Poll for MKV users : what codecs/subs are you using in it ?

[ChristianHJW]

HI,

i have a little surprise for you guys :

I am again talking to the producer of a MPEG4 capable standalone player about matroska support currently, and the guys were asking me for some information about our user base, more specifically what codecs are being used in the existing MKV files. There is really no reason to get too excited about this yet, its to come earliest middle of next year they say, and they will watch very closely the acceptance of MKV in the public. The only reason they are actually looking at it already is the missing, clean support for subtitles in AVI :( ....

As they cant do any other video than MPEG4 currently ( XviD, DivX5, and no GMC/Q-PEL yet, you guessed it, but they hope to get this working until next year ), the poll will concentrate on the audio and subs that are used with MKV. Please help us by telling how your files are actually loooking like, thanks in advance.

As this poll is also directed at the future a bit, we wont mind if you vote according to what you think you will be using by the end of this year ....

Explanation :

When doing the poll i found that VB allows multiple options already, and decided to use this option for the poll. Now, the idea is that you make a filtering of you collection, and vote only for those codecs/subs that you are using, or likey going to use, for the majority of your rips !!

In the end we want to have an idea of what the content in the bigger number of MKV files is, so dont tick any option just because you have made one single movie that way .... in the end, if all options are equally used, it wouldnt be good for us in this case :( ....

[hofmetzger]

I didn't think that there are already "producer of a MPEG4 capable standalone player" that have recognized mkv. this is great (or will be in the fututre:) )

@mkv devs:
dont u think some constraints for matroska are needed to make the work for hardware producer a bit easier? i think matroska will be great, but if u allow to put in "all u can think of" it may become a similar caos as with ogm (incompatibilities with different audios etc...)

as with divx you could offer some profiles, like "if you want to keep it compatible, use subtitle format xy; dont mix up this and that;..."

i hope this post is understandable, long time ago, since i posted sth in english

[stax76]

dont u think some constraints for matroska are needed to make the work for hardware producer a bit easier? i think matroska will be great, but if u allow to put in "all u can think of" it may become a similar caos as with ogm (incompatibilities with different audios etc...)

as with divx you could offer some profiles, like "if you want to keep it compatible, use subtitle format xy; dont mix up this and that;..."

i hope this post is understandable, long time ago, since i posted sth in english


sounds like a very good idea to me!

[ChristianHJW]

... guys, you're a bit late with your ideas ;) .... what you think do we have matroska hardware profiles for :) ....

[unmei]

i wanted to tick "USF" subs :D

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by unmei
i wanted to tick "USF" subs :D

I know you want that, but when looking at the results above i dont think any hardware manufacturer will ever dare to try supporting matroska ( i should have known, really i should ), and another option on the list would even make it more unlikely to ever happen ;) ....

Guess its really about time to start discussing hardware profiles again .... at least once the native MPEG4 mode and the corresponding AVI mode converter tools are available ...

[SeeMoreDigital]

If 6 channel AAC audio can ever get to work properly and sound ok at low bitrates, then future versions of Matroska would get my vote.

Are you allowed to say who you are 'talking to'?

[hofmetzger]

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
... guys, you're a bit late with your ideas ;) .... what you think do we have matroska hardware profiles for :) ....

where can i find info about them? (at least i didn't find sth at matroska.org)

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
[...]when looking at the results above i dont think any hardware manufacturer will ever dare to try supporting matroska

well imho its easy to switch from srt to ssa for example (like i did for mkv) and we don't need thousands of audiocodecs available.... not to flame, but if vorbis (5.1) or aac was supported (in hardware) that would be enough for me.

so i think such hardware profiles are the way to go

[stax76]

where can I find AAC info's, is there something like Q&A? (open source, license, patents, BeSweet etc.)

[robUx4]

Originally posted by hofmetzger
where can i find info about them? (at least i didn't find sth at matroska.org)

In the matroska specs (http://cvs.corecodec.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/matroska/doc/website/technical/specs/index.html). Although some recent elements are missing...

[stax76]

I wonder why not more people vote for picture subs? The only reason I can imagine is to save 5 MB for 1 CD copies.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by hofmetzger where can i find info about them? (at least i didn't find sth at matroska.org). so i think such hardware profiles are the way to go

http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=179
http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=29
http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=37

We should discuss the profiles maybe here again ( fits well into the thread's topic IMHO :D ), and as soon as this is done put it on the website ?

Here the main info from the most important of the 3 threads above :

1. General Points

a. Hardware profiles will not use FourCC/VfW compatibility mode, but matroska native codec identification strings
b. Resolutions have to be easy to resize for existing DSPs or FPGAs
c. allowed codecs have to be limited
d. resolutions are all full picture sizes depending on AR flag, means it is not allowed to crop pixel accurate, but black boders have to be encoded in picture ( ? ... maybe too strict ? )


2. matroska simple hardware profile

a. Video

Allowed resolutions ( no cropping ? ); AR can be 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9 ( 2.35:1 )

352 x 240 ( VCD NTSC )
352 x 288 ( VCD PAL )
480 x 240 ( new )
480 x 288 ( new )
480 x 352 ( new )
480 x 480 ( S-VCD NTSC )
480 x 576 ( S-VCD PAL )
560 x 240 ( new )
560 x 288 ( new )
560 x 352 ( new )
560 x 480 ( new )
560 x 576 ( new )
640 x 288 ( new )
640 x 352 ( new )
640 x 480 ( new )
640 X 576 ( new )
720 x 288 ( new )
720 x 352 ( new )
720 X 480 ( DVD NTSC )
720 X 576 ( DVD PAL )

Allowed video codecs

MPEG 1
MPEG 2
MPEG 4 ( ISO )

Allowed frame rates ( fps )

23,97
24
25
29,97

b. Audio

Allowed audio codecs

- PCM int 16, int 24
- PCM float 24, 32
- MPEG 1 layer 2
- MPEG 1 layer 3
- MPEG 2 layer 1
- MPEG 4 ( AAC )
- Vorbis ( to be discussed )
- AC3

Allowed channel mapping

- Mono
- Stereo ( also DPL and DPL 2)
- 5.1
- 7.1

Allowed sampling rates

48 Khz
44.1 KHz
32 KHz
22.05 KHz
16 KHz

c. Subtitles

Current DVD format, RLE compressed picture subs ( vobsub format )


3. matroska advanced hardware profile

like simple hardware profile , plus

a. Video

Additional resolutions

1024 x 480 ( AR 43 , 169 , 167 )
1024 x 576 ( AR 43 , 169 , 167 )
1024 x 768 ( AR 43 , 169 , 167 )

Allowed video codecs

Tarkin ( to be discussed )
Theora ( to be discussed )
M$ WMV


b. Audio

Allowed audio codecs ( in addition to 2. )

Vorbis ( fixed )
FLAC ( to be discussed )
WMA ( to be discussed )
MP3Pro ( to be discussed )

Allowed channel mapping

- dual language single track ( 2 x 2 = 4 channels in one track )
- three language single track ( 3 x 2 = 6 channels in one track )
- 4.0 ( low profile surround no subs, 1 center, 1 rear )

Allowed sampling rates

96 KHz
192 KHz

c. Subtitles ( in addition to 2. )

- text ( UTF8 )
- lzo compressed vobsub


4. matroska professional hardware profile

a. Video

Simply all resolutions divideable by 16 , up to a maximum of 3200 x 3200, all aspect ratios from 14 to 41

All video codecs being registered in official matroska specs with own string

b. Audio

All audio codecs being registered in official matroska specs with own string

Selectable channel mapping, must be upgradeable via external upload ( mapping algorithm to be defined )

All sampling rates allowed for the individual codec

c. Subtitles

All subs specs as defined in matroska specs

[hofmetzger]

Originally posted by robUx4
In the matroska specs (http://cvs.corecodec.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/matroska/doc/website/technical/specs/index.html). Although some recent elements are missing...
Originally posted by ChristianHJW
http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=179
http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=29
http://corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=37

Thanks! The discussions in the corecodec forums are rather old, but they describe exactly what i meant.

[unmei]

>>640 x 288
weird ratio, why not 640 x 272 ( would be approx. 2.35:1 and still mod 16 )

[hofmetzger]

Originally posted by unmei
>>640 x 288
weird ratio, why not 640 x 272 ( would be approx. 2.35:1 and still mod 16 )

maybe because its exactly the half of 576, the standardresolution of (pal)dvds, and if u want to do a simple deinterlace for example you get this. but if i was right there has to be a 640x240 too...

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by unmei >>640 x 288 ; weird ratio, why not 640 x 272 ( would be approx. 2.35:1 and still mod 16 )

The original idea was to make the job for the decoder chips as easy as possible, especially with respect to anamorphic resizing and deinterlacing, and 288 is exactly half of 576 and part of the VCD PAL specs ( 352 x 288 ).

However, if you wanted to convert an existing 640 x 272 XVID movie to a hardware compatible 640 x 288 MPEG4 ISI MKV file you have the following options :

- reencode, either from your original DVD or from the source AVI ( no good idea )

- pray that someone finds a way to add a complete row of black macroblocks ( 640 x 8 ) to an existing encoding ( possible in theory, dont ask me about how motion vectors would have to be recalculated though )

- hope that the hardware producer will over-fulfil the resolution recommendations above, at least for 1:1 pixel ARs, which is likely to happen as there are AVI MPEG4 players out there already that can do that today

[Atamido]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
If 6 channel AAC audio can ever get to work properly and sound ok at low bitrates, then future versions of Matroska would get my vote. I have played 6 channel fine in Matroska. I know that it played fine because I was using the 5.1 test AC3 converted to AAC on my 5.1 surround system and it played each sound over the correct speaker. As for the quality at low bitrates, I guess that depends on what you call 'low'.

[kxy]

Originally posted by Pamel
I have played 6 channel fine in Matroska. I know that it played fine because I was using the 5.1 test AC3 converted to AAC on my 5.1 surround system and it played each sound over the correct speaker. As for the quality at low bitrates, I guess that depends on what you call 'low'.

Maybe his speaker isn't set up properly. How do you connect your receiver to your computer?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Pamel & kxy,

It's not that I can't create the odd 6ch AAC file.

I'm just hoping and waiting for some easy to use applications that will enable a user to input an 6Ch .ac3 or .dts file (or even 6 mono .wavs) and output an 6Ch aac file!

If I've missed an application such as this. Please let me know?

[hans-jürgen]

foobar2000 + CLI encoder + FAAC v1.18 from July 21, 2003 or later (LFE mapping fixed)

[mf]

Why do I not see DTS listed ? It's probably the first thing I'll ever be using matroska for (since DTS in AVI and OGM is crap, won't synch here).

[kilg0r3]

video codecs:

xvid
rv9

[hofmetzger]

mfWhy do I not see DTS listed ? It's probably the first thing I'll ever be using matroska for (since DTS in AVI and OGM is crap, won't synch here).

imho (and im "just a user :rolleyes: ") at least in the matroska simple hardware profile, we dont need too much codecs wich fulfill the same needs. if you want high quality audio, you can use aac or vorbis (@ high bitrate), and i dont even think ac3 is such bad...


Originally posted by kilg0r3
video codecs:

xvid
rv9

xvid is already listed in the matroska simple hardware profile (as mpeg4)

and if m$ wmv is allowed in matroska advanced hardware profile, rv9 should be too.

(but i don't think hardware manufacturers will support the advanced hw profile, if they support mkv at all - but lets be optimistic):)

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by mf Why do I not see DTS listed ? It's probably the first thing I'll ever be using matroska for (since DTS in AVI and OGM is crap, won't synch here).

I assume it would be trivial to support DTS in MKV in a hardware device that supports DTS in VOB already, but the hardware vendor propagating this would take the risk of hinting the DTS license owners to those tools for matroska creation that will allow DTS muxing ? I have not investigated if there is any kind of license infringement to be expected if you simply mux data into another container, but for absolutely certain playback of DTS data from another container then the one specified by the license givers could be subject to problems ...

EDIT : what listing were you talking about mf, the poll or the hardware profiles ?

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by kilg0r3
video codecs:
xvid
rv9

Same as question as for mf, poll or hardware profiles ?

I cant see RV9 decoding on hardware coming, but maybe Karl has some better info here. M$ is just too powerful, its clear to me that their WMV9 stuff will be the most likely to be supported on hardware decoders, thats why its in the advanced profiles, while RV9 is not. To make this clear : we dont expect anybody to design their standalones around our profiles, it MUST be the other way around, we have to see what they are doing from the decoder side and adapt our profiles such that its easy to support them on next coming devices ....

For the poll, i guess its clear why RV9 was no option here, this poll was made specifically for a MPEG4 player ...

[mf]

Originally posted by hofmetzger
imho (and im "just a user :rolleyes: ") at least in the matroska simple hardware profile, we dont need too much codecs wich fulfill the same needs. if you want high quality audio, you can use aac or vorbis (@ high bitrate), and i dont even think ac3 is such bad...Transcoding is evil :D. If it's DTS, leave it DTS :p.

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
I assume it would be trivial to support DTS in MKV in a hardware device that supports DTS in VOB already, but the hardware vendor propagating this would take the risk of hinting the DTS license owners to those tools for matroska creation that will allow DTS muxing ? I have not investigated if there is any kind of license infringement to be expected if you simply mux data into another container, but for absolutely certain playback of DTS data from another container then the one specified by the license givers could be subject to problems ...
I don't get you. You want to be able to put patented and heavily licensed software in your container, but when the point reaches the pole you get scared of license problems.

EDIT : what listing were you talking about mf, the poll or the hardware profiles ?
The poll.

[Perplx]

What about HDTV its already a standard.

http://jkor.com/peter/atsc2.gif
http://jkor.com/peter/atsc3.gif

[Atamido]

Originally posted by kxy
Maybe his speaker isn't set up properly. How do you connect your receiver to your computer? I don't know about him, but for me I use the coaxial digital audio out from my nForce2 motherboard. It has built in DolbyDigital 5.1 hardware encoding on the motherboard. It seems to work very well for most things and could recommend it to anyone building an HTPC.

[stax76]

I wonder what's the restrictions about the resolution good for, why not just say mod 16, otherwise to much of the already encoded movies couldn't be remuxed for being compatible with that profiles

[General Lee D. Mented]

Umm is WARP gonna be listed in either Professional or Advanced when it's done?

[CaptainCarrot]

I think the audio-codec question for mkv in hardware-players should be split up into 3 parts:
1. Codecs that are already supported by players today.
These would be AC3, MP3 and DTS. If the players can already play it, it shouldn't be a big deal to play it back from mkv.
2. Codecs that are already supported occasionally or will most likely be supported in the near future.
These would be AAC, which any mpeg4-compliant player should play back, OGG vorbis, which is already supported by some hardware players, and WMA, which is supported by some players as well.
3. Codecs not mentioned in 1 or 2.

So I think it would be neat to tell the hardware-manufacturer that the mkv can contain basically all audio codecs that are already supported for other reasons than mkv-playback, cause if I was a hardware-manufaturer that would sound pretty nice to me, and that would make a first mkv-player more likely (with more players and more options to come in later models).