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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Hardware & Software > Software players

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th November 2008, 18:18   #1  |  Link
Neillithan
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
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 18:36   #2  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
You're allowed to use those interchangeably. We won't complain until you start using H.264 and x264 interchangeably or something silly like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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?
No, it won't play any of them, because it requires Level 4.0, not Level 4.1. Now, if a specific implementation of the DivX spec in a player doesn't actually check the header and simply tries to play it anyways, odds are many encodes will work, but since the spec doesn't say to do so, there's no guarantee it'll work on anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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?
MKV is already standardized; the bitstream spec was frozen long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
H.264 High Profile Level 4.0, max 3 B-frames, any resolution 1920x1080 or below that's mod8 (note: interlaced resolutions are limited to a few specific values, progressive are not). Framerates 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30 are allowed. None of this is final, nor complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
No, they're using RV30/40, which are proprietary ripoffs of early H.264 drafts (which, mind you, are so ugly they make H.264 look like a clean spec).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
Except this time, it already exists; its called x264.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
H.264 is a spec, a spec can't be "open source." Perhaps you mean "x264 is an open source implementation"?
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 18:49   #3  |  Link
Neillithan
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:
No, it won't play any of them, because it requires Level 4.0, not Level 4.1. Now, if a specific implementation of the DivX spec in a player doesn't actually check the header and simply tries to play it anyways, odds are many encodes will work, but since the spec doesn't say to do so, there's no guarantee it'll work on anything.
Divx 7 only plays High@4.0? Wow. That's hardly an goal worth the effort. That's like trying to shoot a target with nuke, there's no way to miss.

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:
MKV is already standardized; the bitstream spec was frozen long ago.
By standardizing .mkv, I used the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is, right now .mkv is unpopular, unsupported and pretty much unknown. If you want any kind of real compatability with devices, you have to use .mp4 or .m2ts for Blu Ray players. DivX will finally popularize the .mkv file format but instead of bringing light to it they will bring darkness, at least that is what I gather from your response.

Quote:
H.264 High Profile Level 4.0, max 3 B-frames, any resolution 1920x1080 or below that's mod8 (note: interlaced resolutions are limited to a few specific values, progressive are not). Framerates 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30 are allowed. None of this is final, nor complete.
My comment about what compression settings DivX 7 will offer, I was curious if they're offering anything new? Will DivX HD videos offer some kind of superior compression algorithms to churn out every last detail or will they simply add partial AVC playback?

Quote:
H.264 is a spec, a spec can't be "open source." Perhaps you mean "x264 is an open source implementation"?
I guess when I refer to H.264 being open source, I really mean AVC. AVC is open source, right?

Thanks for your fast response,
-Neil
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 19:07   #4  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
Divx 7 only plays High@4.0? Wow. That's hardly an goal worth the effort. That's like trying to shoot a target with nuke, there's no way to miss.
The reason is that many STB chipsets don't support L4.1, so they're doing it to make support cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
But you misunderstand their business model. Companies like DivX make money by taking an existing standard, making a somewhat-arbitrary subset of it that doesn't include existing encodes, and promoting it as their own format. See Nero Digital and Quicktime for other cases of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
By standardizing .mkv, I used the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is, right now .mkv is unpopular
Unpopular? It is the most widely used container format for HD video on PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
unsupported
The Popcorn Hour will play 1080p MKVs with H.264 video. Its $180.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
My comment about what compression settings DivX 7 will offer, I was curious if they're offering anything new? Will DivX HD videos offer some kind of superior compression algorithms to churn out every last detail or will they simply add partial AVC playback?
No, DivX is not some new format, its H.264. Thus, it can't add any new compression features, and it isn't as if their encoder is really competitive just yet. Odds are everyone will just use x264 to encode for the boxes anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
I guess when I refer to H.264 being open source, I really mean AVC. AVC is open source, right?
H.264 and AVC are literally two names for the same thing. H.264 is a spec. AVC is a spec. A spec cannot be "open source."
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 20:10   #5  |  Link
leeperry
Kid for Today
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
My question, is it really worth the excitement?
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 20:17.
leeperry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 20:35   #6  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th November 2008 at 21:22.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 20:46   #7  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth View Post
while MKV supports basically everything
But DivX7 doesn't. It only supports SRT and SSA, and furthermore--it only supports completely unformatted subtitles, so its really no better than TTXT.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 21:13   #8  |  Link
DigitAl56K
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.

...

Will DivX be able to play "all" existing .mkv files?
Not all existing files (in hardware). I think that is impossible to accomplish and you've already recognized the problem:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
Currently, HD movies and videos using the .mkv container usually have no restrictions when it comes to video and audio compression settings.
In this situation it's simply not possible to create an interoperable platform across many device categories unless every manufacturer is willing to quickly move to the most high-end expensive H.264 decoders on the market. As you pointed out, even in that case content encoded at level 5.1 is still going to be a gamble.

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:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
We've seen Quicktime boast H.264 playback only to support a very limited range of AVC potential.
Apple do not have to worry about interoperability too much. You encode for your iPhone, or your iPod, or your AppleTV. The content doesn't really move beyond that walled environment. All of these devices, btw, support different profiles/levels than one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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?
I think we're going to offer very much the same value proposition that we did in previous generations of DivX. As a content creator you always have choices before you and perhaps an over-simplification of the traditional problem comes down to this:
  • I have HD video to distribute
  • I can encode it using the best possible settings and mainly constrain its use to the desktop, or
  • I can lose 1-2% of the best possible efficiency, still have it look absolutely nose-to-screen perfect, but have it work on hundreds, perhaps thousands of devices, no problem.

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:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
basically DivX Networks cashed in bigtime on divx3(stolen asf dll from m$), and now they wanna cash in on MKV pirate movies.
DivX wants to create interoperability of content and devices. We want to work with hundreds of manufacturers to do that so that you can move your content between your video camera to your desktop to your DVD player and so on. We want to make sure that the experience you have on these devices is consistently good so that content creators can be assured that their viewership will have a great experience with their media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
But DivX7 doesn't. It only supports SRT and SSA, and furthermore--it only supports completely unformatted subtitles, so its really no better than TTXT.
No, the beta version of DivX Player 7 doesn't support formatting, yet
DigitAl56K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2008, 23:49   #9  |  Link
dukey
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.
dukey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 00:09   #10  |  Link
Neillithan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari
Unpopular? It is the most widely used container format for HD video on PCs.
Allright, I'm not trying to nitpick but are you purposely trying to misunderstand this? You took that quote way out of context. When I said "unpopular", I meant in the device and market world. When you go to Youtube and you try to upload a .mkv file, guess what? No. You can't. Can you put a .mkv file on your Ipod? No. Can you Stream a .mkv file on your Media Center PS3? No. Why? I can think of no other reason than it being unpopular. I feel like I'm hitting a soft spot but am I really far off from the truth? It's going to take years for .mkv to gain traction and it's going to need the help of a huge movement, a movement like DivX 7. Feel free to butcher my words but don't waste your time. I am absolutely right.

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:
The Popcorn Hour will play 1080p MKVs with H.264 video. Its $180.
When I went looking for a media server capable of playing H.264 .mkv files, I found Popcorn hour. When I took a closer look, I realized it only played Level 4.1 (I believe) .mkv files. That's the problem with the world of HD right now. There are so many blu ray players and media extenders boasting playback of H.264, but the truth is, they don't play everything. Am I asking for too much? I think not.

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:
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.
DivX infers it's impossible for them to support the full range of benefits of of todays new popular video format. Impossible or Hard? How about this theory. They deliberately choose a low spec just to keep us in the dark for many years to come.

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
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 00:20   #11  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
Allright, I'm not trying to nitpick but are you purposely trying to misunderstand this? You took that quote way out of context. When I said "unpopular", I meant in the device and market world. When you go to Youtube and you try to upload a .mkv file, guess what? No. You can't. Can you put a .mkv file on your Ipod? No. Can you Stream a .mkv file on your Media Center PS3? No. Why? I can think of no other reason than it being unpopular. I feel like I'm hitting a soft spot but am I really far off from the truth? It's going to take years for .mkv to gain traction and it's going to need the help of a huge movement, a movement like DivX 7. Feel free to butcher my words but don't waste your time. I am absolutely right.
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:

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
It's just sad that DivX 7 is going to pollute exist .mkvs.
How? The new MKVs will still play just fine on old players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
When I went looking for a media server capable of playing H.264 .mkv files, I found Popcorn hour. When I took a closer look, I realized it only played Level 4.1 (I believe) .mkv files. That's the problem with the world of HD right now. There are so many blu ray players and media extenders boasting playback of H.264, but the truth is, they don't play everything. Am I asking for too much? I think not.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
No, they choose a level because it costs enormous sums of money to implement a chipset that can decode ultra-HD video in realtime, and there's no point in doing so when nobody needs it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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?
Given that I personally know the guy who handles Youtube's encoding, I'd think I'd know this better than you: its because its just much easier to do it that way, because people tend to game the system. At Youtube, for example, people would upload FLV files with hexedited headers to breach the max bitrate limits.By the way, Zoome lets all users upload up to 1.5 megabit H.264 without re-encoding, and Nico Nico Douga lets premium users upload H.264 without re-encoding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
Try implementing CoreAVC in an ASIC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
DivX isn't going to revolutionize anything now.
Well this is one thing I agree on.


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.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 00:48   #12  |  Link
Neillithan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
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
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 00:49   #13  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
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.
Again, you still don't understand the point of levels.

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.

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 18th November 2008 at 01:14.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 00:59   #14  |  Link
Neillithan
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:
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.
I shouldn't even be telling you this but resolution isn't the only factor. I have to stop while I'm ahead. Thanks for ruining this thread.

-Neil

Last edited by Neillithan; 18th November 2008 at 01:13.
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:10   #15  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
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 01:12.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:12   #16  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
a 1080p L4.1 video 96mbps/sec
I wasn't going to post anymore, but this made me laugh hysterically.

Are you ever going to actually look up what the levels mean?
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:23   #17  |  Link
Neillithan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
Yes.



Go ahead, butcher me to death.
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:29   #18  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
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 01:36.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:35   #19  |  Link
Neillithan
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 01:37.
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2008, 01:42   #20  |  Link
Milvus
Registered User
 
Milvus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron2 View Post
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.
Seems like a wikipedia screenshot...

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...
Milvus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.