Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
18th November 2008, 02:48 | #21 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 215
|
Small note... his picture came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Levels
The 150Mbit/s is at the "Max video bit rate (VCL) for High 10 Profile" column and the 200Mbit/s is at the "Max video bit rate (VCL) for High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4 Predictive Profiles" column. I personally have no idea what they both mean. |
18th November 2008, 02:50 | #22 | Link | |||
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Well, Neil, you're not a CEO of a hardware box manufacturer trying to make products that can be sold at a profit.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
18th November 2008, 02:55 | #24 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 53
|
That mean it's a kind of video you will probably never need to watch on a standalone, and joe six-pack will never have in hand.
Standalone don't support 5.1 not only because it would be very hard and expensive, but also because it's useless, even if you are a 1080p maniac. |
18th November 2008, 03:12 | #25 | Link |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Some constraints of the High 10 profile also result in a significantly lower compression ratio, which can be important for fixed size media, such as DVDs, and for limited broadcast channels.
Last edited by Guest; 18th November 2008 at 14:28. |
18th November 2008, 04:27 | #26 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
|
Neillithan,
Just as CoreAVC does, the DivX H.264 Decoder also decodes more than just High 4.0 content. Hardware is a different story though. The comments Dark Shikari and neuron2 make are correct. Supporting higher levels does introduce a much greater burden on manufacturers in terms of devices capabilities and cost. Widespread support of everything up to level 5.1 is infeasible. Look back to my earlier post where I'm speaking to interoperability across many manufacturers, confidence amongst consumers and content creators and low-cost solutions in many device categories. Think to yourself, "How do we get there from here?". You said it yourself, Quote:
DivX wants to build a consistent platform. We want to bring all manner of capable devices into an ecosystem where creators and viewers don't have to target specific devices but only a known profile that we can assure will work reliably everywhere. And that's bigger than just H.264. It's the container. It's the audio format. It's the subtitles and the metadata and all other aspects of the experience. I don't know about you, but I don't want to re-encode my media for every single device I ever buy. I don't want my friends to have to either. I know some of my friends wouldn't know where to start in fact. I don't want my PC trying to transcode all my videos on the fly for my connected device every time I watch them because a year ago I decided I could get an extra 0.5% compression by using an extra b-frame. I want my media to look fantastic, sound amazing, and play the instant I want to watch it with no fuss. On the other hand, nobody is taking away your freedom to encode your files the way you like. If these values are less important to you then that too is okay. But wouldn't it be nice if you ever shared your files with others that they could enjoy the great experience that a common platform offered? I really have not found anything that doesn't look spectacular in 1080 using level 4.0. |
|
18th November 2008, 08:26 | #27 | Link | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
You misinterpreted my responses and further misinterpreted. I called you out for being partial in your responses because you look at only the literal meaning of my words and then you tell me I should clarify. I did clarify and you became upset. In the midst of my responses, apparently my inability to correctly use video terminology annoyed you enough to start truly insulting me. You called me a fool. To top it all off, I get told to stop insulting people. Lets compare insults shall we? DS: Annoying, rude, fool and foolish versus ME: Arrogant wisdom-touting bully Both are mean spirited, yet I'm told to knock it off. I guess you wouldn't dare tell a well renowned forum member to stop insulting so long as the little guy is the easier target. I've visited this forum many times for discussion and help and all I get in return are threads that end like this. Quote:
I loathe this place. Last edited by Neillithan; 18th November 2008 at 08:30. |
|||
18th November 2008, 10:20 | #28 | Link | |
ffdshow/AviSynth wrangler
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austria
Posts: 2,441
|
Quote:
Radeon HD 4350 cards (which come with ATI's UVD2 engine) start at 35 EUR around here, and that's the price for the GPU, video RAM and the board...
__________________
now playing: [artist] - [track] ([album]) |
|
18th November 2008, 10:57 | #29 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
My PC has a dual core 3ghz AMD, 4gigs of ram and an 8800 GTX OC and it has no trouble playing 1920x1080@60fps. For a PS3 or an Xbox 360, I'd assume their H.264 playback to be on par with my PC, yet they only support L4.1 videos. Why? There is no reason for the limitation. |
|
18th November 2008, 11:42 | #30 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 145
|
What advantage would 5.1 capabability offer over 4.1 for consumer videos? It seems it is not necessarily better for the purpose and we should not conclude we are missing something because a higher spec is available -especially if it unnecessarily raised costs.
|
18th November 2008, 11:43 | #31 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,460
|
Why do you think supporting level 4.1 is a huge limitation? The majority of people will never get a hand on a source exceeding level 4.1 anyway since blu-ray (and probably broadcast hdtv too) fall under that limitation. With these sources you wouldn't reencode with settings that require a higher level anyway since it would only reduce quality and then you might as well keep them untouched. Also just because a file is labeled level 4.1 or level 5.1 doesn't mean the content actually requires that level. Most of the 720p files that hit filesharing networks probably don't even exceed level 3.1 if the encoder used a sane number of reference frames (<=5). The quality that can be gained by exceeding that limit is minimal (unless maybe on cartoons). I do agree that the decoder should not just look at the level and refuse to play a file, but thats a minor problem since the level flag can easily be changed to represent the actual content of the file.
|
18th November 2008, 14:42 | #32 | Link | |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Quote:
As several posters have pointed out, 5.1 support is just not necessary to play the kinds of videos that these devices are called on to play. It's a wholly unjustifiable expense in a penny-pinching environment. The bottom line is that if putting six times the memory on a box along with the more complex chipsets required to support 5.1 was a viable competitive strategy, it would be done, tinfoil hats not withstanding. Last edited by Guest; 18th November 2008 at 15:04. |
|
18th November 2008, 15:14 | #33 | Link | |
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
However, Blu-ray being L4.1, I don't know why DivX is restricted to L4. Also I'd have been nice that Blu-ray supported L4.2, allowing 1080p60 and 1080p50. |
|
18th November 2008, 17:51 | #34 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
|
I can't think of much outside of the PS3 and Xbox360 that might implement such a thing. HW players already use special IC's with dedicated decoders. They're going to be about as cost efficient as you will get.
|
18th November 2008, 20:30 | #35 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 225
|
I think that the reason they didn't support L4.1 is so that their (certified) players focus on content created by DivX 7, rather than the videos that are already out there, including HD-DVD and Blu Ray movies. Not only are there potential legal issues involved with this (no one wants to put out a hardware device capable of playing back decrypted Blu Rays, Popcorn Hour being the exception) but if they did then people would wonder why some movies (AVC) can be easily converted to play on DivX players, while others (MPEG2, VC-1) cannot. If they supported all 3 formats, then I think that is going beyond what they intended to create, not to mention even more expensive.
As for the L5.1 issue, there's just simply no need for such support. True L5.1 video (like the sample provided by DS) is way too expensive to support today, and would defeat DivX's goal of an affordable player for all. Now, what they could have done is display a warning when trying to play a file that is marked as L5.1 saying "This file might be more than I can handle, do you want to try anyway?" That way, if it fails to play correctly, you were warned, but if it can play it, then great. Granted, when feeding a hardware device more than it can handle the results may be unpredictable, so this may need to be an "expert option" only to be used by those who know what they might be getting into. |
18th November 2008, 22:19 | #36 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
|
Turtleggjp,
4.0 profile enables very high quality 1080 video and allows a much more extensive device support. Contrary to your point around Blu-Ray there is no legal issue I'm aware of around the choice of level. The maximum video bitrate for level 4.1 is 2.5x that of 4.0. |
18th November 2008, 22:28 | #37 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
For those who are obsessed by 4.1 profile:
20Mbps is more that enough for 1080p stream so why you want 50Mbps?!?!!?!? I'm with DigitAl56K ...
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 18th November 2008 at 22:40. |
19th November 2008, 18:37 | #39 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 225
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|