Which is your Choice of Container in 2006 [Archive]

chros

28th April 2006, 09:10

I chose MPEG-4 because its highly unlikely that Matrosoka will become an industry standard, and MPEG-4 is already well on its way to that goal.
That's why I have been chosen this too, but:
And AVC is intended for MPEG-4 so the future of video encoding will be with MPEG-4.
That's a hard topic, so here comes a small speculation:
Who would think (back in the late ninethies) that there will be hardware support for divx ?
As we remember back some years, there were no avi support but DVD, SVCD, etc... support in standalones. Why did the manufacturers implement it ? The answer is (whether we like it or not) the warez groups, otherwise the scene. They provide such a huge amount of files for huge amount of people, that the small companies (eg. Kiss) has realized some advantage against the huge ones if they support these features. Of course, after a while, the huge ones must had catch up with them. The best example is Sony, which (around 2 years ago) replaced the whole managemant crew, and start to support mp3 (the mortal enemy) for their audio product, and avi for their standalones.

Nowdays, Nero has been pushing the mp4 format (without the need of the scene activity), but matroska needs a small company to support it in the beginning (I hardly think that it will happen) or (again) a huge-huge amount of people who is using it . (They don't bother with thousands or ten thousands of people who is using it on PC, they need millions of people. It's all about the money.)
We saw this with ogg vorbis: we can hardly find products which support it (nowdays, of course, there are companies which support it, like MPIO, but so much which doesn't.)

All I want to say, that without YOU and others who implemnted such a nice tools and formats (like NanDub in the beginning), there never won't be a hadrware support for avi files. But it's not enough.
And last, I'm sure, everybody has friends (maybe parents, grandparents) who doesn't want to bother with computers, and we don't want to borrow our precious original media for them ...

Reino

28th April 2006, 09:35

I'm hosting a few NUT samples (http://www.minkymomo.info/~meroko_deathnote/tmp/) if anyone is interested.
Does anyone know how NUT compares to MKV for instance? Does it have any advantages? And am I right to say the build-in NUT splitter in MPC isn't mature enough to handle your sample files, Liisachan? Because MPC can't play them.

Liisachan

28th April 2006, 10:14

AVC is intended for MPEG-4 so the future of video encoding will be with MPEG-4. There are other possibilities too. I really don't like MS, but we might use WVC1 if it's good. If it plays on Linux, that is.

The answer is (whether we like it or not) the warez groups, otherwise the scene. Speaking of which, DivX3 was...

Nowdays, Nero has been pushing the mp4 format (without the need of the scene activity), but matroska needs a small company to support it in the beginning (I hardly think that it will happen) or... I don't think that will happen either, because Matroska is too flexible, too feature-rich to be supported fully by hw. For one thing, even today, even for Linux, there's nothing that fully supports SSA/ASS--that complicated, messy sub format... How could hw player do? If anything, it'll be a quite limited support. Maybe this Zensonic (http://www.z500series.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=119) thing?

Does anyone know how NUT compares to MKV for instance? Does it have any advantages? And am I right to say the build-in NUT splitter in MPC isn't mature enough to handle your sample files, Liisachan? Because MPC can't play them. MPC's Nutsplitter is based on NUT Open Container Format DRAFT 20030906. I believe it's too old. Gabest himself says "Still very incomplete, if you have or can make test files, please contact me." and actually that's why I posted those samples.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=803973#post803973
I guess NUT is going to be simpler/cleaner than Matroska. I might use it if it happens to support SSF, which is not supported by Matroska now. But I know DSM will be the first to support SSF. My standard is very eccentric (anything that supports sub formats I want to use is good for me), so nvm :)

castellanos

28th April 2006, 10:34

Call me old timer, but I still prefer AVI.
Comptibility with my standalone; Compatibility with my Pocket Media Player (Archos Gmini 402); Standard in the net and still a very good quality.
Greetings! :)

Suchy

28th April 2006, 10:58

Matroska. I'm fansubber so I think that it's the most useful container for me. MP4 is also good, but not good enough.

robU*4

28th April 2006, 13:55

Other: NUT (http://www.nut.hu/). All the goodness of Matroska, without the bloat.

Still needs to prove it (not you, the NUT devs).
I don't think you'll be able to have nested chapters, font or picture attachments, etc.

BigDid

28th April 2006, 22:08

AVI for Standalone compatibility and portability with pocket device.

I had to change my previous SAP recently and for a fair price only AVI is really standard today; tomorrow will be another day :)

Did

gURuBoOleZ

28th April 2006, 22:17

Matroska:
- AC3 support (no need to reencode, no quality loss, no wasted time)
- lossless support (flac, wavpack): useful for opera backup
- DTS support
- VobSub support (no wasted time in OCR process)

IgorC

28th April 2006, 23:04

This is local poll for local people. Members of forum are video/audio advanced users. Globaly for average joe AVI has no rivals.

I personally choose mp4 -> h.264 + aac

siddharthagandhi

29th April 2006, 00:00

Matrosoka might be the better container, but thats not what this thread is asking.

zambelli

29th April 2006, 00:28

How about adding ASF to convince zambelli that it's not popular anyway?
Hundreds of thousands of porn websites say otherwise. :)

J/K... But honestly, nobody should confuse the results of this poll with real world statistics. Even if Matroska is the overwhelmingly most popular format on Doom9, it's still a long way from even making as much as a scratch in the big pie of multimedia formats.
I am yet to encounter a MKV file anywhere on the Internet outside of Doom9. Most torrent sites I frequent overwhelmingly use AVI, ASF/WMV, MPEG and MP4.

xyloy

29th April 2006, 00:51

Matroska 'cause it's free and it's a real russian doll with a small amount of overhead. ^_^

@zambelli:
A lot of .MKV files containing for most of them RV9/RV10 or H.264, with Nero's or CodingTechnologies's HE-AAC or Ogg Vorbis(most of the time with 2 audio tracks) and subs are available on eDonkey/eMule.
An unknwon amount(fell free to estimate :D ) of release teams use Matroska since 4/5 years(that's a lot of time in file sharing)

stax76

29th April 2006, 01:23

The last container poll (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=105498&highlight=container) was 3 months ago and since then nothing exciting has happened if you don't count vobsub for MP4 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=110419) which was announced after this poll was started.

Liisachan

29th April 2006, 05:35

Hundreds of thousands of porn websites say otherwise. :) Um... you mean, MS container is popular in such websitests for guys? I didn't know that. I'm not a guy and have no interest at all in porn (no discrimination either, I would even support free expression even if I hate the contents), but I'm wondering why? WMV codec is suitable for porn? Or ASF format has some special features...? Maybe you mean streaming?
Well, apparently WMV is popular amongst some anime fans in Japan. I actually don't know why. Maybe they are just noobs, and can't mux things into mp4 or mkv. But I know that this format is generally hated among advanced users. (RV10+Vorbis or AAC+ASS).mkv seems pupular in Chinese-sepaking area. Most users don't have enough space and bw, so RV10, high compression with decent quality, is prefered. But .rmvb is not very usable when subbing hence MKV. WMV codec is high-compression with so-so quality too, and it's much easier to use than RV10, muxable into MKV too, still, Real is loved in China etc. Weird but it's true.

J/K... But honestly, nobody should confuse the results of this poll with real world statistics.
Like IgorC correctly pointed out, this is a poll in doom9 forum, so... that's how it is.

actually I like AVI better than MKV in one point: AVI has dwRate and dwScale in its header. I know that approach is meaningless for VFR, so generally speaking it's not flexible and not a good idea after all, still, it's extremely nice when fps is constant and something like 24000/1001. If you transmux it into OGM, VDM changes the fps into 10000000/417083, messing up frame-accurate timing for subtitles. MKV knows better, tho. I hate everything that messes up subtitles.
Recently, ever since DGIndex changed slightly the way it handles FPS (in the end. 23.976 to 23.9760239760...), I've been very nervous about this pb. This small 3.6ms/hour difference is actually critical for subtitles timing, if mixed carelessly.

I am yet to encounter a MKV file anywhere on the Internet outside of Doom9. Most torrent sites I frequent overwhelmingly use AVI, ASF/WMV, MPEG and MP4. Huh? The poll is asking your fav format. Can't you decide your favorite container without checking what others use? What others prefer has nothing to do. I like what I like because of my own reasons.

GodofaGap

29th April 2006, 07:16

I am yet to encounter a MKV file anywhere on the Internet outside of Doom9. Most torrent sites I frequent overwhelmingly use AVI, ASF/WMV, MPEG and MP4.
Hey but at least Matroska has decent tools, which is more than can be said for ASF. :p

It shouldn't be very hard to find a torrent site with anime using mkv.

ricardo.santos

29th April 2006, 08:13

I voted for AVI(Divxmediaformat) because of the standalone compatability(multiple audio and subs+menus)

zambelli

29th April 2006, 11:07

Um... you mean, MS container is popular in such websitests for guys? I didn't know that. I'm not a guy and have no interest at all in porn (no discrimination either, I would even support free expression even if I hate the contents), but I'm wondering why? WMV codec is suitable for porn? Or ASF format has some special features...? Maybe you mean streaming?
That's the common joke about WMV, that's all. :)
But to answer your questions in general: it's a common format on websites because it's easy to stream, web developers can leverage the WMP ActiveX player, and its commonly used codecs (WMV and WMA) don't require special setup, making it hassle-free for users. Most websites with streaming content - CNN.com, Yahoo, MTV - all feature ASF/WMV content.
Like IgorC correctly pointed out, this is a poll in doom9 forum, so... that's how it is.
I know. I said that, too.
Huh? The poll is asking your fav format. Can't you decide your favorite container without checking what others use? What others prefer has nothing to do. I like what I like because of my own reasons.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I didn't vote for MKV, nor was I looking at the poll to decide on my favorite format.
Personally, my favorite format would be something that I think I could easily play back 10 years from today on contemporary computers and operating systems. I think MKV stands a very slim chance. MP4, ASF, MPEG-TS and AVI are much better candidates.

zambelli

29th April 2006, 11:11

Hey but at least Matroska has decent tools, which is more than can be said for ASF. :p
That's somewhat of a "chicken or the egg" story. If more people took the time to study the format and learn its strengths, maybe more tools would be written for it. And if more tools existed for it...

Liisachan

29th April 2006, 12:22

web developers can leverage the WMP ActiveX player, and its commonly used codecs (WMV and WMA) don't require special setup, making it hassle-free for users.
Ok, then it's not like they actively choose it. As you know, Firefox users are increasing rapidly, so Activex is a bad idea. For such a purpose, Flash Video is going to be a better choice. Hence FLV.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Nothing. Since you said some formats were rarely found on the internet, I just thought that had nothing to do with my choice.

Personally, my favorite format would be something that I think I could easily play back 10 years from today on contemporary computers and operating systems. I think MKV stands a very slim chance. MP4, ASF, MPEG-TS and AVI are much better candidates.
I don't think I will be still using any of today's formats 10 years later, just like I'm not using 10-year-old codecs now. Do you often open any file you created 10 years ago anyway? But any file that worked on Windows 95 still works on today's Windows, thanks to Microsoft's great efforts to keep backward compatibility. Yet the ratio of Windows users shall inevitably change, and you don't know what kind of OS you'll be using in 2016 either.

EDIT
I missed one point. If the file is DRMed, that's an exception. Obviously it won't play 10 years later, if the key is gone (after re-installing the OS, for instance).

siddharthagandhi

29th April 2006, 13:38

Yes but codecs are different. .Avi container is still being used today and it has been developed for over 10 years I believe. And containers generally last longer because improvements aren't as necessary as codecs.

thoralf

29th April 2006, 19:14

hi,

Personally, my favorite format would be something that I think I could easily play back 10 years from today on contemporary computers and operating systems. I think MKV stands a very slim chance.

what? it's open source, so as long as it is being actively used, someone will bother to make builds, even dshow-filters. now, the point is that it is indeed in active use today, since you can put pretty much anything in it.
that's more than can be said about avi ... I don't know if ms went public with the asf specifications (think you mentioned it somewhere), but mkv certainly has a first mover bonus in this field. moreover, it sort of makes sense to put streams created with oss-tools into an oss container.
i'm pretty sure that you'll be able to play back mkv files in 10 years time without much hassle. I'd even put a bet on it - let's say, a crate of beer?

with kind regards,
thoralf.

siddharthagandhi

29th April 2006, 20:03

.Avi doesn't have a future. Comparing matrosoka to .avi is like comparing a 2006 Lexus SC-430 to a 1988 Toyota Tercel. The real question here is .mp4 or .mkv. Feature-wise I'm talking, and .avi is good in some ways, but i doubt the future of containers will include .avi

Liisachan

29th April 2006, 21:00

What I meant was: You will probably no longer mux things into .mp4 or any of today's formats in 10 years later. Even so, AVI, MKV, MP4...will be still used as non-final formats. Sure they will still play. I bet even OGM will.

OGM is outdated, but outdated means there will be no changes anymore, which is a good thing in a way. The same is true for AVI. AVI is "static" or "dead" therefore it's useful. Dead stable, so to speak. In this sense MKV is too vivid to be used for video editing. There were 3 or so radical changes in the past which broke compatibility with old players.

If the file that plays now doesn't play anymore in the future, the possible reasons include:

(1) Codec-side. Format itself is still supported but for some reason the codec used is no longer supported. Submarine patent is a probable reason. Cf. GIF support pb.
(2) DRM-related. Format itself is still supported but it's DRMed and the company that DRMed it is dead and gone without unlocking the files. This will absolutely happen in a long period of time. Especially an app that needs periodical activation is likely to be "orphaned"

thoralf

29th April 2006, 22:07

hi,

(2) DRM-related. Format itself is still supported but it's DRMed and the company that DRMed it is dead and gone without unlocking the files. This will absolutely happen in a long period of time. Especially an app that needs periodical activation is likely to be "orphaned"

yeah, this is probably the most serious issue here ... and it's an issue that applies only on the container level. i don't think that ms will belong to the camp of the vanished drm-holders in 10 years time - that is (and will be) okay in a way. and i'm also glad that we only seldom have to deal with this sort of stuff when it comes to oss.

with kind regards,
thoralf.

zambelli

29th April 2006, 23:12

Ok, then it's not like they actively choose it. As you know, Firefox users are increasing rapidly, so Activex is a bad idea. For such a purpose, Flash Video is going to be a better choice. Hence FLV.
Sure they're actively choosing it. They could opt for Real, QuickTime or Flash, so there's certainly choice.
BTW, isn't the Flash Player also implemented as an ActiveX control? I'm pretty sure it is in IE. Do they have a separate component for Firefox?

Do you often open any file you created 10 years ago anyway?
Sure I do. Word docs, wave files, some AVIs (Indeo! :)), occasional MP2 file, ton of JPEGs... It's amazing how much digital information we accumulate in this day and age.

zambelli

29th April 2006, 23:25

what? it's open source, so as long as it is being actively used, someone will bother to make builds, even dshow-filters. now, the point is that it is indeed in active use today, since you can put pretty much anything in it.
Just look at the momentum Ogg had a few years ago. It was supposed to be the next big format. And now... well, just look at the poll. And that's on doom9. If nobody here is using Ogg, the format is as good as dead elsewhere.

So who says the same won't happen to Matroska?

that's more than can be said about avi ... I don't know if ms went public with the asf specifications (think you mentioned it somewhere), but mkv certainly has a first mover bonus in this field. moreover, it sort of makes sense to put streams created with oss-tools into an oss container.
Of course ASF specifications are public. I had a link in another thread, but just google for it and you'll find it on MS website.
i'm pretty sure that you'll be able to play back mkv files in 10 years time without much hassle. I'd even put a bet on it - let's say, a crate of beer?
Sure, you're on. :)
What keeps formats going is industry support and mainstream availability. Just because MKV is OSS doesn't guarantee there will always be someone out there willing to compile it.
Until I see Matroska supported in consumer electronics devices, I don't think we can talk about any sort of market penetration. On the other hand, AVI and MP4 are all already supported on PCs and CE devices. Which is why I have greater confidence in longevity of those 2 formats.

foxyshadis

29th April 2006, 23:48

Sure they're actively choosing it. They could opt for Real, QuickTime or Flash, so there's certainly choice.
BTW, isn't the Flash Player also implemented as an ActiveX control? I'm pretty sure it is in IE. Do they have a separate component for Firefox?
Yes, it uses the netscape plugin format, which isn't that different than a more sandboxed activex. And firefox's support for WMP works quite well too - other than being windows-specific, I suppose. (Maybe mac?)

LoRd_MuldeR

30th April 2006, 00:20

I am yet to encounter a MKV file anywhere on the Internet outside of Doom9. Most torrent sites I frequent overwhelmingly use AVI, ASF/WMV, MPEG and MP4.

Well, 99% of the internet users got absolutely no idea that the conatiner and the video/audio format inside it are two different things :rolleyes: So the container you will find on the internet is that container people get by default when using the tools pre-installed on their PC's (e.g. Windows Movie Maker and stuff)...

Kayser

30th April 2006, 01:13

Well, 99% of the internet users got absolutely no idea that the conatiner and the video/audio format inside it are two different things :rolleyes: So the container you will find on the internet is that container people get by default when using the tools pre-installed on their PC's (e.g. Windows Movie Maker and stuff)...

I second that... I'm not a guru in the subject but I'm dead tired of explaining my friends that avi is not a codec but a container when they ask me why can't they play xyz video.
I do find lots of mkv outside talk outside Doom9. I agree that it's not really popular but avi is starting to lose it's balance in the anime community (what I'm intersested in)... On the other hand I have yet to see anime contained in ASF :P
BTW, I voted for Matroska.

XmSurfer

30th April 2006, 01:34

Just look at the momentum Ogg had a few years ago. It was supposed to be the next big format. And now... well, just look at the poll. And that's on doom9. If nobody here is using Ogg, the format is as good as dead elsewhere.

I'll assume you mean OGM when you say Ogg. Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Matroska a big reason why few people use OGM?

So who says the same won't happen to Matroska?

It's always possible for something better to come along. But, right now, I just don't think that something is asf (I know you didn't say it was). MP4 is of much greater concern to me.

What keeps formats going is industry support and mainstream availability. Just because MKV is OSS doesn't guarantee there will always be someone out there willing to compile it.

Is it industry support that keep formats going or is it that the industry notices that a format has a substantial and dedicated user base and decides to support it thereby giving the appearance that the industry is keeping the format going when in fact the industry is simply a latecomer jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of financial gain?

Also, I think mainstream availability is overrated, Linux is still around and it didn't become mainstream(ish) until a few years ago. A online grassroots community kept Linux going without any mainstream availability and with an abundance of doubters. I know that Linux is an OS and not a container but the analogy is good because I think makes a point about the influence mainstream availability has on and being a determining factor of the success of any software endeavor. Am I wrong?

Until I see Matroska supported in consumer electronics devices, I don't think we can talk about any sort of market penetration.

Maybe I missed it, but who's talking about market penetration?:confused: I thought the discussion was about being able to play a format 10 years from now? Did I miss someone's post?

To sum up, you might be right, you might be wrong. I might be right, I might be wrong. Only Marty McFly and Doc Brown knows for sure and they're not talking.:)

Shocku

30th April 2006, 03:04

This year my vote goes to matroska. Matroska was the only format that could do everything I wanted painlessly. For me, matroska's freedom over what type of video+audio+subs I can use made the choice a no-brainer. However, I'm keeping a close eye on mp4. Not long ago mp4 was an unknown. Now, support is included in Haali's splitter. MeGUI and other applications support it also. Plus, mp4 is being pushed by quite a few companies. If/when mp4 gives me the same freedom as mkv I'll consider switching.

siddharthagandhi

30th April 2006, 03:41

I rarely find Matrosoka talk outside of Doom9. In fact, I didn't see it mentioned one on videohelp.com and I never heard of it before I came to Doom9. And I've been dealing with video for years. And if people didn't use Matrosoka, they would use mp4 (in response to the OGM comment).

Furthermore, MPEG-4 is everywhere. You can find MPEG-4 video on torrent sites (i'm not doing anything wrong so dont bust me for rule 6 or whatever, im just stating something), legal download locations, and there is more standalone compatbility, and AVC codecs are mainly encoded in it....

GodofaGap

30th April 2006, 04:24

IAnd I've been dealing with video for years. And if people didn't use Matrosoka, they would use mp4 (in response to the OGM comment).

Nope, I use Martroska and if that weren't around, I would still be using AVI. MP4 is just silly. Interopability? For what? For silly hardware manufacturers who mostly support AVI/DivX anyways? Or you enjoy watching your video on your mobile phone or PSP. Each to each own then. MP$ will never bring anything good but a lot BS.

What keeps formats going is industry support and mainstream availability. Just because MKV is OSS doesn't guarantee there will always be someone out there willing to compile it.
Sorry. Somewhow I would have expected more from you. Mainstream availability? How about more than different parser avaiable on every respectable OS?

Until I see Matroska supported in consumer electronics devices,
Are you just being funny now? Where is all the asf support in CE devices? Where is all the RealVideo support in CE devices? A format doesn't need that at all to survive. CE devices are crap and outdated

Don't be ridiculous... you can try to troll all you want, but it wont get you any far here.

Mr. ASF is free as long as you dont violate our crappy EULA. Just leave or something.

Liisachan

30th April 2006, 05:30

Just look at the momentum Ogg had a few years ago. It was supposed to be the next big format. And now... well, just look at the poll. And that's on doom9. If nobody here is using Ogg, the format is as good as dead elsewhere. Like XmSurfer said, you are confusing Xiph's OggFile and Tobias' OGM. If you said "Ogg" here, any advanced user would consider it as OggFile, especially (Theora+Vorbis[+OggWrit]).ogg. It's not popular because it's not even ready to really use, Theora being in the alpha stage. I sometimes post a few samples tho, starting from theora_6.ogg (April 2004)

But what you were trying to say is actually what I said. I'm not sure if I'll be still actively using MKV/MP4 etc. in 10 years later. Maybe not. However, that fact hardly has anything to do with my Choice of Container in 2006. It's my choice in 2006 after all. I'm not conservative. I like testing new things.

I loved and still love OGM and tried to use it vehemently like a nut. So I know about OGM well as a user and I can say why OGM is not enough for me.

1. Sub/Chap: The lack of Unicode support. (till 0.9.9.5)
2. Really simple text subtitle (SRT) (till 0.9.9.5, but .6 is borked)
3. Subtitles can not overlap timeline-wise. (even in 0.9.9.6: tho there's a workaround hack)
4. No VobSub embedding (not my reason tho)

Partly because OGM was closed-source? Anyway, if you don't need Chapters nor Softsubs, OGM is still valid. OGM for softsubbing in one single ANSI CP is ok too.
I play OGM quite often even now, tho I no more newly create it. Funny thing is, the number of apps that support OGM is increasing even now. Haali's splitter. Then, Gabest released OggSplitter (the name is Ogg but it mainly splits OGM) in 2006. That gives me this strange feeling: maybe there will be better playback supports for a continer AFTER it is outdated...???

OGM is not my Choice of Container in 2006, but logically, that has nothing to do with the fact I chose OGM in 2002. Because it was best for my purposes back then :)

Eric B

30th April 2006, 08:16

I am using mastroska for 3 years now, i.e from the first public testing release. Before, I was using OGM, but I definetly abandon this container when I figured out that it can not contain audio tracks with different channels (e.g. AC3 5.1, Ogg Vorbis 2.0 and OggVorbis 1.0). MKV can!

Anyway, that was the discussion in 2003.

Today, I still prefer MKV though MP4 is sometimes better.
MKV > MP4 for e.g. 2 reasons:
- many formats of subtitles but not only text. This is not such a big pb since the vobsub subtitle can still be besides the mp4 file, and are loaded in //.
- much faster to mux (mkvmerge/mmg vs mp4box/yamb).
Altough Yamb is quite good now, it is still exhaustive to mux an mp4 file, and mkv offer much more possibilities.

MP4 has/will have hardware support, but I don't care, since I am e.g muxing Vorbis into it. Big avantage of MP4 is the support of raw track (i.e. avi transformed to raw h264) as input, which is not working with mkv.

NeD tHe OnE

30th April 2006, 12:35

Just look at the momentum Ogg had a few years ago. It was supposed to be the next big format. And now... well, just look at the poll. And that's on doom9. If nobody here is using Ogg, the format is as good as dead elsewhere.

So who says the same won't happen to Matroska?

Of course ASF specifications are public. I had a link in another thread, but just google for it and you'll find it on MS website.

Sure, you're on. :)
What keeps formats going is industry support and mainstream availability. Just because MKV is OSS doesn't guarantee there will always be someone out there willing to compile it.
Until I see Matroska supported in consumer electronics devices, I don't think we can talk about any sort of market penetration. On the other hand, AVI and MP4 are all already supported on PCs and CE devices. Which is why I have greater confidence in longevity of those 2 formats.

Who says Vorbis is DEAD?

Lately Hardwares are been out for Vorbis, OGM 2 ...

So most likely. not now.. but may be later Matroska will be on the track 2!

NeD tHe OnE

30th April 2006, 12:39

Like XmSurfer said, you are confusing Xiph's OggFile and Tobias' OGM. If you said "Ogg" here, any advanced user would consider it as OggFile, especially (Theora+Vorbis[+OggWrit]).ogg. It's not popular because it's not even ready to really use, Theora being in the alpha stage. I sometimes post a few samples tho, starting from theora_6.ogg (April 2004)

But what you were trying to say is actually what I said. I'm not sure if I'll be still actively using MKV/MP4 etc. in 10 years later. Maybe not. However, that fact hardly has anything to do with my Choice of Container in 2006. It's my choice in 2006 after all. I'm not conservative. I like testing new things.

I loved and still love OGM and tried to use it vehemently like a nut. So I know about OGM well as a user and I can say why OGM is not enough for me.

1. Sub/Chap: The lack of Unicode support. (till 0.9.9.5)
2. Really simple text subtitle (SRT) (till 0.9.9.5, but .6 is borked)
3. Subtitles can not overlap timeline-wise. (even in 0.9.9.6: tho there's a workaround hack)
4. No VobSub embedding (not my reason tho)

Partly because OGM was closed-source? Anyway, if you don't need Chapters nor Softsubs, OGM is still valid. OGM for softsubbing in one single ANSI CP is ok too.
I play OGM quite often even now, tho I no more newly create it. Funny thing is, the number of apps that support OGM is increasing even now. Haali's splitter. Then, Gabest released OggSplitter (the name is Ogg but it mainly splits OGM) in 2006. That gives me this strange feeling: maybe there will be better playback supports for a continer AFTER it is outdated...???

OGM is not my Choice of Container in 2006, but logically, that has nothing to do with the fact I chose OGM in 2002. Because it was best for my purposes back then :)

You are Right Liisachan!

Even i used 2 use OGM .. untill last year .. before i came to know about MKV!:cool:

siddharthagandhi

30th April 2006, 13:37

"Nope, I use Martroska and if that weren't around, I would still be using AVI. MP4 is just silly. Interopability? For what? For silly hardware manufacturers who mostly support AVI/DivX anyways? Or you enjoy watching your video on your mobile phone or PSP. Each to each own then. MP$ will never bring anything good but a lot BS."

Well, you're a loner. MP4 is so much better than .avi, its used in so many consumer electronics devices, it has so much more features than .avi and all that. I would think the majority of the people would use .mp4 instead of .avi....if .mkv didn't exist...

And seriously man. Outside of Doom9 no one has ever heard of matrosoka. Unless you're in some other technical video forum, no one has ever heard of it and not many people use it. And what about AVC? Most AVC is encoded in MPEG-4....x264 in MeGUI...Nero Recode Nero Digital ASP and AVC...xvid ASP...

Sirber

30th April 2006, 15:11

Cool to see matroska is in the top :D

CruNcher

30th April 2006, 16:21

@siddharthagandhi
because that stuff you talk about is that what the industry want's you to use and get's allways limited in one way or another, because of commercial reasons, alot off stuff that is done here is without restrictions and nobody here will ever tell you what you should use :)

siddharthagandhi

30th April 2006, 16:41

I don't listen to industry. I listen to what's best. For distribution, most of the people who I give my videos to (i make my own videos for certain stuff) don't even know what the hell matrosoka is....let alone how to play it. MPEG-4 is capable of using AVC and ASP codecs and they all have players that can play that. .Avi would be the best for compatibility and playing it on their computers, but last time i checked Nero Digital doesn't encode in .avi.

xyloy

30th April 2006, 16:47

And seriously man. Outside of Doom9 no one has ever heard of matroska
Tell that to release teams and the hundred of million of people sharing .mkv files on P2P networks(eMule first)... :D

I'm not inviting anyone to download illegal stuff, but hey, everyone know were DivX started back in 1997... ;)

Liisachan

30th April 2006, 17:06

@xyloy
Yep at least for anime fans ogm and mkv are just everyday formats. Almost everyone knows it, and probably > 95% of them are not doom9 members. .mp4 is getting popular too, altho still relatively rare.

NeD tHe OnE

30th April 2006, 19:01

Mkv! U find it everywhere.... Its gettin popular!

Sirber

30th April 2006, 19:10

@Liisachan

Single audio anime:
98% AVI
2% MP4

Dual audio anime:
60% OGM
40% MKV

* % based on a "in-brain" analysis

robU*4

30th April 2006, 19:51

The problem of MP4 (and AVI to some extent) is that it might be supported in hardware devices (I haven't seen any in any store) but with very strict support (maximum luck case). So whenever you add something not standard don't expect to work it somewhere else than a PC (and probably with Haali's filter).

For a long time we (matroska) hoped to get some hardware support to get more popular but that would mean freeze the specs and codec support. But maybe that's the force of matroska to be always moving and still improving (see the latest header stripping, the discussion on extending EBML with namespaces, a possible DRM, etc).

About OGM, in the past it gave us a lot of animosity around here when we were telling that OGM was dead and missing specs. Noone was ever able to improve it or even continue support. So time has finally proved us right.

XmSurfer

1st May 2006, 00:03

I rarely find Matrosoka talk outside of Doom9. In fact, I didn't see it mentioned one on videohelp.com...

Perhaps if you used their(videohelp.com) search function....

thoralf

1st May 2006, 00:03

For distribution, most of the people who I give my videos to (i make my own videos for certain stuff) don't even know what the hell matrosoka is....let alone how to play it. MPEG-4 is capable of using AVC and ASP codecs and they all have players that can play that.

A fresh install of every windoze flavour does know as much about mp4 as it does about matroska: nil.
so why not use the more flexible one - the matroska packs come with installers that are really no-brainers.
i'll stop here, i don't want to be a zealot :-)

with kind regards,
thoralf.

Sirber

1st May 2006, 00:52

About OGM, in the past it gave us a lot of animosity around here when we were telling that OGM was dead and missing specs. Noone was ever able to improve it or even continue support. So time has finally proved us right.I prefer from far AVI than OGM. Long death to OGM!!!

soresu

1st May 2006, 02:30

Liisachan, does x264/avc mux well into the NUT container? I have read some of the specs for NUT and it sounds promising.

My main concern is the similar issues with vfw-compatibility mode vs. native avc storage in the format.

siddharthagandhi

1st May 2006, 03:19

Liisachan

1st May 2006, 04:47

@sirber:
I'd show my stats for softsub then:
SSA
MKV 100%
OGM n/a

SRT
OGM 50% (*)
MKV 50%
(*) Including files muxed a few years ago.

But I'm not trying to say OGM and MKV are generally popular. The public's choice should be MP4 after all. The reality is:
Doom9 Members < Anime Fans <<< Normal ppl
So stats in Anime Fans are meaningless for normal ppl.

@soresu
I'm not a NUT gru (tho i might be a nut) but I don't see any reason they won't support AVC. FYI today I was also told "NUT support have been disabled (temporarily) from FFMPEG because it's not compatible with the latest specs." If you'd like to have the latest ffmpeg, you can try celtic_druid's binary (http://ffdshow.faireal.net/mirror/ffmpeg/)...

Liisachan

1st May 2006, 04:50

@siddharthagandhi
A good, legal example for what you said is http://www.archive.org/details/movies

They have things mainly in MP4 etc. No OGM/MKV.

setarip_old

1st May 2006, 05:51

@Liisachan

Hi!

I'm afraid the link you've provided doesn't really support the contention of "siddharthagandhi".

If you read some of the background information at that site, you'll discover that the reason they use .MP4 and haven't created any files in OGM/MKV or other formats is that the files are created on MACs ;>}

xyloy

1st May 2006, 09:26

I have seen much more mp4 on P2P than matrosoka. All of you here are video experts so that's why you don't know how it is in the real world. In the real world, with noobs and all, people rarely know what matrosoka is. There are definetly more people who know about (and use) mp4.
Know what ? I've seen the reverse(even on BitTorrent trackers, but I don't think the forum rules allow me to give a link nor a name).:D
Both sides can't prove the container's popularity among "newbies" so your point isn't "definetly" proven.
But for your knowledge, I've helped on another forum quite a lot of newbies with a sticky about how to play .mkv files. Some of them made a new topic about it and most of them didn't even know that .avi was not a codec...

As for giving a little proof, just look on eMule(or whatever you like, eMule is just the most popular in Europe, so I think it's a good example):
a ".MP4" search gives files .wmv .avi and .mkv files(a total of 149 files) with less than 50 sources estimated for each file(and most of them is p0rn or commercials). MP4 is sometimes not even in the file name. :o

a ".MKV" search just gives... .MKV files, with more than a hundred source estimated for each of them, and all of them are dvd-rips in RV9/RV10/H.264 and OggVorbis/Realaudio/HE-AAC(depends how much it's old) and the search reaches eMule's response limit, wich is 201 files(if I was really searching a movie I would have to use AND/OR/NOT).

Kurtnoise

1st May 2006, 10:17

Funny discussion imho...reminds me some container battle in 2004 where some good people have been banned.

btw...the old & dirty AVI is still there. :D So, Alexnoe was right. ;)

multicone

1st May 2006, 13:55

Other: NUT (http://www.nut.hu/). All the goodness of Matroska, without the bloat.

Bloat ? what bloat ? MKV works fine on my Symbian phone, so how can it be bloated ?

Linux geeks are truely nuts ... that's why the name of NUT is perfectly suited for their crap. If they will ever come to a similar status that the matroska tools do have already, matroska will have hardware support already, for 100% sure. Very likely they will never come there, they are dreamers to beleive that.

These guys developing NUT would be better off implementing good matroska support in their little Linux apps, instead of reinventing stuff that already exists, so nobody will ever need nor use their unnecessary container.

communist

1st May 2006, 14:25

For me this is a rather pointless 'poll / discussion'. Only one choice?

I'm probably repeating myself but why would I want to put DV streams in mkv or MPEG encoded for SVCD in avi or any other nonsense? I choose the container that most suits the need without having to resort to all of them ;)

These guys developing NUT would be better off implementing good matroska support in their little Linux apps, instead of reinventing stuff that already exists, so nobody will ever need nor use their unnecessary container.
Would you be insulted if I told you to better shut up and write an essay about quantum physics than to post your comments on doom9?
People like to do what they want - I'm not sure how much they're hurting you by developing yet another container.. really whats your problem with them doing it, you may fully hate the container etc. but why do you think they should do what you think?

unmei

1st May 2006, 14:26

@communist :goodpost: (oops, fixed name)

I don't think I will be still using any of today's formats 10 years later, just like I'm not using 10-year-old codecs now.

For the creation of new files for use on PCs, i agree.
But MPEG-2 is something like 14 years old (iirc) and DVDs still sell very well. Not to mention current TV and certain companies seemingly intend to put MPEG-2 (at least the video codec if not even PS/TS) into those new high-capacity video disks :)

In that respect, you can be quite confident that MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 will be around for another 10 years easily.

robU*4

1st May 2006, 14:26

multicone, that's what we were said when we created matroska. That OGG was enough for everything, but we thought it wasn't and did our own thing. I guess it's the same for NUT, except they don't have much thing to add over matroska.

Sagittaire

1st May 2006, 14:42

really good demonstration to show that pool doesn't mean anything ... lol

AVI or MPG are by far the more popular
WMV and MOV are the more popular and by far for internet

mkv, mp4 or ogm are simply marginal

unmei

1st May 2006, 14:48

sagittaire, that is not what the poll is about.

Usage statistics "in the real world", "on the internet", "in scene XY" may vary greatly as function of what part one sees and how one counts (ie no. of releases vs no. of logged downloads vs. what pirate collection a random person may find on its harddrive). Thus they cannot be reliably determined.

BetaBoy

1st May 2006, 16:01

I chose MPEG-4 because its highly unlikely that Matrosoka will become an industry standard

Wanna take bets on that? /me finishes the ISO documentation to be submitted.

Liisachan

1st May 2006, 16:48

This poll might be rather meaningless, but it's interesting to hear others.
Btw the question is "Which is your choice?" not "Which do you think is the ppl's choice?"

About "NUT"--seriously, iirc it was first called "Egg" (play of words: Egg is not Ogg), but renamed as NUT, because Egg would sound like a fragile container. NUT sounds robust, compact, strong, error-resistant.

@setarip_old
Oh, then I'll be honest and confess that I don't really know about "avarage" ppl's choice.
I know new containers are usual in anime fandom; even noobs can play ogm/mkv in Japan;
but I also know that is rather exceptional in the whole world, among the whole ppl.

@communist
That's a valid point. I use AVI for hardsubbing... something is so common that you don't appreciate its commonness.

@unmei
Yup. that's what I meant: passive "read-only" or "in-the-middle" use vs active "final-format" use. I still use OGM even now, passively tho.
On a second thought, MKV is open-source while OGM wasn't, so probably they are essentially different.

bond

1st May 2006, 17:14

robU*4

1st May 2006, 20:03

Can I change my vote ? :D

siddharthagandhi

1st May 2006, 21:14

I rest my case.

zambelli

1st May 2006, 23:08

I'll assume you mean OGM when you say Ogg. Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Matroska a big reason why few people use OGM?
I consider OGM to be a subset of Ogg. Am I wrong?
Sure, people moved away from OGM to Matroska, but that's kind of my point: what's to stop people from moving from MKV to Next Big OSS Container?

It's always possible for something better to come along. But, right now, I just don't think that something is asf (I know you didn't say it was). MP4 is of much greater concern to me.
Right, I totally agree. I'm not trying to bash on Matroska or its quality. I'm just saying that I don't have much faith in its long term support.

Is it industry support that keep formats going or is it that the industry notices that a format has a substantial and dedicated user base and decides to support it thereby giving the appearance that the industry is keeping the format going when in fact the industry is simply a latecomer jumping on the bandwagon in hopes of financial gain?
That's exactly right. Sometimes it does happen that way - just look at MP3 and AVI support. My point is that when that does happen - it adds years to the expected lifetime of the format. It's hard to extinguish support for a format when there are hardware devices out there counting on the support.

I know that Linux is an OS and not a container but the analogy is good because I think makes a point about the influence mainstream availability has on and being a determining factor of the success of any software endeavor. Am I wrong?
I think you need to have some big "players" involved in order to consider something mainstream. If you ask me, Linux went mainstream when companies like IBM and Sun got behind it - not when 15-yr old kids were installing it on their parents' computers.
The day I see Matroska support on a Sony player, I'll tip my hat to the Matroska guys and say, "Congrats, you've guys have gone mainstream." :)

Maybe I missed it, but who's talking about market penetration?:confused: I thought the discussion was about being able to play a format 10 years from now? Did I miss someone's post?
Aren't they connected? Isn't a format with greater platform support and greater userbase expected to live longer?

To sum up, you might be right, you might be wrong. I might be right, I might be wrong. Only Marty McFly and Doc Brown knows for sure and they're not talking.:)
Yeah, pretty much. I'm just making a bet based on what I've seen happen to other formats in the past. I could turn out to be wrong, I won't deny that.

zambelli

1st May 2006, 23:13

ok, a little bit late, but i now added .ogg, .nut and .asf (one vote for .wmv, not hard to quess who was this ;) ), .mpg is part of mpeg-2 (or mpeg-1), .mp4 is not quicktime but part of the mpeg-4 standard, .ogm is not ogg media but .ogm
I repeat: Windows Media Video is not a file format.
The name of the format is "Advanced Systems Format". The entry should say: Advanced Systems Format (ASF, WMV).

Not that it matters much... But we might as well keep it accurate. :)

zambelli

1st May 2006, 23:29

MP4 is just silly. Interopability? For what? For silly hardware manufacturers who mostly support AVI/DivX anyways? Or you enjoy watching your video on your mobile phone or PSP.
If you ran a company thinking like that, you'd be bankrupt in less than a month.
Are you aware that mobile phones are more widespread than PCs in this world?

Are you just being funny now? Where is all the asf support in CE devices? Where is all the RealVideo support in CE devices? A format doesn't need that at all to survive. CE devices are crap and outdated.
Riiiight. DVD players. iPods. Car audio players. Those are just niche products. Nobody buys those.
And FYI, ASF is supported in every hardware player that plays WMA or WMV files. Tell you what? You seem like the stubborn type, you might want to check this out for yourself: go to Amazon.com, Electronics department, and search for WMA. Tell me how many hits you get. If that's not hardware ASF support, would you mind telling me what is?

Don't be ridiculous... you can try to troll all you want, but it wont get you any far here. Mr. ASF is free as long as you dont violate our crappy EULA. Just leave or something.
Watch your tone, Mr. I Just Joined Two Months Ago and Now I'm Calling People Trolls. I'm not the one picking fights here. I come in and say "I trust MP4, AVI and ASF to be supported in 10 years more than I do Matroska", and suddenly that's blasphemy. If you ask me, I'm just making observations based on how things work in the real world. If you don't like it or feel like you have to defend something just for the sake of arguing, perhaps you should take your arguments elsewhere.

shon3i

1st May 2006, 23:29

Currently use MKV for x264 and vote for him becouse is realy good container. MP4 is aslo good but have big problem with subtitles with different country codes, aslo need more free space to mux streams

siddharthagandhi

1st May 2006, 23:50

"Are you just being funny now? Where is all the asf support in CE devices? Where is all the RealVideo support in CE devices? A format doesn't need that at all to survive. CE devices are crap and outdated."

Of course it doesn't need that to survive, but it needs that to prosper. MPEG-4 has that. And look at it now. Proves my point.

And anyways, does ASF and RealVideo look successful to you? I surely hope not, because a very low percentage of distributed videos are in those formats, especially the former.

BetaBoy

2nd May 2006, 00:39

what's to stop people from moving from MKV to Next Big OSS Container?

There is NOTHING you can do but provide the reliability, tools and features people need.

Get ready for what the next year has in store for Matroska... Not sure if you know it or not... but there are currently over 5 million portable hardwre devices that are capable of playing Matroska Audio and Video files right now... and with an estimated 20+ million more coming in the next year alone, Matroska is starting to garner alot more adoption at the corporate level.

Now, with the menu system and some other related Matroska projects coming... it will be a great year indeed.

BTW... its pretty cool to play Matroska on my A1000 cell phone ;-)

siddharthagandhi

2nd May 2006, 01:37

Still, I have yet to encounter it in the noob world....

NeD tHe OnE

2nd May 2006, 15:57

Matroska Won!

chongy5

2nd May 2006, 17:39

Wooooohoooooo! Matroska all the way.

robU*4

2nd May 2006, 19:16

Sure, people moved away from OGM to Matroska, but that's kind of my point: what's to stop people from moving from MKV to Next Big OSS Container?

Even the main NUT developer admits that sometimes he wonder if NUT is necessary when Matroska exist... It was started before Matroska became popular.

Right, I totally agree. I'm not trying to bash on Matroska or its quality. I'm just saying that I don't have much faith in its long term support.

It started 4 years ago (approximately) and we're still working on it. And it's finally getting support without our own investment. (before we had to do all the code if we wanted to have it supported somewhere)

The day I see Matroska support on a Sony player, I'll tip my hat to the Matroska guys and say, "Congrats, you've guys have gone mainstream." :)

So far we preferred to support it in Windows products :D

multicone

2nd May 2006, 21:31

The day I see Matroska support on a Sony player, I'll tip my hat to the Matroska guys and say, "Congrats, you've guys have gone mainstream." :)

That won't ever happen. SONY will rather prefer to launch their own container, and PANASONIC will soon after that release a competing one :D .....

NeD tHe OnE

3rd May 2006, 13:21

Can any one help me to find this "MeGUI-x264_generic_profiles_v24.zip" thats by Sharktooth.. the site's down I cant get it .. Plz can any one email to this "nedtheone@msn.com" .. I need it bad PLZ! with the guide to choose the specific profile for a single cd's or 2,3 ...

Sirber

3rd May 2006, 13:49

1) You are double posting
2) you are out of topic at both place
3) I'm contacting a moderator :p

Sirber

3rd May 2006, 15:24

Ha, you forgot DIVX container :)

mod

3rd May 2006, 16:59

Ha, you forgot DIVX container :)
THAT is "others" :D

Sirber

3rd May 2006, 17:03

as other as OGG and NUT? ;)

avih

3rd May 2006, 18:20

@NeD tHe OnE:
Please respect the forum rules. Next time it'll be a strike. Please don't follow this post.

thanks,
avih

XmSurfer

3rd May 2006, 18:41

I consider OGM to be a subset of Ogg. Am I wrong?

No, but if you say Ogg, I believe most people will think OggFile and not the OGM hack. I believe OGM is called OGM to distinguish it from OggFile. That alone should tell you something.

Sure, people moved away from OGM to Matroska, but that's kind of my point: what's to stop people from moving from MKV to Next Big OSS Container?

Nothing. But I think the difference between OGM and MKV is bigger than the difference between Matroska and the "Next Big OSS Container" will be. So there might not be as much impetus to move from Matroska as there was to move from OGM.

Right, I totally agree. I'm not trying to bash on Matroska or its quality. I'm just saying that I don't have much faith in its long term support.

I never implied that you were bashing Matroska or its quality. I was just stating some of my reasoning for believing Matroska will be supported 10 years from now. One being that any future container will probably not have any overwhelming advantages compared to Matroska. However, since I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what will come along or the features it will have, so I could be wrong again.

That's exactly right. Sometimes it does happen that way - just look at MP3 and AVI support. My point is that when that does happen - it adds years to the expected lifetime of the format. It's hard to extinguish support for a format when there are hardware devices out there counting on the support.

I have the same belief in OSS extending the life of a format that you have in hardware devices doing the same. If Matroska was a closed spec, closed source format, I don't believe we would be having this discussion. That fact that Matroska is so open is a great benefit. You can use Matroska in a spec compliant way, or you can use Matroska as a starting point for you own format. I believe this will mean that Matroska, in one form or another, will be around 10 years from now. Who knows, it might be used as the starting point by MPEG for a MP5 container.

I think you need to have some big "players" involved in order to consider something mainstream. If you ask me, Linux went mainstream when companies like IBM and Sun got behind it - not when 15-yr old kids were installing it on their parents' computers.
The day I see Matroska support on a Sony player, I'll tip my hat to the Matroska guys and say, "Congrats, you've guys have gone mainstream." :)

I was making the point that mainstream availability is overrated and I used the Linux OS as an example. Linux was not on the verge of disappearing before mainstream companies got involved. It was doing well, which is why the mainstream companies got involved in the first place. Those "15-yr old kids" and others kept when it was not mainstream(ish) and still keeps Linux going either by programming, reporting bugs, or just using the OS. Mainstream companies have helped Linux alot but I don't think that are essential for Linux to survive just like I don't think mainstream support is essential for Matroska to survive. Would it be nice? Of course. Is it necessary. No. Vivo is still supported today and I doubt you can make the case that it enjoys mainstream availability.

Aren't they connected? Isn't a format with greater platform support and greater userbase expected to live longer?

So you basically meant support when you said market penetration? Matroska has been alive 3 yrs now without much "market penetration" but it does have pretty good support in terms of software and the OSes you can play it on. It also has a nice userbase, not large but substantial. If it does get any market penetration it will be because of its success prior to mainstream companies jumping on the bandwagon.

I hope I haven't been rambling.

siddharthagandhi

3rd May 2006, 20:27

"Ha, you forgot DIVX container"

I thought DIVX was same as .avi

ssjkakaroto

4th May 2006, 19:38

i've used matroska since the beggining and it's still my container of choice but IMHO if mp4 really takes off on hw players (being backed up by big companies), i don't think it'll survive in the long run

Teegedeck

4th May 2006, 20:07

Another one for Matroska; how could I escape its charm... ;)

It does anything I could ask for, is reliable and easy to handle -- plus, who could rival Mosu's commitment to fulfilling user-requests? I'm positive that I'm never gonna invest into a standalone player again, so 'hardware-support' is a non-issue for me.

stax76

4th May 2006, 21:12

:goodpost:

multicone

5th May 2006, 22:20

I also wonder what will be the result of almost the same poll (http://forums.virtualdub.org/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=12242&st=0#entry49578)on the n000b/support forum (http://forum.virtualdub.org) of Virtualdub ?

Atamido

5th May 2006, 22:46

what's to stop people from moving from MKV to Next Big OSS Container? Ideally nothing, which is kind of the point. Matroska is an open and free format so anyone can read the specs, make a parser, and dump all of the A/V information out to another place.

What is scary is people putting stuff in containers that aren't open, where there might be legal or technical issues with trying to extract that information. If I wanted, I could attach the Matroska specifications in plain ASCII text to every Matroska file I use to ensure that even with just the file, someone is going to be able to reverse engineer the format.

NeD tHe OnE

6th May 2006, 07:45

So Sad to see no one voted for OGM

Liisachan

6th May 2006, 08:27

If I could vote for 2 of them, I might vote for OGM too, because I really like Vorbis.
Besides, the current MP4's chapters by Nero (ANSI, not Unicode) are only as good as OGM's chapters. Technically though, this doesn't mean MP4 is silly--what's silly is Nero.

Kurtnoise

6th May 2006, 09:10

Fortunately, Nero is not the only one tool to mux chapters into mp4. So, ANSI or Unicode is not a problem.

siddharthagandhi

6th May 2006, 13:12

Nero isn't silly. Wait till I release my codec comparison. The PSNR's show that MP is better than x264, and HP is a lot better than x264.

Anyways, for normal video distribution and encoding its just fine.

xyloy

6th May 2006, 17:53

The PSNR's show that MP is better than x264, and HP is a lot better than x264.
PSNR itself doesn't mean much. :P

Liisachan

6th May 2006, 18:05

Fortunately, Nero is not the only one tool to mux chapters into mp4. So, ANSI or Unicode is not a problem. Come to think of it, this is a player-side problem too. mp4box/megui can put UTF-8 (with or without BOM) chapters into MP4, but MPC will interpret it as ANSI, probably for compatibility with Nero.

siddharthagandhi

6th May 2006, 20:27

PSNR may not mean much, but if you watch the video (im gng 2 attach the vids as well) you would see that there is a quality difference in favor of Nero Digital.

Match

7th May 2006, 09:43

Without doubts: MKV (Matroska)

:cool:

xyloy

7th May 2006, 09:44

PSNR may not mean much, but if you watch the video (im gng 2 attach the vids as well) you would see that there is a quality difference in favor of Nero Digital.
I don't think so. With the slowest settings and no post-processing for both codecs, Nero is the looser(by far).
Open your eyes...

CruNcher

7th May 2006, 12:18

a example where .mp4 fails @ the moment completly

MP4Box.exe" -add raw.h264:fps=23.976 -add audio.mp4:delay=-1000 -out final.mp4

;) no exisitng parser understands the delay=-1000 at the moment with Matroska no problem ;D

btw: also muxing speed and required space (for the muxing) between Matroska and Mp4box is very interesting in that regards Matroska wins again :D

baklanoid

7th May 2006, 13:29

Punch me if i wrong, but Mpeg-4 container based on QuickTime(mov)...

siddharthagandhi

7th May 2006, 13:47

That's what I heard most often. But a few people argue the opposite.

Drachir

7th May 2006, 15:10

Punch me if i wrong, but Mpeg-4 container based on QuickTime(mov)...

http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/faq/mp4-sys/sys-faq-mp4.htm#MP4-MPEG_4_is_based_on
2. MPEG-4 is based on QuickTime?
No, QuickTime was taken as a starting point only for the file format. Other relevant software products and their features have influenced the file format as well.

One of the other relevant software products is VRML. In MP4 you have a BIFS Track which isn't there in mov. So you could ask, is MPEG-4 based on VRML?

baklanoid

8th May 2006, 07:33

The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.
(http://www.chiariglione.org/MPEG/standards/mpeg-4/mpeg-4.htm#10.9)

and

The QuickTime file format has been used as the basis of the MPEG-4 standard, developed
by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (from QT docs)

.. so i said "based".

Drachir

8th May 2006, 10:10

One of the roots of MPEG-4 is the QuickTime file format, but MP4(14496-14) != MOV(QuickTime file format).

Ok, if you take a look at most files which claim to be a MP4 file(ftyp is set to mp41 or mp42) they missing a complete IOD and BIFS/OD Track.

In my opinion this files are not that much different from a MOV file. If I would compare such a file with a MOV file, I would say MP4 is more or less like MOV.
Most players around handle MP4/MOV files the same way. I wouldn't call such a player a MP4 Player. I would say this is a player for ISO base media format compatible files.
With one Audio/Video only file there is no problem. If you tread such a MP4 file like MOV, it will displayed right.

In my opinion most so called MP4 files are more 3gp or a ISO base media format file with a wrong set file brand(ftyp box) than a MP4 file.

However ftyp=isom or ftyp=avc1 souldn't be used for the main brand and as far as I know there is no file name extension defined for 14496-12 and 14496-15.

The user don't care what kind of container he is really using as long as he can watch his movie.

Just My Opinion
Richard

multicone

8th May 2006, 22:30

btw: also muxing speed and required space (for the muxing) between Matroska and Mp4box is very interesting in that regards Matroska wins again :D

Wait a minute ! Didn't the Linux (NUT) people tell us matroska is bloated ?!? That can't be true, you must be wrong !

BetaBoy

8th May 2006, 23:09

Matroska 'IS' what you make it to be... in that is gives you the 'ultimate' control of any container to add _only_ the components that you need and nothing more.

Not to get to OT... but with the upcoming 'namespace' addition to EBML (what Matroska is based on) it could even be a filesystem or the basis for a database.

bond

11th May 2006, 19:55

I repeat: Windows Media Video is not a file format.
The name of the format is "Advanced Systems Format". The entry should say: Advanced Systems Format (ASF, WMV).

Not that it matters much... But we might as well keep it accurate. :)ok removed the "video" :)

b9AcE

12th May 2006, 12:27

I don't use standalones (my 22" CRT monitor is enough).
I keep the "latest known working version" of all usefull software, so I will always be able to reinstall even old (no longer distributed) programs.

Since this pretty much removes any dangers of using a "non-mainstream" container, I go for the one with the most capabilities and the most flexibility:
Matroska

The only time I use any other container these days is MP4 for my PSP...

NeD tHe OnE

21st May 2006, 12:31

Great work Matroska ... When will the menu feature work on all the players? .. like MPC

NeD tHe OnE

21st May 2006, 12:32

In what terms mp4 is better than avi?

bond

21st May 2006, 13:21

In what terms mp4 is better than avi?
:search::readfaq:

Drachir

21st May 2006, 13:23

In what terms mp4 is better than avi?
What do you want achieve with this question?

You could also ask, in what terms mkv is better than avi?

If you want information about mp4 read the sticker( http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=62723 ).
MP4 files can be very complex. In some people eyes this is a disadvantage. Other people like what is possible with mp4.
Read the sticker and build your own opinion.

NeD tHe OnE

21st May 2006, 13:54

What is the possible future of Matroska?

Matroska in SONY player? ;)

or in some local hardware players .. or no support @ all.. Like finally Avi (DivX) got support and then mp4 ...

I'd really love to see Matroska in hardware players.. But I think big companies would rather create their own containers instead of taking Mkv ..

Well! what do you say?

foxyshadis

21st May 2006, 21:37

Possible future: Matroska becomes the One True Codec, all companies and software switch to it, mentioning avi or mp4 makes people think you're a crazy throwback. :p (Hey, you said possible, not probable.)

b9AcE

23rd May 2006, 18:38

Sharktooth

24th May 2006, 00:46

Well, I see a lot af advertisements for standalones that support "AVI-files", without saying anything about which codecs they actually mean.
If they consider this to be acceptable behaviour (I don't), then they could just as well implement Matroska the same way.
So sure, it could happen... ...kind of.
Agreed. Companies try to fool customers with the 'AVI' term coz everyone knows AVI... but the average joe could not know what's inside an AVI...

tehpwner2

24th May 2006, 01:21

mp4 just because I can't be bothered to switch to mkv.

Sharktooth

24th May 2006, 01:33

i forgot to say why i voted for MKV.
I "prefer" MKV for its flexibility and tools even if i usually "use" mp4.
But nothing will stop me to use exclusively MKV if it gets a decent support in SAPs.

Skelsgard

24th May 2006, 17:59

Matroska.
do i really need to specify why? :D

gameplaya15143

26th May 2006, 17:24

I still use OGM :D
MKV was still a baby (and wasn't really ready for use) when I started using OGM, it does what I needed it to back then, still does now. I will probably switch to using mkv at some point, but I doubt that will be very soon.

NeD tHe OnE

26th May 2006, 20:32

Finally 1 Vote For Ogm!! I Was Dying To See 1!!

xyloy

26th May 2006, 21:18

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

XmSurfer

29th May 2006, 06:21

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

31st May 2006, 18:57

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

31st May 2006, 19:23

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

31st May 2006, 21:07

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

31st May 2006, 21:27

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

31st May 2006, 21:43

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

31st May 2006, 22:19

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

1st June 2006, 02:18

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

1st June 2006, 02:50

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

1st June 2006, 02:53

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

1st June 2006, 04:52

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

1st June 2006, 07:26

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

1st June 2006, 09:35

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

1st June 2006, 10:09

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

1st June 2006, 10:42

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

1st June 2006, 10:55

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

1st June 2006, 12:43

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

bond

1st June 2006, 13:20

BetaBoy

1st June 2006, 13:40

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.