Nero Digital Codecs [Archive]

PuzZLeR

29th May 2007, 19:17

"Nero Digital" can be a bit confusing at times, but hopefully this helps.

"Nero Digital AVC" is most definitely H.264. In case you're new to this, "H.264" is synonymous with "AVC" with Nero and with video in general. Same thing.

"Nero Digital" really should be called "Nero Digital ASP" because it's based on an ASP codec, not AVC. However, when Recode first came out, there was no AVC option, only added later, so Recode kept the name "Nero Digital" as "Nero Digital" and offered a "Nero Digital AVC" option later as well.

In comparison, the "Nero Digital" option (without the AVC) encodes much faster than "Nero Digital AVC", however you will not get the same quality. You will need about a 25% bigger file size with this codec to match AVC's quality or will have about 25% less quality per equal file size (assuming all other settings are the same).

This applies as well to the iPod or Sony profiles. Nero gives you the option to either encode with or without AVC. If it's an AVC option, it will be distinctly displayed with "AVC". Once more, you can either go AVC and enjoy the better compression or not use it for faster encoding times. Your pick.

As well, if you have a late-model PC, let me recommend only the options with "AVC". The quality is worth it for the extra encoding time and will be better supported in the future. Unless your PC is old and slow I would go AVC all the way.

Here's where it may get confusing. "Nero Digital" when in discussion, such as a certification for a future DvD player can mean both: "Nero Digital (ASP)" and "Nero Digital AVC". "Nero Digital", in essense, is Nero's trademark. "Nero Digital" is like a family of Nero codecs. They really should make the distinction with adding "ASP" where appropriate. Then again, in 5 years time, there may not be an "ASP" option any longer. Who knows?

Keep in mind, Nero Recode is an encoder that is a GUI for the Ateme implementation/version of the H.264/AVC standard, not for x264 like other GUIs discussed in this forum.

However, both are excellent, have very similar quality, and follow the standard and are compatible with each other.

It's like H.264/AVC is orange juice. Ateme and x264 are like different brands that taste and look similar and have the same vitamins and interchangeable within any orange juice situation or orange juice recipe.

merlinmage

29th May 2007, 20:24

Thanks for your help =)
I've used the Nero DIgital Codec first and the quality was nice,but i prefer x264+Staxrip atm,because I can render the video in a mkv Container and make the Subtitels more "tasty" ;D

Infact,the Nero Digital AVC Encoder is quite faster than the x264 with similiar Products,so I'll have to make more Tests around this.

PuzZLeR

29th May 2007, 22:54

Actually, if you like Nero Digital AVC, you can later mux the content easily, without loss, from the MP4 container to an MKV container with a free app like MKVToolnix with a built-in app called MKVmerge. It's quite painless, fast and effective actually.

If you like StaxRip/x264 better fine, but if you're only using it for the MKV thing when you would have otherwise chosen Nero Digital AVC then you have to try MKVmerge.

As far as speed is concerned, I don't think there's a significant difference from what I hear between x264 and Ateme (the one Nero Recode uses).

Alot of your speed is coming from the GUI you chose, such as Nero Recode or StaxRip, and the settings you inputted.

If you go back to my "orange juice" analogy in my last post, think of a GUI as a "machine". This "machine" makes "orange juice" (H.264) for a "brand" (x264 or Ateme). Some machines will certainly work faster than others, with or without certain settings.

If you really want a fast "machine" or GUI, that uses the "brand" x264, then you have to try HandBrake. It's free and very, very good. It only accepts DvD source though (but you can always create one if you want from files). Try it. It's the fastest one for high quality H.264 that I've used.

merlinmage

30th May 2007, 00:42

I tested muxing with MP4Box+GUI and it works perfectly.Muxing in an mkv Container was also a thing that I should have known ;D

Whatever,the subtitles with Nero AVC are real **** in my eyes.
Concerning my test,Nero and x264 have the same "Endproduct",but Nero AVC a lot faster Encode as you referred above ;)

So I should give thanks to the Developer of MKVmerge and this brilliant GUI .

PuzZLeR

30th May 2007, 05:06

So I should give thanks to the Developer of MKVmerge and this brilliant GUI .

Yes, it's really very easy.

As well, not sure if you tried it, but a good GUI for mp4box is YAMB. Very useful little tool.

I agree about Nero's subtitles. They're not there yet. It's not only you that feels that way. So do others.

merlinmage

30th May 2007, 11:36

Yeah,I used YAMB for demuxing the Nero DIgital AUdio+Video Stream and muxed the streams + Subtitles+Chapters in mkv,so the Subtitels have a nice outfit now :D

Bigmango

30th May 2007, 18:26

Infact,the Nero Digital AVC Encoder is quite faster than the x264 with similiar Products

Are you sure you are using the same encoding with x264 and nero (select advanced settings in nero) ? And what version of x264 are you using ? (the latest versions got some nice speed improvements with sse2 and ssse3 optimizations).

Because on my system (core2duo, vista x64, latest nero, x264 v656) I have done several tests and x264 always had better quality and encoded much faster.

I often encode for my mobile phone in 220x176 in 50k (2 pass encode). This is a very good test as the bitrate is very low and really shows the encoder's quality.

With x264 I get a perfect picture in 15 - 20 minutes (1h30 movie).

Nero avc was not as good in 40 minutes. I didn't try maximum quality with nero as this would take about 100 - 120 minutes. Anyway, with very strong encodes nero is the big loser. It might be good if you are not concerned about size and want to encode fast, but then x264 can also encode faster with lower quality (everything is in the settings ;).

I am very surprised if you tell me that nero is faster with the same quality. I guess your bitrate was too high to see any difference ? Did you lower the bitrate enough to see which encoder was better ?

I really would like to use nero recode more as I like the gui, but for the best compression for a given bitrate it just takes much too long compared to x264 for the same quality.

I have also spent some money on the mainconcept h264 encoder. This money was again thrown out of the window as I now only use x264. It's amazing how the free open source x264 outputs better quality in less time.

Manao

30th May 2007, 18:32

I didn't try maximum quality with nero as this would take about 100 - 120 minutesI strongly doubt that. 220x176 should run at the very least in realtime on your computer, whatever the quality settings. Anything slower is indicative of either a bug in Recode, or another program taking your CPU time.

Sergey A. Sablin

30th May 2007, 19:01

I have also spent some money on the mainconcept h264 encoder. This money was again thrown out of the window as I now only use x264. It's amazing how the free open source x264 outputs better quality in less time.

interesting. Last MSU comparison shows that mainconcept encoder was 1.5 times faster than x264 in average. 2 pass encoding was mostly 3 times faster. And mainconcept encoder still won by quality.
After that x264 didn't introduce any significant improvements and now you tell me that it became both faster and gives more quality?
I hardly believe.

Bigmango

30th May 2007, 20:11

I strongly doubt that. 220x176 should run at the very least in realtime on your computer, whatever the quality settings. Anything slower is indicative of either a bug in Recode, or another program taking your CPU time.

Edit: I think you probably missed the "Advanced" encoder settings option in nero. You can push nero much more than the default settings.

It's the nero recode, included in the latest nero 7.9.6.0 suite.

Pushing everything to max in the encoding settings was showing between 100 and 120 minutes. I stopped the encode after 10 minutes.

Bigmango

30th May 2007, 20:50

interesting. Last MSU comparison shows that mainconcept encoder was 1.5 times faster than x264 in average. 2 pass encoding was mostly 3 times faster. And mainconcept encoder still won by quality.
After that x264 didn't introduce any significant improvements and now you tell me that it became both faster and gives more quality?
I hardly believe.

The speed of x264 has improved a lot with the latest versions. Especially with release 645 (or was it 648 ?) upwards there were sse2 and ssse3 optimizations in almost every release. And when encoding, both cores are now fully loaded at a constant 100%. X264 is at version 656 now.

Anyway, I am not talking about random web benchmarks from years or months ago.

I am talking about a real user using real encoding projects I use daily.

I wanted to use mainconcept so much, especially as I was using Sony Vegas 7. Vegas uses the maincocept h264 encoder. Quality is VERY poor (I am talking about strong encodes, to minimize file size; not maximum quality at higher bitrates). I then purchased the latest release directly from mainconcept. Result ? You cannot use it with Vegas :mad:. Encodes were however better than the vegas mainconcept encoder (vegas uses version 2, the latest is 2.1).

As I said, I am not talking about random web benchmarks from 1 year ago. I am doing encodes at least 3 times per week, and I actually have purchased nero, vegas 7 and mainconcept 2.1.

Try for yourself : take a core2duo CPU (sse2, ssse3) and encode in 220x176 at 50k 2 pass, trelis2, exhaustive search, 2b-frames (to keep it fast),... ; then see how the encodes look and how long it takes.

-> x264 r656 takes 15-20 minutes (1h30 movie) on a core2duo 6400. This is not possible with nero and mainconcept for the same quality. Of course the average user will not really see this if he does not push the encoders for the lowest bitrates.

Furthermore, just look at which h264 encoder is used for all the "illegal" movie shrinked h264 releases: all the "professional-illegal" release teams use x264. Other encoders are very rarely used. These people are geeks (= looking for the best technology can offer), they spend hours and hours in trying to shink the movies to the minimum size with the best quality. They don't care if the encoder is free or commercial, they just use the best encoder for the job. I.ex for DVD/mpeg2 releases they use Cinemacraft which costs about 2000$. For h264 they all use x264.

That said, why don't the real professionals (those who don't use hardware encoders) use x264 ? Because they don't care much about maximum quality for minimum size (they are more interested in maximum quality "whatever" the size, not minimal bitrates), x264 is not integrated with their applications (cinevision, adobe premier pro, etc...), does not have the marketing power, and still is a "geek" software with no real final release.

PuzZLeR

31st May 2007, 00:31

You can't compare "Nero" with "x264". Nero Recode is a GUI for Ateme's implementation of H.264. A more reasonable comparison would be Ateme vs x264.

Having said that, since Nero Recode is the only GUI for Ateme AFAIK, we can only base Ateme's speed on what Nero Recode is, and its settings and programming.

In my research, Ateme is a very comparible codec to x264. Both are excellent. As well, both are CLI.

I'm in the "Nero is slow" camp myself. However, I do like its output, and it gets better with every version, so I always look forward to a new release from them.

I'm sure if Ateme had other GUIs, we'd probably see more of its speed in encoding, or if Nero Recode were a GUI for x264, we'd probably see more slowdown (but maybe better quality?).

As far as MainConcept is concerned, it's too bad my PC didn't like it. Their demo version did too many funny things to my other stuff and I'm not alone feeling like this apparently.

If I could get it working, I'm certainly willing to pay the high price of MC if it's as good as they say it is. Nevertheless, in the meantime, Nero Recode and x264 with HandBrake do it for me. :p

Bigmango

31st May 2007, 02:30

You can't compare "Nero" with "x264". Nero Recode is a GUI for Ateme's implementation of H.264. A more reasonable comparison would be Ateme vs x264.

I have never used the original ateme gui, but I agree with you. Ateme has an excellent reputation and we don't know what the compression options that nero is hiding behind the min-max slider are.

Sergey A. Sablin

31st May 2007, 02:39

Try for yourself : take a core2duo CPU (sse2, ssse3) and encode in 220x176 at 50k 2 pass, trelis2, exhaustive search, 2b-frames (to keep it fast),... ; then see how the encodes look and how long it takes.

2 b-frames to keep it fast??? :D
yeah, and exhaustive search to keep it super fast! :D

I see, I see...

Bigmango

31st May 2007, 03:27

2 b-frames to keep it fast??? :D
yeah, and exhaustive search to keep it super fast! :D

I see, I see...

Yes I need to use max 2 frames to keep the 220x176 playback fast on the mobile phone. With 3 frames it starts stuttering/dropping frames. The other options can be set to max, it doesn't matter for the playback.

Sergey A. Sablin

31st May 2007, 03:56

The speed of x264 has improved a lot with the latest versions. Especially with release 645 (or was it 648 ?) upwards there were sse2 and ssse3 optimizations in almost every release. And when encoding, both cores are now fully loaded at a constant 100%. X264 is at version 656 now.
ok my fault. 5-10% for whole encoding. rewrite whole encoder to asm and sse4.1 to get another 5-10%.

I wanted to use mainconcept so much, especially as I was using Sony Vegas 7. Vegas uses the maincocept h264 encoder. Quality is VERY poor (I am talking about strong encodes, to minimize file size; not maximum quality at higher bitrates). I then purchased the latest release directly from mainconcept. Result ? You cannot use it with Vegas :mad:. Encodes were however better than the vegas mainconcept encoder (vegas uses version 2, the latest is 2.1).

why no one compare first generation x264 to current state?
I know the answer, thanks. But this is that's not the reason to blame codec or any other software if some application uses old and buggy version.

Try for yourself : take a core2duo CPU (sse2, ssse3) and encode in 220x176 at 50k 2 pass, trelis2, exhaustive search, 2b-frames (to keep it fast),... ; then see how the encodes look and how long it takes.

never targeted sub-CIF encodings, so probably you're right. Just a quick test with high quality CIF encodings on core2quadro@2.4 GHz - now around 2 times faster than x264. Not from a site though.

-> x264 r656 takes 15-20 minutes (1h30 movie) on a core2duo 6400. This is not possible with nero and mainconcept for the same quality. Of course the average user will not really see this if he does not push the encoders for the lowest bitrates.
very doubt that you did this with exhaustive search as you said.

Furthermore, just look at which h264 encoder is used for all the "illegal" movie shrinked h264 releases: all the "professional-illegal" release teams use x264. Other encoders are very rarely used. These people are geeks (= looking for the best technology can offer), they spend hours and hours in trying to shink the movies to the minimum size with the best quality. They don't care if the encoder is free or commercial, they just use the best encoder for the job. I.ex for DVD/mpeg2 releases they use Cinemacraft which costs about 2000$. For h264 they all use x264.

I don't care what they use. But probably they use the software they can get?

That said, why don't the real professionals (those who don't use hardware encoders) use x264 ? Because they don't care much about maximum quality for minimum size (they are more interested in maximum quality "whatever" the size, not minimal bitrates), x264 is not integrated with their applications (cinevision, adobe premier pro, etc...), does not have the marketing power, and still is a "geek" software with no real final release.

despite many technical details and lack of some AVC features mandatory for HD-DVD and BluRay, the one thing is really mater:
do you think that sonic or adobe want to release they software under GPL, don't you?

Bigmango

31st May 2007, 04:37

very doubt that you did this with exhaustive search as you said.

Well, its true. But I forgot to tell you that I resample it to 12.5 fps (for mobile play back). :)

I do it often as I said. I now use avidemux as I find it to be the best integration with x264 (full gui as it is using the dll, not the cli). It is also the best tool for cutting, resizing, and resampling (filters) for audio and video. I have seen no commercial app that can make the whole process as smooth, simple and fast.

The latest avidemux builds (always include the latest x264) are here:
http://www.razorbyte.com.au/avidemux/

I just checked again : the last movie was 1h45. I used the following filters : resized it to 224x176, then cropped it to 220x176, resampled to 12.5 fps. Compressed the audio to faac 48k, with 32khz downsampling filter. All in all it took about 20 minutes.

Regarding faac, quality is quite bad a 48khz. I now prefer to encode the audio with the CLI nerodigital encoder in 2 pass ABR (it's the only encoder supporting 2 pass, it needs the source to be in wav to do that). Quality is amazing at 48khz

despite many technical details and lack of some AVC features mandatory for HD-DVD and BluRay,

You are right, this is one reason it is not ready for that. But what I understand from browsing these forums is that all the features are there. You just need the right profile and set the correct container header.

the one thing is really mater:
do you think that sonic or adobe want to release they software under GPL, don't you?

:p

Bigmango

31st May 2007, 04:58

Ahh.... it seems I now see where the time difference could be.

As I said with x264 I resample the movies to 12.5 fps. It seems that with nero this is not possible...

So you could be right about the speed :) ... I need to do some more tests now.

But geez, this is once again the problem with the commercial apps. They are not flexible. As long as you follow the standards of filling a cd or a dvd with a movie everything is fine. But as soon as you want to do something like changing the sample rate or the picture size with the lower sample rate mobile profiles with nero, or entering custom bitrates with Sony Vegas, it is not possible.

How can an app like Vegas be so expensive and not allow you to set you own bitrates (you can't enter low bitrates) ?

The same kind of problem goes for all of the ulead apps, adobe premiere, canopus pro coder ,etc...

For movie recoding with complete freedom (re-encode + cutting, resizing, croping, resampling, and other filters) the free tools are the best for the job, especially avidemux. Today I know that if tomorrow I need to convert my movie with avidemux in a different way I can do it. With the commercial apps I can forget it.

Sergey A. Sablin

31st May 2007, 05:11

You are right, this is one reason it is not ready for that. But what I understand from browsing these forums is that all the features are there. You just need the right profile and set the correct container header.

yes, you also need to use h264info to patch headers after that you have a chance to load video to scenarist or any other authoring tool. then you have to use separate audio encoder (yeah from different developers!) and different tool to mux all these. And even after that no one guarantees that it will work. Just because some specific details of standard weren't taken into account. Some of misses are known and developers calculate your chance to load video as 1-1/10^8 or like that. etc, etc, etc.

Now imagine manager who decides which software to use and how much troubles to have in future with updates and fixes and testing and new features and compatibility and managing all these.

Now the question: how much codecs vendors he/she will choose to work with?

no chance for single separate codec to be here. ffmpeg - maybe. but it open source too (under LGPL) and also have some restrictions for commercial usage.

PuzZLeR

31st May 2007, 08:39

I have never used the original ateme gui, but I agree with you. Ateme has an excellent reputation and we don't know what the compression options that nero his hiding behind the min-max slider are.

I would love to get my hands on it. It's apparently a small app, much like x264, with similar commands.

Just for the record, even if you could pay the huge price of several thousand dollars/euros to have it, Ateme will only sell it in raw form as a professional package to certain organizations only.

I think it's some sort of exclusivity deal between Nero and Ateme for the consumer market. Therefore, we "little people" may never get to feel its higher-end capabilities, only those that Nero, and Nero Recode, decide to filter through to us... :-(

This is why I appreciate x264 even more so.

CruNcher

31st May 2007, 23:32

I think it's some sort of exclusivity deal between Nero and Ateme for the consumer market. Therefore, we "little people" may never get to feel its higher-end capabilities, only those that Nero, and Nero Recode, decide to filter through to us... :-(
This is why I appreciate x264 even more so.

The Problem i see in this is very practical after we beta tester did the "find bug" work on Atemes Encoder it took almost 2 years before High Profile arrived in Neros End Consumer Encoder and before that it was used in Atemes Commercial Encoder Solution, this was something that hurt me very much (such a long delay for End Consumers is unaceptable in my eyes, especialy for 0 pay work).

PuzZLeR

1st June 2007, 00:02

Maybe Ateme doesn't see much profit in the consumer market, instead opts for the bigger sales, such as that to Nero and maybe others. This, I guess, is their niche strategy.

The fact that they made consumers feel like truly expendable assets, that have been expended, is probably because of an agreement they made with Nero somewhere.

Yeah, I know it sucks. But it's their codec unfortunately.

JohnV

1st June 2007, 01:06

Ahh.... it seems I now see where the time difference could be.

As I said with x264 I resample the movies to 12.5 fps. It seems that with nero this is not possible....Umm, so did I get it right? You drop the fps to half with x264,but not with Recode, and find out that x264 is faster and better quality with the same bitrate??? Never would have guessed..:rolleyes:

Bigmango

1st June 2007, 04:30

Umm, so did I get it right? You drop the fps to half with x264,but not with Recode, and find out that x264 is faster and better quality with the same bitrate??? Never would have guessed..:rolleyes:

Yes, my bad. This is the reason why recode was slower. :)

As I said, I would like to use recode as my primary recoder, but I miss "only" these 2 features:

1. allow to change the fps rate (i.ex change to 12 fps for mobile phones). This feature could be hidden in the advanced options.

I know there are some mobile profiles in nero with 15 fps, but these are low profile so quality is not good (for small size). I want to use the avc main profile.

2. allow to keep original sound tracks without recoding (i.ex: keep the original AC3 / DTS sound). (I think the mp4 container does not support this; in this case this would require the support of another container, like m2ts for example).

Is there any hope we might see these 2 improvements ? Looking forward to using nero recode again :)

Edit: 3. and if you could add 2 pass AAC encoding support to the recode gui, like the cli, it would be perfect ;)

PuzZLeR

1st June 2007, 05:14

Bigmango

1st June 2007, 05:50

I don't know if this could be the magic portal through Nero Recode to harness the genie - the Ateme codec itself.

C:\Documents and Settings\"Your Name"\Application Data\Nero\NeroDigital

There are XML files there that seem very similar to Sharkie's profiles for x264.

Did we find the genie? Can we send our wishes this way without obstacles?

Then again, it may be output, not input.

Anybody wanna take a shot?

Modifying this file does not change anything. When you start recode thereafter the same limits are still applied, so it seems this file is only saved when yo start the encoding.

PuzZLeR

1st June 2007, 06:21

Sadly, I tried the same thing. The genie didn't give me an answer either...

JohnV? Any comments? (Pssst. Are YOU our genie? :p)

CzechMate

1st June 2007, 20:03

2. allow to keep original sound tracks without recoding (i.ex: keep the original AC3 / DTS sound). (I think the mp4 container does not support this; in this case this would require the support of another container, like m2ts for example).

If that's possible, I definately second that!

SealTooGreat

1st June 2007, 20:51

PuzZLeR

1st June 2007, 21:35

...I would like to see PAR option in Recode GUI for anamorphic encoding...

Recode does support anamorphic encoding, at least in a non-descript way. It's not only limited to square pixels for AVC.

Hit the Video button ->Resize tab-> Custom Resize. Input the appropriate width/size and disable Letterboxing. Same effect if you know what you're doing.

Note: QT does not support anamorphic, only square pixels. If you want AVC anamorphic encodes to work in QT, you will need a hack, and HandBrake is the only one AFAIK that provides this.

SealTooGreat

1st June 2007, 22:38

Recode does support anamorphic encoding, at least in a non-descript way. It's not only limited to square pixels for AVC.

Hit the Video button ->Resize tab-> Custom Resize. Input the appropriate width/size and disable Letterboxing. Same effect if you know what you're doing.
I didn't understand you - Could you explain?
I prefer to do only cropping and than to set PAR values - and this is workflow which I would like to have in Recode GUI.

PuzZLeR

1st June 2007, 23:12

I didn't understand you - Could you explain?
I prefer to do only cropping and than to set PAR values - and this is workflow which I would like to have in Recode GUI.

Sure thing. I'm not sure exactly if Recode will do what you want, but just to explain.

I'm in NTSC-land, so any 4-3 MPEG-2 source I have is 720x480. By following the above steps, inputting 720x480 in your parameters (in "Resize" tab), and unchecking letterboxing, you will end up with a PAR of 8:9. In other words, the pixels will "rectangularly adjust" to "fit" without distortion, as did the source.

If you enable letterboxing, and keep 720x480, your video will be encoded with square pixels and come out distorted (fatter in this case). If you "letterbox" you have to choose something like 640x480 for 4:3 video and square pixels (which would be like disabling anamorphic encoding).

I would recommend you experiment with smaller clips to feel it out. There's also a "Crop" tab next to the "Resize" tab in the Video Settings where you can experiment. Try it with 16:9 content as well.

Not sure if it's what you were hoping for, but I hope it helps your workflow.

SealTooGreat

2nd June 2007, 00:12

@PuzZLeR
I know how do deal with Recode's lack of PAR support - mp4box. ;)
Anyway thanx for explanation.

JohnV

2nd June 2007, 04:50

1. allow to change the fps rate (i.ex change to 12 fps for mobile phones). This feature could be hidden in the advanced options.
I know there are some mobile profiles in nero with 15 fps, but these are low profile so quality is not good (for small size). I want to use the avc main profile.
Suggested to management. We are considering new features for Recode3, but feature set is not decided yet.

2. allow to keep original sound tracks without recoding (i.ex: keep the original AC3 / DTS sound). (I think the mp4 container does not support this; in this case this would require the support of another container, like m2ts for example).

Yes, AC3.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=949544#post949544

Bigmango

2nd June 2007, 17:57

Suggested to management. We are considering new features for Recode3, but feature set is not decided yet.

Yes, AC3.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=949544#post949544

Awesome. Thanks a lot.

PuzZLeR

2nd June 2007, 23:05

@PuzZLeR
I know how do deal with Recode's lack of PAR support - mp4box. ;)
Anyway thanx for explanation.

No, you can't input your PAR value into Recode, but you don't have to. It will automatically adjust to the correct one (if you know what you're doing. :))

But then again, even so, mp4box can correct even the most erroneous resolutions with just a little mathematics...:cool:

mcka

28th June 2007, 13:50

No, you can't input your PAR value into Recode, but you don't have to. It will automatically adjust to the correct one (if you know what you're doing. :))

But then again, even so, mp4box can correct even the most erroneous resolutions with just a little mathematics...:cool:

But sadly mp4box can't do it in a way which Quicktime/Apple TV... understand. I now that's to a large extent Apples fault, but now Quicktime support non-square pixels (usinge 'pasp', which is different from other applications but part of the ISO standard). I started to write a patch for mp4box, but mp4box/gpac source code is very complicated (for me):

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1721563&group_id=84101&atid=571741

And sadly, because it has to do with quicktime compatibility, there is not so much support by the community...