high bitrate content. a/b/g/n it doesn't matter, there's a reason we have Ethernet - yes wiring the old house was a pain but now I have good reason to flame laughable attempts at trying to do without cables.

It may be a long time before the majority of people have internet connections approaching anywhere near 50Mbps.That may be true, but is there only streaming over the Internet? What about playing your Blu-ray backups from a NAS? If you wanna look ahead at potential other uses, why discard one of the most likely scenarios?

My home connection is 5-7Mbps and it hasn't improved any in the past 3 years. Many people will not like to hear this but it's because the US is a second world country as far as broadband is concerned.. 10 years ago, we had no broadband except for selected locations where small cable provider started out. 3 years ago, I had a little over 1/10th of the bandwidth I have today - at the same price (at today's exchange rate it's something like $55 a month for 15mbit), and it's not like I live in Sweden, South Korea or Japan (we're still a second rate broadband country compared to those). I could have 50mbit today (at an exorbitant price though) and 100mbit offers have already been announced for next year.. and it's a matter of when and not if until most houses have fibre (I figure 2010 will be the year they get around to the smaller cities like the one I live in).

Anyway, I think we can argue this to death but I'd just like to reiterate that with DivX, when the certification was made there was no silicone whereas today, there's a two digit number of standalone players out there already and they're all capable of profile 4.1 - and all those NMTs and Co are also selling. And unlike my DVB-S2 STB, the NMT actually plays content that doesn't come in via the Coax cable (the STB can record to an USB HD or if I'd have gotten the more expensive model it would've also streamed to my PC but nothing in the datasheet said something about the reverse way (plus for the price differential I already got a Popcornhour). Seeing that AVC is far from being the dominant codec in the digital TV world (and the majority of all STBs being unable to handle anything but MPEG-2) to me it feels like a missed opportunity not to leverage the existing installed base and the fact that many chipset maker will have no choice but to create a profile 4.1 chipset.

[CruNcher]

"interoperability" is just a nice new age buzzword though in reality it hardly exists for average consumers :D

Patent Holder Company A Device not compatible with files of Patent Holder Company B and vice versa (different way of .MP4 implementation different way of DRM implementation) now customers get angry write to Company A: "Hey our files we want to play from Device B don't play (Millions write) Company A now says: "Ouch dumb consumers realized it let's bring out a update and make Company B files working". Most of the time it even doesn't depend on different DRM technologies even user created content that plays on Device A doesn't have to play on Device B (and then we come to the whole transcoding mess situation or remuxing or special muxing or whatever else they thought of in their crazy minds after the meetings ;)).
That is the sad truth in terms of "interoperability" for average consumers these days, sorry but then companies should not be surprised that consumers try to get this "interoperability" done by themselves. I really wonder a lot of times why so much people meet in VCEG meetings to create a standard that later in reality isn't working for the consumer @ all, because everyone of them does their little different thing later anyways, especially the Big ones involved in the front not even the relatively small implementers bellow (the small puppies that do the wide scale distribution for them).
Maybe it's just because these Guys don't meet with the Consumer satisfaction in mind @ all ;)

[Shinigami-Sama]

Our proposed profile is 20Mbits with the goal of incorporating many STB/DTV decoders.

not even full level 4 support?
lol

[popper]

Say what you mean, rather than being unspecific and having others interpret your words to mean what they say, rather than what you meant. But here's the facts:

There is almost zero penetration of HD, file-based media in the current market.

iPods, DivX players, all that: its all standard-def.

That's why DivX thinks they should use MKV: its not as if any other container is any more common in the hardware world for HD.How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players.

There is no chipset in existence that plays 5.1.

If it existed, it would cost thousands of dollars.

The vast majority of "not level 4.1" files are really level 4.1 compliant anyways; you just have to change the header flags.


No, they choose a level because it costs enormous sums of money to implement a chipset that can decode ultra-HD video in realtime, and there's no point in doing so when nobody needs it.

Given that I personally know the guy who handles Youtube's encoding, I'd think I'd know this better than you: its because its just much easier to do it that way, because people tend to game the system. At Youtube, for example, people would upload FLV files with hexedited headers to breach the max bitrate limits.By the way, Zoome lets all users upload up to 1.5 megabit H.264 without re-encoding, and Nico Nico Douga lets premium users upload H.264 without re-encoding.

Try implementing CoreAVC in an ASIC.


:devil: Everyone knows all the worlds OEMs should be using FPGA in all their video kit today anyway, far more flexable than ASIC, and mass CPE FPGA uptake would bring the price down even faster.

todays FPGA is far better than any old school fixed ASIC, as you can reflash it with your errata fixed code later,and even offer programable hardware FPGA updates for new services/options if you had the will to design and produce it and grow your product lines, hell just having the ability to add new codecs to the base hardware would be a massive boom to any future market place.

http://www.videsignline.com/howto/212200949;jsessionid=Q5ZK5U4UVESUKQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?pgno=2
".....
Video encoding with low-cost FPGAs
.....

While inexpensive digital signal processors (DSPs) can handle the processing and encoding for a single channel of D1 video; the processing complexity involved with multiple channels or even for a single channel of HD video requires FPGAs.

This is where the parallel signal processing resources of an FPGA are critical. The encoder designed for these systems must be flexible enough to handle different resolutions and a different number of channels.
.....
"
remember also i asked CoreAVC BetaBoy about weather he was using forsight and readying his codebase for FPGA, DSP and PPC/Altivec SOC, apparently ,they are not interested in that (programable) HW side,and thats a shame.

so it will have to be a 3rd party that takes any code (x264 /ffmpeg perhaps?) and refactors it for FPGA in the future, and perhaps puts it on a USB Encoder/Decoder stick in some fashion !..... as the first end user affordable L4.1 AVC HD Encoder/decoder.

OC theres always other ways for instance i found this interesting
http://www.videsignline.com/howto/212400574
By building a transcoder on top of the RapidMind platform, this application is now able to run on a variety of processors, including CPUs, GPUs, and the Cell BE, and can also scale up to future multi-core (and many-core) processors as they become available.



just a thought OC, but the potential and perhaps the market is there for someone to try and take....

[Atak_Snajpera]

Our proposed profile is 20Mbits with the goal of incorporating many STB/DTV decoders.
Dark shikari is right. Max bitrate in High Profile lv. 4.0 is 25 MBps not 20!

AAC is nice surround solution with much friendlier licensing than most other formats (Vorbis aside), and will work with many more receivers than Vorbis will for the near-medium term future

AC3 and DTS are more popular. It's like trying to replace old good .mp3 format. (personally i prefer Vorbis though :)

[squid_80]

AC3 and DTS are more popular. It's like trying to replace old good .mp3 format. (personally i prefer Vorbis though :)
I suspect much friendlier licensing = cheaper royalties.

[khagaroth]

Simplest solution for this mess would be to make it mandatory for the decoding devices to ignore any level signaling and try to decode everything you throw at it, this will allow decoding of some 90+ percent of current files and you will be still safe as only L4 will be supported officially.

[popper]

I think our discussions frequently lose sight of use cases and interoperability. We're currently discussing H.264 at rates up to 50Mbps (which is completely over the top for almost any content) and questioning why we don't use m2ts, for example.

Do we all agree that:

20Mbps is more than enough for virtually any 1080 video to look nice and sharp
More devices should be able to do level 4.0 than level 4.1, now (STBs) and in the future (portable players)
Decoding 50Mbps will burn batteries much faster than 20Mbps in portable devices and increase heat
The maximum average rate to fit 90 minutes of video on a dual layer DVD is about 12.5Mbps including audio
50Mbps will not stream reliably over wireless G. Keep in mind that N is draft and many devices have quite a lag in supporting new wireless standards. Most N routers (under $100) also share the 2.4Ghz band with G devices, reducing throughput. Most 5Ghz routers run into the $100-200 price range and dual band routers are $200+
It may be a long time before the majority of people have internet connections approaching anywhere near 50Mbps. My home connection is 5-7Mbps and it hasn't improved any in the past 3 years. ISPs are also trying to throttle rather than increase capacity.
We'd all like to see a lot of hardware supporting MKV with guaranteed support for metadata, chapters, multilingual audio, etc.
Consistent subtitle support is important. Nobody likes keeping their subs in 3 different formats in case the other two don't work properly
AAC is nice surround solution with much friendlier licensing than most other formats (Vorbis aside), and will work with many more receivers than Vorbis will for the near-medium term future


Developing a format specification involves thinking about not just about what top-end/DVD devices will do today but what devices can be brought into the ecosystem tomorrow. Considering all of the technologies that we want to work with, if we draw a "interoperability" line in the sand in terms of requirements and we think about all of the devices now and future, what falls on either side of that line as the requirements change?

We should make reasonable accommodations to bring as many platforms into the ecosystem as we can and try to reduce the cost of implementations where possible. The choices that we make today affect the rate of growth in the reach of all of the content we create, affect the level of consumer choice, and the affordability of products that let people bring these new technologies into their homes or take them on the go.

Online content continues to move forward in supplanting expensive physical distribution and we should advocate solutions that make sense in this space. We can continue to discuss how certain device classes or IC's support level 4.1, but then we already know this to be true. This anecdotal information doesn't move us forward towards a big picture solution.

sorry i have to agree with Doom9, your talking about making your "blue sky" AVC subset Divx7 ecosystem for the long term future, and yet your trying to talk people into the past capabilitys, and a subset max of that at best, and thats using the usual US model here, that being "its better than Mpeg2!".

newsflash, the world (is not the USA), has, and is moving to "DVB-*(2)" and putting TS (transport streams) AVC in there,for delivery, the STBs,HD DVD, BR are moving to or use TS already and just about all the world is talking up and finally making a move to DVB AVC H@l4.1 capable IPtv,(thats why WE NEED the open TS tools right now, and why i keep asking for them.)

the DVB-* framework gives you something like 36Mbit per channel real work throughput today, and its only getting better with time as DVB-*2 steps up production, any DVB-C2 and DVB-H2 seems to be late to the party, we have DVB-T2 already.

http://www.dvb.org/technology/fact_sheets/DVB-S2%20Fact%20Sheet.0408.pdf

thats curently around 36Mbit per chanel usable depending on what modulation you set at both ends etc....

DVB-SCENE27.pdf shows you the realitys of were its all going soon enough, and less than stadard H@L4.1, divx7 20Mbit max isnt it for your average end users paying the bills, and buying the kit to make your longterm profits, outside the US OC.

http://www.dvb.org/news_events/dvbscene_magazine/DVB-SCENE27.pdf

page 4 of 16
"DVB-S2 Enables 140 Mbps Super Hi-Vision By Satellite At IBC 2008
Dr Alberto Morello,
Director of RAI Research and Technology Innovation Centre, Turin, Italy & Chairman of DVB TM-S2 Group

One of the highlights of this year’s IBC in Amsterdam is the first broadcast, live by satellite, of Super Hi-Vision (SHV)
using DVB-S2, from the RAI Research up-link station in Turin.

SHV, the 4000 line x 8000 pixels/line television system under development by NHK,"

Since the native SHV signal bit rate is a massive 24 Gbit/s, the major part of the challenge has been in developing technical ways of delivering the service to the final user. SHV is in our case compressed using MPEG-4 AVC at a final bit-rate of around 140 Mbit/sand delivered to IBC in Amsterdam from the up-link station of the research headquarters of Italian public broadcaster RAI in Turin, over Ku-band satellite capacity provided by Eutelsat.
"
sure SHV is not going to get here anytime soon (within 5 years), but your divx7 proposition today ,becomes tomorrows legacy, 25Mbit max H@4.1 is the standard we have today, you want to stroke the vendors pockets and say its ok, your can get away with 20Mbit max, and thats just plain wrong for the upcoming world market place ....

as the world moves away from the analogue the the digital DVB, we need a far better base for the futures legacy, than your tunnel vision quick quid/buck proposal, the long term money for drip ,drip, comes later, not when your trying to move people wholesale to digitl for real...

OC the Uk has its failings in that we have had DVB-* a very long time now, and the official govt stance should have been re-enforce the newest current AVC DVB-*2 model and kit for our transition, but alas not....,the old drip drip, of milking the old DVB Mpeg2 only kit for the last bit of juice prevailed on high.

:devil: infact i think you should all just dump your US framerate specs and just move back to the original world standard UK Pal 50MHz/100Mhx and later , 200 Mhz ,a nice, simple 25,50,100,* FPS for all the world to use.

you can keep 24FPS for film OC / :devil:

BTW, in case you missed it, the UKs cable firm virgin media that covers 50% of the whole Uk, have began the rollout of 50 Mbit/s download (with a crep upload sure), but even so , even many US cable vendors have 30Mbit/s download packages available today, so again your perfectly able to take a full H@L4.1 if you really wanted to download stream it, OC if the worlds ISPs just turned on and stopped filtering Multicast to and from their payng end users worldwide, then everyone could start broadband innovating again with DVB AVC Multicast streaming in many forms..... but thats OT but related for this thread OC so....

and this is what the world wants and is moving to, the so called real "BIG picture" and reality too, so much for your "This anecdotal information doesn't move us forward towards a big picture solution "

http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/Technologies/NextGenerationNetworks.aspx

[popper]

DigitAl56K said:"Decoding 50Mbps will burn batteries much faster than 20Mbps in portable devices and increase heat"

Doom9 said "Is that an assumption or proven fact? We probably should ask neuron2 to chime in here"

assumed, it would seem, many people do ;) sure, perhaps it may use a little more juice and give you 2 minutes less playtime, but thats not a given,depending on how it operates...., but nowere near draining the batteries "MUCH FASTER" as DIgital56k would have you beleave.

just a very quick search brings you this mobile/handheld chipset/SOC (OC you could also use it in USB stick and the like , anyone doing that today), not as flexable as FPGA OC ;) and not a PPC SOC ;) ;) but its cheap and flexible, and Ohh look...
"Each chip is a real-time H.264/MPEG4-AVC High Definition (level 4.1) Encoder/Decoder (Codec) that provides the ideal mix of flexibility and power efficiency for consumer electronics
applications....."

"full HD (1920x1080). Qpixel
is also raising the power-performance bar by being the first to offer
full HD H.264 encoding at less than 275 mW of power,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS10020+02-Jun-2008+BW20080602
Industry's Lowest-Power Full HD H.264 Codecs With the Broadest Feature Set Unveiled...
Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:00pm EDT

[SeeMoreDigital]

the DVB-* framework gives you something like 36Mbit per channel real work throughput today...Hmmm....

According to Humax's FoxSat-HD set-top box specification, the maximum input bit-rate is 15Mbps: -

http://i43.tinypic.com/96jmeo.png

[Snowknight26]

It actually says 15MB/s, so 120Mbps.

[STaRGaZeR]

It actually says 15MB/s, so 120Mbps.

H.264 HP@L4 can't remotely reach that bitrate.

[CruNcher]

sure not i guess it just shows of what the chip is maximal capable of @ it's peak i guess :) in marketing you should always remind the reader of what the product is capable of if it's useful or not isn't really important ;) it would be future proof that way for SHDV broadcast reception :P

[popper]

Hmmm....

According to Humax's FoxSat-HD set-top box specification, the maximum input bit-rate is 15Mbps: -

http://i43.tinypic.com/96jmeo.png

as per the PDF link above
http://www.dvb.org/technology/fact_sheets/DVB-S2%20Fact%20Sheet.0408.pdf

the chipset on your old Mpeg2 only DVB-S2 seems more than able to take the current DVB-S2 Mbit rate spec at 8PSK then.

Useful Bitrate (Mbit/s) , DVB-S2 , 58.8 (gain = 32%)

[RealNC]

When you go to Youtube and you try to upload a .mkv file, guess what? No. You can't.

Every video I ever uploaded to YouTube so far was an mkv (H.264 video + Vorbis audio). Lately they even show in 720p if you click the "Watch in HD" link :confused:

Edit:
Proof: http://i43.tinypic.com/10ggwop.png

[DrNein]

Every video I ever uploaded to YouTube so far was an mkv (H.264 video + Vorbis audio). Lately they even show in 720p if you click the "Watch in HD" link :confused:

Edit:
Proof: http://i43.tinypic.com/10ggwop.png

And yet it is HD only nominally by resolution, not in quality or bitrate density. That is, 720p requires about 8Mbps not to make a complete mockery of the term "High Definition" (high clarity of detail) so that if 2Mbps is the limit for streaming purposes then they should be using 320p instead and just calling it HQ or such versus previous.

[DrNein]

I also agree that L4.1 AVC in TS/M2TS is more practical than limiting to L4.0 and trying to promote MKV. I suppose the company prefers the path of a sort of proprietary niche even if a subset of standards. But it does seem backwards both to resist the "universal standard" and to be biased towards the low-end.

It was enthusiasts who really propelled ASP to common usage -i.e. simple hack of pre-standard Microsoft implementation when use was artificially limited to a proprietary ASF container. MS turned away from MPEG-4 development but eventually produced a standardized VC-1 rather than remain proprietary only.

The same enthusiasts who embraced ASP have already transitioned to AVC and while they largely choose MKV and are not necessarily concerned with best quality (not unlike common ASP usage), I doubt they will embrace a subset offered by DivX Inc. since they are more interested in playback anywhere -which will not be the case with such a scheme, one way or the other.

The tiny display device market is something all together different and already well covered by Apple's AVC/MOV variant anyway.

So, what DivX Inc. should probably be doing is embracing AVC/TS or at least AVC/MKV and the creation and promotion of interoperable files inclusive of the hardware that is already universal.

This is not a repeat of ASP since DivX Inc. is late to the party this time rather than early (even so, the hardware took too long). AVC hardware has existed for some time already so that should be the target.

[delacroixp]

It would be nice to have a 3840x2160@50fps movie format that everyone could enjoy in their own home.
(A very big screen, a top-end surround sound-system, an Airbus A380 as personal transport and lifestyle to match ... would also be good to go)

DivX has never been about 1 or 2 rich kids that can afford the latest, the greatest and even the futuristic.
DivX popularised movie content from the internet and by doing well they also did good.
They made 'the blind' enjoy the home movie experience ... which expanded the market ... which ultimately created the financial resources for HD and Blu-ray to thrive and prosper.
Let's face it, home entertainment may never rival movies at the cinema for sheer quality and super-realistic immersion.
Few people even have access to IMAX-3D or to some of the more exotic formats of 'sensory-realistic' entertainment.

Home entertainment is largely a market of disposable TV-series, forgettable movies and shallow experience. The 24/7 easy access has made blissfull ignorants of us all.
However, Div 7 has the potential to create a level of entertainment that most people can afford and appreciate .... and may even include many other people who were completely 'off the grid'.


It's all good
:):devil::D
Pascal

[delacroixp]

Is there a codec on the drawing board, designed to deal with the massive ammounts of dataflow from a 3840x2160x50 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=142430) movie format (perhaps even a dual-stream 3D format) ... albeit only playable on a Cray (http://www.cray.com/Home.aspx) or SGI (http://www.sgi.com/vue/) supercomputer (http://www.top500.org/) , at present ?


It's all good
:):devil::D
Pascal

[hajj_3]

divx 7.1 seems to be out, cant find a changelog on their site or forums or even doom9 forums. Here's the installer tho: http://download.divx.com/divx/DivXInstaller.exe

[poisondeathray]

divx 7.1 seems to be out, cant find a changelog on their site or forums or even doom9 forums. Here's the installer tho: http://download.divx.com/divx/DivXInstaller.exe


DivX 7.1

Divx Player updated to 7.1.0

* New Skin

The DivX Player has been refreshed with an update to the skin.

* H.264/MKV/AAC playback support

The DivX Player now supports playback of H.264 and MKV files and AAC audio tracks if you have the Media Pack or Proversion.

AAC Decoder updated to 7.1.0



http://www.videohelp.com/tools/DivX_5/version-history#changelog

[hajj_3]

very poor changelog, was hoping for updating divx converter functionality and native .mp4 playback at the very least.

[delacroixp]

Pretty soon we'll all be watching 6 mega-pixel stereoscopic movies with 64-bit color.

I guess 16 CPU's, 512 gb RAM and a 1600 watt PSU is only entry level for a supercomputer (Cray CX1 (http://www.cray.com/products/CX1.aspx) , video (http://www.cray.com/Assets/Demos/cx1/index.html)) .
However, it seams like only yesterday that I had a IBM PS2 (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2990562#post2990562) with room for 4 mb RAM (1987) .

It's all good !


:):devil::D
Pascal

[shinedot]

Pretty soon we'll all be watching 6 mega-pixel stereoscopic movies with 64-bit color.

I guess 16 CPU's, 512 gb RAM and a 1600 watt PSU is only entry level for a supercomputer (Cray CX1 (http://www.cray.com/products/CX1.aspx) , video (http://www.cray.com/Assets/Demos/cx1/index.html)) .
However, it seams like only yesterday that I had a IBM PS2 (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2990562#post2990562) with room for 4 mb RAM (1987) .

It's all good !


:):devil::D
Pascal

its all good. agree, but not for mother earth :)

steroscopic movies with 64bpp soon? well i think not so soon.