How about a unique standard for A/V?

[RathO]

Hi, i am wondering why the hell people/manufacturers/programmers don't stand with only 1 standard for a/v format? :confused:

As exemple: how many codec do we have for audio? (mp3, mp2, mpc, vorbis, wma, speex), how many video codec (xvid, divx, rm...)? Look at all the confusion around DVD format...

Sometimes, it's getting complicated to find the right way to do things, 'cause there are so many ways... :mad:

I guess each codec is designed for certain type of usage, but still.

I'd like to hear your comments/explanation to this fact. :o

Regards

[int 21h]

DivX and XviD are different implementations of the same standard (Mpeg-4 simple profile).

Mpeg, more often than not, has layers in its specification that enable more advanced methods or features to be used, check out the Mpeg Audio FAQ for more details on that (http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/faq/)

All of the other codecs are proprietary alternatives (WMV, RV, etc.) from companies who believe they have something unique to offer the industry.

[smiller667]

Sticking with one standard only would mean no progress in A/V technology whatsoever.

As for true standards these days, I guess it is - sadly - still mainly mpeg-1 & 2-based formats like VCD, SVCD, DVD ... (yeah right, please flame me! :)). They might not offer the most advanced features, but they do have one advantage: definition of a container format plus definition of a media/disc structure.

The lack of these structures is what - to my mind - precludes the universal use of mpeg4-based formats like divx. These might be fine for PC or HTPC use ('cause those platforms offer an unrivaled flexibility), but standalones are bound to fail to some degree. Talk about different codecs (like divx 3.x support), menu structures or selectable subtitles ... "divx certification" currently does not offer any solution whatsoever to this.

Formats like WMV or RM are proprietary and - hopefully - not close to ever being widely adopted for universal use.

Please note that I don't want to belittle mpeg-4-based or other formats, it's just that - to me - they are not a viable universal standards right now.

[RathO]

@int 21h
proprietary alternatives (WMV, RV, etc.) from companies who believe they have something unique to offer the industryRight dude, they believe, but i still don't ;) but for sure it is unique...

@smiller667
Formats like WMV or RM are proprietary and - hopefully - not close to ever being widely adopted for universal use.Hum... well, i think they are like widely adopted, maybe not by choice, but 'cause they are streamable on the web... I can't stop thinking about the QuickTime format that is used by most movie trailer host sites... ouch! I can't take it anymore :mad:

I think i remember seing on the matroska to-do list: streamable container. ah? interesting :D

So every format has something special to offer... i can't wait to see what the future will be like (check this thread) (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61464)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by RathO

Hum... well, i think they are like widely adopted, maybe not by choice, but 'cause they are streamable on the web... I can't stop thinking about the QuickTime format that is used by most movie trailer host sites... ouch! I can't take it anymore :mad:


Actually MP4 for all intents and purposes is Quicktime. Quicktime is actually outstanding. I think your poor experiences with quicktime are more derived from the under developed player software for it and some of the codecs a few are using. They are a bit shamefull. But the actual Quicktime specification is superb. It's such a sad thing that AVI is so much more common. Because it is so much less capable. I would really like to see more support behind OpenQuicktime and porting of the libraries to non *NIX systems like Windows. Which will happen in time. Anyhow. Even WMP can play Quicktime. All you need is the right codec.

Originally posted by RathO

I think i remember seing on the matroska to-do list: streamable container. ah? interesting :D


I don't think there is anything stopping Matroska from being streamable. But that is not the intent and purpose behind it IIRC. It is meant to be a robust editing and storrage format. OGG OTOH is meant to be streamable.

[RathO]

@Neo Neko:
I have never seen a proper encoded quicktime file in my whole life. I wont change my mind about it as long as i wont see something good looking out of it. :mad: BTW, who had a great experience with the QuickTime player?

The Quicktime specification is superb? ok.

But what i remember of QuickTime are those shitty trailers... how can you have a good idea about it after that?

[int 21h]

I think most of the current trailers on apple.com/trailers are great quality (i.e. http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/underworld/trailer_high.html)

[RathO]

I must agree with you that its getting REAL better than what i'm used to with QuickTime :D

Regards

[unmei]

one could reason why there are more brands and models of trousers than levis 501. once you have remodelled your bottom to fit them, it would be a great advantage as noone ever would have problems with finding the right trousers and they all fit for everybody thus making it easy for the producer. But oh well, i don't like jeans, i never wear them :P

[shitowax]

OpenQuicktime runs nicely under Windows : The 3ivx Directshow splitter uses it without problem for months now ... I'm one of the main developpers of OQT, never got any requests ? ;)

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Actually MP4 for all intents and purposes is Quicktime. Quicktime is actually outstanding. I think your poor experiences with quicktime are more derived from the under developed player software for it and some of the codecs a few are using. They are a bit shamefull. But the actual Quicktime specification is superb. It's such a sad thing that AVI is so much more common. Because it is so much less capable. I would really like to see more support behind OpenQuicktime and porting of the libraries to non *NIX systems like Windows. Which will happen in time. Anyhow. Even WMP can play Quicktime. All you need is the right codec.

[Neo Neko]

Hehehe. I fergot you cropped up here recently shito. 3ivx asside(crashing everytime I tried to encode with D4 lately(it decodes ok though)) I was more reffering to a better Quicktime parser for directshow than what was included. I dunno. Perhaps the included quicktime parser under directshow is adequate. After all if there is no analogus directshow codec it simply will not play even if it parses. But then would it be possible to use quicktime to decode and then run it to gstreamer or directshow to display etc. This would alleviate/remove most peoples complaints with quicktime that are actually player related. Seeing as they could then use almost any player they chose.

In any event Apple's embracing of MPEG4 should help the situation quite a bit. If only there were some better creation software and apple's decoder would handle something more than simple profile. Granted in Quicktime files 3ivx kicks in and decodes great. But I am talking more along the lines of decoding MP4 files under quicktime.

[shitowax]

The quicktime parser included with directshow sucks a lot : it supports quicktime files up to ... Quicktime 2 (which looks about the same as avi) : No compressed header, no VBR audio (mp3 or AAC for example), no VFR, no mp4, ... The 3ivx parser supports all that because of OpenQuicktime. Using the latest ffdshow (from august I think), it's now even possible to decode Sorenson Video in all the DirectShow players (still no sound with Qdesign audio, but it works great with AAC, for example, all the Matrix trailers work nicely). Now, if you look deeply at quicktime spec, I'm almost sure that DirectShow is not powerfull enough to implement a complete and somehow open quicktime parser.
Btw, we fixed tons of bugs since 3ivx D4 4.04, the next release should be MUCH better... ;)

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Hehehe. I fergot you cropped up here recently shito. 3ivx asside(crashing everytime I tried to encode with D4 lately(it decodes ok though)) I was more reffering to a better Quicktime parser for directshow than what was included. I dunno. Perhaps the included quicktime parser under directshow is adequate. After all if there is no analogus directshow codec it simply will not play even if it parses. But then would it be possible to use quicktime to decode and then run it to gstreamer or directshow to display etc. This would alleviate/remove most peoples complaints with quicktime that are actually player related. Seeing as they could then use almost any player they chose.

In any event Apple's embracing of MPEG4 should help the situation quite a bit. If only there were some better creation software and apple's decoder would handle something more than simple profile. Granted in Quicktime files 3ivx kicks in and decodes great. But I am talking more along the lines of decoding MP4 files under quicktime.

[Neo Neko]

Well an updated parser would be nifty. ;);) nudge nudge say no more. And I have seen Qdesign ACM codecs laying around. In fact for a while I tested capturing with the Qdesign ACM. It may not be up to date though.