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 19th November 2008, 19:00   #41  |  Link
Turtleggjp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuron2 View Post
>I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device

4.1 support is pretty standard for dedicated AVC decoder ICs.
That doesn't surprise me, but where do all these chips end up? My guess would be licensed Blu Ray players, PS3, Xbox, etc.
Turtleggjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2008, 19:26   #42  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,923
Satellite and cable set-top boxes. E.g., DirecTV, Dish, and Cisco (SA).
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2008, 19:35   #43  |  Link
kosmonaut
Registered User
 
kosmonaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtleggjp View Post
I understand that there is no legal issue in implementing a chip capable of decoding L4.1 video. However considering the primary source of such video is Blu Ray discs, which we aren't supposed to have free access to , I don't think too many manufacturers are willing to produce such a device. Since you are not trying to be a Blu Ray caliber player, I agree that L4.0 should be enough for the average user, which is whom you are targeting with your product.
There really is no conspiracy here. The hardware guys, to the best of my knowledge, don't really think that way. There are all sorts of legimate ways to produce content besides from Blu-Ray rips, and there are likely to be many, many more in the future. Even the CE manufacturers that are connected to content producers like Sony don't really act that way in my experience, FWIW.
kosmonaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2008, 20:09   #44  |  Link
Doom9
clueless n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,575
@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
Doom9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2008, 21:23   #45  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom9 View Post
...and let's not forget the NMT fraction (though I'm not confident to say they really can handle 4.1).
I'm happy to confirm that both my (Sigma SMP8634 chip-set based) hardware players are able to play AVC high@L4.1 video streams muxed within: .AVI, .MP4, .TS, .M2TS and .MKV

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 15:19. Reason: Sigma chip-set version amended
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2008, 23:15   #46  |  Link
DigitAl56K
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom9 View Post
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).
All of those are high-powered devices that cost (minimum) $200 each, with some of that being subsidized hardware. We also want to see the format supported in STBs and eventually even in portable devices.

Let me ask you this:
  • Will up to 20Mbps AVC give you poor quality 1080?
  • How many device categories will achieve decoding of 20Mbps streams vs. 50Mbps streams in the next few years?
  • Internet streaming anyone? We already did it with Stage6, others are also attempting it. <20Mbps is certainly do-able, and perhaps it's even more plausible with AVC vs. ASP.

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.

Last edited by DigitAl56K; 19th November 2008 at 23:27.
DigitAl56K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 00:09   #47  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,073
Quote:
I'm happy to confirm that both my (Sigma EM8624L chip-set based) hardware players are able to play AVC high@L4.1 video streams muxed within: .AVI, .MP4, .TS, .M2TS and .MKV
Did you encode at 50Mbps?
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 07:48   #48  |  Link
Doom9
clueless n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,575
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
Doom9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 09:09   #49  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Did you encode at 50Mbps?
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 |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 10:57   #50  |  Link
turbojet
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.
turbojet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 15:30   #51  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,073
Quote:
But I'm happy to test any samples you guys may have.
1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 16:39   #52  |  Link
SeeMoreDigital
Life looks better in UHD
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 11,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode
Hi Atak,

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 |
SeeMoreDigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 18:04   #53  |  Link
crypto
@DVBPortal
 
crypto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
1920x1080 29.97fps @ 50000kbps
http://www.mediafire.com/?yd5glzymjdo

It works ok on my 4850 in DXVA mode
Nice. May I ask what HD cam was used?
crypto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 18:14   #54  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,073
Canon HV20
Source was 1440x1080i MPEG-2 @ 24Mbps
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 18:36   #55  |  Link
crypto
@DVBPortal
 
crypto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 434
Really impressive. Thanks for the info.
crypto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2008, 23:58   #56  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,476
Since Divx will support ASS/SSA subtitles in mkv in the future I'm asking myself wether custom fonts (as mkv attachments) will also be supported or not?
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2008, 20:23   #57  |  Link
Doom9
clueless n00b
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,575
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
Doom9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2008, 22:29   #58  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,073
Quote:
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.
This sample is for people using hardware players. It was supposed to test if spec are really true.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd November 2008, 09:21   #59  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom9 View Post
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.
Imho the Situation with AVC isn't as comparable anymore as the Situation we had back then when DivX became successful there is basicly no such a widespread DSP support currently from Asia (which was the reason we had cheap solutions available and DivX became successful @ all).
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 09:54.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 23:22   #60  |  Link
Shinigami-Sama
Solaris: burnt by the Sun
 
Shinigami-Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: /etc/default/moo
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom9 View Post
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.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=142430
have fun man
[/ot]
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjust View Post
interlacing and telecining should have been but a memory long ago.. unfortunately still just another bizarre weapon in the industries war on image quality.
Shinigami-Sama 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 11:05.


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