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. |
17th November 2008, 19:18 | #1 | Link |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
DivX 7 With H.264 Support, worth the exitement?
For the record, I will be using the terms "H.264" and "AVC" interchangeably. When you read either of those words, assume that I'm referring to the same thing no matter how politically incorrect I am. I honestly don't care how poorly I misuse them.
This is more of a thoughts and musings type post that I hope will spawn some discussion, so I'll start by saying that I'm not a pro or a genius at video encoding and terminology. DivX 7 is getting ready to come out and I did a bit of research on it, it seems like they're embracing H.264. I expect they'll trademark "DivX HD" or something and try to push the new DivX HD format. We'll begin to see DivX HD Certified players arrive on the market. My question, is it really worth the excitement? From what I can gather, they are going to be using the .mkv (matroska) container, which IMO is a great thing. However, this poses a problem with existing videos already using the .mkv container. Currently, HD movies and videos using the .mkv container usually have no restrictions when it comes to video and audio compression settings. To my knowledge, .mkv files come in 2 flavors of AVC: High@L4.1 and High@L5.1. L4.1 is playable on all blu ray players assuming you change the container to something that plays nices with Blu Ray players. L5.1 is a gamble. Depending on the compression settings used, the video will either play or not play. Will DivX be able to play "all" existing .mkv files? For DivX to be standardizing the .mkv container seems like quite an undertaking, or is it a massive mistake? Are they just introducing more complications? It may be too soon to tell what compression settings "exactly" DivX 7 supports, but I'm not getting my hopes up. We've seen Quicktime boast H.264 playback only to support a very limited range of AVC potential. Real Bloat player (I believe) is jumping ship to H.264, but who knows what proprietary methods they're employing to get their grubby little hands in our wallets. Now DivX has an opportunity to revolutionize HD video, but will they? Will they further diversify videos or will they be the driving force .mkv needs? It's not like there is going to be an XviD HD offspring of DivX HD. I don't think they want to open source their code this time around. Funny thing though, considering H.264 is already open source, how do they seriously expect to compete? By embracing H.264, it seems more like admitting defeat. Maybe you guys know something I don't. Please enlighten me. Thanks, -Neil |
17th November 2008, 19:36 | #2 | Link | ||||||
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
17th November 2008, 19:49 | #3 | Link | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Wow. Okay you answered pretty much all of my questions and I'm actually shocked to know the answers.
Quote:
So, by not being able to play 90% of existing .mkv files, DivX is making a huge mistake. They're going to fool people into thinking .mkv is a DivX extension and sooner or later DivX will be rife with complaints of playback issues. At least, this is what I forsee. I could be wrong. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for your fast response, -Neil |
||||
17th November 2008, 20:07 | #4 | Link | ||||
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
17th November 2008, 21:10 | #5 | Link |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
well, for ppl who wanna watch pirate MKV's on standalone player, I guess so.
it's been discussed here with a guy from the DivX team : http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15026100 basically DivX Networks cashed in bigtime on divx3(stolen asf dll from m$), and now they wanna cash in on MKV pirate movies. it's a great business scheme, from the mind of a genius obviously now they need all the pirates to betatest their software for free, so they can sell licences to hw manufacturers...for tons of cash Last edited by leeperry; 17th November 2008 at 21:17. |
17th November 2008, 21:35 | #6 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
leeperry... even in that thread it's you and only you speculating divx wanna make cash from pirate movie...
still mkv is a uber-robust, uber-versatile and open... to sum it up, the smartest container format around. mp4 practically supports only TTXT subs (an almost unused subtitle format), while MKV supports basically everything... and that's true for other kind of streams too... also h.264 was a natural evolution of MPEG4 ASP... also most pirate MKVs are not DivX compliant (as it has been already said, DivX 7 compatible devices can play only level 4.0 h.264 streams, while most scene rips are unrestricted, 5.1 or 4.1...) so, that said, your speculation is completely unnecessary and untrue.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th November 2008 at 22:22. |
17th November 2008, 22:13 | #8 | Link | |||||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
Quote:
What we're trying to achieve is a high quality HD format with an assured playback experience on a very wide range of devices (think DVD players, set top boxes, connected devices, even Mobile devices eventually) with the aim of making available devices at reasonable price points. The goal is not to make every device support every variation of H.264 and it's important to understand that difference. The question we're trying to answer is, "Can we create a very high quality format using the benefits of these new technologies, finding a good balance between the features they offer and device interoperability, all without sacrificing compression too much?". This was also the goal with DivX 6 and prior. As the DivX Certified program launched we faced an uphill battle amongst the technology purists who wanted the most complete MPEG-4 ASP implementations possible, yet if we had gone that route actual hardware would only have been available years later, there would be less choice, it would cross fewer device categories and devices would have been far more expensive slowing the growth of the platform and reducing the value for those adopting the format. Dark Shikari is correct that our draft profile currently specifies level 4.0 but the subsets/constraints we're choosing are not "somewhat-arbitrary", they're the result of ongoing discussions with our partners to determine what the DivX 7 ecosystem might look like depending on the constraints that we set. As DS mentioned, level 4.0 is one constraint that will lead to content interoperability across the set top box market. Quote:
Quote:
Is it a big sacrifice to make versus the long-term benefit gained? I'd like to know that a year or two down the road the content I'm investing my time encoding and distributing today is going to be playable anywhere by anyone with no crazy conversion processes involved. I'd like my brother, sister, mother, and friends to be able to go into a store and pick something off the shelf for $100 or less and be able to watch all the files I've sent them in past with no problems. Quote:
No, the beta version of DivX Player 7 doesn't support formatting, yet |
|||||
18th November 2008, 00:49 | #9 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 560
|
i agree with pretty much everything DigitalAl56k says ..
and level 4.0 high profile is .. 1920x1080 30 fps at 25mbit ! Hardly poor specifications by any means. BBC HD broadcasts at 1440x1080 at 16mbit .. and looks amazing. |
18th November 2008, 01:09 | #10 | Link | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
It's just sad that DivX 7 is going to pollute exist .mkvs. Right now, .mkv is an untapped area in the market world. .mkv has the reputation of supporting the latest and greatest and now DivX 7 comes along trying to put DivX "stamp" on MKV files. DivX has the driving force to put .mkv on the map, it's just sad they're doing so in a way that will pollute .mkv files everywhere. DivX should invent a new extension and call it .dmkv (d for divx) yet still have general support for .mkv files, that way people can easily discern DivX videos from .mkv. It would be the equivalent of using the .divx extension when it's clearly a relabeled .avi. Quote:
Here is how I see things. I see hardware makers deliberately choosing an arbitrary level of AVC to purposely break playback of existing video files so that you will in turn, reencode your videos in their "supposedly" superior format. This is my idle speculation but I believe it's a unspoken business practice in the video world. Everyone, everywhere is doing it. Streaming video flash sites claim superior video quality, but yet they will reencode your videos even if they're already in an acceptable format. Why? Quote:
CoreAVC plays all AVC videos. I have yet to find a video unplayable by CoreAVC. It really does make the perfect HTPC and it doesn't require 8 CPU multithreading to work. I can go on and on but the truth is, I'm right if you just try to look past the obvious and let your own speculation take over. DivX isn't going to revolutionize anything now. They did it with DivX but DivX HD is just going to be some low spec of AVC. By opting for .mkv they're going to pollute existing videos. -Neil |
|||
18th November 2008, 01:20 | #11 | Link | |||||
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
There is almost zero penetration of HD, file-based media in the current market. iPods, DivX players, all that: its all standard-def. That's why DivX thinks they should use MKV: its not as if any other container is any more common in the hardware world for HD.How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||
18th November 2008, 01:48 | #12 | Link | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Quote:
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:
This, in my opinion, is the equivalent of polluting or poisoning. Quote:
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 |
|||
18th November 2008, 01:49 | #13 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
A level is a limit. If a stream actually maxed out the limits of level 5.1, your computer wouldn't play it--in fact, an 8-core Core 2 probably wouldn't play it either. Most of the encodes out there (pirated) are probably 4.1 or 4.0-compliant. "Supporting 5.1" does not mean "playing streams that have the 5.1 flag." It means playing all streams up to the limits specified by 5.1, in realtime. For an example of such a stream, see this high resolution clip. Can your computer play it? I didn't think so. I don't expect everyone to go out of their way to learn what levels mean. However, if you intend on discussing the topic, it is perfectly reasonable for others to expect you to spend 10 minutes in order to know what you're talking about before you put your hands to the keyboard. I'm not going to bother with this anymore: you continue to ignore those who respond to you and insist that your preconceived notions are correct--that the spec is wrong instead. And, since it seems you cannot understand the concept of levels as specified in ITU-T H.264/AVC Annex A, I would strongly advise you to stop posting on the topic, since most of your posts just don't make sense due to the fact that you do not understand what levels mean. Oh, and x264 autodetects the correct level for the encoding, so the point is moot anyways. It won't use level 5.1 unless you serve it some really insane resolution input. P.S. I'm generally rather patient, but you managed to be annoying, rude, and insulting enough to convince me, one of the few people on this forum who has both the knowledge and cares enough to answer all these questions, to stop helping you in less than a dozen posts. Might I point out that this isn't an honor. But remember, the DS is a forgiving DS. In the end, even fools can be enlightened if they only acknowledge their foolishness and learn from their mistakes.
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 18th November 2008 at 02:14. |
|
18th November 2008, 01:59 | #14 | Link | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
Unnecessary and harsh. That's all I'm going to say.
Dude that video is 96mbps. Of course nothing is going to play that in real time. I just have to point out the absurdity of you posting that video just to prove your own point. You don't need a video to be L5.1 to be unplayable. Just make a 1080p L4.1 video 96mbps/sec and you'll encounter the same playback issues. There's no reason why hardware players can't play L5.1 videos. Playing them in real time is a different story but who is stupid enough to put videos in such a high bitrate like that? Just stop. I sound like a procrastinator but much of what I say is in response to your absurd responses which portray themselves as objections. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean you should be an arrogant wisdom touting bully. ugh.. again. Quote:
-Neil Last edited by Neillithan; 18th November 2008 at 02:13. |
|
18th November 2008, 02:10 | #15 | Link |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Neil, you seem to be a bit uninformed about practical realities. Consider 5.1 versus 4.1. The former requires almost 6 times as much memory just for the decoded pictures buffer. Set-top box makers go to great pains to save a nickel per box; do you think they can justify such a massively larger memory footprint?
I also want to ask you to stop throwing insults around, per forum rule 4. Last edited by Guest; 18th November 2008 at 02:12. |
18th November 2008, 02:29 | #18 | Link |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Where did that come from, please? I don't see it in the AVC spec. The latest actual AVC spec shows 50Mbps max for 4.1 (Table A-1 – Level limits).
Did you follow my point about the memory footprint? Nobody wants to butcher anyone. We are seekers after truth here. Last edited by Guest; 18th November 2008 at 02:36. |
18th November 2008, 02:35 | #19 | Link |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
|
L5.1 and L4.1 is my way of discerning 2 different complexities of video encoding. Whether or not it's a practical reality is not my concern. It's the fact that existing hardware refuses to display any kind of picture if the video doesn't conform to the limitations set by the hardware player. Right now hardware players simply blacklist any kind of video that is L4.2 and greater rather than attempting to play them. My PC plays all videos regardless of complexities, resolutions and bitrates. That's why I can never jump ship to a media extender or a Media Center device. They're simply too limited.
Someone else, less informed than my uninformed self will simply ask, "Why doesn't the video play? It doesn't play." They don't know why but I at least have an inkling as to what the reason may be. Dark Shikari and yourself would have me believe I shouldn't question the nature of things unless I have a degree in rocket science. Screw that. Last edited by Neillithan; 18th November 2008 at 02:37. |
18th November 2008, 02:42 | #20 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 53
|
Quote:
2 problems : - Wikipedia is not the officiel spec, they can be errors. It's just a good introduction at much. - >50Mbps apply to High 10, High 4:2:2 and High 4:4:4 Predictive Profiles. Probably not the kind of videos you can find outside a professional workflow, as intermediate formats... |
|
|
|