Quote:
|
There is no chipset in existence that plays 5.1. If it existed, it would cost thousands of dollars. The vast majority of "not level 4.1" files are really level 4.1 compliant anyways; you just have to change the header flags.
|
The HD Video world is very diverse and you should know that better than anyone seeing as you're an x264 dev.
Encoders that support x264 are beginning to default to L5.1 and over the last several months, I've seen new movements to consider L5.1 the unrestricted compression settings realm. Hardware makers simply refuse to go the route of L5.1. You say it's because it will cost them thousands of dollars.
I'm going to go out on a limb when I say this, but why in gods name does it require a new chipset? CoreAVC plays L5.1. Libavcodec which is used in so many things plays everything. All you need is a CPU fast enough which doesn't need to be extravagant like 3.0 ghz like Microsoft would have you believe.
Quote:
|
How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players.
|
I feel like you're just not going to "get" this one. It's more about existing .mkv than new .mkv. Since .mkv is so unpopular right now, once DivX starts promoting .mkv as their new container format, it's only a matter of time before the average consumer draws the conclusion that .mkv belongs to DivX. This will lead them to think that all .mkv files everywhere will play on DivX HD certified players. Not true and not cool.
This, in my opinion, is the equivalent of polluting or poisoning.
Quote:
Say what you mean, rather than being unspecific and having others interpret your words to mean what they say, rather than what you meant. But here's the facts:
...
You really need to do some basic research and learn how hardware players work before making ill-informed speculation. Levels exist for a very, very good reason.
|
I already said that I'm not a genius or pro at video encoding and terminology, but there's no reason to think these things can't be explained in a way that is understandable to those beneath you. For the most part, you make perfect sense but you're looking at the literal meaning of my words too closely. I don't want to take jabs at you but your failure to comprehend twice did not have to result in such a superiority-like demeanor. You could have simply accepted the fact that I didn't use the right terminology to address the meaning of the words "popular" and "standard".
I think I have fulfilled my curiosity. DivX doesn't plan to be a Home Theater video player capable of playing back everything. It hurts them more than it hurts me. I still have my PC.
-Neil