Why bother???

[SplinterMgs]

Ok, all this new MPEG4 stuff is pretty impressive but I have to ask the question why as I can't really find any practical use for now, especially when they're playable only on PC and not set top DVD players (except maybe Divx on some players)! Seriously, I don't see the point in spending hours & hours encoding movies so that you can fit 10 movies on one DVD (esp. when DVDRs are becoming cheaper by the day)....

It'll be very useful if you intend to share your movies over the net or send clips via email but that's about all I can think of, if there are many more uses that I may have overlooked, please enlighten me....

The new Nero Digital AVC/H.264 stuff sounds excellent but again until there are set top players that support the format, it's awesome-ness will be limited....

[Teegedeck]

Why bother answering this post?

Seriously, some people like this, some like that, some need TVs and standalone players, some don't.
If you want TV-playback that's fine for you but there is no point in asking others why they don't want that. Each has its own drawbacks and advantages and everyone makes his/her decision based on his/her preferences. For example, my 19'' TFT looks a helluva lot better than any TV-set I could afford. And it is a hobby. These are my personal reasons and preferences.

Have it your way.
But a question like this isn't any more sensible than asking 'why bother eating carrots?'

[Soulhunter]

@ SplinterMgs

Try to store 2h of HD content on a DVD and you know what MPEG4 is good for...


Bye

[Sergei_Esenin]

I can't really find any practical use for now, especially when they're playable only on PC and not set top DVD players (except maybe Divx on some players)!

A lot of people--like me for example--don't need or care about silly limited STB's. I view my DVDs, timeshift my TV, listen to radio, etc. through a Home Theater PC connected to an Infocus X1 projector on a 100" diagonal screen. 1.6 Terabytes of varied formats of stored multimedia selectable from a nice point-and-click menu on my HTPC is infinitely superior to a craptastic DVD player and its need for disc-swapping.

Set Top Box compatibility is great for sharing content with un-savvy friends, but the PC hardware and software needed to turn a PC into the ultimate STB-killer is so cheap now that there's little reason for tech-savvy multimedia enthusiasts to care about STB compatibility. At the low end a graphics card with S-Video output is what, $30? And at the higher end an HDTV or projector will take straight VGA or DVI. Heck, when I want to share a recording with friends I just convert my MPEG-4 to DVD as needed with NeroVision Express--no need to keep bulky outdated MPEG-2 around on my drives.

[stax76]

the reasons are obvious, it's just you are not very concerned about them

[KpeX]

Originally posted by Sergei_Esenin
A lot of people--like me for example--don't need or care about silly limited STB's........

Set Top Box compatibility is great for sharing content with un-savvy friends, but the PC hardware and software needed to turn a PC into the ultimate STB-killer is so cheap now that there's little reason for tech-savvy multimedia enthusiasts to care about STB compatibility. At the low end a graphics card with S-Video output is what, $30? And at the higher end an HDTV or projector will take straight VGA or DVI. :

Ditto. I was going to post something like this, but Sergei_Esenin already did. TV out cards have been around for a long time, I don't see the hangup with needing hardware player compatibility. And as mentioned this compatiblity will increase with newer displays with VGA and DVI.

Perhaps it's a problem if it's not common for you to have a PC in the same room as your TV - but it's easy to wire a cable through a couple walls (if it's close enough, keeping signal degradation in mind) or even to build a cheap HTPC.

[EnergeticBence]

Also, remember MPEG-4 AVC (and XviD almost too) could probably have 50% of the size of MPEG-2 from uncommpressed source - at the same visual quality.
A lot of people do have home movies to back up, now it's a very nice thing to store them in half the space.
As for players: VLC seems to be rather quick on supporting stuff, except for nero AVC it seems to support virtually anything.
Hopefully the new HD-DVD formats will be in AVC, which would give an effective ~70MBit/sec compared to DVDs MPEG-2 which is around 8 for the highest bitrate DVD sources. ( There is a movie called My Man Godfrey that has 9.3 MBit/sec stream, but then it's a classic, most of it spent on grain. )
And yes, it's a very nice thing to use some light noise filtering ( quad-pixiedust(2) ) and recode them @ ~3Mbit, for storage on hard disk, VERY convenient. Just imagine your whole DVD library on a 300GB disk in a rack. That is >200 hours of material.

[bond]

- mpeg-4 sp gets more and more supported on mobile phones/cameras aso (seems video technologies really take a long time till they take off)
- mpeg-4 asp gets also more and more supported on hardware "dvd" players (also some of the big manufacturers, like philips, start to support it)
- mpeg-4 avc will be used in the upcoming hd-dvd/bluray standard, following the old dvd, making it supported on all upcoming hd-dvd players

[SplinterMgs]

Thanks for all the informed replies. Don't get me wrong, it's great to push techno boundaries, I'm also interested in all the MPEG4 development, otherwise I wouldn't be browsing this forum.

My point was that beyond the "Oh wow! I've compressed to 1/10th its size and it still looks awesome!", it doesn't make a difference to "Joe Average" out in the wider consumer market at the moment.

Ok, I acknowledge that your current 19" TFT might be a better display than the average TV but the question remains why playback mpeg-4 instead of the original source? Shouldn't the original source look even better on your TFT? Irrespective of display device, there's no advantage in watching something that's re-encoded/compressed when you have the original source (apart from storage savings).

A lot of people--like me for example--don't need or care about silly limited STB's. I view my DVDs, timeshift my TV, listen to radio, etc. through a Home Theater PC connected to an Infocus X1 projector on a 100" diagonal screen. 1.6 Terabytes of varied formats of stored multimedia selectable from a nice point-and-click menu on my HTPC is infinitely superior to a craptastic DVD player and its need for disc-swapping.

Ok, no need to brag here but I believe the reverse is true as most people wouldn't have equipment like that....

True, they are increasingly being used in mobile devices like 3G phones and portable media players. Good reasons there because of screen size and storage limitations. It's only when you throw HD in the mix then it makes much more sense. Can NeroDigital actually work with HDTV streams at the moment?

mpeg-4 avc will be used in the upcoming hd-dvd/bluray standard

Does that mean HD-DVD/Bluray discs will be produced using mpeg-4 avc as the standard like mpeg-2 is for the DVD format? If that's the case, it's only a matter of time before it'll be fully embraced....

But for now, I think it's more a medium for movie sharing, which kinda explains the popularity of Divx on the web....

[Mug Funky]

AVC will be on HD-DVD, and it will be competing with microsoft's WMV9 (re-hashed as VC-1). competition is good here because it keeps the codecs getting better (hopefully MS don't pull some anticompetitive crap and lumber us with an inferior codec though), but i hope AVC wins. i think it will, as it appears to be more advanced. though i don't want to start a flamewar

oh, and TV-out is the bomb, if only for the reason that it's easier for more people to watch a TV (and i get to use my good speakers when i use TV-out) than a monitor cooped up in a small room.

HTPC is getting exciting. i want in on that for sure. consider that a streamlined and optimized player like Mplayer can handle almost anything with cycles to spare, even with a crummy old CPU like i've got. this means you can set up your own HTPC with an old TNT2 with tv-out, a p3 or celeron processor (mine's 733mhz), and puppy linux or a similar tiny linux distro running mplayer, and you'll have a machine that does more and costs less than the latest divx certified standalone horrors.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SplinterMgs
Thanks for all the informed replies. Don't get me wrong, it's great to push techno boundaries, I'm also interested in all the MPEG4 development, otherwise I wouldn't be browsing this forum.

My point was that beyond the "Oh wow! I've compressed to 1/10th its size and it still looks awesome!", it doesn't make a difference to "Joe Average" out in the wider consumer market at the moment.

Joe average is always the last to get the clue. We are all early adopters here. I was making MPEGs back in DOS and Windows 3.11. This was back when most people didn't have a computer and could not think of a use for one. Let alone know what MPEG was or why they would ever want to use it. Now many own computers and use it and it's decendants every day.

Originally posted by SplinterMgs
Ok, I acknowledge that your current 19" TFT might be a better display than the average TV but the question remains why playback mpeg-4 instead of the original source? Shouldn't the original source look even better on your TFT? Irrespective of display device, there's no advantage in watching something that's re-encoded/compressed when you have the original source (apart from storage savings).

There are many reasons. Quality reduction is not that much. And it allows you to quadrouple your storrage capacity. Making possible cheap and effective media PCs. How many DVD or CD could you store on a cheap 100Gb HD? Not many right? How many MP4, MP3, or OGG files could you store? Tons more. Why would you want to do this? Well you could store your entire collection on a single box and never have to get up to change an annoying disk. Anything you could want would be at your fingertips instantly. Someday Joe Average will figure this out as well. And they will think it is the next best thing since sliced bread. And we will all snigger and laugh at how behind the times and backward they are. Still as we will have moved on to bigger and better things.

Originally posted by SplinterMgs
Ok, no need to brag here but I believe the reverse is true as most people wouldn't have equipment like that....

True, they are increasingly being used in mobile devices like 3G phones and portable media players. Good reasons there because of screen size and storage limitations. It's only when you throw HD in the mix then it makes much more sense. Can NeroDigital actually work with HDTV streams at the moment?

You miss a big segment. There is more than just HDTV. Sure cable and satelite operators are moving to MPEG4 for HDTV. But that is not all it will be used for. Imagine all those regular stations broadcast currently in MPEG2. They are going to be broadcast in MPEG4 as well. They will be able to broadcast 3 to 4 stations in the place where just one used to exist. This means more choice and possibly better quality to boot.

Originally posted by SplinterMgs
Does that mean HD-DVD/Bluray discs will be produced using mpeg-4 avc as the standard like mpeg-2 is for the DVD format? If that's the case, it's only a matter of time before it'll be fully embraced....

It's to early to say. MPEG2 was the only video codec on the original DVD specs. But MPEG1 was generally added as it was similar enough to not add much or any expense. So MPEG2 was the codec. The HD successors will allow for not only MPEG2 but MPEG4 SP, MPEG4 ASP, MPEG4 AVC, And possibly still WM9. MPEG2 "will" be used for backwards compatability. And MPEG4 will definatly be used alot. But which profile if any will be prevalent we will just have to wait and see. WM9/VC-1 does not stand much chance since only Microsoft is pushing it and even they can't be bothered to display a fully working refference version. Not that it breaks my heart. The future is still uncertain. But yes the chances are good that some day grammy will have a nice set top box capable of playing MPEG4 ASP/AVC.

Originally posted by SplinterMgs
But for now, I think it's more a medium for movie sharing, which kinda explains the popularity of Divx on the web....

It will still be popular for that. Though I think it's popularity for DVD backup will wane a bit now that DVD media is cheap. Unless you count those like myself who just put movies 4 at a time on a DVD+R. But it will and does have other uses. You just have not thought of them yet.

I can tell you are new here. Welcome to the bleeding edge. You will have more fun if you stop asking why bother and instead focus on the possibilities open to you. Because if you can't figure out why then you either just have not put much thought in it or are not that creative.

[Mug Funky]

They will be able to broadcast 3 to 4 stations in the place where just one used to exist.

the idea of THAT horrifies me. i figure if they go 1:1 replacing mpeg-2 channels with mpeg-4 channels, then at least the quality might be up to par. already channels are squishing their programs way too much in the name of putting more crap on.

besides which, if commercial broadcasters have proven anything, it's that no matter how much choice you have, there'll be nothing worth watching.

i'm gagging for a 24/7 anime channel, but i guess it's viewer-base would be quite small (even the most enlightened free-to-air channel i've ever seen, SBS, isn't all that big on anime - personal preference from the Managing Director, unfortunately).

hehe... if there was actually good stuff on the teev, i'd put up with analog forever.

[edit]

shows i'd like to see repeated:

Soap
American Gothic
Monty Python's Flying Circus (obviously...)

i could do without "channel CSI" pretty easily. the only way to enjoy that show is with a drinking game, and my liver can't handle more than 2 episodes per week.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
the idea of THAT horrifies me. i figure if they go 1:1 replacing mpeg-2 channels with mpeg-4 channels, then at least the quality might be up to par. already channels are squishing their programs way too much in the name of putting more crap on.

besides which, if commercial broadcasters have proven anything, it's that no matter how much choice you have, there'll be nothing worth watching.

i'm gagging for a 24/7 anime channel, but i guess it's viewer-base would be quite small (even the most enlightened free-to-air channel i've ever seen, SBS, isn't all that big on anime - personal preference from the Managing Director, unfortunately).

Well we have an "anime network" here. Though they can't be bothered to present it subed. Everything is dubbed. Thanks again ADV. As such I can't be bothered to pay for it. Am I the only one who has ever thought of using the SAP to broadcast the original language track and use closed captioning for subs?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
the idea of THAT horrifies me. i figure if they go 1:1 replacing mpeg-2 channels with mpeg-4 channels, then at least the quality might be up to par. already channels are squishing their programs way too much in the name of putting more crap on.

It could be worse... you could be living in the UK and be forced to watch perfectly decent content at horrendously low bitrates!

Most of our DVB-T channels look very poor. Even their "static logo's" are pixellated to hell and look shit!

Currently in the UK we only have 6No terrestrial multiplexes. Four use QAM16 and two use QAM64. The QAM16 multiplexes can have up to four TV channels (which is not bad), however, they've been spoilt by the introduction of "radio" and "digital Teletext" (information) services. The QAM64 multiplexes have around ten TV channels and also include "radio" and "digital Teletext" services.

If the introduction of Mpeg4 could make a broadcast picture "look" better, and there was some for of regulation limiting the amount of crap that can be thrown into a multiplex... I'm all for it!


Cheers

[Rober2D2]

Putting 10 films in a DVD (I normally put 6) is useful if you have a large number of films. Is not that DVDs are too expensive. Simply 10 DVDs use 10 times more physical space than 1. As long as I keep a good quality, I put as many films as I can.

[neo75903]

The pc has virtually replaced out vcr and dvd players at home.
Compresseed movies are obvious for more movies for the same space on the storage server. Using compression is also nice to reduce network load, specially with WiFi networks.
Every new DVD is ripped and put on the server so we dont have to fight for it or watch it whenever we want. Plus you dont get dirty DVDs or to lose any anymore. These are my practical uses for MPEG4.
And ofcourse by doing this i got interested by MPEG4 technology which i never regret i have learned about it.

[Mug Funky]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
If the introduction of Mpeg4 could make a broadcast picture "look" better, and there was some for of regulation limiting the amount of crap that can be thrown into a multiplex... I'm all for it!

hmm. how about a mandatory limit on average quantizer? maybe some kind of scaled measurement that takes into account the drastic difference between AVC and ASP quants (q27 looks about as good as q3 in AVC). bitrate isn't a good measure when there's multiple formats of widely varying efficiency in the same system.

oh, and an outright ban on the MP2 format would help a lot

[edit]

just had one thought - i've seen digiTV in areas with poor reception (my country is huge and sparsely populated, so there's a lot of these areas), and the streams are prone to glitches. considering mpeg-4 technologies can have arbitrary GOP sizes, there might need to be limits on i-frame distances as well, so any glitches are kept at bay and don't last several seconds.

[SeeMoreDigital]

My biggest concern is not with the compression technology. It's how it's used in the broadcasting world!

When Mpeg2 digital TV started off in the UK the picture quality from the "five" main stations (ie BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Ch4 and Ch5), was excellent (depending on the source). It really was quite a joy watching say, a live sporting or musical event, even when projected or viewed via a big screen!

The same can't be said now, when every pan or quick zoom is full of macro-blocks!

With more and more people viewing digital content on larger screens, the complaints about the image quality must be soring!

But who does one complain to? And what's the chances of your complain being seriously heard along with other?

For us DVB-T watchers living in the UK. The only channel worth watching, from an "image quality" point of view, is BBC4 (via Multiplex B), but only when the signal/multiplex is not being compromised by the BBC's "interactive" services.

It's hard to see now how the image quality can get any better, without tighter regulation!


Cheers

[neo75903]

Idd, National Geographics is being distributed here by traditoinal cable, I can see macro blocks which is introduced i think somewhere a digital transmission.
Another use is porbably Digital Cinema, i have recently seen the Incredibles in digital projection which is a bless to watch it.

And the ones amount us with a beamer are pioneers at this field. Well to say at home scale ofcoz