Important poll deciding about the future of a new A/V format

[ChristianHJW]

As the discussion whether to support Ogg or TMF/MCS in future is very much depending on whether the users prefer the perfect streaming capabilities of Ogg or the advanced features of TMF/MCS, we started a new poll at http://www.powerdivx.com/index.php ( saving Doom9's bandwidth ;) ) to find out what the users really want.

It was necessary to put this on the homepage to allow every user to take part in it, as another poll in the forums suffered from lack of participants :( ( http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=133 , only 18 votes ) ..... if we only had 1/10 of Doom's hits/day.

Pls. participate in this poll to give us a clearer picture where to set the direction for the new format ...... thanks ....

[ChristianHJW]

Wow guys, that's really great, 12 votes in only one hour .... this is what we need !! Keep it going ....

[Bugs Bunny]

Hmm I don't suppose per chance you have some links to tell blokes what all the acronyms mean? I figgered TMF means "the movie format", cause I read it from some place. But no clue what MCS means, let alone what it's supposed to have. How about having a short list comparing the good & bad of each option? Why do I want to use Ogg over MP3 for vids? How is TMF better than AVI (other than VBR audio)? ya know those kinds of things..

[cofferscuffs]

I think from my last vist to PowerDivx.com MCS is Movie (or Motion) Container System.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Bugs Bunny
Hmm I don't suppose per chance you have some links to tell blokes what all the acronyms mean? I figgered TMF means "the movie format", cause I read it from some place. But no clue what MCS means, let alone what it's supposed to have. How about having a short list comparing the good & bad of each option? Why do I want to use Ogg over MP3 for vids? How is TMF better than AVI (other than VBR audio)? ya know those kinds of things..

TMF : 'The Movie Format' . Original idea, but as Pinnacle is using the same it was decided to use something different.

MCS = new name of TMF : Multimedia Container system . Endings like .video , .audio and .media are planned, but not final.

Ogg Vorbis has much better sound quality compared to MP3, especially at lower bitrates like 64 to 128 kbps, normal DivX sound bitrates. It can contain up to 255 channels, so it will be possible to have 5.1 Dolby Digital encoded in Vorbis streams of about 160 to 200 kbps in excellent quality, thanks to channel coupling. You may also want up to 3 different languages in one audio stream, with very low bitrates, again thanks to channel coupling.

TMF/MCS will also allow multiple video and audio streams in one file, perfect subtitle support ( like unicode, ISRC, separate video streams : not yet decided, but it will be done ), time stamps on each block for perfect sync, enhanced editability ( cutting without loosing sync, etc. ). Plus : its GPL ( L-GPL )!!

[int 21h]

And yet obviously, its a frame based format, useful for nothing other than progressive sources. Congratulations, you've invented ASF.

[ChristianHJW]

This format is ment to replace AVI, nothing else. For field based playback on standalones/TVs use MPEG4(IP). Browse through the hydrogenaudio.org and audiocoding.com forum to learn everything about working MPEG4 implementations you want to know.

TMF/MCS, as well as Ogg, are dedicated PC formats for movies. That's it.

[int 21h]

I was referencing PC playback. For the ability to handle all sources, field recognition obviously has to be inherent to the format.

Secondly, starting a new format isn't exactly something you do in your free time. Has anyone even considered the amount of programming to be done just to implement the format, and then the documentation involved so that the format can be read across all platforms?

Not only that, how do you propose editing this new format? Obviously an import filter and export filter would need to be added to an existing video editing program, or perhaps an entirely new program be written.

Lastly, what is it that you are looking for that cannot be gained by using an already existing format? Perhaps you could help establish the de-facto standard by using an existing format, and working on extending it. Obviously ISO Mpeg-4 as a container has many many more interactive and useful features than other available formats, and its already very well established and documented. All of the features I see that are going to be implemented in this 'new' format, can all be easily implemented in an existing MPG derivative, either through inherent capabilities or through an extension of some sort.

Why reinvent the wheel, when its obvious, all you need is a car?

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by int 21h
[B]I was referencing PC playback. For the ability to handle all sources, field recognition obviously has to be inherent to the format.
Your knowledge here is certainly better than mine, but you would agree that compressing an interlaced frame is taking much higher bandwidth ... so for a PC format there is no sense IMHO no using a fram based format.

Secondly, starting a new format isn't exactly something you do in your free time. Has anyone even considered the amount of programming to be done just to implement the format, and then the documentation involved so that the format can be read across all platforms?

Tobias W. has just presented his 1st muxing tool ( based on Graphedit ) plus DirectShowFilter for Monty's Ogg format. Works fine, we were able to mux DivX4, XviD, Vorbis, AAC, only MP3 gave problems apparently. Guess what .... Tobias is a student and coded this in his free time.

Not only that, how do you propose editing this new format? Obviously an import filter and export filter would need to be added to an existing video editing program, or perhaps an entirely new program be written.

As i understand it this is exactly the weak point of Monty's Ogg format. Its designed for streaming, so editing it is a pain.
TMF/MCS is different her, dont forget that some of the basic specs were done by Avey Lee. If we get this to work we will maybe even have a chance to get Vdub support one day.

Lastly, what is it that you are looking for that cannot be gained by using an already existing format? Perhaps you could help establish the de-facto standard by using an existing format, and working on extending it. Obviously ISO Mpeg-4 as a container has many many more interactive and useful features than other available formats, and its already very well established and documented. All of the features I see that are going to be implemented in this 'new' format, can all be easily implemented in an existing MPG derivative, either through inherent capabilities or through an extension of some sort. Why reinvent the wheel, when its obvious, all you need is a car?

What we want is quite simpel :

Ogg Vorbis with DivX4 or XviD !! We are talking to MPEG4 experts like Ivan, JohnV and menno right now to find out if it was possible to use Vorbis with DivX4 or XviD in MPEG4 files. Plus we are trying to clarify what the patent situation is here.

You are gladly invited to join this discussion here http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=13 . Believe me, we will not reinvent the wheel if there is no need to, but we will build a new car if it will give us Vorbis in our DivX movies .....

[ChristianHJW]

One more thing to add :

We have 69 votes on our homepage now and the results are speaking for themselves i think : http://www.powerdivx.com .

Biggest nr. of users would like to see true VBR audio codecs like Vorbis in their movies, many users want it to be open format and supported from many applications. About equal is the interest in multiple audio/video streams as well as multichannel audio streams for multilanguage.

Only very few are interested in streaming, subtitles or just stick with AVI !

I admit i am astonished about the subtitles, maybe if they could give a 2nd vote this would look different.

Please keep on voting, this is giving us the clear picture we're after !

[soujir0u]

So when do you guys plan to complete this new format?

[BlackSun]

Good question: when it is done :)

[ChristianHJW]

Tronic is finishing his exams right now, and then he has a 6 months vacation he promised he will use to get TMF/MCS started.

My plan is that until then we should be able to get the specs finalized, we will go on trying to open up a dialogue with Xiphohporus dev team, TMF/MCS specs are not made of stone .... if Monty could see the chance we have now to create the perfect AVI replacement, we are prepared to start talking to them ...

Edit : 104 votes now on the poll, this should be sufficient to give a good indication .... big thanks to everybody who participated.

Result : Vorbis is the winner, everybody want VBR audio in the new format. Lets start working now ...

[ChristianHJW]

Latest update of the results to be found here :

http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/posting.php .


Out of 147 people voting in total there were

50 ( 34% ) : Supporting true VBR audio codecs ( Vorbis, Lame, AAC, MPC )

25 ( 17% ) : Multiple audio and video streams possible in one file with perfect sync

28 ( 19% ) : Open format, supported from many applications for enhanced compatibility

24 ( 16,3% ) : Support for multi-channel audio codecs ( for surround or multilanguage )

8 ( 5.4% ) : Powerful Subtitles support ( as Unicode, ISRC or separate video stream )

6 ( 4% ) : Suitable for Streaming ( like VOD via Internet )

6 ( 4% ) : None of them, I stick to AVI in any case because its common use

So from these results its impossible to select a clear winner between Ogg and TMF/MCS as most of the important things are covered by both.

I encourage you all to register, read through the section http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=13 and vote for one of them directly here http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=133 .

Hmmmm ..... this leads me to an idea .... can we make the poll there open for anybody, even without registering ? I will check that ....

[Nic]

I have to agree with Phreak404 on this.......
.....And personally, I feel if you are going to create a new format in free time. Much more time should be spent on design + creating basic implementation.

....rather than Polls & huge threads about what the name is going to be (like what recently occured with DVD2AVI)...obviously no offence to my friend Christian...but thats why I dont go to powerdivx.com anymore.

-Nic

ps
"Why reinvent the wheel, when its obvious, all you need is a car?"

Im now nicking that for my sig, Phreak404/Int 21 (why be named after the DOS interrupt I dont know, why not int 03 (the breakpoint one)) :)

[Milkman Dan]

Well, in his defense, it's hard to move forward on a format when the primary coder is deeply involved in testing/school work at the moment.

I'm all for a new format. Ogg doesn't have what I'm personally looking for, and TMF does. So I support what will get me further. [shrug]

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Nic
I have to agree with Phreak404 on this.......
.....And personally, I feel if you are going to create a new format in free time. Much more time should be spent on design + creating basic implementation.

....rather than Polls & huge threads about what the name is going to be (like what recently occured with DVD2AVI)...obviously no offence to my friend Christian...but thats why I dont go to powerdivx.com anymore.

-Nic

ps
"Why reinvent the wheel, when its obvious, all you need is a car?"


I don't know. I just think there is way too much talking and voting and things of that nature. Listening to everyone else's ideas, polling on every issue, doesn't create something that is necessarily better, it creates something that is widely complex and abstract. Instead of a few features implemented over time, you suddenly have this wild beast with many many features that very few will use.

Issues like subtitles could obviously be dealt with an outside module. So could 99% of audio related decoding issues. Obviously by making the format extendable and making a more modularized design, when a new technology is invented or implemented, adding it to your format simply becomes an addition of a new module.

It seems to me that most everyone involved and obsessing over these formats is living for the here and now and not thinking to something that is expandable and usable in the future. If you can create something that had just half the lifespan of AVI (still going), I'd say you're in good shape.

The future of MPEG-4, personal digital video, DVD-R, etc. is in too much turmoil to think that you can lay down the standards for some audio/video format, in a few weeks/months, and have something that you can use and extend for years to come. Its impossible. Look how long it took to implement the various MPEG formats, not too mention get software and hardware support, and issue revisions on spec errors.

Its the same reason I got involved with the DVD2AVI project really. Voting on some lame name does not interest me one bit, but contributing to something that will be used and extendable does interest me. Turning DVD2AVI into the ultimate DivX 4 encoder maybe the goal of some developers in the project, but I am looking more towards the future. The future, with Mpeg-2 resampling, DVD-R, multiple movies on one DVDr (using Half D1 resolution), etc. And to that end, I'm going to work on making my car (DVD2AVI, mpeg2dec.dll) to take me there. I could have sat down and tried to write some massive application that does everything I need and more, but its easy for me to see that DVD2AVI already does most everything that is needed... what's left now is to make it do everything better.

In any event <cheap plug>, anyone interested in the new dvd2avi/mpeg2dec.dll should keep their eyes peeled, a new enhanced beta (with quite a bit of nice SSE2) should be released soon.</cheap plug> On another tangent, its the same sort of thing with complaints of optimizations. SSE2 optimizations yield a higher gain and better preformance for less work comparitively to SSE and plain MMX optimizations. AMD has announced that their next generations will support SSE2 more inherently. Hmm.. so.. what does that mean in the future.. does that mean SSE2 is going to die out? Obviously not, it means programmers should get familiar with SSE2 NOW to take advantage of the future. Moore's law dictates this. You can't focus on the present, you need to look ahead to the future.


Im now nicking that for my sig, Phreak404/Int 21 (why be named after the DOS interrupt I dont know, why not int 03 (the breakpoint one)) :)

I learned to first program in DOS, hence the name :)

[Nic]

@Milkman Dan:
Whose defense? I certainly wasn't attacking anyone or anything. I wish everyone on the project, the best of luck (& I really mean it :)

@Int 21h:
I concur again.

-Nic

ps
mov ah, 09
mov dx, 0102
int 21

those were the days :)

[ChristianHJW]

I'm organizer, no coder. I do what i think is necessary to bring the project forward.

Tronic has a 6 months vacation after he has finished his exams ( top priority now ) and will start coding if he feels he wants to. No pressure on this guy, we dont pay him for what he does.

Until then this is my to-do-list :

1. Clarify what the major expectations from potential users are ( with stupid polls, etc. ), to enable Tronic to finalize the specs such that wide acceptance is achieved
2. Check if there are any similar projects existing somewhere, also if there are chances to cooperate with these people ( like Ogg )
3. Raise the awareness of the possibilities a new format may offer to users ( very normal advertising )
4. Contribute to Vorbis being accepted as best possible audio codec for DivX in the community, also support adaption of the two wellknown audio trancoding utilities ( HeadAC3he, BeSweet ) for Vorbis
5. Raise interest of application coders like Avery ( who contributed to the TMF specs BTW ), Marty, and others, to ensure the new format is making its way into the most important encoding programs

If anybody feels i'm kind of 'spamming' the boards pls. tell me. I am a very focussed guy and once i start it's hard to stop me .... and sometimes i even do more than being tolerable for others. Pls. accept my apologies if this was or will ever be happening.

I feel sorry that righ now we cant offer you much more than polls and Tobias' 1st Ogg implementation. But i would be totally wrong if there wasn't be more to be expected from the PowerDivX.com Team.

[Nic]

Your doing a great job Christian, the way you bring people together is extraordinary -> your everso good at rallying people together round a common cause. Its great, & I hope U don't feel that I was dismissing your achivements in anyway.

I just dont quite like the atmosphere at powerdivx.com. But I think what Tobias has done is brilliant & I wish I had done it first :) But then again, Tobias's efforts had nothing to do with powerdivx.com

Anyway ive drunk a little too much JD for one evening so im off to bed. :)

Good Luck,
-Nic

[Doom9]

just to make this thread even longer.
so most people want vbr audio... but.. that's already possible in AVIs, sort of.. works fine for most people. OGG is still problematic, but on the other hand.. OGG isn't final either, is it? The format has been discussed as MP3 replacement for a long while already, but every time somebody came along stating that at its current state it wasn't really better than MP3. I may be in the wrong forum here but is a 128kbit/s OGG stream really better than a lame stream using the same bitrate? what about multichannels? I know it's possible, but nobody has done it so far.. are there even encoding programs capable of doing so?

I think if you had added standalone playback to the poll it would look pretty different. Maybe I'm completely off target here but I think standalone compatibility is a big deal for many (why do people make VCDs if not for standalone playback? VCD quality is terrible after all) and that would clearly point us towards an iso compatible bitstream, with all the licensing issues, etc. But.. it can be played on PCs and will eventually be played on standalone units. Neither the ogg media format nor TMF offers that feature. I haven't had time to properly study the MPEG-4 specs, but MPEG-4 has a lot of features that go beyond pure video encoding. So I'm wondering if vbr audio, subs, multichannel and such stuff wouldn't be possible in that format already?

also consider that 21% voted for compatibility. We may not like it but VirtualDub isn't the only video editing tool out there and the support from the Adobes and Uleads out there for a new format might just be a bit more tricky than actually implementing a new format.

[Koepi]

Well, let's not kill the messenger! :)

I appreciate the efforts ChristianHJW is spending!

I surely like to see a more capable container format growing important.

I'd like to point out that if there is already an implementation of Multiplexer/Demultiplexer filters we should give them a shoot.

From my experiences I collected with ogg container I can only tell that I'm impressed:
the seeking is incredible fast. I can switch audio streams. Even video streams.

With TMF / MCS: nice idea. But unless there is no code showing up I doubt it will get alife...

I think if Avery Lee would add support for ogg into VDub we all would use it. It's there. It's superiour. It's legal.
Other applications would implement support then as well.

Just my 2 € cent so far,

Regards,
Koepi

[Koepi]

Ahoy again!

Originally posted by Doom9
just to make this thread even longer.
so most people want vbr audio... but.. that's already possible in AVIs, sort of.. works fine for most people. OGG is still problematic, but on the other hand.. OGG isn't final either, is it?


Well, it's not, but nearly. In the current state I like it more than avi.


The format has been discussed as MP3 replacement for a long while already, but every time somebody came along stating that at its current state it wasn't really better than MP3. I may be in the wrong forum here but is a 128kbit/s OGG stream really better than a lame stream using the same bitrate? what about multichannels? I know it's possible, but nobody has done it so far.. are there even encoding programs capable of doing so?


You may want to have a look over at hydrogenaudio.com - plenty discussions on that topic there. If I may do a short conclusion of those: ogg vorbis is superiour.


...all the licensing issues, etc. But.. it can be played on PCs and will eventually be played on standalone units. Neither the ogg media format nor TMF offers that feature. I haven't had time to properly study the MPEG-4 specs, but MPEG-4 has a lot of features that go beyond pure video encoding. So I'm wondering if vbr audio, subs, multichannel and such stuff wouldn't be possible in that format already?

also consider that 21% voted for compatibility. We may not like it but VirtualDub isn't the only video editing tool out there and the support from the Adobes and Uleads out there for a new format might just be a bit more tricky than actually implementing a new format.

Well, to tell so isn't absolutely correct: first chipsets supporting avi / divx playback are there in silicon.
It's just a matter of time when first standalone players will appear - most likely some far-eastern-companies will make the start.
The next step isn't that hard to do: another wide spread format will be added as well, I'm sure about that.

So please don't say: just because you like VBR audio you don't need a new container.
To have avi working with VBR audio we always have to use impropper hacks.
So let's focus on that and you'll see the necessity of a new container :)

I don't want to offend anyone, but this has to be written ;)

Best regards,
Koepi

[Doom9]

thanks for the update on ogg (btw.. we're talking ogg as audio format, not the container ogg, right?)

Well, to tell so isn't absolutely correct: first chipsets supporting avi / divx playback are there in silicon.
It's just a matter of time when first standalone players will appear - most likely some far-eastern-companies will make the start.
The next step isn't that hard to do: another wide spread format will be added as well, I'm sure about that.
hmm.. I'd like to see some. What I do know about is WMA supporting devices and WMV is to come, too. When a company talks about DivX (Cirrus Logic to mention it) I'm sure they actually mean DivX4.. M$ can sue the ass of anybody putting DivX3 into hardware and the MPAA will be right there to pick up the pieces. As for DivX4 or XviD I see the best chances of seeing these formats played on a standalone is on form of a standardized mpeg container, not some pc based format.

Just my opinion.. anybody could be wrong at this point but I do know a bit more than I can talk about...

[tangent]

ChristianHJW asked me to comment on the quality of Ogg Vorbis RC3 as compared to LAME.

Currently Ogg Vorbis performs at least as good as or better than all other codecs at all bitrate except that it loses out to MPC in the high bitrate arena. At the low bitrates (~64kbps) Vorbis is clearly better than WMA and MP3Pro (and the best part about it is that it will be further improved in RC4. At the middle bitrates (~128kbps) Vorbis is amongst the leaders, quality as good as the best AAC implementation. At the higher bitrates (>160kbps), not much is really known, but generally it is very good but not up to the standard of MPC yet.

There are no public mass listening tests results for the low bitrates to really prove that Vorbis is really the best, but this is based on feedback from some of the most respected listeners in the encoding scene, including ff123.

There is no listening tests to prove that RC3 is the best or amongst the best, but a pre-RC3 version of Vorbis was put into a 128kbps listening test which you can refer to here: http://www.ff123.net/128test/instruct.html

As you can see, the pre-RC3 Vorbis performs very well in the test (the first sample didn't conclude anything, so you can ignore that one). Notice in the cases of the codecs which perform as well as Vorbis, their bitrate are much higher. Also, there has been a lot of improvements between the pre-RC3 and the final RC3 release. When a few expert listeners mixed the final RC3 release into the listening test, they easily picked it out as the best.

I think there can be no doubt that we want to choose to use Ogg Vorbis as the format to encode our stuffs in for the future for the purpose of dvd ripping.

[DarkAvenger]

If you guys didn't notice, the upcoming HeadAC3he incorporates a (by me) modified vorbis.dll, which can already encode a 6ch ogg (from a 5.1 ac3), thus giving you f###in 6 discrete channels. This has been confirmed by MaTTeR. Only thing is, we need something which can properly decode it, and that is right now the problem...

[Doom9]

Only thing is, we need something which can properly decode it, and that is right now the problem...
that and a container that allows easy editing and has widespread support and that's what the whole thread is about. What good is any media stream that contains a nice 6 channel ogg file (personally I'd prolly go for 5 since I don't have a separate subwoofer) if we can't cut it? WMV was giving me enough gray hears when I tried to take screenshots (I ended up playing the movie via avisynth to the point where I took the screenshot.. very time consuming and boring).

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Doom9 that and a container that allows easy editing and has widespread support and that's what the whole thread is about. What good is any media stream that contains a nice 6 channel ogg file (personally I'd prolly go for 5 since I don't have a separate subwoofer) if we can't cut it? WMV was giving me enough gray hears when I tried to take screenshots (I ended up playing the movie via avisynth to the point where I took the screenshot.. very time consuming and boring)

:D

Editing : TMF ! Avery's input like time stamps etc. should give good indication that this format has enhanced editability, and some experts like ingo stated that this will be a weak point with current Ogg format.

Widespread : Doom9 will do that once TMF is ready to be used. 400 GB traffic/month give good indication of what could be done here. If only some of the application coders reading ( and posting or moderating ) here hop on board this is simply a matter of time ....

XviD/DivX4 in combination with Vorbis in a new container format are the future for the PC video encoding world .... Hugh !

[ChristianHJW]

Update : Tronic gave new ideas about his timing and when we can expect a 1st alpha here .... http://www.powerdivx.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=164 .

2 weeks he said :D

[Ookami]

Just one minor correction... It's http://www.hydrogenaudio.org and not com :) .

BTW, I'm for a new format. If we would always listen to some people we would still "enjoy" in Hercules "graphics" and PC speakers sounds. So we should go forward (kinda like int21h wrote).

I don't care if the new AVI replacement will be MPEG4, MCS, the OGG stuff or WHATEVERISBETTERTHANAVI.

And if everyone would be so active like Christian, we could not save ourselves from new programs, better encoding procedures, great discussions and of course polls :D .

Cheers,

Oookie.

[Doom9]

I must throw this in here: I wished christian was as energic when it comes to dumping old hardware and operating systems (nothing against NT but it's just no multimedia OS).. you know I'm all for dumping legacy altogether.
and if TFM can get widespread software support I'm all for it. Actually.. just give me a VDub that can handle it an an app that allows easy muxing of the various stuff you can put into the format, add an ogg ds filter that can handle multichannel ogg streams and I'm a happy camper. But let's not forget that we're a crow of people active in a very limited field of video editing.. it takes the support of the Adobes and Uleads of this world to make a new format a standard (I think I mentioned that before). And then there's the people who prefer standalone compatibility over editing flexibility (svcd anyone?).

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Doom9 nothing against NT but it's just no multimedia OS

go tell this our company administrator .. he wouldnt install Win2k on my laptop because it wasnt 'stable' that time ( Oct. 2000 ) .... anyway, i will update my company laptop to Win2k soon because i'm realy fed up meanwhile .... and we have a new admin in the company now ;) . Sorry for being OT ....

[soujir0u]

Hmm...since this new format will be quite a long time away, should we delay encoding for a while, or stick to the current methods? Audio-wise, I don't think many people would care since they're just watching movies casually? Or just use a high-quality preset (--alt-preset standard and above), which are already transparent to most people. Video-wise, we would still be using the same codecs even with the new format, so it doesn't matter I guess.

So all these talk about the new format is just so we can use Ogg Vorbis for audio? Why not just use 320kbps mp3 lol...j/k