XviD AVC potentially used by Youtube

[bond]

check the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1YvhN-XpSU&fmt=18
download it as .mp4 via:
http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=a1YvhN-XpSU&t=OEgsToPDskKEL4t23D9u95TFaaZeTZPB&fmt=18

there is an user_data SEI including the word "XVID" (proof enough?)
the .mp4 it comes in is corrupted tough, only mp4creator from mpeg4ip was able to extract the raw video stream

the stream is Baseline Profile @ Level 2.1, it uses one reference frame, no b-frames, no weigthed prediction, no cabac, loop deblocking, adaptive multiple slices (normally one frame is one slice, but for a very few frames there are more slices!?), its progressive, 8x8dct (i thought thats not part of baseline profile?)

enjoy

[Dark Shikari]

If it is, this will be one of the biggest disappointments in encoder history :p

Their adaptive deblocking algorithm is notoriously terrible.

[CruNcher]

there is no video the links don't work??

[bond]

there is no video the links don't work??hah, "This video has been removed by the user."

well propably there are others available on youtube...

[Dark Shikari]

Add &fmt=18 to the end of any Youtube URL...

[_xxl]

You could try YouTube Downloader.

[Adub]

Why, why do they always choose the worst of the best? They were even using an ancient version of the flash sorenson codec for the longest time.

[Mr VacBob]

They were (and are?) using mencoder. Of course, the default settings for mencoder/ffmpeg are pretty much the worst possible in every case, and I don't think they actually changed any of them :(

[Dark Shikari]

They were (and are?) using mencoder. Of course, the default settings for mencoder/ffmpeg are pretty much the worst possible in every case, and I don't think they actually changed any of them :(They don't use x264 for their H.264 streams though...

[Adub]

Wait, they were using mencoder? How do you know? (just curious).

And DS is right. If they wanted their h.264 streams to actually look GOOD, then they really should be using the best free implementation. Unless they wanted to pay for Ateme's implementation.

It just makes no sense.

[Ranguvar]

They need to hire one of us :p

Perhaps they just changed the FourCC... possible. Maybe they thought it would increase compatibility? Or maybe they just like VFW and thought it would take too much work to either use VFQ x264... or maybe they didn't know that was around... and the CLI for x264 was too hard to get good quality, they wanted default good... or... many things.

[clsid]

I think that they care more about encoding performance than quality. Their encoding farm has a throughput of thousands of vids per day. Adding more hardware to improve quality is likely a no-go.

[Adub]

Come on!! They are owned by Google! How hard can it be for them to add a little more hardware to improve overall quality and viewing experience?

[clsid]

They already have a couple hundred thousand (!) machines running for their search engine and all the other stuff they do. Adding a "little more" hardware quickly costs millions per year (hardware, electricity, data center). I prefer them spending that money on the SoC to give us more/better OSS.

[Mr VacBob]

Wait, they were using mencoder? How do you know? (just curious).


http://multimedia.cx/eggs/poking-at-youtube/

I don't know if it's still true, but you could find out by uploading more game videos.