2009 - what's your favorite container ?

[Kurtnoise]

The last poll (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=133342&highlight=container) about your favorite container shows that Matroska is still the 1st one for the D9 community with a large majority (more than 65%).

So, what do you plan for this new year ? Keep the same one or switch to a new one ?


Knowing that DivX 7 will support mkv files, results might be impressive...:p

[Daiz]

Matroska is still my container of choice due to its versatility.

[Oleg Rode]

m2ts for it compatibility with HW players. May be mp4, but 64-bit adressing is not supported by any HW player.
Matroska must die. It is not an option to support this container. Not any HW developer support it. MKV has the same fate as OGM

Sorry for my English

[microchip8]

m2ts for it compatibility with HW players. May be mp4, but 64-bit adressing is not supported by any HW player.
Matroska must die. It is not an option to support this container. Not any HW developer support it. MKV has the same fate as OGM

Sorry for my English

this may very well change when DivX 7 hits the public since they said they'll use matroska as the container

I voted for MKV as well

[nurbs]

I use mp4 and matroska, depending on what I want to store and where I want to play it.

@Oleg:
Plenty of harware developers (TviX, Popcornhour, ect.) support the container and there is probably more to come with DivX7 and Matroska 2.0 around the corner.

[Oleg Rode]

Plenty of harware developers (TviX, Popcornhour, ect.) support the container and there is probably more to come with DivX7 and Matroska 2.0 around the corner.
Yes, but I want ot see solutions from mainstream developers - Sony, Philips... Samsung at least...
Next, what does DivX 7 bring to us? Next version of the codec and the possibility to pack the encoded video to MKV? Who from HW developers will support these features? And by the way, who from developers have supported DivX HD? Just few NONAMEs... For today we got excellent "industrial" (sorry, I don't know how to say this in English :) ) codec - AVC, which is supported by Blu-Ray standard. And we got some good containers, which are forced by mainstream developers - m2ts and mp4. So, DivX 7 and MKV support can be the same fail as DivX HD

Sorry for my English

[microchip8]

DivX 7 is an AVC encoder and decoder

[tetsuo55]

I have remuxed all my media to MKV, so i think that says it all.

[Oleg Rode]

DivX 7 is an AVC encoder and decoder
Proof link, please for their 100% compatibility:sly:

[microchip8]

Proof link, please for their 100% compatibility:sly:

Search the board. 100% compatibility with what?

[Oleg Rode]

Search the board. 100% compatibility with what?
with decoding process.
In example - we got commercial h264 and freeware x264. So, my HW player can decode a h264 encoded video and a x264 encoded video.
You said
DivX 7 is an AVC encoder and decoder
So, You want to say, that my HW player can decode a DivX 7 encoded video as well, aren't you?
We are talking about codec now, not container.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

with decoding process.
In example - we got commercial h264 and freeware x264. So, my HW player can decode a h264 encoded video and a x264 encoded video.
You said

So, You want to say, that my HW player can decode a DivX 7 encoded video as well, aren't you?
We are talking about codec now, not container.

DivX 7 will implement the H.264 standard, so any H.264 decoder will be able to decode it and any H.264 capable player will be able to play it!

Of course a player will need to support the MKV container too, as DivX 7 will use the MKV container. If your player doesn't support MKV you will need to remux the file produced by DivX 7 before you can play it. And last but not least you must not forget about level/profile restrictions: If your player doesn't support at least the H.264 profile/level used by DivX 7, then playback won't be possible...

[microchip8]

what LoRd_MuldeR said ^^

[Avenger007]

I'm guessing a short discussion about a comparison between MP4 vs MKV isn't OT.

I'll go first with a general comparison from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_container_formats

So I've got a few questions:

1) MP4 now supports AC3 (although Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet) but what's preventing it from supporting other formats as well?

2) In light of Wikipedia's inaccuracy wrt this comparison, could someone post the differences between MP4 and MKV in bullet point form or provide a link to a recent comparison please?

3) For those who vote MKV, what application do you use to edit MKVs frame-accurately (completely lossless, of course)? (And I'm not referring to workarounds discussed in this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=118388)).
MP4s can be edited "pseudo" frame-accurately using MP4Box with Cut Assistant.

And before LoRd_MuldeR jumps in and starts the Avidemux marketing campaign, unless I can see a fully working, bug free version of Avidemux that handles MP4s and MKVs the way VirtualDub handles AVIs then Avidemux isn't ready for prime time yet. :cool:

4) Although DivX 7 officially supports MKV, does that mean it offers no support for MP4?

5) Windows 7 will have native support for H.264/AAC but is it limited to MP4 or includes MKV as well?

MKV as a future-proof container with it's "universal format for storing common multimedia content" intention makes it better than MP4 especially since it uses EBML, which is a simplified binary extension of XML. :cool:

[Audionut]

Had to vote for .ts this year. Blame the PS3.

[ffmpeg]

I think the poll should be multi-choose

[Dark Shikari]

In example - we got commercial h264 and freeware x264. So, my HW player can decode a h264 encoded video and a x264 encoded videoMy head hurts trying to understand these two sentences.

[Avenger007]

In example - we got commercial h264 and freeware x264. So, my HW player can decode a h264 encoded video and a x264 encoded video.
My head hurts trying to understand these two sentences.
He's confused about the relationship between x264 and H.264 (hence his use of h264).
He's separating non-x264 encoded vids from x264 encoded ones even though they are both H.264.

[qyot27]

Once again, I vote for Matroska. But I'm more of a different containers for different uses type, and depending on the situation I'll use the one that has the best fit. For my purposes, though, that'll probably be MKV.

[Kurtnoise]

1) MP4 now supports AC3 (although Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet) but what's preventing it from supporting other formats as well?
ISO standards...

4) Although DivX 7 officially supports MKV, does that mean it offers no support for MP4?
I don't think so...

5) Windows 7 will have native support for H.264/AAC but is it limited to MP4 or includes MKV as well?
no restrictions about containers level afaik...

MKV as a future-proof container with it's "universal format for storing common multimedia content" intention makes it better than MP4 especially since it uses EBML, which is a simplified binary extension of XML. :cool:
mp4/mov can be described also as an xml tree with nodes...:)

I think the poll should be multi-choose
I can't edit the poll unfortunately...:(

[Oleg Rode]

He's confused about the relationship between x264 and H.264 (hence his use of h264).
He's separating non-x264 encoded vids from x264 encoded ones even though they are both H.264.
No, I am confused about the relationship between DivX 7 and H.264. I knew, that x264 is compatible with h264 in the decoding process (just like Fraungopher and LAME codecs in audio). But it was a big surprise, that DivX 7 is just another AVC codec.


4) Although DivX 7 officially supports MKV, does that mean it offers no support for MP4?
I don't think so...

Why not? Again, we don't have any ISO standards for MKV. So, the mp4 can be an alternative container for DivX 7. Just like .avi and .divx

Sorry for my English

[Avenger007]

1) MP4 now supports AC3 (although Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet) but what's preventing it from supporting other formats as well?
ISO standards...
What prompted ISO standards to include AC3 but not others (DTS, etc.)?

4) Although DivX 7 officially supports MKV, does that mean it offers no support for MP4?
I don't think so...
DivX vs Apple?

5) Windows 7 will have native support for H.264/AAC but is it limited to MP4 or includes MKV as well?
no restrictions about containers level afaik...
What splitter will be used for MKV, Haali's or something else?


MKV as a future-proof container with it's "universal format for storing common multimedia content" intention makes it better than MP4 especially since it uses EBML, which is a simplified binary extension of XML. :cool:
mp4/mov can be described also as an xml tree with nodes...:)
Yes but is it extensible by being able to easily add new tags/IDs as is the case with MKV?

No, I am confused about the relationship between DivX 7 and H.264. I knew, that x264 is compatible with h264 in the decoding process (just like Fraungopher and LAME codecs in audio). But it was a big surprise, that DivX 7 is just another AVC codec.
x264 and DivX 7 both implement the H.264 specs, hence they are both encoders that fall under the MPEG-4 AVC / H.264 format. So their outputs will be decoded by any compliant decoder that claims support for MPEG-4 AVC / H.264.

[Ritsuka]

So, you are saying mov/mp4 is not future proof? A formato created 18 years ago that is still relevant today and can do everything mkv can and even more is not future proof?
You could not like mov for being an apple format or mp4 for having a limited number of official supported codec. But is a limited number of video and audio format is not really a problem if you hope for a high level of compatibility.

I think DivX wants to have a complete control on their container format of choice, and their only options were a new container format or an open source one.

[Tagert]

I voted for matroska.
Versatility is the key word :)

[Milvus]

Matroska is still my favorite. But there is really a need for a working editor (like virtualdub for avi) and more tags support...

[Brother John]

I voted Matroska naturally. Been using it since early 2004. And I must say MKVToolnix is just the damned best muxing package in the universe!

For those who vote MKV, what application do you use to edit MKVs frame-accurately (completely lossless, of course)?
With a lossy delta-frame based video stream lossless frame accurate editing is impossible regardless of the container. And when I happen to have lossless streams (e.g. huffyuv) I still use AVI as an intermediate container. Yeah, AVI. Sad, isn’t it? But MKV is lacking a VDub like rock-solid and easy to use editing app. Avidemux really is the strongest candidate, though from my impression it’s not quite there yet. Maybe DivX 7 will be able to push things forward a bit …

[Avenger007]

With a lossy delta-frame based video stream lossless frame accurate editing is impossible regardless of the container.
I meant where the cut always starts from an IDR frame like the way MP4Box and VirtualDub in DSC mode does it.

However, it would be preferable if such an app would be a little smarter and end cuts at frames where all previous frames before it are included and can be decoded (you'll notice this problem if you don't include all b-frames at the end of the cut, for example).

[lolent]

Matroska forever !
(In any case, for the moment... :D)

[Sukrim]

Matroska 2.0 when (if... *sigh*) it comes out 2009 - DVD style menu support 4tw!

[mousemurder]

how come no option for mpeg2 eventhough i wouldnt of voted for it ?

[Blue_MiSfit]

mpeg2 is a compression format, not a container :)

[Brother John]

But there is an option for TS/M2TS … Or are you referreing to MPEG program streams?

/edit
@Blue_MiSfit
Actually the MPEG-2 standard does define container formats as well. The video compression format is only part of MPEG-2 (Part 2).
Though I doubt mousemurder is aware of those intricacies. ;)

[Oleg Rode]

Or are you referreing to MPEG program streams?
No, we are referreing to transport streams:D
m2ts is a container and it is used in Blu-Ray standard

[parsifal]

It's Matroska for me.

Also, standalone support seems to be increasing with each passing day. For example, take a look at the latest player from Western Digital (nicely priced too, if I may add)...

[FlimsyFeet]

I went against the grain and voted AVI.

No. of standalone players I own that support AVI: 3
No. of standalone players I own that support MKV: 0

[parsifal]

To be expected, if you started your purchases some years ago. Currently, there exists Matroska-compatible hardware available for purchase.

IMHO, the release of DivX 7 has the potential to increase Matroska support in the standalone players' market, with more and cheaper devices to be expected in the near future.

[TheResidentEvil]

I voted MKV. I was using mp4 but I am switching to MKV this year. I have been trying to pass through AC3 audio into mp4 w/Handbrake and it comes out terrible. I switched the container to MKV and everything was fixed.

[chadamir]

I'm voting Matroska, but I too want an editor, at least one that allows me to change the aspect ratio. Why should I remux just to tell it the video dar is 16:9 and not 4:3 or whatever.

[emptyeighty]

1) MP4 now supports AC3 (although Wikipedia hasn't been updated yet) but what's preventing it from supporting other formats as well?
Nothing. You can put anything in mp4 via private streams. The only question is if everyone else will do it in the same way, so it's an interoperability problem.
Afaik the AC3 specs deal with how to put AC3 into mp4, not the actual mp4 spec. So in the strict sense mp4 does not support AC3, but the other way around.

[Drachir]

Nothing. You can put anything in mp4 via private streams.
I would use private streams only in a closed environment, or for testing.


The only question is if everyone else will do it in the same way, so it's an interoperability problem.

There is http://www.mp4ra.org/ to officially register audio/video formats to avoid interoperability problems.


Afaik the AC3 specs deal with how to put AC3 into mp4, not the actual mp4 spec. So in the strict sense mp4 does not support AC3, but the other way around.
AC3 in ISO Media based file formats like MP4 is official registered here: http://www.mp4ra.org/ .

There are also other audio/video formats beside AC3 registered like VC-1 or DIRAC.
There is no problem to register other audio/video formats, if there is any need for.

If you want, you could put any audio/video format in MP4 files. But not every player(terminal) have to support all audio/video formats.
Let me quote Dave Singer:


http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/mp4-tech/2008-December/008552.html
Indeed, you have to be careful to distinguish between what is
permitted in the container, and what is required to be interpreted.

The *container* specs only talk about features of the container for
various 'profiles'. However, the *integration* specs from say 3GPP
can and do talk about required support for various codecs (depending
on which sub-systems you also claim to support).

In general, therefore, there are few file format profiles which also
mandate codecs; 3G is close to an exception.

The file format specs are also liberal, in that you can put all sorts
of things in there; you just need to know which environment you want
decoding in, and what is required there. We try to do all the
codec-in-MP4 specs in such a way that you can technically put any
codec in 3GPP, MP4 etc. files.

Terminals would normally claim to support (e.g.) "AMR audio and
MPEG-4 AAC, combined with H.263 video xxx profile or MPEG-4 Part 2
simple profile at level 3, in MP4 or 3GP files to the 'iso2' brand".

[emptyeighty]

I don't know why you go to such lengths explaining that one can technically put anything in mp4, as i already said that. Registering them on that site is only making your private stream "public" and hopefully the de-facto standard, or am i missing something here?

Anyhow, that site sounds like a good idea to counter the interoperability problem. How widely those specs will be implemented in practice remains to be seen though.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I'm (almost) strictly DV and prefer it raw. It's much more versatile, simple to seek, trivial to cut/join etc. And portable across OSes.

[Drachir]

I don't know why you go to such lengths explaining that one can technically put anything in mp4, as i already said that. Registering them on that site is only making your private stream "public" and hopefully the de-facto standard, or am i missing something here?
The reason for the explanation is simple. I only wanted to show, that there is an official way to register new audio/video formats, which should be preferred, over the use of private streams, if the files are used in the public.
The Storage of new media types and the Registration Authority ( http://www.mp4ra.org/ ) is mentioned in ISO/IEC-14496-12. If people/company's want to implement this standard, they shouldn't do this half-assed(my opinion).

And I wanted to make clear, that not every Player have to support every possible audio/video format, therefor I quoted Dave Singer.
That's all.

[TheFluff]

http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/http://www.mp4ra.org/

do you get paid per link or what?

[TheFluff]

I'm (almost) strictly DV and prefer it raw. It's much more versatile, simple to seek, trivial to cut/join etc. And portable across OSes.
hm yes 25mbit/s lossy, fixed resolution, forced interlaced video sure is "versatile"

how exactly is, say, mp4 (or mkv) any less portable than raw DV is?

how is containerless video even relevant to this thread at all?

[Brother John]

@Drachir
Since you seem to know a bit about MP4RA and the website is quite unspecific.
Are double registrations impossible? E.g. could company WeAreTheBest register their way to put AC3 into MP4 as "ac31" and company WeAreEvenGreater could register their incompatible way to put AC3 into MP4 as "ac32"? That would absolutely work against interoperability. Which manufacturer would want to implement several ways to access the same type of stream?
Also, do you know anything about the review process for applications? How do they ensure that proposals are technically sound and at least as open as MP4 itself is?

Another interesting question: How great is Matroska’s way to add new stream formats?

[emptyeighty]

Another interesting question: How great is Matroska’s way to add new stream formats?

You could mux E-AC3 in there before a sensible decoder (read: one you didn't have to install a few gigs of burning software for) was available.

It's missing some some stuff from the BD audio department like TrueHD afaik. I hope that gets fixed soon.

As for the technical side, it was designed to be easily extendable (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=221572#post221572).

[avih]

Guys, please try to keep the discussion civilized. As a thread which tries to answer "what's best" it already has a highly flammable potential. Don't let it burst in flames.

[Brother John]

@emptyeighty
Ah, no, that’s not what I meant. Let me rephrase: How great is the process that leads to a specification of how to store a new stream format into Matroska.

From my understanding there is no defined process at all. Whenever someone has the need he finds a way to add it and if enough people use it then that’s it. If at all there’s one central institution: MKVToolnix. If a feature finds its way into MKVMerge it’s pretty much an immediate standard because MKVMerge is so dominant as the MKV muxer. Sounds chaotic and very open-sourcey but imo it’s worked out great so far.

@all
In the end Matroska faces a similar problem as MP4 does. There’s a wide variety of video formats and probably an ever wider variety of audio formats, and subtitles on top of that. To be a versatile container for many needs you have to support as much as possible (and in a well defined way). To be hardware device friendly you need a narrowly and clearly defined subset (of the most common and industry backed formats), otherwise interoperability hell awaits you.

MP4 was designed as a »devices format« and now tries to open up. For Matroska it’s the other way round. And as always, what’s best depends almost entirely on your individual needs. You may notice that the poll is not titled »what's the best container?« ;)

[emptyeighty]

@emptyeighty
Ah, no, that’s not what I meant. Let me rephrase: How great is the process that leads to a specification of how to store a new stream format into Matroska.

From my understanding there is no defined process at all. Whenever someone has the need he finds a way to add it and if enough people use it then that’s it. If at all there’s one central institution: MKVToolnix. If a feature finds its way into MKVMerge it’s pretty much an immediate standard because MKVMerge is so dominant as the MKV muxer. Sounds chaotic and very open-sourcey but imo it’s worked out great so far.

I don't think there's a formal process either, but afaik changes to the format are always documented in the standard, so nothing chaotic really (of course matroska.org errors on me right this moment :mad:). I agree with you about mkvtoolnix though. Adding to that, Haali's splitter plays an important role too, as 90% (yes, random made up statistic) of the people will be able to play those files after Haali adds support.


@all
In the end Matroska faces a similar problem as MP4 does. There’s a wide variety of video formats and probably an ever wider variety of audio formats, and subtitles on top of that. To be a versatile container for many needs you have to support as much as possible (and in a well defined way). To be hardware device friendly you need a narrowly and clearly defined subset (of the most common and industry backed formats), otherwise interoperability hell awaits you.

MP4 was designed as a »devices format« and now tries to open up. For Matroska it’s the other way round. And as always, what’s best depends almost entirely on your individual needs. You may notice that the poll is not titled »what's the best container?« ;)

Amen, brother.