Which is your Choice of Container in 2006

[xyloy]

OGM has a huge overhead compared to AVI or MKV. :P

[XmSurfer]

Possible future: Matroska becomes the One True Codec, ...)

Of course, you mean One True Container. Either way you're right about it not being probable. It is possible that Matroska could become the One True Container for non-Audio/Video/Subtitle streams. Based on my limited understanding of the format and a sporadic reading of the Matroska mailing list, it could be the container of choice for timed scientific data, a database file, .mkdb anyone? Or other types of data. So, yes, the possibilities are vast even if the probabilities aren't, atleast not now. But hope springs eternal and I have a lot of faith in the Matroska Devs

[Dayvon]

I luv the idea of Mastroska. I really do.

But...

I think that there is a problem with the do-all be-all format. It's greatest benefit is its undoing. MKV supports like what, every codec/compression? The problems come if hardware/software developers/products want to support the MKV format, they then in effect have to implement support for what can go in an MKV (which is anything really). It also adds to confusion (much like AVI has become) where God only knows what is actually inside the container.

I voted for MP4 because I feel like it solves all those issues and with MP4Box/YAMB is amazingly easy to use. It supports the best quality compressions (AVC, AAC, PNG) as well as the most used compressions (MPEG-2, ASP, JPG, MP3). As for its subtitle usage, I have yet to experiment with that, but it seems to be coming around with VobSub and Nero being options available.

The ONLY downside I can see to MP4 is the lack of AC3 native support. This is a downer, but I am honestly over it. Nero 5.1 LC-AAC at Streaming VBR is a touch smaller and nearly, oh so nearly, exactly the same in terms of quality.

So anyway, my vote is MP4 :)

[GodofaGap]

The problems come if hardware/software developers/products want to support the MKV format, they then in effect have to implement support for what can go in an MKV (which is anything really).
Of course they don't have to. It would be pretty easy to make some sort of certification that tells which video, audio and subtitle formats are supported.

It also adds to confusion (much like AVI has become) where God only knows what is actually inside the container.
Well, God and MKVInfo. ;)

I voted for MP4 because I feel like it solves all those issues and with MP4Box/YAMB is amazingly easy to use. It supports the best quality compressions (AVC, AAC, PNG) as well as the most used compressions (MPEG-2, ASP, JPG, MP3). As for its subtitle usage, I have yet to experiment with that, but it seems to be coming around with VobSub and Nero being options available.
See, first you say mp4 solves the confusion issue, but then you name an abundance of formats that are supported by mp4 and to finish it off you mention private streams (vobsubs). So if you want to go as far as private streams being an accepted method of mp4 usage, how would it be less confusing than Matroska? :rolleyes:

[Dayvon]

As for its subtitle usage, I have yet to experiment with that, but it seems to be coming around with VobSub and Nero being options available.
Obviously I was saying that I knew alot about subtitling in MP4 :rolleyes:

Ummm... About the different file formats in MP4, THOSE COMPRESSIONS ARE IN THE STANDARD. As in, everyone knows that to support MP4 container, you need to comply with these compressions. It's much more cut and dried as compared to MKV. It is a very finite list of what could be inside an MP4 file; not so with Matroska.

And yes, developers/products could specify what formats in MKV will work with it, but what consumers will understand this information? You and others here on doom9, but even in fairly knowledgable computer user crowds they don't have the slightest idea that Divx, Xvid, and x264 aren't the same thing or that aac and mp4 aren't the same thing. With MS dumming down the file system so you HAVE to enable extensions, most people have no idea what kind of file they are trying to play anyway.

The point here is although techonologically MKV is the best, MP4 is simple, constrained and compact. It can be used to contain anything (for advanced users), or it can be used conforming to its standard (for mass market). Matroska doesn't have these options since it is "open", and therefore it will most likely never be a mainstream format.

[Eretria-chan]

Well...
"Supports DVD / H263 (MPEG4 ASP) / H264 (MPEG4 AVC)"
...I don't think that is so hard. Dvd players also list if they support DivX / XviD, so... something like that. Should it not work?

[GodofaGap]

Ummm... About the different file formats in MP4, THOSE COMPRESSIONS ARE IN THE STANDARD. As in, everyone knows that to support MP4 container, you need to comply with these compressions.
I think you will be hardpressed to find any hardware product (now or in the future) that will support everything that is in the mp4 standard. And you know, Matroska is standardized too. It's not just some finger practice of a dev bored on a Friday afternoon. It has a specification; AVC, ASP, Vorbis, MP3, etc. are stored in a specific way. The premise that you can put everything in Matroska is not true. There are multiple formats that cannot be put in Matroska, at least not in a native way. (e.g. MPC, Dirac, VC-1, Snow, timed text and quite a few lossless audio formats). Of course Matroska could be extended to support them, but so could MP4.

And yes, developers/products could specify what formats in MKV will work with it, but what consumers will understand this information?
Why not? Everyone who is knowledgeable enough to make an MKV file on their own, will also understand that their hardware player won't play Real or VP7 if it only supports AVC and ASP. And people who don't know how to do this stuff on their own need to use automated software anyway, so profiles can easily be made there too, just like there is a PSP profile now in Nero Recode. :)

I think there are very few standards that are ever implemented as a whole in hardware. Companies pick what they want from it and implement that, sometimes adding something to it. DivX has done this with AVI and Nero, Sony and Apple have done this with MP4. I don't see any technical reason why this couldn't be done with Matroska.

[Dayvon]

I think you will be hardpressed to find any hardware product (now or in the future) that will support everything that is in the mp4 standard. And you know, Matroska is standardized too. It's not just some finger practice of a dev bored on a Friday afternoon. It has a specification; AVC, ASP, Vorbis, MP3, etc. are stored in a specific way. The premise that you can put everything in Matroska is not true. There are multiple formats that cannot be put in Matroska, at least not in a native way. (e.g. MPC, Dirac, VC-1, Snow, timed text and quite a few lossless audio formats). Of course Matroska could be extended to support them, but so could MP4.


Why not? Everyone who is knowledgeable enough to make an MKV file on their own, will also understand that their hardware player won't play Real or VP7 if it only supports AVC and ASP. And people who don't know how to do this stuff on their own need to use automated software anyway, so profiles can easily be made there too, just like there is a PSP profile now in Nero Recode. :)

I think there are very few standards that are ever implemented as a whole in hardware. Companies pick what they want from it and implement that, sometimes adding something to it. DivX has done this with AVI and Nero, Sony and Apple have done this with MP4. I don't see any technical reason why this couldn't be done with Matroska.

What you are looking for can totally be done in Matroska and by a hardware company no question. But will it be anything widespread? I doubt it.

MP4 has only just begun. Apple does support it, and as I recall Blu-ray as well as HD-DVD will support MP4 completely as well. The point is MP4 is easy to stick with. All a company needs is a splitter, and then to support the different formats, NOT the codecs, and that is where the difference lies.

Eretria-chan notes that players support Xvid or Divx, BUT ONLY certain versions or settings (ie stuff only WE ON DOOM9 would know). And even though Xvid and Divx are MPEG-ASP, they aren't compatible with each other. But to have a legit MP4, it needs to be codec oblivious MPEG4-ASP, instead of Xvid,Divx,3ivx, etc.

MP4's advantage is not really a technical one. MP4's advantage is it is DEFINEABLE. For instance, it is very easy for the iPod to support MP4. Why? Because it already supports MP3, AAC, JPEG, & PNG. All they needed to do was support the MPEG-4 ASP and MPEG-4 AVC formats and !BAM!, mp4 is good to go. Same with PSP, and so on and so forth. And note that most of these compressions (not codecs) are MPEG, which means that there's only one group to pay homage to get MP4 going on your software/hardware.

My point is that MP4 is a easy train to ride for companies with little to no risk. That is why you don't see companies jumping on the MKV bandwagon, cause its not as easy a train.

[BetaBoy]

Dayvon.... you need to see the writing on the wall. There are currently over 5 million 'HARDWARE' devices with Matroska support already built into it... and by the end of 2007 we are predicting well over 60 million.

You will see a significant move over the next 6 months when it comes to Matroska support in many 'types' of devices... and with that adoption comes the acceptance.

[zambelli]

Dayvon.... you need to see the writing on the wall. There are currently over 5 million 'HARDWARE' devices with Matroska support already built into it... and by the end of 2007 we are predicting well over 60 million.
By "writing on the wall" surely you mean "what I wrote on the wall" and by "5 million hardware devices" you obviously mean "5 million units". How many different devices does that translate to?
Until I get at least ONE search result for "Matroska" or "MKV" in Amazon.com's Electronics department - all this talk of adoption will remain PR talk.

[Dayvon]

By "writing on the wall" surely you mean "what I wrote on the wall" and by "5 million hardware devices" you obviously mean "5 million units". How many different devices does that translate to?
Until I get at least ONE search result for "Matroska" or "MKV" in Amazon.com's Electronics department - all this talk of adoption will remain PR talk.
LOL
BetaBoy=OWNED

:thanks: zambelli!!

[foxyshadis]

Anyway, almost everyone uses mkv for ASP, AVC, or WMV3/VC-1 as it is. Shockingly, two of those three are part of the HD DVD standards, and the other has been built into many dvd players for years. The major incompatbilities would be subtitle formats (should include a fallback .srt for that reason) and audio, although vorbis and aac chipsets exist.

Also MP4 is no more compatible with hardware than MKV, if you happen to encode too hard. Sure, the hardware might support AVC in MP4, or ASP in MP4, but it's not going to be any more playable than an MKV if you made it for PC playback with the wrong settings.

[GodofaGap]

MP4 has only just begun. Apple does support it, and as I recall Blu-ray as well as HD-DVD will support MP4 completely as well.
Sorry, this is completely false. Neither BluRay nor HD-DVD support any part of the mp4 spec. Apple only supports a limited part of MP4.

All a company needs is a splitter, and then to support the different formats, NOT the codecs, and that is where the difference lies.
What do you mean by this? To play an mp4 some decoders are needed, this is not any different from Matroska.

Eretria-chan notes that players support Xvid or Divx, BUT ONLY certain versions or settings (ie stuff only WE ON DOOM9 would know).
LOL, yes only about a 1000 or so DivX hardware units are sold. Only doom9 members have them. Right? Makes we wonder why they are still in business.

And even though Xvid and Divx are MPEG-ASP, they aren't compatible with each other.
Sorry, you mean XviD can't decode my DivX4/5/6 files and DivX can't decode my XviD files? I'd like you to give me an example of that. I really don't think you know what are talking about anymore now.

MP4's advantage is not really a technical one. MP4's advantage is it is DEFINEABLE. For instance, it is very easy for the iPod to support MP4. Why? Because it already supports MP3, AAC, JPEG, & PNG. All they needed to do was support the MPEG-4 ASP and MPEG-4 AVC formats and !BAM!, mp4 is good to go. Same with PSP, and so on and so forth.
iPod nor PSP support the mp4 format fully. You could even say the PSP does not support mp4 at all because you need to use an atomchanger on your files to make them playable on the PSP.

And note that most of these compressions (not codecs) are MPEG, which means that there's only one group to pay homage to get MP4 going on your software/hardware.
So? Again, same can be done for Matroska.

@Zambelli:

You are affiliated with Microsoft yes?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/music/default.aspx
For example, the standard Windows Media Audio 9 codec is capable of delivering consumer CD quality sound at less than 64 Kbps less than 1/20 the size of the CD original.


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/vc1techoverview.aspx
Microsoft also compared VC-1 with H.264 and found that both codecs have comparable performance when PSNR is plotted against bit rate.

MS is the king of marketing bullshit and you dare point a finger at Matroska people who till now have always kept their promises? Please go be ashamed of yourself. :p

[zambelli]

You are affiliated with Microsoft yes?

MS is the king of marketing bullshit and you dare point a finger at Matroska people who till now have always kept their promises? Please go be ashamed of yourself. :p
You're are confusing individuals with groups and corporations. I didn't write those things on Microsoft's website. On the other hand, BetaBoy wrote his own post. I can call him out on his PR all I want.

[GodofaGap]

Nope, you can't accuse people of lying all you want. You have to have basis for it and you seriously lack it. Corecodec has delivered in the past. It has what MS doesn't have: credibility.

And you don't have to play the innocent soul. In your sticky about WVC1 you do link to the VC1 technical overview and nowhere there have I seen disclaimers from you there that some of the information there is incorrect/false/marketing BS.

[zambelli]

Nope, you can't accuse people of lying all you want. You have to have basis for it and you seriously lack it. Corecodec has delivered in the past. It has what MS doesn't have: credibility.
Lying? Stop creating drama. I didn't accuse him of lying. I said his words will remain wishful "PR talk" until I see evidence of Matroska's widespread adoption, and I even supplied an example of what I would consider successful Matroska adoption.

And you don't have to play the innocent soul. In your sticky about WVC1 you do link to the VC1 technical overview and nowhere there have I seen disclaimers from you there that some of the information there is incorrect/false/marketing BS.
Are you serious? The link is provided for its technical information (hence the title "technical overview"), which for 99% of people serves its purpose. I wouldn't get very far in my posts if I had to supply footnotes for every link to an article.
"Please read this article, but please take into consideration that lines 56, 57, 69, 72, 75 and 80 are not entirely true, as confirmed by independent testing done by Research Corp on May 5th, 2005." Do you do that much?

[GodofaGap]

Lying? Stop creating drama. I didn't accuse him of lying. I said his words will remain wishful "PR talk" until I see evidence of Matroska's widespread adoption, and I even supplied an example of what I would consider successful Matroska adoption.
So what you actually are saying is that no one should announce future plans, because it is all wishful PR talk until the plans are realised.

I will not comment any further on the other points of your post, because it will get seriously off-topic.

[Eretria-chan]

Doesn't it mean zambelli will not believe betaboy until zambelli sees proof of matroska adoption?

[bond]

guys cool down plz! after all its just a matter of definition (as always)

i myself dont know a classic dvd player model that also supports mkv (maybe i am wrong? betaboy?)

i assume betaboy meant devices that can handle tcpmp/betaplayer and therefore mkv? of course thats something different than a player that supports mkv out of the box itself

[BetaBoy]

guys cool down plz! after all its just a matter of definition (as always)

i myself dont know a classic dvd player model that also supports mkv (maybe i am wrong? betaboy?)

i assume betaboy meant devices that can handle tcpmp/betaplayer and therefore mkv? of course thats something different than a player that supports mkv out of the box itself

Bond... your correct.... it starts with TCPMP... and now move to CorePlayer and BetaPlayer. But alot of the motivating reason most of the OEM's that have licensed it was because of 'demand' for support like Matroska.

zambelli... PR? Sure its part of my job as CEO... but I will not fall into a flame war as bond has pointed out or go tit-for-tat with an MS guy.... I leave that for the newbs at D9.