Future of Nandub, divx and other stuff... [Archive] - Page 2

gldblade

17th January 2002, 00:06

Eh... I'm a little late in joining this discussion, but here goes nothing.

>But seriously, gdlblade was one of the first Doom9 members who really started pushing http://www.videocoding.de ... People like him should get the respect.

Well... I know I was encouraging people here and there and I made quite a few posts at the forum, but it's nothing compared to what people do now. Suxen_drol, the_ether, and several others have taken over project and contributed much more than I ever did. And, of course, Isibaar, who had the idea to create XviD in the first place.

>So you didn't try DivX4 or XviD? Well, I was very reluctant to switch over, too, and still used DivX3.11 for my 'HQ'-encodings while I watched XviD's development and tested it. But then I got really annoyed by the fact that you can feed as many bits into DivX3.11 as you like and the damn thing STILL turns 'plain' structures, like a white wall or a desert into masses of twinkling blocks! Reason enough to switch.

I like the idea of integrating Nandub with XviD. However, the first question that comes to mind is if XviD is similar enough to DivX 3.11 to convert over. For example, XviD is able to change DRFs between macroblocks. That's something DivX simply could not do. This particular example complicates things a bit. Nandub was built to work on a frame-by-frame level. It will have to be changed to work between macroblocks to work with XviD. Or maybe some of XviD's special capabilities will have to be ignored (for now).

BTW, the developers at www.xvid.org seem to dislike motion measurement. Motion measurement was something big with Nandub. Practically every important decision was based on bits and motion. Of course, there were other things such as luma correction and the like, but bits and motion were the most important. One of those may be missing, depending on how you plan to implement this. If you plan to have Nandub be the encoder and call XviD, Nandub may be able to do it's own motion measurements. However, if you plan to actually put Nandub's code into XviD (in the two-pass mode), motion measurement will have to be implemented. Which shouldn't be too hard to do considering XviD is open-source, which is the beauty of it. Just a heads up.

Which is an interesting question. How do you plan to implement this? Put Nandub's code into XviD or have Nandub call XviD? They both have they're benefits. The first choice will give you a moderately easy-to-use codec that will be accessible in any encoder. That would be very nice. But it would probably be harder to accomplish from the programmer's viewpoint. And the codec configuration window would get quite large, though you could probably have a simple and advanced mode. The second choice will be easier to complete. It will not require the implementation of motion measurement within XviD. And Nandub is, of course, a great program. However, XviD would only be accessible in one encoder.

I'd like to see some of Nandub's code in XviD, but I don't think all the features will survive the conversion...

>you're also taking about the fact, that it is pointless to work on MPEG-4 because DVD-writers are becoming cheaper and more popular. But still for another year or two they will be out of range of average people.

You're forgetting that not everyone uses MPEG-4 to rip off your local DVD rental store :devil:. (BTW, when was that smiley introduced? Never noticed that one before...) What about streaming? Or commercial uses of video compression?

>The main reason VCDs and SVCDs are still big (bigger than Divx in fact) is because you can play it on standalone DVD players.

Uh, I don't see how that's true. VCDs and SVCDs aren't big specifically because they play on standalone DVD players. It's just that they use MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, which DVD players just happen to decode just fine.

>BTW, the scene never dies, it just rides on top of the tech wave and morphs into whatever is the next cool thing. May be 10-20 years from now, we'd all be playing codecs for holos. Dang, how old will I be then... I hope I can still have sex. Life has no meaning if ya lose the ability to screw, is wot my grandpa said. He's dead.

:devil:

Ten to twenty years from now seems good to me. I'm only in my mid-teens. I've got all the time in the world... :)

Teegedeck

17th January 2002, 00:43

Originally posted by gldblade
Eh... I'm a little late in joining this discussion, but here goes nothing. Nice to see you!

>But seriously, gdlblade was one of the first Doom9 members who really started pushing http://www.videocoding.de ... People like him should get the respect.

Well... I know I was encouraging people here and there and I made quite a few posts at the forum, but it's nothing compared to what people do now. Suxen_drol, the_ether, and several others have taken over project and contributed much more than I ever did. And, of course, Isibaar, who had the idea to create XviD in the first place.
hey, I'm proud to be# 8 on the videcoding-forum joined members list ('Maelstrom')..., you only rank 13! ;D

BTW, the developers at www.xvid.org seem to dislike motion measurement.
Seriously, if you compare encodes with and without motion-influenced bit-redistribution, you'll see that you CAN actually detect that stronger compression in hi-motion scenes, and more importantly there is no arguing the fact that it really leads to problems when only the background is moving but the stronger compression is also affecting the calm center of the scene. I proposed something like 'motion-masking' as an additon to lumi-masking on the xvid-forum but Isibaar convinced me that even if you only compress the macroblocks where there is motion stronger, you still can detect that. So for high-quality encoding he proposed that the macroblocks with much motion in them should only get 'softened' in a future version of XviD. (BTW, even Nando recommended not to use motion-based compression back then.)

Ten to twenty years from now seems good to me. I'm only in my mid-teens. I've got all the time in the world... :)
You... YOUTH!

int 21h

17th January 2002, 01:27

Originally posted by gldblade
Uh, I don't see how that's true. VCDs and SVCDs aren't big specifically because they play on standalone DVD players. It's just that they use MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, which DVD players just happen to decode just fine.

That's why many many of those DVD Players are marketed specifically with their ability to play MP3, SVCD, and VCD.

gldblade

17th January 2002, 02:06

>hey, I'm proud to be# 8 on the videcoding-forum joined members list ('Maelstrom')..., you only rank 13! ;D

Hey, I would have joined sooner if I didn't loose the thread Isibaar posted on www.projectmayo.com when he started the project. If I remember correctly, I was the first or second person to reply. :)

>Seriously, if you compare encodes with and without motion-influenced bit-redistribution, you'll see that you CAN actually detect that stronger compression in hi-motion scenes, and more importantly there is no arguing the fact that it really leads to problems when only the background is moving but the stronger compression is also affecting the calm center of the scene. I proposed something like 'motion-masking' as an additon to lumi-masking on the xvid-forum but Isibaar convinced me that even if you only compress the macroblocks where there is motion stronger, you still can detect that. So for high-quality encoding he proposed that the macroblocks with much motion in them should only get 'softened' in a future version of XviD. (BTW, even Nando recommended not to use motion-based compression back then.)

Hmm... I hope the "soften" effect won't be too strong like in luma-masking. Luma-masking definately needs a lot of tweaking...

I'd like to see how Isibaar plans on implementing this. For one thing, how do you figure out how much softer you make an image based on the frame's compressibility? This might also need quite a bit of tweaking.

aleksander

17th January 2002, 07:36

Originally posted by TheWEF
i know that nando had done beta-test versions that worked with divx4.
pheak404 aka vimvam aka int21h (on this board) is still around.
you could ask him if he has the source.
wef.

@ int21h - I'm glad you have joined our discussion. Well..What about this beta-version of Nandub that worked with Divx4??? That was my initial idea, to have it working that way. But many posts have been posted (which is very cool - that's how it supposed to be) and this idea has changed (which is also cool, cause maybe there will be something going on).We're thinking about using Nandub for Xvid. Check this out:
Originally posted by gldblade
...
Which is an interesting question. How do you plan to implement this? Put Nandub's code into XviD or have Nandub call XviD? They both have they're benefits. The first choice will give you a moderately easy-to-use codec that will be accessible in any encoder. That would be very nice. But it would probably be harder to accomplish from the programmer's viewpoint. And the codec configuration window would get quite large, though you could probably have a simple and advanced mode. The second choice will be easier to complete. It will not require the implementation of motion measurement within XviD. And Nandub is, of course, a great program. However, XviD would only be accessible in one encoder.

I like this idea very much. To be more precise - the very first one mostly. We will not be limited to one tool - Nandub. But as you have pointed out - this may be hard to acheive. On the other hand, if we will be able to make Nandub to use Xvid, there will be no contraindication to make it to use other codecs as well (it should be easier at least).

@ everybody posting here - I just love the way, how this discussion is being carried out... Keep it that way!!!

take care
aleksander

Teegedeck

17th January 2002, 10:32

Originally posted by gldblade

Hey, I would have joined sooner if I didn't loose the thread Isibaar posted on www.projectmayo.com when he started the project. If I remember correctly, I was the first or second person to reply. :)
*sigh* You've won. -_-

Hmm... I hope the "soften" effect won't be too strong like in luma-masking. Luma-masking definately needs a lot of tweaking...

I'd like to see how Isibaar plans on implementing this. For one thing, how do you figure out how much softer you make an image based on the frame's compressibility? This might also need quite a bit of tweaking.
Adaptive quantization seems the main task for our heroes over there, once they got a stable beta release. For users, at least Isibaar planned an intuitive front-end to it, where a slider will influence different threshholds for adaptive quantization, maybe there also will be 'expert' settings.

-h

17th January 2002, 10:46

Re: Microsoft's "Corona" - considering they said WMV8 was 20% better than WMV7, I assume Corona's additional 20% improvement is just an (even more) savage prefilter, certainly not any algorithm improvements.

As for Nandub integration with XviD, the easiest (and perhaps most workable) way would be to create an external program which edits XviD's .stats output, or whatever extended format gets created. We wouldn't be frantically updating the vfw CVS tree, and the functionality would be identical (could still be used by any VfW-capable program). We also wouldn't be limited to whatever 2-pass code gets built into XviD, but would allow any number of external tools to edit the 2-pass process. Forcing such functionality into the codec could also trigger forking..

In short, the intimate tying of a Nandub-like processor to a codec is only workable if the codec is not in development - otherwise, any small change in the codec (nevermind the huge changes happening at the moment) require re-tweaking and re-coding to reflect the changes. Abstracting the internal changes with something like a .stats file makes maintaining the code much much easier, and gives people more time to actually find useful settings.

The "psychovisual" properties of XviD, which will mostly be motion masking, temporal masking and luminance masking, are all going to require extensive subjective tests to find agreeable settings as well. Also of interest will be whether smoothing with a low quantiser is more visually acceptable than no smoothing with a high quantiser (current lumi masking system), or a combination thereof.

-h

Teegedeck

17th January 2002, 11:08

Originally posted by -h

The "psychovisual" properties of XviD, which will mostly be motion masking, temporal masking and luminance masking, are all going to require extensive subjective tests to find agreeable settings as well.

I'm looking forward to years of testing... ^_-
No, seriously, what makes me so happy about this new codec is not only that it's better but that there is something to test and to talk about with the developers - and the psychovisual thing really is something that can be tweaked to hell and back. XviD WILL be the LAME of video-encoding. :) Right?

gldblade

17th January 2002, 22:02

>*sigh* You've won. -_-

Great! So what did I win? :) Anyway, back to the main discussion...

>The "psychovisual" properties of XviD, which will mostly be motion masking, temporal masking and luminance masking, are all going to require extensive subjective tests to find agreeable settings as well. Also of interest will be whether smoothing with a low quantiser is more visually acceptable than no smoothing with a high quantiser (current lumi masking system), or a combination thereof.
>No, seriously, what makes me so happy about this new codec is not only that it's better but that there is something to test and to talk about with the developers - and the psychovisual thing really is something that can be tweaked to hell and back.

This process might take a LONG time... The problem with this is that who is going to visually test the codec? Obviously the developers can, but there's only so much they can do at once. If we have the general public visually test the codec, the reports they send back will have to be validated, which may become a big annoyance. Maybe we could set up some sort of feedback page on the XviD website.

Of course, this is off in the future, so nothing really to worry about for now.

Teegedeck

17th January 2002, 23:44

This process might take a LONG time... The problem with this is that who is going to visually test the codec? Obviously the developers can, but there's only so much they can do at once. If we have the general public visually test the codec, the reports they send back will have to be validated, which may become a big annoyance. Maybe we could set up some sort of feedback page on the XviD website..

Yes, I think this might be a good idea. We need lots of discussions among users with good vision 8) like LAME had a lot of discussion among those with trained ears... But I think the discussions shouldn't take place at videocoding .de. It could soon get frustrating if the developers at videocoding.de had to validate contradictory opinions of users - no, there has to be some pre-filtering of opinions on the users' side before they ask for changes. I think we might even get competing 'presets' for the 'psychovisual engine' of the codec (like the LAME-presets) and testers will have to decide which presets they like best. ...I think I've had enough vine for today, I'm starting to have visions... *_-

-h

18th January 2002, 00:07

The tweaking part could be a pain, depending on how it's implemented. As long as the major masking parameters are configurable at runtime, people can try whatever they feel like to find useful settings, without bugging the development process. It would also allow people to compare results just by posting short clips over here, which can be evaluated by other users with the same goal.

Just looking at LAME - it took this many years until someone sat back and actually coded up some tweaked presets, despite the huge amount of talent actively coding. Developers usually like developing, not tuning from huge testing sessions. That's where the users come in :)

-h

Ookami

18th January 2002, 00:18

And we should not forget that "good quality" is relative...

Just look at the bashings and the politics in the MP3 scene...

So, always have in mind. It should make fun, if not somethings wrong :) .

Cheers...

Originally posted by -h
The tweaking part could be a pain, depending on how it's implemented. As long as the major masking parameters are configurable at runtime, people can try whatever they feel like to find useful settings, without bugging the development process. It would also allow people to compare results just by posting short clips over here, which can be evaluated by other users with the same goal.

Just looking at LAME - it took this many years until someone sat back and actually coded up some tweaked presets, despite the huge amount of talent actively coding. Developers usually like developing, not tuning from huge testing sessions. That's where the users come in :)

-h

dragoman

18th January 2002, 03:21

Hi,

I would just like to add my 2 cents about what the future of the Mpeg4 standard is. Remember when mp3 was first becoming mainstream in it's use on the internet?

I was a regular on the mp3.com bboard back then and everyone was full of speculations about the future of the format. But one thing that was almost universal was the fact that the major labels (the big 5) would NEVER support mp3.

It was (at that time) absolutely out of the question. Never happen.

But it did.

Now you have half-a-dozen mp3-capable portable cd-players. Hell, I remember when the mere rumor of such a player would cause hordes of people to search for the details and pre-order such a machine.

Now almost every single dvd-player manufacturer is scrambling to put out dvd players that play mp3-encoded cd's.

Car decks are available, one from Sony itself!!! that play mp3 discs (I have one myself, the Aiwa CDC-Mp3).

Judging by this precedent, I would say the idea of a standalone dvd player supporting divx discs is not too far-fetched.

Companies like Apex Digital Inc. are pioneers in dvd-player development. They were the first to introduce mp3-capable dvd players, and I predict they will be the first to introduce a divx-capable one as well.

Certain companies cater to the small, tech-oriented group of people who will pay more than the average consumer for a new technology. I know I count myself as part of this group (I purchased a Diamond Rio 300, 32MB version for 300 bucks....now you can get it for 30).

Audio encoding has moved beyond mp3, no question. There are much better quality ways to compress digital audio. But most companies are moving forward on mp3-compatibility. Why? Because it's popular.

DivX is popular as well, although not as popular as mp3. But it will get there. I am sure we will see more lawsuits from the MPAA in the future as the movie studios try to control their stranglehold on the market. Once they fail, like the RIAA and record labels, they will probably embrace DivX and related technology. It's almost a guarantee.

dragoman

Bugs Bunny

18th January 2002, 04:57

>I was a regular on the mp3.com bboard back then and everyone was full of speculations about the future of the format. But one thing that was almost universal was the fact that the major labels (the big 5) would NEVER support mp3.

>Now you have half-a-dozen mp3-capable portable cd-players. Hell, I remember when the mere rumor of such a player would cause hordes of people to search for the details and pre-order such a machine.

It's not a valid comparison. MP3 files are small. (Full length) movies are large. An average movie is roughly 200 times larger than an average MP3. Transferring an MP3 via Internet is feasible on a dial-up. Transferring a movie is only feasible if you have broadband--and that's only for download. Uploading is usually capped, so it takes a very dedicated uploader (or one with more than the consumer-type cable/DSL connection) to upload movies.

Moreover, because of the history of Napster, the MPAA has been vastly more aggressive than the RIAA in going after uploaders, to the extent of pursuing individuals by threatening their ISP access (it works). All of the P2P Napster derivatives are now under legal pressure. While I'm well aware that one can get movies from the net from various sources, the movies available are almost invariably of low quality, and the selection limited. While MP3 is good enough to qualify as CD-quality, the pirated movies from the net can in no way compare to DVD releases.

>Judging by this precedent, I would say the idea of a standalone dvd player supporting divx discs is not too far-fetched.

This will never happen, if only because of one very important reason: Divx is Microsoft's property, and they will never relent to license a hack, when that hack competes with their official solution, WMV.

That said, as has been posted by another, MPEG4 will likely become a de jure standard for net videos, simply because it is an open standard, takes less bandwidth than MPEG2, and as we can judge from Divx, is good enough for a "lo-fi" solution. And as MPEG4 becomes more common, then we'll see more DVD players incorporating it (as had already from Sigma). This will happen when streaming video becomes viable, which won't be for a long while yet. (Divx 3.x movies will not be compatible, although as Doom9 has commented, future Divx codecs may be rewritten to comply with the MPEG4 standard.)

>Companies like Apex Digital Inc. are pioneers in dvd-player development. They were the first to introduce mp3-capable dvd players, and I predict they will be the first to introduce a divx-capable one as well.

MP3 can be licensed from Fraunhofer. Divx is a MS hack, and cannot be used legally. Therefore, it will never appear in a commercial product.

>Audio encoding has moved beyond mp3, no question. There are much better quality ways to compress digital audio. But most companies are moving forward on mp3-compatibility. Why? Because it's popular.

Only MP3 Pro is backward compatible with MP3, and judging from initial acceptance rate, it doesn't fare any better than the other umpteenth audio codecs out there. Perhaps if FH drop their royalty rate, they may have a chance.

There are two separate markets to be considered here: online video (which will likely gravitate toward MPEG4), and in-the-home digital AV (which will be based on MPEG2, because of the availability of DVD players and recorders). The first (online video) won't be mainstream for a number of years yet. The second will be here later this year, and next.

-h

18th January 2002, 05:12

DivX is popular as well, although not as popular as mp3. But it will get there. I am sure we will see more lawsuits from the MPAA in the future as the movie studios try to control their stranglehold on the market. Once they fail, like the RIAA and record labels, they will probably embrace DivX and related technology. It's almost a guarantee.

MPEG4 already has sizable industry backing - a lot of companies are just waiting for the spec/licensing to be finalised. Have a look over www.m4if.org (http://www.m4if.org/) for some supporters.

Most of the products will actually want MPEG4 standard input - that is, MP4 streams, instead of AVI files. You can somewhat convert an avi to a standard MP4 stream with mpeg4ip, but I'm hoping to see some more convenient tools in the future. There'll certainly be demand for it.

-h

dragoman

18th January 2002, 07:40

Hi,

I was not trying to make a comparison between mp3 and divx based on their filesizes.....not sure where this came in.

I was simply pointing out that at least to me, there is a precedent involving a format for digital media that was popular on the net and not with "the establishment."

The fact that these companies who were originally against any form of mp3 at all (and now are using the technology instead of fighting it).

This is all I was trying to say will happen with DivX. Perhaps you are right that the original "DivX", the hacked codec from Microsoft will not be implemented in a commerical DVD player.

But support for other, open source codecs is legal and I think, probable. Thanks to the advent of upgradeable firmware, DVD players will become more versatile and people will be able to upload different codecs to their players.

My point is I don't think the format is "dead" and worth giving up. It will be used for some time to come.

dragoman

-h

18th January 2002, 07:49

Unless Microsoft has patents on the parts of MP43 which differ from the MPEG4 spec, they can't stop anyone from creating their own player and integrating it into a hardware device.

The players that have been created so far (ffmpeg, divx4mac, xvid, etc.) are the result of reverse engineering, and are perfectly legal (as long as you pay the MPEG4 patent fees). Microsoft can't object to this at all - they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

-h

Bugs Bunny

18th January 2002, 18:39

>I was not trying to make a comparison between mp3 and divx based on their filesizes.....not sure where this came in.

You're saying that MP3 got mainstreamed despite non-support from the industry, and Divx will be the same. I'm saying it's not the same, because the vastly larger bandwidth requirement excludes the possibility of Divx ever attaining critical mass that MP3 had. Remember that MP3 was alive and thriving in the "underground" for a long while, yet it took Napster to bring it into the mainstream consciousness. Napster is now dead, and all of its kinds are under scrutiny and legal pressure. There is no mainstream vehicle to reach the masses (read: casual users). Even if there were, there is no pipe fat enough to enable movie P2P sharing for the masses.

>I was simply pointing out that at least to me, there is a precedent involving a format for digital media that was popular on the net and not with "the establishment."

Sure there is, but it's not applicable in this case, as above.

>But support for other, open source codecs is legal and I think, probable. Thanks to the advent of upgradeable firmware, DVD players will become more versatile and people will be able to upload different codecs to their players.

Because something is possible, doesn't mean it will be done. Codec support only happens when it makes business sense, i.e. if it sells more players, not because the codec is available. Look at Ogg Vorbis or AAC or MP3 Pro. They are available, so why aren't they implemented?

>My point is I don't think the format is "dead" and worth giving up. It will be used for some time to come.

Divx isn't dead, but then it was never "alive" as far as the mass is concerned.

>MPEG4 already has sizable industry backing - a lot of companies are just waiting for the spec/licensing to be finalised. Have a look over www.m4if.org for some supporters.

MPEG4 has an uphill battle. The other two entrenched proprietary solutions, WMV and Real, are already ahead of it in implementation, mindshare, and support, and are on par or better in terms of quality. They are also under continued development. The reason that Apple endorsed MPEG4 over their QuickTime is that they recognized they have no chance in hell of ever pushing QT against the leaders. The "support" shown for MPEG4 is from the sideline players who want a piece of the pie w/o having to pay royalties to Real or MS. It's a three-way race, and my observation is that MS has the inside track.

>The players that have been created so far (ffmpeg, divx4mac, xvid, etc.) are the result of reverse engineering, and are perfectly legal (as long as you pay the MPEG4 patent fees). Microsoft can't object to this at all - they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Reverse engineering aren't "perfectly legal," if a specific product was used in the process. You have an interesting, and dare I say, unique view of the legality involved.

Regardless, what's legal or what's not is determined by how much money you have to pay the lawyers. If MS comes after you with its billions, it wouldn't matter if God was on your side, unless he has a lot of moolah to loan to you.

Teegedeck

18th January 2002, 18:50

RealNetworks is going for MEPG-4. Look it up on their homepage or somewhere on this forum.

MPEG-4 already is an industrial standard, not an outsider format. This is getting tedious...MPEG-4, for example, will be used for coming video-cellulars in Japan and surely will also come to Europe for UMTS mobiles.

Doom9

18th January 2002, 19:36

wmv is based on mpeg4 though it's not really specs compatible... and why the content industry might like it because if it's DRM (which has been cracked already afaik) it is in no way as good as nandub and divx4 (you can read about my comparision on my page.. wm8 was slightly superior at the time it was released which was before nandub and divx4).. from what I'm hearing (and I'm soon going to verify that) xvid is better as well. It will be a long time until any format truly makes it to mainstream... only the future can tell which format is eventually going to win.

but I'd bet it will be a true mpeg-4 implementation.. this is an open stardard (there are royalties but sadly enough that's a given for many formats these days) and many companies are working on solutions for it. mobile phones and settop boxes are only 2 very interesting areas where mpeg4 will soon show up.

one more thing.. divx4 and xvid reverse engineering product? don't think so... maybe the divx3 playback part is but DXn is a US based company and I'm sure they checked the legal situation before releasing anything that could get them into trouble... as for xvid.. it's an open source codec (or should I say.. an mpeg4 implementation for academical purposes).. history has shown that you don't even have to pay royalties (hint: lame) as long as you don't offer binaries.. and nowhere on the xvid page will you ever be able to find such a thing

Ookami

18th January 2002, 19:46

According to sources like c't, MS MPEG 4 has very little in common with the "real" MPEG4. Also, I remember when "Rob from Ligos" wrote on Oleg's UBB board that he wonders that MS has released this codec as in that time the MPEG4 specs wasn't even near completion...

And isn't it true that MPEG4 and MPEG4 don't have to be the same thing?

If I'm wrong, please, correct me.

If I were a MS exec I would tell my programmers to make a Divx ;-) player hack for the X-box and release it like a new MoRE release (hehehe...), so I the X-box would finally wipe out all the consoles out there ;) .

Cheers,

Ookami.

Originally posted by -h
Unless Microsoft has patents on the parts of MP43 which differ from the MPEG4 spec, they can't stop anyone from creating their own player and integrating it into a hardware device.

-h

-h

18th January 2002, 23:40

Because something is possible, doesn't mean it will be done. Codec support only happens when it makes business sense, i.e. if it sells more players, not because the codec is available. Look at Ogg Vorbis or AAC or MP3 Pro. They are available, so why aren't they implemented?

Ogg Vorbis hasn't been implemented due to the stigma attached with supporting a non-final-release codec (not to mention so reliant on floating point math) in hardware - we're actually starting to see the hardware manufacturers (Ria Volt) support it in firmware upgrades. AAC is not an end-user format - just ask Mr. Dimkovic if you don't believe me. MP3 Pro is quite a poor format, rarely used by anyone, and has licensing fees to worry about.

There's a difference between implementing any old codec they feel like, and implementing ones that are both feasible and cheap.

MPEG4 has an uphill battle. The other two entrenched proprietary solutions, WMV and Real, are already ahead of it in implementation, mindshare, and support, and are on par or better in terms of quality.

There are already a number of hardware en/decoding chips for MPEG4 - can't say the same for WMV/Real. As mentioned, Real have thrown their support behind MPEG4 as well. Then you have the fact that there are actual standards behind MPEG4, and I can see why people are half keen on supporting it. The quality of the competitors is far far below what H.26L is capable of, and this is what the implementation people are going to focus on.

Reverse engineering aren't "perfectly legal," if a specific product was used in the process. You have an interesting, and dare I say, unique view of the legality involved.

I don't understand this point. The file format has been reverse engineered - Project Sparky, DivX4, ffmpeg and XviD (not public yet) all have legal bitstream decoders. Microsoft can not claim trade secrets, copyright violations or patent infringements, because they don't hold any over the file format spec that people outside microsoft have written themselves. The only hinderance is that MSMPEG4 uses patents that will become part of the MPEG4-LA group's pool, so anyone using the open source decoders will have to sort out licensing agreements with them. But not microsoft. It'd be like microsoft suing the WINE group.

-h

gldblade

19th January 2002, 02:37

>The file format has been reverse engineered

It has?! Or do you mean "The file format hasn't been reverse engineered."

-h

19th January 2002, 07:08

It has?! Or do you mean "The file format hasn't been reverse engineered."

The various open source decoders (and DivX4 as well) aren't using any microsoft code - they figured it out themselves. Heck ffmpeg can even encode to MP43.

The main differences between MPEG4 and MSMPEG4 turned out to be VLCs and MB headers, if I recall correctly.

-h

gldblade

19th January 2002, 18:30

Oops, I thought you meant something else completely...

cofferscuffs

19th January 2002, 21:08

Back to a post on page 1 of this thread:
DivX 4 (aka OpenDivX/Project Mayo etc) support is IN Nandub... open up it's source code - it was just never finished and implemented. BUT, even if Nando did do tests with DivX 4, he would of been dealing with a very old version of the codec... it has changed fast in a short time.

What I would love to see is XviD support in Nandub, but alas all good things (like Nandub) must end....

EDIT: Damn!! I just realised that I just posted what 10 ppls had just said.... I really need some sleep :o.

Bugs Bunny

19th January 2002, 23:46

Before I start replying I'd just want to say this: The online video industry hasn't happened, just like the online audio industry hasn't happened. Nobody knows how it's going to go, so what we're doing here is only guessing. That means there is no right and wrong, that I can be wrong or the blokes I'm arguing against can be wrong, or we can all be wrong. Realize this before we get too vehement about the issue.

Re: Divx (or MPEG4) in standalones -- Here, I think some are thinking more like techies (probably because that's what they are) rather than like a business. Tech guys do things just because it's possible to do it. Business guys do things only if it makes them money. Formats get implemented into players not because they're available or good, but only if the companies can sell more boxes--that's to say, if there's demand. The first mainstream MP3 portable (the Diamond Rio) only gets into the market after the Napster craze was well under way, raising the potential demand to millions of users. Why do DVD players have VCD & SVCD format included? Because it's in demand in the Asian markets, and it doesn't cost anything to leave it in for the US/Euro markets. Is there a similar demand for Divx or MPEG4 format, other than the few thousands or tens of thousands movie traders on the net? No, there isn't. Then, is there any sign that Divx or MPEG4 will generate such demand in the foreseeable future? Does the man on the street even know what Divx/MPEG4 is, let alone enthuse about it? No, and no. Until we can honestly say yes to these questions, then any argument about legality or quality or whatever is simply moot. No demand = no hardware product.

Re: Quality -- Doom9 has commented, and I'm sure we'd all agree, that the Divx codec is superior to Real & WMV in visual quality. However, that only comprises a small aspect of the overall picture. Divx is better when doing CD-sized movies, but is it scalable to still look good at lower bitrates? How is its streaming? How reliable is its server software? How is its DRM protection? What kind of technical support does the company offer? These are all the kinds of questions a business would ask, whereas a techie would only care about how the picture looks. In all of these areas Divx/MPEG4 is still largely an unknown, whereas Real & WMV are already in implementation mode. By "quality," I'm referring to quality of service & support, and not just quality of the picture. At this point in time, MS is the frontrunner by virtue of its stranglehold on the viewing platform and its established infrastructure. Divx 4.x is simply another codec from a startup in the sea of startups. Standardized MPEG4 is still a format on paper, with no concrete implementation.

Re: Industry standard -- Anybody who follows the tech industry long enough, will soon learn to disregard "announcements" (hype by another name) until he can see the actual products on the shelf. It's nice to hear Real announcing support for standard MPEG4, but given their entire of products is based on their closed codecs, and they've been doing pretty well up to now, it's hard to imagine they would relinquish their edge unless they are being driven to that point by MS' domination. And MS hasn't dominated yet. My interpretation is that it's just the usual lip service about "embracing open standard" that every company mouths. Again, until I can see a Real stream being played by a standard MPEG4 player, then it's all just more hype. Heck, there isn't even a standard MPEG4 player yet.

Re: Legality of Divx players -- I'm not a lawyer, and from what I can see, none of us here are practicing IP rights lawyers either, so getting into the finer points of legality would be talking out of our ass, so I won't. What I do know is that MS has successfully prevented other companies from using their codecs without their consent (read: license). From all the instances I've read, none has gone so far as to reach the courts. All that happened is that MS lawyers send a cease-and-desist, and the target party backed off. Nobody is dumb enough to up against Microsoft unless they absolutely have to. Knowing what we know about MS' tendency to litigate to protect their codecs, what do you think the chances are of MS letting some hardware company to market Divx-capable players without litigation, especially if such players threaten MS' official products? Let's put this in a wider context: MS is now suing a company called Lindows simply because it rhymes with Windows.

Does it matter if you're in the right, when you don't have money to pay the lawyers?

As a business, you think in terms of risk and reward. What are the risks that I'm taking, and what rewards do I get for taking those risks? The risk is pretty obvious: MS sitting on my head for the next 5-10 years as they keep appealing through the court system (assuming I win, of course), the entire movie industry treating me as a pariah for placing a pirated (and having no DRM) codec into my products. So what's the reward? A few thousand hardcore video traders who like to watch their Divx movies. Not exactly a compelling reason.

Lastly, Teegedeck posted a good point that I'll reply to:

>That was interesting reading, Bugs, but I don't agree with the underlying "why bother at all" attitude. Ever wondered why we are still hanging around this forum though DVD-burners will come someday? Well, I guess there's 2 possible answers:
1: I get the impression that most of us (with the exception of traders), but especially the coders, don't have the money to get the latest hardware.
2: It's our hobby...

I agree that when it's a hobby, then it doesn't matter about all the whyfors and whatnots. You just do it because you think it's cool and you enjoy it. That's what a hobby is for, and as techs, it's fun to tinker with things. But it's a different thing from "this is cool, and I like doing it" to "it'll be in wide use as long as it's better". No, I haven't tried Xvid; when it's stable, I'm sure I'll check it out some time. But even if it's head and shoulders better than Divx 3.x/Nandub, chances are remote I'll adopt it. If my reckoning is correct for DVD recordables mainstreaming this year, then I don't see any reason to switch to yet another codec for only a few months, before moving on to MPEG2. The scene may switch to it, and if I'll probably have the codec installed if I want to download any movie encoded with it, but my needs aren't the same as the video trader; I don't have to move my videos through the net. MPEG2 is a better solution hands down for blokes like me.

BTW, by virtue of calling this your hobby, then by definition you are likely to have the latest in hardware, as that's what people spend most of their money on--their hobby.

-h

20th January 2002, 02:51

Tech guys do things just because it's possible to do it.

The other vital factor is that it's fun - there's a reason techies hate writing documentation so much ;)

Business guys do things only if it makes them money. Formats get implemented into players not because they're available or good, but only if the companies can sell more boxes--that's to say, if there's demand.

I dare say there is more demand for MPEG4 playback than Ogg Vorbis, but OV is already getting implementations reaching availability. While there was a sizable delay between MP3 usage and eventual hardware support, businesses are now more likely to look at emerging formats so they can get onto the bandwagon earlier. I honestly believe that this is the case with MPEG4.

Re: Quality -- Doom9 has commented, and I'm sure we'd all agree, that the Divx codec is superior to Real & WMV in visual quality. However, that only comprises a small aspect of the overall picture.

You mentioned implementation and support separately to quality, so that's what I was responding to. There is a large amount of work to be done on the server side, but then that's what companies such as Philips, Psytel and others are focussing on. ffmpeg is coming along nicely too.

It's nice to hear Real announcing support for standard MPEG4, but given their entire of products is based on their closed codecs, and they've been doing pretty well up to now, it's hard to imagine they would relinquish their edge unless they are being driven to that point by MS' domination.

It is an interesting turnaround though - Real was bleating not long ago that the entire MPEG4 video spec should be trashed because their own codecs were so much better. To make an announcement like this, means they must feel that MPEG4 has something going for it.

Re: Legality of Divx players -- I'm not a lawyer, and from what I can see, none of us here are practicing IP rights lawyers either, so getting into the finer points of legality would be talking out of our ass, so I won't.

I'm just going by similar situations - in this case, WINE is identical to the reverse engineered MP43 codecs. Both were reverse engineered, lack any microsoft code, avoid infringing on any trademarks (not the case with Lindows - that was just asking for trouble) and unencumbered by patents (the last resort).

There would, however, be cease and desist letters anyway, I agree. I doubt there'll be any MP43 hardware players on the market before MPEG4 is firmly entrenched in hardware, by which time no one would want MSMPEG anyway.

I agree that when it's a hobby, then it doesn't matter about all the whyfors and whatnots. You just do it because you think it's cool and you enjoy it. That's what a hobby is for, and as techs, it's fun to tinker with things.

This is true - but there are a number of profitable industries growing up around 'hobby' professions, like overclocking or home DJs or practically the whole firewire market. There is a growing (and in my opinion encouraging) move to give people with money to burn on strange hobbies (i.e. people like me) what they want in a meatspace device.

-h

Bugs Bunny

21st January 2002, 06:33

Hah here I was wondering where the heck all dis MPEG4 beeswax wuz at, then Doom9 bloke went and posted a bunch of MPEG4 player links. Don't ya hate it when people do that to ya...

>While there was a sizable delay between MP3 usage and eventual hardware support, businesses are now more likely to look at emerging formats so they can get onto the bandwagon earlier. I honestly believe that this is the case with MPEG4.

There's an important concept in the MP3/Divx parallel which is worth mentioning. Succinctly, then: Content -> demand. People will go to where the content is, thereby generating demand.

Why does the average bloke install a codec? He installs it because some song or movie is available in that format, and he wants to play it. It has little to do with the codec's technical merits itself. Again, content begats demand, not the codec. He who controls the content, controls the demand. And the one in control of the most popular video content--movies--is the movie industry.

So what was different with MP3? Why did it take off w/o the industry's consent? Because the content, in MP3's case, was user generated. More accurately, it was user converted (from CDs), but the conversion process was so easy and quick, that a large amount of content was built up, and Napster came along and took it over the critical mass threshold. Industry support wasn't needed, because the content was already generated by the users. Distribution was almost as easy, as the MP3 files are small enough for P2P sharing through dial-ups.

[Here's food for thought: Think of what would've happened if the RIAA went after Napster from the outset, before demand hits critical mass, rather than sitting around for as long as they did.]

User-generated & distributed content won't happen with video. It is difficult for users to generate (convert) movies into alternate formats. And whatever content generated can't be easily shared (recall that even for broadband, upload speed is usually only 128Kbits/s). Demand for video content thus can only happen with the blessing of the movie industry. There won't be any grassroots revolution as was with MP3.

So, it's not very relevant to talk of codecs being accepted without talking about the content. Whatever codecs will be popular will be whatever codecs the movie industry uses to put out its content. If I were a movie exec in charge of online distribution, the first thing on my mind would be security (read: copy protection); that would rank even above visual quality. For open-source and other "free" codecs, DRM is something to be hated, let alone to be even considered, and most certainly it won't have as high a priority as other technical aspects. So, a "good" codec for you and me isn't necessarily (or even likely) to be "good" for the movie industry blokes. Industry standard doesn't mean squat in this case, since it's not the (tech) industry who controls the content. An industry standard codec will only prevail if it can offer the movie industry better options than the closed codecs. The make-or-break factor will be DRM, no question.

Now that I've gone with the doom-and-gloom bit, probably is a good time for some cheery. The one thing about the Internet is that it democratizes the playing field, and enables "revolutions" like what we've seen with MP3. It lets normal blokes like us to have a chance at upending the natural order. It just took a single bloke to hack out Divx and improving the vid scene. And if a goofy-looking geek like Shawn Fanning can become a millionaire for a crummy file-sharing proggie, then anything is possible. Online video has yet to exist, other than for some postcard-sized movie trailers, so there are lots of unknowns. May be another bloke will figure an end-around to the movie industry and be the next millionaire, or may be MS will have its way and lord its WMV over us. You can never tell. But as a gambling man would say, you can only bet on the known, not on the unknown.

>This is true - but there are a number of profitable industries growing up around 'hobby' professions, like overclocking or home DJs or practically the whole firewire market. There is a growing (and in my opinion encouraging) move to give people with money to burn on strange hobbies (i.e. people like me) what they want in a meatspace device.

Oh yah and for sure! A tech hobby is the best hobby there is, cause ya can easily make money out of it! Actually that applies to a lot of other hobbies too.. I once met a guy at a bus stop and we started talking, and it turns out that he's a professional card player (gambler), and he's going from casino to casino to make a living. Ask how he got to do that for a career, and he said it started out as something fun, and just sort of grew into a full-time deal. He wouldn't give me any tips though, the tightwad. All he said is that you should read books about card games, and if you know them well, then you're good enough to beat most of the wankers in casinos.

And don't even ask me the number of "computer consultants" I know, who are nothing more than homegrown geeks with a business card. Infested, is what it is.

-h

21st January 2002, 11:59

There's an important concept in the MP3/Divx parallel which is worth mentioning. Succinctly, then: Content -> demand. People will go to where the content is, thereby generating demand.

True - I still believe the number of people actively using MPEG4 technologies is enough demand for novelty products. Which is certainly how the market will begin.

For open-source and other "free" codecs, DRM is something to be hated, let alone to be even considered, and most certainly it won't have as high a priority as other technical aspects.

The MPEG4 spec integrates DRM if I recall correctly. A compliant player supports both protected and unprotected streams. Hence the industry attraction.

Oh yah and for sure! A tech hobby is the best hobby there is, cause ya can easily make money out of it!

Well it's no secret that the first thing people try to hack into game consoles is MP3/DivX playback. Perhaps the number of workarounds the hobby community has already produced to aid playback, are a reason no one feels like selling a hardware solution

-h

Doom9

21st January 2002, 18:36

time to give you a preview about the future outlook I will have in my upcoming codec comparision (still encoding btw.. some codecs are really slooooow).
I think we have firmly established now that DivX3 is not conforming to the mpeg4 specs. Hence the chance of seeing a player having dedicated DivX3 support are relatively small. Throw the fact that the format is actually sort of illegal and that MS doesn't like it at all and wants to promote their proprietary wma/wmv solutions (and they do have the money and power to get this implemented into hardware). On the other side, there's a demand for standardized mpeg4 solutions. One application is certainly video on demand. To reach DVD-like quality mpeg2 requires at least 2mbit bitrate... throw in packet loss and network overhead into the mix and then look at how many people actually could receive such a stream for reasonable costs (in most european countries 2+mbit lines are out of financial reach for the large majority of people). So, many CE companies but also software companies are working on streaming solutions based on mpeg4, most of which behind closed doors. And they're pouring a considerable amount of money into these projects. The first mpeg4 capable decoding chips should be available by now or be so soon. These chips won't play AVIs as we use them but standard mpeg4 streams (maybe you checked my news.. that prog accepts a lot of input formats to create an iso compatible mpeg4 stream which can be played on such hardware). since xvid conforms to the specs it should be possible to play it in such devices. divx4 is also very close to the specs and will probably be fully compatible in a future version. philips also has a solution available already. mpeg4 is interesting everywhere where you want good quality at low bitrates.. as I said streaming video, vod, but also mobile applications.

So.. besides Microsoft I don't think any company can push their own format thru and chances of an open and stardardized format being adopted and making it to the masses seems the most likely future to me. So... once again, the chance that we can plug all our DivX CDs (most of which are still DivX3) are little, but eventually there will be a stream format as todays mpeg1 and mpeg2 stadards that can be played on both computer and standalones.

Bugs Bunny

22nd January 2002, 05:41

I think all the "which format will rule" talk is just taking shots in the dark. It's all guesses. Some have talked about MPEG4's technical merits and the wide support, but it won't be on technical merits that codecs get chosen, but more on business politics. For instance, AOL chose Real to be its default player not because it's better than MS' WMV, but because MS is a competitor, so "any enemy of my enemy is my friend". And also, if the precursor to the "officially blessed" online audio scene is any indication, there won't be a single dominant format, but multiple Balkanized formats that are incompatible with each other (for a while at least).

-h brought up an example which is illustrative of the foibles of in-the-box thinking. In this thread, people have voiced their concern about standalone players being able to play Divx. The in-the-box thinking is that we need to have a standalone to play Divx to the TV, and it's because we're conditioned to think that the PC is a separate thing, and the TV & home stereo is a separate thing. Yet, if all the talk from Apple and MS and Sony are to be believed, then the concept of the PC as a digital hub will be realized before too long. Then, if the PC is to be the hub, why do we need a standalone to play movies to the TV? -h mentioned that people are already trying to hack the X-box to play Divx, and I can't imagine why anybody would bother (unless they already bought an X-box). For those following the grapevine, MS reportedly will introduce a "home digital hub" this fall that are based on the X-box architecture.

Some of us already have a cheap computer hooked up to the TV set to play movies. This sounds impractical before, as a computer used to cost a lot of money (relative to a standalone player), but it's not true any more. I'm sure all of us have heard about Wi-Fi (802.11b). Right now it's not fast enough to stream DVD movies, but with Wi-Fi5 (802.11a), with a sustained throughput of 22+Mbit/s, sending DVD streams won't be a problem. Picture a central PC with receivers throughout the house, hooked up to your regular hi-fi or TV sets.

So, the idea of a standalone movie player isn't a big deal at all. I can already play Divx on my TV (using the S port on my laptop). For anybody who wants to have a cheap yet compact PC used for just this purpose, there is the Shuttle SV24 that was reviewed on Anandtech and THG, that has S video & Firewire. The whole thing is a bit larger than a toaster, and the barebone (case & motherboard) is $250. If you have some spare parts lying around, you can easily have a functional "set top PC" for around $400. And it's available today, without a need for any hack.

Bugs Bunny

22nd January 2002, 13:07

BTW, here's a good comparison between MPEG4, Real, and WMV. Included is also a history of Divx.

http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a%253D3780,00.asp

ChristianHJW

22nd January 2002, 16:29

Hi to all ... sorry for joining that late, but i wasn't invited ;) ( truth is : i'm not reading the 'General' section as often as i should - in fact i came here to report about the car vcd player ;) ) ..

My comments :

1. Nandub was designed around the DivX3 codec. There is no sense in porting it to other codecs. Also nando is not around anymore, so why call it nandub any longer ? Make a new tool based on Vdub/Nandub code, specifically for XviD or others. DivX4 is locked here ( BlackSun pointed this out many times, and he should know ), so there is no need looking at this. Simply use Vdub ( GKnot ) like many do.

2. Hardware support for DivX 4 is sure to come. This is one of DivX N's major bussiness basics and mainly the reason why they give away the codec for free personal use .... they want to have obvious arguments when talking to hardware companies. The number of downloads they have when launching a new version is a very good argument indeed ( must be 500,000 + each time ; Dan could give more details here i guess ; more news to come soon ) .....

3. About the use of MPEG 4 : DVD-R is standing outside the door .... so is H-DTV, or Hi-Res TV in general. Loved to see 1200 * xxx res DivX movies, bitrates > 3000 kbps, they will fit perfectly on one DVD-R with 2 or 3 AC3 sound streams, thanks to TMF/MCS. Even the good old PAL anamorphic DVDs ( 720 * 576 ) should be good for 848 * xxx Hi-Res DivX movies ..... dont laugh about it ..... use your brains first !!

4. The future of DivX/Video Encoding is GPL ( maybe with the exception of DivX4 ... they need us ) !! Anybody cares that Midas is not showing up anymore ? He mentioned a few times that Dolby was making him hard time about Azid and AC3 ..... i just hope i'm wrong and he is allright but only busy with other things ....

5. TMF/MCS, new A/V format : Tronic and ingo ( hopefully with the help of other coders ) will make this possible. This board here will be even more vital than now because it will offer so many new possibilities ( just browse through the threads ) that coders from anywhere will have a lot of new attractions raising their interest ...... right now, and i agree here with a comment from somebody else, there is not much to do. Be honest, DSPguru's Besweet is the most exciting new soft to come out for quite some time .... or did i miss something ?

Regards Christian

Teegedeck

22nd January 2002, 18:37

Hi Christian,

nice of you to drop by. Can you tell me a bit more about the TMF format? From what I understand, it allows for much more features in terms of videostreams and audiostreams, menues etc than old AVI, but I simply was too lazy to read much about it... ;) Can you perhaps explain a little?

I hope and think that GPL software will rule in video-encoding, so can TMF be the coming 'container' for XviD-encoded MPEG-4-streams?

int 21h

22nd January 2002, 22:53

Originally posted by ChristianHJW

1. Nandub was designed around the DivX3 codec. There is no sense in porting it to other codecs. Also nando is not around anymore, so why call it nandub any longer ? Make a new tool based on Vdub/Nandub code, specifically for XviD or others. DivX4 is locked here ( BlackSun pointed this out many times, and he should know ), so there is no need looking at this. Simply use Vdub ( GKnot ) like many do.

He's around, you just have to know where to look.

2. Hardware support for DivX 4 is sure to come. This is one of DivX N's major bussiness basics and mainly the reason why they give away the codec for free personal use .... they want to have obvious arguments when talking to hardware companies. The number of downloads they have when launching a new version is a very good argument indeed ( must be 500,000 + each time ; Dan could give more details here i guess ; more news to come soon ) .....

Ironic that Microsoft beat them to the punch isn't it? WMV already has hardware support, not too mention a secure content protection container. Most of this is a moot point, most users in the US are just now getting to regular DVD players (most with VCD/SVCD/XVCD/DVD-R capabilities). Average turn around time on consumer level hardware of this nature is 5 years. 5 years before Joe Schmoe makes the next upgrade. You know any companies besides SonicBlue that cater to Doom9Geek instead of Joe Schmoe? I didn't think so.

3. About the use of MPEG 4 : DVD-R is standing outside the door .... so is H-DTV, or Hi-Res TV in general. Loved to see 1200 * xxx res DivX movies, bitrates > 3000 kbps, they will fit perfectly on one DVD-R with 2 or 3 AC3 sound streams, thanks to TMF/MCS. Even the good old PAL anamorphic DVDs ( 720 * 576 ) should be good for 848 * xxx Hi-Res DivX movies ..... dont laugh about it ..... use your brains first !!

Why would you do this? Mpeg4 compression in general is of a lower quality than Mpeg2 simply because of the compression and DCT profiles used. Not too mention that HD DVD is already defined in the DVD specs with the High Profile of Mpeg2 encoding. (i.e. 1200 * xxx + bitrate up to 15mbps) If you think Mpeg4, in a frame based format, will somehow become the standard for HDTV and HD DVD, which obviously needs a field based format, you're mistaken.

4. The future of DivX/Video Encoding is GPL ( maybe with the exception of DivX4 ... they need us ) !! Anybody cares that Midas is not showing up anymore ? He mentioned a few times that Dolby was making him hard time about Azid and AC3 ..... i just hope i'm wrong and he is allright but only busy with other things ....

Perhaps. More and more software is becoming non-GPL. BeSweet and DVD2SVCD to only name a few.

5. TMF/MCS, new A/V format : Tronic and ingo ( hopefully with the help of other coders ) will make this possible. This board here will be even more vital than now because it will offer so many new possibilities ( just browse through the threads ) that coders from anywhere will have a lot of new attractions raising their interest ...... right now, and i agree here with a comment from somebody else, there is not much to do. Be honest, DSPguru's Besweet is the most exciting new soft to come out for quite some time .... or did i miss something ?

Regards Christian

For a new A/V format, obviously there is a LOT of work that would need to be done. A Directshow interface has to be written so that WMP and other Directshow players can play it back, decisions about field based or frame based have to be made, etc. Not only that, no one has discussed one of the biggest issues (besides VBR audio streams) with a new format, and that would be, FIELD based or FRAME based? If you simply continue with another framebased format you'll end up with nothing except the same issues with interlacing, etc. And you'll limit what you can do on the software playback side. Frankly, as much as I'd like to see something like this take off, it doesn't have much chance. You said it yourself, DVD-R (DVD-5 right now, who knows what will be next?) is right around the corner, perhaps by Q3 it will be at a very reasonable price. So why would anyone not use the VOB file format with Mpeg2? Considering a good majority of them already have dvd players at home (see above point) and that those dvd players will playback that video. Not too mention, Joe Schmoe will be able to rent DVDs, strip out the video stream and audio stream(s) he wants and make his own DVD without even transcoding.

All of these niche ideas for Mpeg-4 playback via TV are neat and all, but you all need to look towards industry. Industry has very little interest in this. Industry wants to use Mpeg-4 in the online streaming and the telecommunications (cell phones) markets. Obviously because those are the markets Mpeg-4 specs were written for.

You need to think in the mindframe of an enterprising business trying to make money. GPL code can be great, but for companies like Dolby to make money, obviously they need to protect their intellectual properties and when entitites are no longer licensing decoding writes from Dolby, Dolby is no longer making money. The GPL wasn't invented to protect programmers from obeying patents and licenses. And its a shame that many people seem to associate the GPL with these types of activities. You wonder why there isn't much industry support for this, its because of the rogue operations of it all. Mpeg-2 decoding without the proper licensing, Dolby AC3 decoding without the proper licensing, MP3 encoding without the proper licensing, the list goes on and on. You can't spit in the face of the industry in one action and then shine their shoes in the next, hoping for them to lift the banner of personal video enthusiasts everywhere.

You play by their games, or not at all. (I'd prefer not at all, industry doesn't have anything we need)

The only possible use of Mpeg-4 I could see on the horizion out of the above mentioned fields, is PVR (personal video recorders), but even then, Mpeg-4 isn't field based, with no support for interlaced video, so even its uses their are limited (that is the main reason Mpeg-2 is used in PVRs now (Tivo, Sonicblue devices, etc).