The codec of the futur

[Sirber]

Which one do you think will prevail?

My choices are:

RV9 and H264. Why is RV9 here? Because H264 is good but way to slow with today's hardware. RV9 is my second and most viable choice, because it's still developped.

MPEG4 are quite good, but not at low bitrates.

I'd like your written opinion too.

[ooops!]

At the end of the day. With the correct codecs installed on your PC you can play back any video file!

My money (much as I hate to say it) is on Windows Media. But that's only because they can afford to throw loads of money refining their product. There's no doubt WM8 was absolutly crap but WM9 is a different animal altogether. God knows what WM10 etc may look like, or sound like!

It's a great shame that none of these formats (with the exception of DivX) can simply be burned onto a disc and viewed via a DVD 'set top' player. I mean, why the hell can't a DVD 'set top' player spin raw Mpeg1 and 2 files!

Sure the discs my be 'digitally versatile' but why not the players!

[Koepi]

...because it's your money in it....

[ooops!]

Yep........ coz I'm really Bill Gates!

I think I'd settle on being his office cleaner!

[ooops!]

No wonder the XviD marker keeps going up!

[karl_lillevold]

Originally posted by Sirber
RV9 is my second and most viable choice, because it's still developped.
We will have some interesting improvements in upcoming Producer milestones, specifically options to increase compression efficiency for high action scenes. One improvement (up to ~10% bitrate reduction) will not affect encoding speed and will be the new default for VBR encodes, other improvements will slow down the codec and will be selectable via direct codec options given in the job file. More details later. Nothing ground-breaking though, but incremental.

[WorldBook]

I voted XVID. Well currently, XVID seems to be the most popular codec of the "futur" so I guess the "futur" is here :)

[ChristianHJW]

Outing myself : I was voting h.264 :) ...

[soulfx]

Well for current codec I would go with XviD, but for futur I would have to go with H.264. I despize RealMedia and M$.

[trbarry]

I'm also in the Xvid now, H264 future camp. But I'm basing the H264 comments mostly on rumor and hearsay. So I don't have a very strong opinion on that yet. And like MPEG-4, H264 may yet attempt to self-destruct when the MPEG-LA makes licensing demands.

- Tom

[JoeShrubbery]

Originally posted by ooops!
I mean, why the hell can't a DVD 'set top' player spin raw Mpeg1 and 2 files!


Mine can :'>
Norcent DP-300, real cheapy from Walmart. Hella-versatile too. The list that pops up browsing cds for MP3s recognizes mpg files of either the mpeg1 or 2 variety sitting on the disc as well and plays them when selected... with varrying degrees of success. I'm in Canada using NTSC hardware but it's playing back PAL-encoded SVCDs and SVCD resolution mpegs more smoothly than native NTSC content, go figure. Anything at plain old vanilla VCD standard (NTSC or PAL, actually burned as such or not) plays back flawlessly though. And it plays back odd resolution mpegs as well (like, say 512x384 @ 23.976 fps, that ran smoothly). I'm still playing with it, thankfully it reads CDRWs flawlessly :'>

[mf]

I voted for H.264. XviD now, H.264 in the future. sysKin has enlightened me with some technical details, so it's not just hearsay for me. This is more like "in theory, this should own the planet" :p. Btw, why the hell isn't WARP in there? It's not touchable yet, but a big bet for the future.

[sh0dan]

IMHO there isn't much point in discussing future products - when the products are released we can talk about them. Perhaps WMV10 or RV10 or (a useable) H.264 will provide better quality than anything ever seen before, but there is IMO little point in guessing about it now.

For the current solutions, I think doom9's comparison says what's needed to be said.

XviD has matured considerably. DivX is apparently focusing more on user-friendlyness than quality. SBC is dead, but still produces competetive results.

I am personally never going to use dead-end-formats (RV, WMV, QT), no matter how good they are. If i cannot easily touch the material after it has been encoded, it is of no use for me.

(these are my personal feelings and preferences - I do not intend to offend anyone).

[nFury8]

I'm only concerned about archiving, so its definitely Xvid for me. Although RV9 is good considering its mainly a 'streamie', I wouldn't use it full time for backup / archiving cause its too restrictive. Xvid for the foreseeable future, and for the not-so-distant future, a codec should be able to compress a 3-hour movie to fit into a floppy at quant 2 with no resize, while at the same time able to do my laundry and wash my dishes.

[unmei]

"of the future" sounds like that is some fixed point when you could do a comparision and look what performs best then :)

i voted for h.264 because at the moment it looks like having the most unused potential and could well be "the" codec in 2 to 3 years, but on the short range, like next few month it's clearly Xvid and if the devs manage to glue in some "AVC" it could even throw out my bet on h.264 .

Now what comes after that ? Guess no forecast would make sense cos "the" codec of 2006+ will probably have a name noone knows today.

i know sirber started the poll, so here my comment on real video :D
i accept it is outperforming xvid and divx et all at low bitrates, but these rates are simply lower than i am interested in. Well nothing against small filesizes, but i think one should clearly draw a line between content to be distibuted at a certain (mostly low) rate like over networks, where one should be able to recognise something at all, and encodes that aim at best quality. When i comes to compressability, the "show important and blur the rest" attitude of RV is a great concept, but i hate blurring on HQ stuff, i rather prefer occasional blockiness like with Xvid. But thats a matter of taste and somehow useless to argue about...

[Sirber]

I used XviD before, but my goal is to fit a movie on 1 CD at the best quality. XviD is a very good codec, but it's fot 700 - 2000kbps. I needed something at 500 - 900.

I also like the container and audio codecs from Real.

What I would like to see is a short clip encoded in WMV9. On doom9's comparison, WMV9 looked like better than XVID / RV9...

[Atamido]

I understand that the RV9 container is inherently streamable, but I wouldn't call it good. Of course, my knowledge of it is sketchy at best.

Is there anyone out there that could list the specific advantages and disadvantages of the RV9 contianer over other containers?

Is the use of SMIL files a limit of the container or the filters/players used for playback?

[Sirber]

The RM container is limited if used alone to only 1 video track and only 1 audio track. If I add SMIL, I can have multiple audio track, subtitles, and more.

Compared to AVI, I can't say which one is better. Compared to OGM, it can't be compared :)

SMIL can be used in MPC and RealOne Player. I think you can play vorbis and AC3 using it.

Karl should be able to explain this better than me :)

[CaptainCarrot]

About SMIL: You can play Real Video with any soundfile RealOne can play, but have you ever tried that (Sirber)? I did, and I never had anything working that sounded close to being in sync, neither ac3 nor ogg, not to speak of seeking. Karl tried that too, i think, and he didn't get the sound in sync either (at least with vorbis).

Regards

[Sirber]

I never tryed with ac3 nor vorbis. I only use RealAudio Surround :). I don't like AC3 and OGG... AC3 is too fat and I don't like the quality of Vorbis.

[Sigmatador]

Some friends tried Ogg+RV9 in SMIL and it doesn't work (with MPC)

a question for ISO Mpeg-4 experts ? ^
H.264 is a part of the MPEG-4 spec (Advanced Video Coding profile) so in the future it could be add to XviD, am i wrong ? (so why separate h.264 and xvid, it was very difficult for me to choose between both of them ^^)

[Sirber]

H264 isn't MPEG4. It's not the same... ... kind-of stream...

[Shandra]

Hi Folks,

Mh - even if it is not mentioned in the Poll - and probably outdated because its origin is with a rather old codec - I do have some hopes for Theora (my hope, because with dvd burner becoming more affordable - size in't that relevant as a question/decision as before - and by noway are my backups finding their way into the net... - and after all VP3 wasn't that bad (and still isn't)) ...
But in general, as said before in this thread my fear is that WM is/will be the future...

CU,
SHAnDRA

[Sirber]

VP3 was blury and blocky, also it uses 100% CPU to decode a 720x356 movie on a 1.3 GHz. It was slow too...

[karl_lillevold]

Ogg + RV9 in SMIL 'works' if you have Ogg plugins. This should also 'work' in MPC. Note the '' : this means that a/v sync is off, so the usefulness of the above combination is limited and not currently worth the effort.

P.S. H.264 = MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding), jointly developed by the ITU and the ISO, thus the 'dual' name. It is non-backwards compatible, so the XviD developers may choose to include some features from H.264, but then the bitstream would most likely be non-standard, or they could make the big leap and choose to implement the full spec, perhaps in an XviD version 2...

[Shandra]

Sirber - probably you're right (just remember much smaller resolution than your mentioned).... and maybe just those damned C't article brought it to my attention again - never heard of Theora (the codec) before, but after knowing the origin of its name - It has to be getting real good - or I will hunt 'em down eternalie (because Amanda Pays was one of the most beautiful actors I've seen as a child ;)...
But to stay on topic - I would wish for a free (better open source) codec - maybe in a few decades size wouldn't matter anymore and lossless is the way to go - but until then - sigh... Even if I see RV9 quality - the problem with Real's player was and is still to be unstable (don't know why but on all system's I've seen so far it crashed more than other players)- the only true alternative (if M$ could even be remotely considered an alternative) would be WM9...

CU,
SHAnDRA

[Sirber]

Media Player Classic can play RV9 content, but you still need the codecs from RealOne Player.

RV9 is free, but not open source, some parts are open source. It can also be played on Linux, unlike WMV9.

[Sigmatador]

Mplayer can read WMV9, Sorenson3 RV9 etc...

[avih]

indeed, mplayer can handle all this stuff (vcd, svcd, avi, ogm, mov, rm, wmv). even the win32 version mentioned on this thread can: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52335

as i said, very handy as a reference player.

[Sirber]

Ok

I tryed it on windows. Not working for me :(

[ooops!]

Sirber,

As I've said before. I'm quite happy to post you a CD with some WM9 test files on it

[ooops!]

> JoeShrubbery

You could turn out to be my new God!

I've searched the web for info about the player and from what I can determine, it all depends on which version (serial number) of the DP-300 you have.

If you say your player can play back RAW Mpeg1 and 2 files then that's the version I need. So can you please let me know?

[Sirber]

Originally posted by ooops!
Sirber,

As I've said before. I'm quite happy to post you a CD with some WM9 test files on it

But I don't want you to pay for it. Could you cut a small clip of one of your movie and send it by email? I can accept in theory 1 GB :), but 2-3 MB would be nice.

I have a little question: How do you rip with WMV9? With the GUI? Using an AVS?

My mail is sirber@webernic.com

[ooops!]

Don't worry about the cost. It won't cost you a penny (or should that be a cent?). We send CD's out to people, all over the world every day. So there is no problems there!

After experimenting with the WM9 codec, we feel it's important for as many people as possible to see what it can do.

It's unfortunate that the clips on the MS web site are a bit too slow (very little high speed motion) to obtain an accurate assessment.

As I've said many times before (not just on this forum), DivX was our prefered codec and still is for many things.

However weather we all like it or not, if you want your work to be seen by as many as possible and with a minimum of fuss, WM9 is the only way to go.

Don't forget, the vast majority of people out there don't know how to alter the settings on there PC's, let alone play around with different types of video and audio codecs. All most people do is visit the 'Windows Update' page. So at the very least it's safe to assume they have the latest version of the WinMedia player installed!

This is the main reason why we (as a business) have started using WM9. At one time we used to send promo work out in Mpeg2 (on a CD) at 5000kbps VBR, but it's supprising how many companies out there, still don't have DVD rom drives in their PC's and therefore, no Mpeg2 codecs/filters installed either.

We then tried high resolution Mpeg1, which when encoded at 720x576PAL or 720x480NTSC looks great and can be played back on most medium spec PC's. But as with Mpeg2 you are limited to around 20mins of output. Which is not very long for a clients promo.

So now we use WM9, which technically means we can get 35 mins onto a 80mm CD-R or 7mins onto one of those 'business card' sized CD-R's. And the clients love those!

It's a damm shame but you have to keep it simple for the masses!

[Atamido]

Originally posted by avih
indeed, mplayer can handle all this stuff (vcd, svcd, avi, ogm, mov, rm, wmv).
Don't forget about MKV. Mosu has added Matroska support to mplayer.

[ooops!]

I forgot to say I/we just use the standard WinMedia9 encoder. We grab the video either from an analogue or digi camcorder tape. Edit the video, stick some audio and some titles on it. Post a sample back to the client (with the words sample copy flashing in all the corners) and if the client likes it. They purchase what ever they need. Mostly it's passed out to people visiting exhibitions.

[Sirber]

Have you ever got a "greeny" output? I just tryed a Naruto, epidose 10, and it's all green :confused:, no red, no blue. But if you incist (verbe Incister en français, et je sais pas s'il y a des fautes...), I can give you my postal address :).

[ooops!]

> I've never had a problem with colour. Whatever setting used YV12 or RGB32 give good results.

Today as it happens, I have learned that some NTSC users have had problems with the MS WM9 encoder. If you are one of these try the Windows Media Video 9 VCM (Beta). Which is available at: -

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/codecs/vcm.aspx

After you've installed this. Just 'fire up' your favourite encoder application and the 'Microsoft Windows Media 9' plugin should be visible and ready for use.

I'll post you a sample CD straight away - no problem

[Sirber]

Originally posted by ooops!
Just 'fire up' your favourite encoder application and the 'Microsoft Windows Media 9' plugin should be visible and ready for use.

My favorite encoder application is AutoRV9 :D

The colour problem is when I want to reencode DIVX 3.11 (or SBC) content. It's all green... :confused:

[Ramirez]

Sirber, which tools exactly you're using to make this conversion?, and why make it in the first place?,if your source files one of those crystal clear quality SBC rips, that kind of conversion will result in serious quality degradation even at 1000kbps, you're better of convert it to uncompressed Huffuy and only then to WMV9/XVID whatever...

(Even better idea, what's wrong with straight DVD>WMV9 conversion? imo this is incomparably better way to evaluate Codec's abilities)

[Sirber]

I tryed SBC --> WM9. Usualy I do SBC --> RV9 for animes. I'll try to go through HUFsomething.

[edit]

Jeez I can't. It's VBR MP3 in AVI :(

[Ramirez]

I think that you've misunderstood my question>>WHICH TOOLS EXACTLY YOU'RE USING FOR WMV9 ENCODING? Vdub, vdubmod, FlasKMPEG? :eek: :D Windows Media encoder? What?? Is Avisynth 2.5 installed? Etc

As for your problem with vbr mp3 muxed with AVI,this is reaaaaly piece of cake to overcome this, just load your source file to vdubmod,uncheck audio in 2 audio menus (set it to no audio) then go to "Video" menu and set it to {Direct Stream Copy) then the usual stuff File>save as AVI,voila you're set vdubmod will save your file without audio track, you can always mux it together later on.

[Sirber]

And if I want the MP3 inside the AVI? I know how VDub works, I'm not a noob :p. If I'm going to use WMV9, I'll stock it in WMV format. I hate AVI and OGM. I Use Windows Media Encoder.

[Ramirez]

Sirber you're not a noob but sometimes I just want to kick your butt or something....:D
For heavens sakes! Live that media encoder alone, you don’t really need it, Vdubmod and wmv9 vcm VFW codec it is the way to go, just demux the video /audio convert the resulted video output to> Huffuy > and then to VMV9 AVI, then mux it back with the original vbr mp3 file, works like a champ I've done it like this a million times

(Oh yeah Sirber, VCM WFV codec produces much better results then WMENCODER,
Just try it and you'll be in shock by the quality of VCM codec, this is kinda childish statement "I hate AVI" please just do it my way at least this one OK? :)

[Sirber]

Humm... My first question is still unanswered: How the hell can I f*cking get the lame MP3 VBR out of the crap*y AVI?!?!?!?! :devil: :devil: :devil: ;)

What audio codec can you propose me for 32kbps and 64kbps encoding? I wanted to use Windoes MEdia Encoder for the WMA...

And about my first sentence, I'm not flaming or insulting you. I'm not mad or angry, just tired :)

[Ramirez]

My dear friend sirber,none of your sentences or jokes are taken by me as an insult,I LIKE YOU AND YOUR SENSE OF HUMOR VERY MUCH,so relax I'm joking with you either.:)

Anyway I can see that you have still lots of work learning various
Vdub functions despite your statement "I'm not a noob" :rolleyes: :D

Here we go, load your dreadful SBC rip into Vdubmod, goto >File>Demux Audio save it wherever you lke, that's it.
Now regarding your audio choices I admit they're kinda sucks as a moment you can mux vbr/cbr/abr mp3's plus any kind of AC3 audio track, ogg vorbis audio is not available for us until the DShow filter gets updated for WMV9,so I guess we're stuck with MP3 which sound awfully at anything bellow 128,that's it.

(Also you can try to play with matroskadub(what a name)to mux wmv9 with vorbis,but as a moment I wouldn't touch this stuff though.)

[Sirber]

I tryed some time ago to demux a MP3 VBR with VDub, and on the remux it was out of sync.

Are you saying I can't mux WMV9 with Vorbis in a OGM? :(

[ooops!]

If you want to get an .mp3 audio stream out of an .avi you can do it with the Std WinMedia9 Encoder.

I've managed to extract the .mp3 audio stream out of most digital 'stills' camera .avi's files, DivX 4.1, DivX 5 files etc.

You can save the audio as a WMA file. Which is what you want.....right!, I think!, maybe!

[crusty]

Well just my $0.00001 :D

Quicktime= compatability hell, bloatware
RV9=WMV9= closed source, determined by big companies, bloatware
DivX= being surpassed by...
Xvid= By the people, for the people
H264= Hella slow! Needs a renderfarm just to get some work done....
let alone optimize it. Distributed computing anyone ?

So I voted Xvid.
Currently, RV9 might by a viable alternative for lower than 400 kbps instead of xvid....but I still have to test that. Just based on hearsay.

[Sirber]

From my tests, XviD can't compete bellow 600kbps with RV9.

A little question: what's a bloatware?

@oops

Check your PMs.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by karl_lillevold
We will have some interesting improvements in upcoming Producer milestones, specifically options to increase compression efficiency for high action scenes. One improvement (up to ~10% bitrate reduction) will not affect encoding speed and will be the new default for VBR encodes, other improvements will slow down the codec and will be selectable via direct codec options given in the job file. More details later. Nothing ground-breaking though, but incremental.



Hope upcoming versions of Producer fix the ATI AIW bug so it does not crash when trying to capture.

[Shootist]

the best codecs now are xvid for HQ stuff and RV9 with lot of blurring at low bitrates. But the future is not xvid or rv9 because they can only be "optimized". xvid is based on mpeg4 which is mostly mpeg2 which is nearly the same like mpeg1, am I right? The same "problem" has rv9. the helixcommunity (I still wait for a good resolution ogg+rv9) tries to make it better and better but in the future they will come to the point where no optimization can be done(...when blurring is even for them too much...)

So what is the why out of this misery: H.264 . the codec was completly rewritten and is not based on other codecs (like xvid and rv9). of course the source needs a lot of optimization but I think this problem is not caused by bad developpers, it is because it was translated from fortran(?) to c. so in 3 years or so you will have a great codec if the work is continued. I have tested H.264 and the quality is amazing. at bitrates around 400-600 it will produce dvd-quality. and I do not say dvd-like quality with filters like blur or so...

DivX has lost its popularity for the community. in my opinion they are now nearly the same like M$. WM9 or maybe wm10 and future divx releases will be good, there is no doubt. but the format are owned by someone and that`s the great problem...

...and current tools are not well developped if you want to work with them. (not divx or xvid but wm9 and rv9)

so my conlusion is: the current codecs are xvid (650-2000kbps) and rv9 (400-800kbps). the dvd will be a format in the future because it is very widespread. h.264 and maybe other projets of companys like M$ or realnetworks will fight in the future but in my opinion open-source will win again! (at least for me)

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Shootist
so my conlusion is: the current codecs are xvid (650-2000kbps) and rv9 (400-800kbps). the dvd will be a format in the future because it is very widespread. h.264 and maybe other projets of companys like M$ or realnetworks will fight in the future but in my opinion open-source will win again! (at least for me)

I agree with you on XviD and RV9 about the bitrate range. H264 isn't ready now for everyday encodes, but maybe we'll have XviD 2 and RV11 then. :)

[outlyer]

Originally posted by Sirber
I tryed some time ago to demux a MP3 VBR with VDub, and on the remux it was out of sync.VirtualDub doesn't handle VBR MP3 "nicely" (it gets 'CBRized'). Using VDubMod (http://virtualdubmod.sf.net), there should be no problem.

@all:
Originally posted by Sirber
What audio codec can you propose me for 32kbps and 64kbps encoding
does anyone know if mp3pro can be used? I've never tried it but supposedly sounds way better than plain mp3

[Ramirez]

Well, you can mux mp3pro files in AVI or OGM no problem there,they're essentially just a regularly mp3 files,the tricky part is decode it back during playback,MP3PRO uses some sort of complicated compression algorithm which allows to mp3pro to achieve its impressive compression/quality.Basically this is done by cleaning out all high frequencies out of the signal and storing only the info about these frequencies somewhere within the file; highly patented decoder application reads this info during playback and restores the missing frequencies on the fly.

@Sirber
Here is the Definition of bloatware

"Software containing features that require a large amount of disk space and RAM"

I wouldn’t pay much attention to this, just a regular "everything none open source=crap" blablabla...

[Shootist]

Originally posted by Sirber
What audio codec can you propose me for 32kbps and 64kbps encoding? I wanted to use Windoes MEdia Encoder for the WMA...

ok, my audioformat is definetly ogg vorbis. even at 64 it has an amazing quality. of course aac is also very good, but

opensource baby!!!

mp3pro is nearly the same like the normal mp3, only some more frequencies are left out. the thing is that it is not free like vorbis or mp3.

[outlyer]

Originally posted by Ramirez
Well, you can mux mp3pro files in AVI or OGM no problem there,they're essentially just a regularly mp3 files,the tricky part is decode it back during playback
I knew what mp3pro _is_. What I wanted to know is if such a decoder exists in an "usable" form, but for your post I guess it doesn't :)

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Shootist
ok, my audioformat is definetly ogg vorbis. even at 64 it has an amazing quality.

Vorbis @ 64kbps, 48KHz, sounds like crap. Encode a soundtrack with wind or water sounds, or the chapter on the matrix when they are at the night club.

[Koepi]

*sigh*

sirber, it gets a little annoying now (for me, that is). Ogg Vorbis clearly outperforms real audio at that bitrate - and it has it's drawbacks/trade offs to make as well as real audio. If you aren't capable of separating transparent sound from "flat" sound you can't just say Ogg Vorbis is bad. Your ears are different than mine, so you should respect that, as well as I respect that you _really_ love RealMedia.

It would be nice if you'd leave other people their oppinion and stop that real video enforcement all the time - there is competition and that's good that way.

Thank you. :)

Regards
Koepi

[Sirber]

@Koepi

I just wanted to say that Vorbis have difficulties at 64kbps with water and wind. These problems are not in RA@64kbps. At 80kbps those problems with Vorbis are gone. That's why I can't prentend that vorbis is good at 64kbps.

[avih]

Originally posted by Sirber
@Koepi

I just wanted to say that Vorbis have difficulties at 64kbps with water and wind. These problems are not in RA@64kbps. At 80kbps those problems with Vorbis are gone. That's why I can't prentend that vorbis is good at 64kbps.

Sirber, you say things as facts while, in reality, it's YOUR oppinion (possibly other's as well). obviously, others have an oppinion which is different from yours. Sound quality is very subjective (yes, i know about group 'objective' tests, but you haven't done any.. or have u?)

so, 1st, when you state your oppinion, it would be proper to add 'imo', or even better, 'imho'. and 2nd, don't bash others. instead, listen to what they have to say. turning a thread into a flame war won't help anyone.

and last thing, from reading many of your posts, one might get the impression that sometimes you just argue for the sake of the argument, which is ok.... in a philosophy forum.

cheers

[Sirber]

I don't bash or flame, I just say my points. And also, I hate philosophy ...

[edit]

I also hate when people say "It's good because it's opensource" with no other reasons.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Ramirez (Also you can try to play with matroskadub(what a name)to mux wmv9 with vorbis,but as a moment I wouldn't touch this stuff though.)

You care telling me why you wont touch it yet ? Dont misunderstand me, i respect your opinion and decision, i just liked to find out if this is based on a real technical reason or mainly 'feelings' ...

We can mux WMV9 with Vorbis into matroska fine right now, but our DShow filter cant play it yet, for some stupid reason we will investigate hopefully soon ...

[Shootist]

Originally posted by Sirber
I also hate when people say "It's good because it's opensource" with no other reasons.

he! open source is nearly always better because it is from people to people. always under heavy devellopment. wm9 or so never gets updated. AND the biggest reason (in my opinion) you CAN contact the developers like koepi or ChristianHJW easily and ask them questions or give them advices to do something better etc. ... and it does not cost anything!

I respect your opinion that rm audio may sound better at 64kbps because it is like koepi said very hard to hear the difference for some people (at least me). I had tested rm at 64 and 128 and I compared it to vorbis and mp3. but the results always spoke for vorbis. maybe at hq like 320 mp3 still sounds better but the goal of vorbis is to make the file smaller. ( I used songs from metallica or hammerfall, so I never had water or wind )

[trbarry]

I also hate when people say "It's good because it's opensource" with no other reasons.

For many of us that says a lot by itself. With open source when the author gets bought out or discovers she no longer likes computers then someone else may pick it up and continue to maintain it.

And with open source if I decide some "feature" annoys me enough I can just go change it. Enough of those small changes can evolve into a thing of great value.

- Tom

[Ramirez]

Hi Christian, I had the filling that you won't skip on that kinda sentence as soon as your "matroska radar" ;) detects it; but let me assure you it wasn't inspired by some kind of "ANTIMATROSKA" mood in any way, in fact I'm admire your skills as a great project coordinator, and I like the concept stand behind matroska,but you see I just can't make my self to put my videos in such unstable/untested and somewhat hmm..exotic container as matroska at this very moment, I rather prefer to help your team tracking down various bugs which undoubtedly will pop-up further down the road then actually using it for my every day needs (well at least until matroska will pass its youth stage)

Btw: this makes me smile every time when I see this name>>"MATROSKADUB" its sounds so silly in Russian (no offence) :)

My best regards

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Shootist
he! open source is nearly always better because it is from people to people. always under heavy devellopment. wm9 or so never gets updated. AND the biggest reason (in my opinion) you CAN contact the developers like koepi or ChristianHJW easily and ask them questions or give them advices to do something better etc. ... and it does not cost anything!


For closed-source you can also contact the author. I personnaly send mails / PM / files to Karl about various stuff, and amir (sorry I don't remember your nickname well) answer questions too about WMV9. VSS also have a forum for their codecs. It's all free!!!! :D

Look here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48066


I respect your opinion that rm audio may sound better at 64kbps because it is like koepi said very hard to hear the difference for some people (at least me). I had tested rm at 64 and 128 and I compared it to vorbis and mp3. but the results always spoke for vorbis. maybe at hq like 320 mp3 still sounds better but the goal of vorbis is to make the file smaller. ( I used songs from metallica or hammerfall, so I never had water or wind )

I respect your opinions too. I tryed them both and I aggree with Koepi that it's hard sometimes to make the difference. In my tests, for movies, Vorbis is #1 @64kbps if there is no wind or water. For me it's not perfect.

IMPORTANT:

I'm not flaming or bashing opensource. Guys on different opensource project really do a great job. It is stricly my opinion or my vision of the reality.

[MoritzT]

I voted for XVID, although H264 sounds promising.

[Herculezz]

Well I Just Did a Small 10 Sec Encode of a Clip With VSS H264 Codec And The Size Was 1,000KB - And The Quality Was Amazing - Look Just Like DVD If Not Better!!

Only Problem I Say Was That 10 Sec Clip Took Me 3-1/2 Minutes to Encode at 1FPS. Emagine a Whole Backup Taking - 39.2 Hours!! The Playback Was Very Slow As Well But Again As I Said Amazing!

Pros - Perfect Quality At 10 Sec 1000KB ( That Would Be 688,128KB For a Full 112 Min Movie Sounds Good To Me)

Cons - Slow Encode (1FPS W/ 1.3 GIG Duron), Slow Decode (Not Full Speed)

I'd Say The Pros Outway The Cons. Hmm Maybe a Faster 3200+ CPU Could Play At Full Speed. In All Honesty The Encode Speed Could Make No Diff To Me As Long As It Looks Good And Trust Me It Does.

On Another Note If Anyone Would Like a Copy Of The 10 Sec Sample In Which I Encoded just Let Me Know You Will Be Amazed. I Will Be On irc.freenode.net #XVID - Also My Email Is ABennett@BennettElec.com

Oh I Almost Forgot It's 720X352 Resolution - 10 Secs - 1000KB - DVD Quality

[Sirber]

H264 isn't optimized for AMD also. It works faster on a P4... :(

[Ramirez]

How come AMD isn't optimized H.264 playback? I did just a test encoding of a Pearl Harbor Like a month ago or so using VSS codec,(it took something like 3 days to complete)and it played just fine on AXP-1800 I mean playable real-time no slowdowns whatsoever (should I mention the awesome quality also) however all these jerks between frames made the whole experience hmm totally un-enjoyable, so I've deleted it eventually.

[Sirber]

:)

Check this link:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40572&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

[Herculezz]

What Size Did The Final File End UP!!

[Sirber]

706 Mo

[Ramirez]

IIRC it was around 720 Megs NO AUDIO, I don't remember exactly which settings where used during this encoding like I said it was 1 month ago; anyway H.264 is undoubtedly a wave of the future (very near I hope)

@Sirber
These are impressive screenshots bro! I think I understand why you like RV9 so much; it reminds you of H.264 which is ultimately our mutual goal we're both aimed at, Right? :)

[Sirber]

You mean to fit a movie on 700 Mb at great quality?

[Ramirez]

Well yeah what else.. ;)

[Sirber]

I'm tired :) It tooks me 5 minutes to conclude that ;)

[Herculezz]

I Just Think If They Could Optimize The speed of The H264 Codec It Could Really Be a Winner. I Really Didn't Seem To Experience Any Other Problems!!

[Andrey]

h.264 is included as a profile to MPEG4 already.
So, I hope Xvid team will implement it in the future...

BTW, I hope we will see normal current MPEG4 Advanced Simple profile implementations :)
For now, XVid and DivX sometimes produce worse results than MPEG2 (0.27 b/pixel) :(

[ooops!]

What's all this talk about audio quality at low bit rates. Have any of you tried Mp3pro it sounds great at 64kbps. (via MusicMatch).

I think it's a real shame that you can't mux Mp3pro audio with a DivX, Xvid or WMV9 video file. And have a player which will decode the audio properly.

Try it, by encoding one of your most favourite tracks (direct from a audio CD) to this format and compare it to any other codec at 64kbps and there's really no comparison.

Here's some more oil for the fire!

[stax76]

I voted for DivX, I think DivX will stay the most popular codec because DivXNetworks makes smart business moves, like often most popular don't mean best, like most people here I think XviD is better but since both will be playable in standalone players it really don't matter

[Sirber]

Let's start another poll ;)

I like the quality of mp3PRO, but the plugin for winamp decrese non-mp3PRO quality.

[Andrey]

>> Try it, by encoding one of your most favourite tracks (direct from a audio CD) to this format and compare it to any other codec at 64kbps and there's really no comparison.


No offence :), but I think aac+ (or high efficiency aac, SBR tech similiar to mp3Pro) will perform better.
I 've seen some DRM transmittion recorded (on Roberto Amorim site or at faac page at sourceforge) at 32Kbs and quality was really good.
So, I think new aac will have the best perfomance at low bitrates.
The Nero implementation of this will appear soon...

[Herculezz]

We see so many people saying XVID Now H.264 In The Future. Well too bad we couldn't see the developers of Xvid and The Developers of Hdot264 Merge there developments into The CODEC of The FUTURE!! Just Imagine The too Best Codecs Working togethere!!

Sorry Just My 2 Cents!!

[Shootist]

Originally posted by Herculezz
We see so many people saying XVID Now H.264 In The Future. Well too bad we couldn't see the developers of Xvid and The Developers of Hdot264 Merge there developments into The CODEC of The FUTURE!! Just Imagine The too Best Codecs Working togethere!!

Sorry Just My 2 Cents!!

by the way, the H.264 project used xvid as an basis for building the new codec.

[ooops!]

> Andrey,
You are correct in many ways. In fact when (SBR) spectural band replacement is incorporated with both Mp3 and AAC codecs the sound is greatly improved. In theory it should not sound as good, but in practice it does. As SBR seems to remove the harsh elements of digitized audio and creates a warmer feel. In fact it almost sounds like good old analogue. In fact I may dust off one of my old DBX vinyl discs or tapes tomorrow and remind myself just how good analogue can sound.

> Sirber,
I used to use Winamp some time ago, but like you found it could interfere with other audio (and sometimes video) applications on your PC. That's why I now use MusicMatch. But I first delved into Mp3pro by using the Thomson/RCA encoder.

It just makes you wonder what other audio codecs do or might sound like if they used SBR. Maybe somebody could let me know?

[Sirber]

IMO MusicMatch is a crapware, spyware, etc. I really prefer Winamp. :) The sound is rich, powerfull and uses 0% CPU.

[hans-jürgen]

Originally posted by ooops!
> Andrey,
You are correct in many ways. In fact when (SBR) spectural band replacement is incorporated with both Mp3 and AAC codecs the sound is greatly improved. In theory it should not sound as good, but in practice it does. As SBR seems to remove the harsh elements of digitized audio and creates a warmer feel. In fact it almost sounds like good old analogue. Err... interesting theory... :sly: In fact it's not totally wrong (although others will tell you the opposite), because Spectral Band Replication helps the underlying codec (MP3 or AAC) to avoid typical artifacts at very low bitrates that may give you the impression of harshness by only coding the lower frequencies the normal way and replicating the higher frequencies by analyzing the original spectrum and only storing the information how to do this replication in the decoder. This saves a lot of bits for encoding the lower frequencies (up to 10 kHz) with a better resolution and thus avoiding the artifacts in this part of the spectrum. If you like the sound of the replicated high frequencies afterwards is a matter of taste, but I also agree that mp3PRO in its last version sounds rather smooth or "warm" compared to its older versions or other codecs at the same bitrate. That's why I chose to use it for the last demo tapes that I uploaded to my homepage. Now I'm waiting for http://www.nerodigital.com/ to be released (with AAC+)... :)

It just makes you wonder what other audio codecs do or might sound like if they used SBR. Maybe somebody could let me know? The "problem" with this encoding tool is that it's of course patented by Coding Technologies, and any implementation for other codecs (which is possible in fact) would have to license this technology from them (like Ahead Software for their Nero apps with AAC+ support). Their aacPlus codec has won a formal listening test done by the EBU last year at 48 kbps (with mp3PRO as second) with a very high ranking on the "indistinguishable" scale of these comparisons. You can find more information about this in the Wiki of http://www.audiocoding.com/ e.g. on the page for "SBR" or "Version 3" meaning MPEG-4 High-Efficiency AAC (the official MPEG name for AAC+) being part of MPEG-4 Version 3 that has been finalized in March 2003.

By the way, mp3PRO will never be part of any MPEG standard, and so it's very unlikely that there will ever be a DS filter for it to support mp3PRO audio combined with video content or even a standalone player that would support this.