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. |
19th November 2008, 20:35 | #43 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 90
|
Quote:
|
|
19th November 2008, 21:09 | #44 | Link |
clueless n00b
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,579
|
@DigitAl56K: What were the reasons for 4.0 vs. 4.1 when Blu-ray requires 4.1 and thus there are already viable solutions out there to play 4.1 (starting with the few millions of Blu-ray standalones and all the PS3's.. and let's not forget the NMT fraction (though I'm not confident to say they really can handle 4.1). This isn't like when the first DVD players came out that could play more computationally expensive content than DVDs.. the hardware to play 4.1 content is already out in the millions.
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org |
19th November 2008, 22:23 | #45 | Link | |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
EDIT: Here's the chip-sets spec: - Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
Last edited by SeeMoreDigital; 20th November 2008 at 16:19. Reason: Sigma chip-set version amended |
|
20th November 2008, 00:15 | #46 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
Let me ask you this:
Keep in mind the goal: Achieve high quality HD video in as many places as possible with a guarantee around the content experience, including how well your video plays and how much effort you have to expend trying to make it work. I wonder if some of those asking for 4.1 are archivists above everything else. In this case your archived media is unlikely to operate well except on the desktop or the device category it was originally intended for.
__________________
DivX Plus Web Player 2.0 (MKV & AVI) (Embed generator) DivX H.264 Decoder with DXVA support Developer portal Last edited by DigitAl56K; 20th November 2008 at 00:27. |
|
20th November 2008, 01:09 | #47 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
Quote:
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
20th November 2008, 08:48 | #48 | Link |
clueless n00b
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,579
|
The Popcornhour 100 is $179. At Black Friday, we'll have a Blu-ray player for $128.
My first DivX capable player cost me $300 back in the day. And somehow I don't see the $50 DVD player play DivX7 in the near future...seeing how things developed on the DivX5 front, I find it much more likely that prices will move along the lines of Blu-ray prices and thus I'm asking if it makes sense to try and establish another hardware category that's just below the already established standard. Does it really make sense for hardware makers to produce two chip lines instead of one, where they have the chance to put the 4.1 chip in millions of devices even today? And from a user perspective, you're repeating history with potential buyers invariably falling into the not compatible or not quite compatible trap. Anyone remember GMC? And that wasn't a particularly important feature to begin with. I feel eerily reminded of the discussion when the DivX certification was first created - only then, the argument about chip cost had more merit as we didn't have a up and coming disc format paving the way for 2 years. And last time I checked my ISP's website, I could actually have a 50mbit connection. Granted, it's expensive as hell, but there are quite a few places where a 100mbit connection for a reasonable amount of money. And just because the bandwidth isn't there shouldn't mean the hardware shouldn't be able to decode something.. streaming isn't the only way to deliver content (back when the first DivX capable players came out it took me hours upon hours to download 700MB..). And subsidized? You're talking about the PS3, right? Because the rest of it, the Blu camp is having us pay through the nose now they've done away with the cheap competition.
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org |
20th November 2008, 10:09 | #49 | Link |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Actually, I'm playing Blu-ray and HD-DVD back-ups. Along with BBC-HD (DVB-S2) captured streams....
But I'm happy to test any samples you guys may have.
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
20th November 2008, 11:57 | #50 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
|
If the goal is to allow HD video to play on a majority of players. Wouldn't the industry standard m2ts be the answer?
I've never seen any advantage of mkv over bluray other than 6-7% overhead, cropping and internal chapter support, m2ts needs a playlist. None of which I care about if it means lack of current/future playback. I do see some things in m2ts that doesn't exist in mkv like multiple angles and menu support. As for single file playability m2ts plays in the players already mentioned, sometimes it will play while the mkv won't with the same audio\video stream. Why? Because all of these players use chipsets that only support transport streams and a 'software hack' needs to be done to read mkvs, which opens up a possibility of bugs. As has been stated before, except for a certain group of video enthusiasts mkv isn't used/accepted. How is the public going to be convinced to buy a divx7 player over a regular player? Will divx7 players be simply another 'software hack' to current chipsets? Will there be material you can buy/rent for less than bluray and offer the quality that makes the purchase competitive? Will the players be competitively priced with the regular players? Does the video enthusiast really have a reason to encode to divx7 (mkv) over bluray for standalone playback? Why was mkv chosen over ts (more than likely the HDTV source) as the first HD container before bluray/hddvd existed? DivX certified players I believe were a big success mainly because the size of the files were fractionally smaller than the DVD itself by using MPEG4 ASP over MPEG2. With DivX7 I don't see this benefit, so I'm looking for something that will get me to bite, as of yet I don't see it. |
20th November 2008, 16:30 | #51 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
Quote:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
20th November 2008, 17:39 | #52 | Link | |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
Your sample file stutters when left in the .MP4 container. But played fine when re-muxed into the .TS container. That said.... I reckon it's right on the Sigma's chip-set/board designs limitations. Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
|
20th November 2008, 19:04 | #53 | Link | |
@DVBPortal
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 434
|
Quote:
|
|
20th November 2008, 19:14 | #54 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
Canon HV20
Source was 1440x1080i MPEG-2 @ 24Mbps
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
21st November 2008, 21:23 | #57 | Link |
clueless n00b
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,579
|
Don't you have a harder sample? My CPU complained that it has nothing to do playing that video.. the CPU was basically idle and my (passive) 9600GT did all the work. MPC-HC really was worth the upgrade - now playing a 50mbit AVC stream uses as much CPU as playing a lowly 700MB XviD rip.
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org |
21st November 2008, 23:29 | #58 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
Quote:
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
22nd November 2008, 10:21 | #59 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
Quote:
ASP was basically a in the Wild thing AVC is much better kept under wrap (by the circles behind it) and protected to secure Licensing @ all costs (also a reason of course Hollywood accepted it). So even with DivX going that way now i wouldn't expect cheap solutions as we saw back in ASP days anytime soon also with the NAFTA in mind The idea of creating our own Community based Standard seems much much more ideal to me, though it would need alot of work but im sure it's doable and im also sure so far that Hardware Developers would support it widely and even if they don't with all the possibilities of General Purpose Chips (like widespread GPUs) we could do acceleration independent of DSP logic (though it still has to be seen how fast that really is as neither Nvidia/ATI Decoding are GPU based but DSP logic itself inside of the GPU) . People should never forget without us DivX Networks/Inc wouldn't be there where it is today.
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 22nd November 2008 at 10:54. |
|
25th November 2008, 00:22 | #60 | Link | |
Solaris: burnt by the Sun
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: /etc/default/moo
Posts: 1,923
|
Quote:
have fun man [/ot] |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|