[Poll] AutoRV10 => Matroska support ?

[Dark-Cracker]

hi,

i know this thread is a bit selfish but in fact i there is some user of autorv9/10 on this forum so i want to know their opinion :)

it's a poll to know if i must add matroska support in my software (i have receive a lot of request for this.).

the only problem with .rmvb container it's there is no possibility to made a .rmvb file with more than 1 audio stream :(

here are the choice of the poll :

- 1) add matroska (.mkv) output and KEEP realvideo (.rmvb) output.
- 2) add matroska (.mkv) output and REMOVE realvideo (.rmvb) output.
- 3) if u add matroska (.mkv) output i will burn your house !

i explain u the different problems if u select the 1/2 or 3 case.

- 1) if i keep realvideo AND matroska output this will made me more work because i should add a way to enable/disable options available for the 2 containers.

- 2) if i completely switch for the matroska, this will allow u to made a video with unlimited audio stream + chapters + subtitles in a single (.mkv) file.

And now it's possible to extract the different rv10 stream from (.mkv) file .

but there is 2 problems :
- RealPlayer10 doesn't read .mkv file.
- You must install the matroskasplitter.ax file to play .mkv file.

- 3) if u are again matroska and u think it's useless to add it in autorv10.

Give me your opinion :)
++

[Dark-Cracker]

i have vote for add matroska and REMOVE realvideo output because i often made multilanguage file and i prefer when all the output file are in a single .mkv file.
i prefer remove the possibility to select a .rmvb file for output because there can have some confusions for the user.

for exemple if u select .rmvb output and 2 audio stream u will obtain 3 separate file and 2 .smil file needed to launch video+audio1 and video+audio2. if i also add the possibility to made .mkv , for the same options u will obtain a single file.

it's my opinion even if i really like the .rmvb container.

++

[Tuning]

Being a big matroska fan I would love to see option #2.;)

[Sirber]

hum...

It's best to have both, like if I only have 1 video and 1 audio, I prefer RMVB container, but with more tracks, MKV is welcome :)

[wata]

i vote add matroska (.mkv) output and KEEP realvideo (.rmvb) output
because i don't use mkv
only avi & rmvb for me :)

[tiki4]

Well, I voted for 1) as there are some situations where keeping the plain RMVB file makes more sense, e.g. video capture (1 video + 1 audio track). The RMVB's are playable as they are, no need to install additional filters.

Cheers,

tiki4

[hoola]

I voted to keep rmvb only because that is what I use. I dont use matroska and have no need for it. I would hate to see my most beloved program become unusable to me. :(

[Atamido]

@hoola: It wouldn't become useless, you would just have to install a directshow filter, enabling the content to be played in far more players than before. i.e. it would become more useful, not less.

[hoola]

I agree. But I would still rather it to output both formats, instead of dropping .rmvb alltogether. I have no prob at all adding matroska support. Just please don't drop .rmvb.
On a second note. I read somewhere that it takes more process power to decode rm in matroska than it does in its native container? How much of an increase are we talking about? I sometimes push it as it is with full res on my 1.2ghz.
Thanks. :)

[Dark-Cracker]

hi everybody :)

ok i think i will still keep .rmvb output for a while :)

[Mosu]

Originally posted by hoola
On a second note. I read somewhere that it takes more process power to decode rm in matroska than it does in its native container? How much of an increase are we talking about? I sometimes push it as it is with full res on my 1.2ghz.
Thanks. :)

The Matroska container format is a tiny little bit more complex to parse than the .rmvb. On the other hand when demuxing .rmvb the demuxer has to assemble video sub packets into one big frame which has already been done by the Matroska muxer. So this is more or less the same overhead. Even more important is that this overhead is ridiculously small compared to the processing power needed for decoding the actual RealVideo contents - and this is independent of the container it came in.

Summary: It'll take absolutely the same processing power to decode RV from .rmvb as it does from Matroska.

[hoola]

@Dark-Cracker Please do what will make the project easier for your work! Especially if it will make updates come faster. ;) We users will adapt. :)


Summary: It'll take absolutely the same processing power to decode RV from .rmvb as it does from Matroska.

@Mosu Thanks for that info. I did a few tests of my own and you are right. I noticed very little if any fluctuations in processing needs. I need to stop taking what I read for fact and make tests of my own. I could be missing out on something good.


Thanks to all!! :cool:

[ChristianHJW]

hoola,

well said ! There are a couple of people here on the board who are constantly trying to find reasons why not to use matroska, and one of their favourite arguments is that they 'assume' it needs more processing power because they 'read' matroska is more complex, due to its EBML structure.

In reality, we are using very CPU intensive compression formats like RV9 already, and dont care much because our PCs are easily strong enough, and we are even preparing to use AVC/h.264 to achieve higher compression ratios.

Now, compared to what it takes to decode a h.264 video at say 720 * 432, parsing the matroska or any other existing container is simply peanuts ;) .....