PDA

View Full Version : OGM support in hardware players


philtre
9th December 2003, 14:36
Is there any information when OGM splitting (with Ogg audio decoding) will be available in hardware players?
I've been doing OGM(XviD+Ogg) encodes for a while now and would like to be able to play them when I finally buy a standalone.

philtre

Doom9
9th December 2003, 16:33
well, the answer to that one is in the stars. Some manufacturers have said they would eventually support OGM, but when exactly (and if at all) that will happen is yet unknown. That's the risk you take by going for something new when you're not sure it's going to become a standard. And there are two other containers in the battle for the standalone.. it may be that not every container will ever be universally supported :/

philtre
10th December 2003, 11:17
That sounds like a very reasonable but very generalized answer.
There is probably some more specific data on this subject.
I'm wondering if support for a container could be added through firmware upgrades. In that case, the upgrades could be optional. And there wouldn't even be need for a battle.

So what are the other two formats. One is definitely Matroska. The other is, what? MP4?

philtre

Doom9
10th December 2003, 11:55
yes, the other format is MP4. MP4 will be pushed by Ahead (via NeroDigital) and 3ivX with their own MP4 solution. At least one manufacturer (elta) has gone on the record saying that OGM would be added, but that was half a year ago and that firmware upgrade is still missing in action. There is also at least one standalone that will target mp4 (check last month's news). Of course there is more information but that information is confidential.
It looks possible that all formats could be supported via firmware upgrades, but feasability doesn't mean it will be done. Economic realities will decide what gets done and what does not. The far eastern player manufacturers who are the strongest force in this player market are not very innovative, and it is mostly in the European market where consumers are asking for more. It is then up to the player manufacturers to get the far eastern R&D teams to reprogram firmware. So there might be player X supporting OGM, player Y supporting MP4 and player Z supporting MKV, but none supporting all three. And you can have a player that uses the same platform as another, but won't offer a firmware upgrade to support more container formats.
I can say that I know of no plans (secret or not) of any manufacturer to support every container format, so my personal recommendation for the time being if you're targeting standalones is to stick with AVI. Anything else is a risk. You might be able to play everything if you're willing to get more than one player, but even that might take a while.

bond
10th December 2003, 12:05
imho customers should bug the firmware creators much more that they make the firmware opensource

if that would happen, it would be so easy to add all the nice features, like all sorts of containers, audio codecs (vorbis, aac) aso...

SeeMoreDigital
10th December 2003, 12:30
Originally posted by philtre
So what are the other two formats. One is definitely Matroska. The other is, what? MP4? In all honesty, if you are talking about Mpeg4/DVD stanalone players, MP4 should have been the only other major container supported!

There's no way MP4 should have been allowed to drift in the doldrums for so long, to find itself competing against the likes Matroska and Ogg.

If the MP4 container had been implemented in standalone players from the start. Both the container and everything related to it, would be 'further on' from a technology stand point.

You've only got to look at what the Matroska team have achieved (in what is, a relatively short amount of time), to know that this would have been the case.

Hopefully Ahead's Nero Recode2 will get things moving for MP4, at long last.

Cheers

philtre
10th December 2003, 14:01
Well, AVI is not an option for me, since I usually encode audio to Ogg, so my only options right now are OGM and MKV. Personally, I'd like to see MKV gain support once it's stabilized and user friendly enough. But since I've encoded a lot of stuff to OGM, I'd like to see it supported as well.

As for standards, refresh my memory, but isn't it true that there are a lot of problems with current implementations of the MP4 format regarding audio sync and subtitles and stuff? As it is, I think MP4 looks to me more like MOV (regarding usability) than AVI or OGM.

Since this is a pretty strong community, I propose pressuring the hardware player manufacturers to release some kind of Firmware Developer Kits for people like the Matroska team or 3ivX. I don't know if that can even be done, but it would really speed things up.

By the way, has there been any talk about a menu system for these new formats? Like the DVD Menus?

philtre

bond
10th December 2003, 14:09
Originally posted by philtre
but isn't it true that there are a lot of problems with current implementations of the MP4 format regarding audio sync and subtitles and stuff?nope, no problems like that

By the way, has there been any talk about a menu system for these new formats? Like the DVD Menus?already, perfectly possible in mp4
btw i will release a dvd-like menu in mp4 sample tomorrow, stay tuned :)

SeeMoreDigital
10th December 2003, 14:57
Originally posted by philtre
Well, AVI is not an option for me, since I usually encode audio to Ogg, so my only options right now are OGM and MKV. Personally, I'd like to see MKV gain support once it's stabilized and user friendly enough. But since I've encoded a lot of stuff to OGM, I'd like to see it supported as well. Unfortunately, that's my point!

If the MP4 container had been supported properly in the first place you might not have found the need to use OGM and/or MKV!

Originally posted by bond
...btw i will release a dvd-like menu in mp4 sample tomorrow, stay tuned :) I will look forward to that!

Any luck being able to test a preview version of Recode2?

Cheers

ChristianHJW
10th December 2003, 18:33
Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital If the MP4 container had been supported properly in the first place you might not have found the need to use OGM and/or MKV!

Vorbis in MP4 ?
AC3 in MP4 ?
DTS in MP4 ?
RV9 in MP4 ?
SSA/ASS in MP4 ?
MPEG1/2 in MP4 ?
MP2 in MP4 ?

It seems you are using MPEG4 video and AAC audio ( = MPEG4 audio ) for your rips now, and dont use subtitles so much ... if this is true, then MP4 may be a pretty nice solution for you already, but many others may not agree here i guess ....

Doom9
10th December 2003, 19:25
@ChristianHJW: I was waiting for you to take the floor here ;) But it seems you forgot about wmv, have you not?

SeeMoreDigital
10th December 2003, 19:40
Originally posted by ChristianHJW
Vorbis in MP4 ?
AC3 in MP4 ?
DTS in MP4 ?
RV9 in MP4 ?
SSA/ASS in MP4 ?
MPEG1/2 in MP4 ?
MP2 in MP4 ?

It seems you are using MPEG4 video and AAC audio ( = MPEG4 audio ) for your rips now, and dont use subtitles so much ... if this is true, then MP4 may be a pretty nice solution for you already, but many others may not agree here i guess .... Well according to bonds MP4 Q&A (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62723) Vorbis is possible in MP4 but not recommended!

As for AC3, DTS Mpeg1/2 & MP2 and subtitles. I would personally prefer to keep this lot in an VOB container, so I can spin them using both a PC DVD and standalone player!

RV9... well yes you've got me their. What about WMV9??? But I'm lucky I can already view these encodes on my TV using my Xcard with JovePlayer.

Having said that though, maybe in the future, much of the above could be hacked into MP4

EDIT: Don't get me wrong I like your product. I use your product. Your dll's etc are installed on my PC right now!

It is already a great, well thought out container. I hope that hardware manufacturers will take the initative and support it.

Who knows, when standalone players begin to appear that can spin and/or stream just about every concievable video and audio codec. MKV will be the container of choice.

I can't say fairer than that. Each to their own though!

Cheers

shitowax
11th December 2003, 00:26
Sorry but any bitstream can be put into .mp4 (subpictures, subtitles, any video or audio codecs, BIFS, VRML or Flash interaction ... ) ISO and MPEG simply doesn't support all of them ... nothing wrong with that. Anyway, all MPEG-1 and 2 audio and video support have been fully specified by ISO. So, a .mp4 file with MP2 audio and MPEG-1 video is perfectly possible and compliant.

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
Vorbis in MP4 ?
AC3 in MP4 ?
DTS in MP4 ?
RV9 in MP4 ?
SSA/ASS in MP4 ?
MPEG1/2 in MP4 ?
MP2 in MP4 ?

It seems you are using MPEG4 video and AAC audio ( = MPEG4 audio ) for your rips now, and dont use subtitles so much ... if this is true, then MP4 may be a pretty nice solution for you already, but many others may not agree here i guess ....

stax76
11th December 2003, 01:33
what about the container DivX announced. It looks like DivX or MP4 are in a good position because of the backing of big brands DivX and Nero. I hope we will have soon a standard and I hope it won't suck

Doom9
11th December 2003, 09:53
Sorry but any bitstream can be put into .mp4 (subpictures, subtitles, any video or audio codecs, BIFS, VRML or Flash interaction ... ) ISO and MPEG simply doesn't support all of them .But then everybody comes up with their own implementation which are incompatible to each other and that is a problem. That is what the Matroska people did right.. if you want RV9 in Matroska, there's a defined way to do it, etc.

what about the container DivX announcedWhich container? DXN once did MP4 but that was dropped again.

stax76
11th December 2003, 10:22
I was refering to a article where they were talking about a new container derived from AVI. It was said they want to deliver a all in one solution video, audio and container while the codec still can be used with other containers

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/data/jk-29.08.03-010/default.shtml&words=Divx

SeeMoreDigital
11th December 2003, 13:01
Originally posted by Dolemite
I was refering to a article where they were talking about a new container derived from AVI. It was said they want to deliver a all in one solution video, audio and container while the codec still can be used with other containers

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/data/jk-29.08.03-010/default.shtml&words=Divx Yep, I remember this article.

I also remember asking the DivX guys if they were planning to resurrect the MP4 container. But I never got a response!

My only worry is that DivX 6 will end up encoding say, 2No video streams at the same time. One being, Mpeg4 compliant. And the other, who knows!

Either way I reckon the latter will relay more heavily on some kind of secondary decoding/post processing and will therefore be, incompatible with current DivX standalone devices...

Personally I hope they go the Nero Recode2 route. But who knows what DivX are going to do. It would be nice to get a clarification.

Wow, so according to shitowax, even more toys can be shoved into an MP4 container. I guess bonds MP4 Q&A requires updating to include a "theoretical" segment!

Doom9
11th December 2003, 13:23
I can't quite share your enthusiasm about Recode. No splitting, subs and chapters you cannot use anywhere but in a special software player, no possibility to use another container or any other input than DVD, no way to edit the output files like you can do with AVI, OGM and Matroska. Those are really severe restrictions. And we'll see if the quality is on par with XviD.. not everything that says MPEG-4 is automatically good.

Stux
11th December 2003, 13:36
Originally posted by Dolemite
It was said they want to deliver a all in one solution video, audio and container while the codec still can be used with other containers

Hmmm, sounds like 3ivx ;)

SeeMoreDigital
11th December 2003, 13:57
You are absolutely right about that Doom9!

But at least a start has been made. And by Nero!

It would be nice to think that Sigma/Kiss will release an MP4 container upgrade for their standalones, ASAP. As it's got to be a given that they are capable of supporting it.

You are forgetting however, that some of us Sigma Xcard users can already view MP4 containered Mpeg4/AAC streams in hardware. So we know what to expect!

I've generated a few short 2pass VBR encodes with Mpeg4 video @ 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000kbps and 2Ch AAC audio. I generated them using Sorenson Squeeze. And the results were very good!

It's clear that Nero have aimed their product at DVD to CD-R ripping, or should I say, backing up! Hopefully as time goes bye, users will be able to input and edit their own digital camcorder footage.

Cheers

Doom9
11th December 2003, 14:53
But at least a start has been made. And by Nero! Actually, it's the mp4ip tools, they included mp4 output via xvid a long while ago. And then there's 3ivx which also had a solution prior to Ahead (and a more flexible one if I may say so). So, MP4 has been around for a while. And imho the kickstart would have to be provided by an editing application. I would never suggest MP4 as container to use for DVD backups, I couldn't in good conscience because I know people will come back asking how to edit their files again. You're locking yourself in a cage using MP4 right now, standard or not.

And as for the Xcard, I suspect you have a computer freak as girlfriend / wife because most members of the female race would never allow a noisy PC anywhere near cable distance to the living room. And anything that needs a PC isn't really a standalone solution.. it's a PC. I can easily play ND even with subs and chapters by taking my notebook into the living room (and compared to a regular PC at least the notebook is almost silent).

I've generated a few short 2pass VBR encodes with Mpeg4 video @ 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000kbps and 2Ch AAC audio. I generated them using Sorenson Squeeze. And the results were very good!What does that have to do with anything? I was able to do that a long time ago, starting with when I published the first MP4 guide.

For me, Recode2 is a nice DVD backup application but the DVD-R part is way more useful because the output can be played pretty much anywhere and it doesn't contain features that will only be available on certain devices. It's nice to have more players but in the end I think people need to be properly warned as to what the limitations of a solution are, and I think in your enthusiasm you're forgetting about those. What do people use to play DivX? Xcard? How about WMP, MPC, Zoomplayer, TCMP, BSPlayer and standalones? I suspect that all those will be used more (and in many cases a lot more) than an Xcard (or PC with TV-out for that matter.. you don't really need an Xcard since todays PCs are perfectly capable of decoding digital content).

It would be wrong going for a solution without knowing that you're putting your money isn't going to backfire. Right now, if anybody asks about standalones, the only suggestions you can give him in good conscience is to use AVI. That is what we know does work and it's the only thing. And for PC based playback beyond AVI, there are two working and proven solutions which are flexible enough and none of them is called MP4.

SeeMoreDigital
11th December 2003, 16:04
Originally posted by Doom9
Actually, it's the mp4ip tools, they included mp4 output via xvid a long while ago. And then there's 3ivx which also had a solution prior to Ahead (and a more flexible one if I may say so). So, MP4 has been around for a while. And imho the kickstart would have to be provided by an editing application. Very, very true. But take 3vix's most recent tool for example. It's not nearly as easy to use as Recode2 for creating an MP4. However, whether we like it or not, all many people want to do is stick a DVD in one end of a encoder and get an Mpeg4 encode out the other end. And yes, editing is a problem at the moment. We will have to wait a while longer.

Originally posted by Doom9
And as for the Xcard, I suspect you have a computer freak as girlfriend / wife because most members of the female race would never allow a noisy PC anywhere near cable distance to the living room. And anything that needs a PC isn't really a standalone solution.. it's a PC. I can easily play ND even with subs and chapters by taking my notebook into the living room (and compared to a regular PC at least the notebook is almost silent). Well Doom9, it was you who mentioned that MP4 could only be used in 'software players'. All I did was point out that such files can be played in hardware too.

As for having a noisy PC next to the TV... all I can hear is the sound of silence... apart that is from the ear splitting audio provided from the occasional 6Ch AAC encode!

And as for the missus being a computer freak... far from it. All I have to do is leave JovePlayer running in the system tray of the PC. And all she has to do is stick a disc (any type will do) into the USB2 DVD drive, press the DVD button on our 'all-in-one' remote control and then flick the DSS amp to DVD.... Everything else happens automatically - It's simplicity itself really!

Originally posted by Doom9
For me, Recode2 is a nice DVD backup application but the DVD-R part is way more useful because the output can be played pretty much anywhere and it doesn't contain features that will only be available on certain devices. It's nice to have more players but in the end I think people need to be properly warned as to what the limitations of a solution are, and I think in your enthusiasm you're forgetting about those. What do people use to play DivX? Xcard? How about WMP, MPC, Zoomplayer, TCMP, BSPlayer and standalones? I suspect that all those will be used more (and in many cases a lot more) than an Xcard (or PC with TV-out for that matter.. you don't really need an Xcard since todays PCs are perfectly capable of decoding digital content...

...It would be wrong going for a solution without knowing that you're putting your money isn't going to backfire. Right now, if anybody asks about standalones, the only suggestions you can give him in good conscience is to use AVI. That is what we know does work and it's the only thing. And for PC based playback beyond AVI, there are two working and proven solutions which are flexible enough and none of them is called MP4. Absolutely, the MP4 container has got to appear in standalones. The sooner the better!

One good thing that has happened in the DVD/Mpeg4 standalone market is that the prices have fallen quite considerably. You could even argue that now standalone players can be had for as little as 80 euros, the players themselves are almost disposable!

Okay, our views appear to be very different. But I think it's good to throw ideas, suggestions, even hopes and dreams about!

Cheers

ChristianHJW
11th December 2003, 16:23
Originally posted by Dolemite what about the container DivX announced. It looks like DivX or MP4 are in a good position because of the backing of big brands DivX and Nero. I hope we will have soon a standard and I hope it won't suck
Some reading stuff about this here (http://forums.divx.com/viewtopic.php?topic=54857&forum=5).

In short, i am convinced DivX N will fail if they try to establish a new standard on their own. They dont have a good audio codec to bundle with their video codec, and if they even start to make a proprietary container, like Real Networks, with non-existing support in free video editors, they will 100% fail. Of course, as i was pointing out, matroska is maybe no option for them, for several reasons, but the alternatives arent bright either :

- AVI : Making AVI fit for the future, even if i risk now that alexnoe will jump in my neck again, needed a complete rewrite of the standard it seems, and if you do that you may well start on a white piece of paper also.

- MOV : Its a great container certainly, but from the users mind very much tied to Apple / Mac and Quicktime, and people dont really think great about Quicktime IMHO ....

- AAF : Advanced Authoring Format is extremely powerful, but has complicated specs that are hard to implement.

- MPEG : Pretty inflexible for anything else than standard MPEG stuff

- VOB : They would be crazy to leave the 'one file = one movie' strategy of AVI and others.

- Ogg : You dont really want me to comment on that :D ....

SeeMoreDigital
11th December 2003, 16:37
I totally agree with you here Christian,

Even with DivX being as popular as it is, if they created their own container etc, it would be a recipe for disaster. Especially if the container and or it's streams can't be spun in all current DivX compatible standalones.

I wonder who's developing their business model?

Cheers

alexnoe
13th December 2003, 11:14
AVI : Making AVI fit for the future, even if i risk now that alexnoe will jump in my neck again, needed a complete rewrite of the standard it seems, and if you do that you may well start on a white piece of paper also.Then it would not be AVI any longer. Well, Vorbis-in-AVI is going to be more challenging than AAC :p

bond
25th December 2003, 14:08
Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Absolutely, the MP4 container has got to appear in standalones. The sooner the better!i now checked the licensing issues with mp4:
mp4 usage is free for everyone who already payed licenses for mpeg-4 decoding, ie every mpeg-4 standalone or codec manufacturer can already implement mp4 for free, its just that people will have to ask for it to get it implemented (the same goes for mkv and ogm of course)

SeeMoreDigital
25th December 2003, 14:14
Originally posted by bond
i now checked the licensing issues with mp4:
mp4 usage is free for everyone who already payed licenses for mpeg-4 decoding, ie every mpeg-4 standalone or codec manufacturer can already implement mp4 for free, its just that people will have to ask for it to get it implemented (the same goes for mkv and ogm of course) Do you think using AAC audio (and its licensing) is going to present an obstacle for the implementation of the MP4 container in standlones?

bond
25th December 2003, 14:23
quick answer ;)

well aac is another question, lets see how standalone support evolves (dunno if apple/itunes helps the situation) and the next thing is he-aac (great for multichannel) which requires a different license as normal aac afaik

lets see what the future brings :)

SeeMoreDigital
25th December 2003, 14:35
Well I can't really see the point of having MP4 in standalone players without AAC!

It would just make matters more complicated if we got say MP4 but we had to mux MP3 audio into the container instead of AAC audio.

I've tried this already with my Xcard. And although the video plays fine I get no audio at all!

Cheers