About DivX releasing rules (TDX2k2)

[spectra]

Ok i can understand that ogg/mcf... isn't ready for the new rules, but why is it still a MUST to release in DivX 3.11 or XviD.
Isn't DivX5 (after DivX4) out long enough to be stable. And hasn't the latest Doom test proofed that DivX5.02 is ready to be used with high quality (btw. on the DivxGuides page there is still the old test with divx4, the 2nd with divx 5 is here http://www.doom9.org/codec2.htm )??

What do you think ??

[MaXiMuS]

error sorry:(

[NeVeRLiFt]

Originally posted by spectra
Ok i can understand that ogg/mcf... isn't ready for the new rules, but why is it still a MUST to release in DivX 3.11 or XviD.
Isn't DivX5 (after DivX4) out long enough to be stable. And hasn't the latest Doom test proofed that DivX5.02 is ready to be used with high quality (btw. on the DivxGuides page there is still the old test with divx4, the 2nd with divx 5 is here http://www.doom9.org/codec2.htm )??

What do you think ??

I think DivX5 (maybe to harsh and I have edited it... sorry) :devil:

DivX5 is crap for making 1cd DVD rips and Nandub or Fairuse can both make better quality 1cd rips.
You wanna say different? Show me I have lots of movies and samples ready to compare. I have a ftp you upload to it and download from it if you want.

DivXNetwork souled out and they will never be used.

Just my .03

I do like that there not using CBR mp3 no more and maybe now that XviD is allowed who knows what we will see in terms of quality...
I know I dont have the perfect setup yet with XviD :(

[int 21h]

We are deliberately avoiding pushing the standard of a 100% commercially minded corporation.

Furthermore, we believe that releasing in a format that a commercial entity would have direct benefit from (more users, etc.) is unresponsible. The possiblity of anyone making money on anything we do is one we wish to avoid. We do this for fun, not to make some corporation rich and powerful :(

[flloyd]

While it is very positive that they demand VBR I find it is quite odd that they recommend --r3mix. The "--alt -preset" commandline has already proven countless times to be superior to --r3mix. Plus it is very configuable to different bitrates. I think that they should definitely replace --r3mix with --alt -preset.

[manono]

Hi-

You seem to understand these things. I couldn't understand at first why DivX 5.02 wasn't allowed, but your explanation makes a little bit of sense (although not enough in my opinion).

But what I truly do not understand is the insistence that movies up to 110 minutes must be done for 1 CD, not taking compressibility into account at all. I frequently work with old black and white movies and even silent movies in 4:3 AR. And I've seen plenty of badly sourced Hong Kong movies. These things are just plain impossible sometimes to do for 1 CD with any sort of quality. So, is there a justification for that particular rule (and please don't say to go down to 448*xxx for 4:3 movies-you know enough about the quality that'll give you).

[spectra]

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt
DivX5 is crap for making 1cd DVD rips and Nandub or Fairuse can both make better quality 1cd rips.

I really doubt that, especially when it comes to 1 CD Rips, cause i seen Divx 5 compressing quite better. Ok the pic will be a bit blurrier but thats the same with XviD. But this also has it's good when it comes to 'moving backgrounds' in DivX 3.11 they are gone in DivX5.


Originally posted by int 21h
We are deliberately avoiding pushing the standard of a 100% commercially minded corporation.

Ok if this is really the scene opinion on the DivxNetwork, then i can understand not using it. Hopefully some free 100%-MPEG4-compliant solution will make it into the next standard, cause MPEG4-standalone player will be there in 2003.

btw: avi and the old Divx3.11 is Microsoft code, so you are pushing the most 'commercially minded corporation' in this sector too.

[maven]

i think that pusing VBR only does not yield _that much_ of quality increase but rather results in invalid AVIs (see Avery Lee's comments on VBR MP3 in them...).
if pushing VBR audio i'd much rather have it in a form that is _remotely constructed_ to be used w/ VBR audio (e.g. right now only OGG kind of qualifies)...

as always, just IMHO....

[Koepi]

I can't share the thoughts on ogg/ogm.

They're quite usable - but that's just my oppinion and this might be biased because I develop a little ogg-stuff ;)

If they clearly state that they want VobSub subtitles, then just don't use Tobias' SubDS-filters. Then you'll have no problem at all.

Or does this concern the problems users experience in the toy-OSes like win9x? I think they're all gone when not using SubDS either. But well, it's their decision, and I don't support pirating movies (_I_ just do this stuff for my pleasure - and for having alternatives to commercial products. If you don't show them the right direction they do what they like and people use that (DRM,...)).

Hm. Sounds like we're getting a philosophical thread here ;)

Regards,
Koepi

[twistee]

After reading the standards..i kinda agree with most of what they put. Except for not having ogms...i only use ogm (or ogg...) now, as they seem to be the most reliable, and really easy to use. Anyways, I dont get movies from these 'scenes' anymore, so i dont really care what they use.

EDIT
I just thought of something...if they say they dont like ogg and stuff like that as its still in development and bugs...why would they want to use xvid...as that is still in development, and although it isnt really buggy or anything...either is ogg...hmm, oh well...

[int 21h]

OGM has no viable future :(

You can be sure that Xiph will make certain of that.

[Nogami]

I mean, there are a lot of good suggestions there, but...

I like DiVX 5.02... I think it provides better quality is some cases and requires fewer encoding hacks/workarounds to produce a good quality encode. I'm not happy with the commercialization factor either, but since I didn't pay for it... :P

I share the other poster's comments about VBR-MP3. Until I get word that the concerns that Avery Lee talked about have been solved, I won't go anywhere near VBR inside an AVI wrapper. I certainly won't use them for my own encodes as I want to create "in-spec" files.

A spec sheet is nice and all, but by being so preachy and "laying down the law" so to speak, they're going to discourage a lot of people from posting content just because people like me cannot be bothered to read through 4 pages of spec guides. When I have a paying project, I'll take that sort of time to make sure my stuff is done to the client's specs, but when I'm doing stuff for free to post to the net, people will get what I give them.

I'll do my best to put out an encode with the best possible audio & video quality, using the formatting options that are the best for the video in question (in my expert opinion) but if they don't like it... They get what they pay for.

N.

[Hanty]

TDX is about scene politics and streamlined standardization, don't confuse it with quality.

[NeVeRLiFt]

All you people talking crap about DivX5 and saying it can make a good 1cd rip.... bring it! I'm ready anytime to compare. Nothing beats Nandub right now so accept it. DivX5 is buggy and loses to much detail and its full of spyware and made by people who souled out.


LoL even Fairuse makes better 1cd rips than DivX5

[Doom9]

I don't understand the fuss about all this.. most people here probably backup for personal use so these rules have no effect on us anyways.. I just mentioned it because it's nice to see that XviD gets more endorsement.

[Hanty]

Neverlift : What? Do we need your approval that a DivX5 encode looks good in order for the codec to be good?

[Koepi]

Doom9,

I think the problem I see in there is that many people need some directives (*caugh* it's meant as bad as it sounds) which they blindly follow.
And if they now see that ogm "has no viable future" or is "buggy" and has lacks in "usability" they'll simply back-off without further thinking (they're not complying to "standards"... *caugh again*).

But nice to know that "the scene" has detected XviD as alternative, I agree, it shows that the work spend there isn't lost (and that a "simple" educational project gets accepted as usual mainstream products), I agree on that point.

@Neverlift:
One thing I don't understand, _why_ do you always provoke the people and try to annoy them? (Well, at least to me the sound in your posts is a little bit disturbing.) I don't think we're here to make a "dick length competition" (dunno if you can say something like that and it still means "Schwanzvergleich"). I appreciate that you like your nandub-rips, and I can understand that e.g. XviD has some issues with curve-treatment. But still, there's no need to sound that way.

Best regards,
Koepi

[werky]

If they insist to continue to use DivX 3.11. Is just their problem.

I don't see anyone trying to download 700 Mb of a movie encoded with a codec who can't be played in their Standalone MPEG-4 ISO Compliant.
And these machines will be on the market by the end of the year.

About the comercial side on divx 5 from Divxnetworks i don't see any good on using an obsolete codec from Microsoft.

final note:
The worst of that all is the eternal problem with DivX 3.11 about FREEZE frames. No matter what technique you use and how much care you got with the encoding you never know if it will be free of freeze frames. I'm not talking about the stoping on playing cause this doesn't happen with divx 5 decoder, i'm talking about the damaged frames made by the divx 3.11 codec.


well
hasta my friends

[Razor04]

I don't see why everyone insists on being compliant for a stand-alone player. At this point I have not read of any final standard. When there is a standard I will probably switch over to a method that is fully compliant, but until then I really see no point in worrying about compatibility when no one knows what exactly you have to do to be compatible.

[cofferscuffs]

err.. tdx sucks mmk?

imho divx/xvid/etc are useless today. cost of cds is almost nothing, svcd beats divx/xvid (then dvdr beats svcd - conundrum!)... i could talk a lot of crap (mainly on why divx sucks and why the divx scene sucks even more... but i wont. instead ill leave you with this:

[ 22:42:38 ] _[ @Doom9 ] say.. DVD-R provides much better quality... they will reply.. but it takes longer to download. mention that divx is a shorter download.. they will say: it only plays on pc.. tell them about tv-out.. they don't want to use it..
[ 22:43:07 ] _[ @Doom9 ] tell them that DVD-R is supported by a lot more standalones than SVCD.. they say all non svcd compatible standalones suck

theres always something better in another person's view.. why bitch about it? ;)

the solution?

[ 22:43:10 ] _[ @c_Cuffs ] so the awnser is
[ 22:43:16 ] _[ @c_Cuffs ] uncompressed avi ownz

:D

[midiguy]

I really couldn't give a rats ass about the TDX rules. what I really don't get though, people go on preaching about how DivX 5 is produced by a bunch of corporate assholes and the like, and how it is a MUST to use DivX 3.11 AND the AVI container. but, both the AVI container AND DivX 3.11 are MICRO$OFT code! they were produced by the biggest and baddest corporation out there! why do you think M$ didn't sue when its MSMP4V3 codec was hacked??? something else that really bother me is how when people liek the peopel from TDX make a statement and then people just go and follow what they say without even bothering to do their own tests and research. like a bunch of mindless robots. and you know what? I DO release my own anime encodes, and I have my own personal encoding group. I couldn't give two shits what those dickheads at TDX have to say.

PS: Sorry if this post offended anyone. I am just a little wound up right now.. and sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by midiguy
I really couldn't give a rats ass about the TDX rules. what I really don't get though, people go on preaching about how DivX 5 is produced by a bunch of corporate assholes and the like, and how it is a MUST to use DivX 3.11 AND the AVI container. but, both the AVI container AND DivX 3.11 are MICRO$OFT code! they were produced by the biggest and baddest corporation out there! why do you think M$ didn't sue when its MSMP4V3 codec was hacked??? something else that really bother me is how when people liek the peopel from TDX make a statement and then people just go and follow what they say without even bothering to do their own tests and research. like a bunch of mindless robots. and you know what? I DO release my own anime encodes, and I have my own personal encoding group. I couldn't give two shits what those dickheads at TDX have to say.

PS: Sorry if this post offended anyone. I am just a little wound up right now.. and sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes.

I hope it makes you feel better that TDX doesn't give two shits what your anime encodes, and neither do the rated sites that adopt TDX as a nuking guideline. ;)

The rest of you, TDX doesn't affect you, go on about your business, nothing to see here.

[SirDavidGuy]

Why does TDX not only set rules that make sense in a much broader sense of compatibility (Any DivX or XviD video, MP3, AVI container), and rules for number of minutes on 1 CD (within reason, again), and after that, whatever gives the best quality at a given size?

No one codec is going to give, universally, the best quality. Shouldn't quality always be the goal, not standardization? (Of course, once again, within reason ;) )

[smok3]

if divx3.11 = cracked ms code &
wm8 = ms code &
divx3.11 > divx5.0X

how come
new wm8 < divx5.0X ??? :confused:

p.s. i really wonder what a word 'cracked' means in this term, i mean how come ms cant produce something better that they did years ago?

enligten me pls :)

[cofferscuffs]

Originally posted by SirDavidGuy
Why does TDX not only set rules that make sense in a much broader sense of compatibility (Any DivX or XviD video, MP3, AVI container), and rules for number of minutes on 1 CD (within reason, again), and after that, whatever gives the best quality at a given size?

No one codec is going to give, universally, the best quality. Shouldn't quality always be the goal, not standardization? (Of course, once again, within reason ;) )

Go look at the tv scene... the goal there is speed it seems. The tdx rules has definatly made the divx scene better, but it cannot include lots of different formats for many reasons, the main one being the question of duping of rls in different different codecs and because if you gave them a chance to choose... they would just stick to what they do anyway.

[NeVeRLiFt]

Let me guess you have not heard nothing about Corona...


Originally posted by smok3
if divx3.11 = cracked ms code &
wm8 = ms code &
divx3.11 > divx5.0X

how come
new wm8 < divx5.0X ??? :confused:

p.s. i really wonder what a word 'cracked' means in this term, i mean how come ms cant produce something better that they did years ago?

enligten me pls :)

[smok3]

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt
Let me guess you have not heard nothing about Corona...

still not enligtened :p , or should i read ur great machine specs?

[Doom9]

@koepi: you already mentioned one reason why ogm is not allowed.. check the isonews divx forums and see all the people with crappy windows versions bitching about the Vite ogm releases.. these releases work just fine on a proper OS but (unfortunately) you can't expect anybody to upgrade to a real OS... even my site still has about 30% visitors using W98 / ME despite me having it made more than clear that those are crap times infinity.

other than that let me just quote int21h The rest of you, TDX doesn't affect you, go on about your business, nothing to see here. the only reason I mentioned TDX was because I think it's nice that XviD is allowed. period.

[athos]

How about this: If you very badly want to use DivX5, encode using b-frames, no gmc, no qpel. change the fourcc to xvid. since they are both supposed to be standard compliant, this should be legal? at least hard to detect. i suspect that one would be able to tell a fake xvid from a real one, for example by examining the sequence of frame types, but how about DivX4 with xvid fourcc?

my point is that once the codecs develop further, and truly become standard compliant, the difference between them will not be the format of the resulting video stream, but the method with which this compressed data is produced from the source material. i am not saying that divx5 is at all better than xvid, but i am saying that soon i think the standards should spec what kind of file format is allowed, and maybe some requrements of the encoding method (for example vbr, vki) but then it should be up to the encoder to choose what method gives best results (ie what codec to use)

[Wilbert]

@koepi: you already mentioned one reason why ogm is not allowed.. check the isonews divx forums and see all the people with crappy windows versions bitching about the Vite ogm releases.. these releases work just fine on a proper OS but (unfortunately) you can't expect anybody to upgrade to a real OS... even my site still has about 30% visitors using W98 / ME despite me having it made more than clear that those are crap times infinity.

In a bad mood today? You know that most people are using those crappy windows versions (like me, and I don't have any problems with it), so it makes perfectly sense that their rules are made in such a way that the average user can play those movies.

[Hanty]

Wilbert : Thus sacrificing quality for compatibility.

*Wanted*
Open minds that do not see codecs in black and white.

[int 21h]

Yes and there is such a huge quality difference between a malformed avi and a 'proper' OGM file.

[Wilbert]

Thus sacrificing quality for compatibility.

Doom was talking about crappy windows versions and ogm. Apperently a lot of people have problems playing ogm-files on their crappy windows system (I have no experience with that since I don't make ogm-files, at least not yet).

I don't see why encoding in DivX3,4,5/XviD would imply sacrificing quality for compatibility (except of course that DivX4/5 are not allowed, but I guess not for compatibility reasons).

[buba king]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Doom was talking about crappy windows versions and ogm. Apperently a lot of people have problems playing ogm-files on their crappy windows system (I have no experience with that since I don't make ogm-files, at least not yet).

that must be some really crappy systems.. i have no problem running 640x480 XviD + Vorbis (-q 1) in a ogg.. on a fregging 550mhz (the slowest system in my collection) so ppl are only lacking good drivers etc. btw.. ppl with ~300mhz systems sould manage to fork out 100$ for a 1gh duron system. (cpu+mobo) :devil: and ppl who are running win98/me..:scared: well its their loss.. :rolleyes:

[buba king]

Originally posted by cofferscuffs
imho divx/xvid/etc are useless today. cost of cds is almost nothing, svcd beats divx/xvid

i have to agree on that (i love svcds) but when (?) i get my set top mpeg-4 player then i want movies in MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2 since the quality gain is GREAT and you can use better resolutions. DVD-Images are overkill. I want 5 movies on ONE DVD+RW :D .

[Hanty]

int 21h:

I don't know about you, but I'm out to make my encodes at the best *possible* quality. Settling for less in order to make archaic OSes play the encode properly tells of compatibility having higher priority than quality.

Not that it really matters to me, I just don't want fanboys coming to the forum assuming tdx is the be-all-end-all of divx encoding and then disagreeing with anything that is in conflict with the rules.
I've seen to much of that kind of narrowmindedness.

[NeVeRLiFt]

@smok3

theres a search buttom use it and stop gawking over system specs :p

[mikemikez]

Werky,
"
I don't see anyone trying to download 700 Mb of a movie encoded with a codec who can't be played in their Standalone MPEG-4 ISO Compliant."


I heard that DivX 3.11 will soon be converable to MPEG4 without loss!

Any news on that anyone?


Mike

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Hanty
int 21h:

I don't know about you, but I'm out to make my encodes at the best *possible* quality. Settling for less in order to make archaic OSes play the encode properly tells of compatibility having higher priority than quality.

Not that it really matters to me, I just don't want fanboys coming to the forum assuming tdx is the be-all-end-all of divx encoding and then disagreeing with anything that is in conflict with the rules.
I've seen to much of that kind of narrowmindedness.

The quality loss between OGM and AVI is negligible, that is, if it even exists.

The narrowmindedness here is the developers that refuse to support Operating Systems that are still at use with the mainstream public.

And that sir, is another reason OGM will remain a niche creation. You OGM fanboys are all the same. :p

[NeVeRLiFt]

@mikemikez

There is a post about this and -h talks about it.

I will find the link and add it later...


edit:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24338

[Hanty]

Originally posted by int 21h

The narrowmindedness here is the developers that refuse to support Operating Systems that are still at use with the mainstream public.


You stopped making sense now. If guys like Lee, Gabest, Koepi, Nic, h-, robshot, light_uk etc followed that kind of logic there would never be advancements made in appz/tools/codecs. They would never be able to implement new, more demanding and better technology if it had to be 100% backwards compatible with obsolete OS:es and hardware.

[lapin]

I still do not understand why we're discussing TDX rules HERE (should be done somewhere else).
This forum is about making things by yourself, TDX is about distribution. Simple as that...

yes, i know, arguing about codec & format is nice... i like it too :D

[mikemikez]

Is this really so hard to understand?

The most important thing is a constant product and a constant quality. It doesn't matter if their is a codec now that does something a bit better, the advantages of compliance to these "rules" are far greater.

Onnce there is a really sollid and proven new combination of video and audio codec or container format I'm sure these "rules" will be changed. Personally I think that once we've seen MPEG4 play properly on set-top machines the "rules" will be rewritten.


Mike

[vybez]

Rather to open a new subject on the TDX2k2 rules I'll post my question here.

Regarding NTSC (29.97 fps) and "framerate MUST be as close to original source framerate as possible". Does this mean that IVTC shouldn't be performed? I thought that by doing that (when possible) you increase the bitrate = better quality?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by spectra Ok i can understand that ogg/mcf... isn't ready for the new rules,

You will have to wait for MCF a little longer than expected, but why is OGM not ready to be used in your opinion ? OGM files play perfectly on Linux ( mplayer ) and all Windows OS, even ME/98, maybe with the exception of some subtitle streams.

Main problem about using OGM is that no p2p program will recognize the .ogm ending as a video file, so people rename it to .avi, and this is where the problems start, nothing else.

[Doom9]

I still don't get why this is a matter of discussion around here.. I assume that most people here rip for private purposes and don't have to adhere to any rules. Nobody has said that you should follow TDX.. it's strictly a release scene thing.
it is everybody's right to decide for themselves which formats are ready for prime time and which aren't. if a group of people decide not to use a certain format that's their right.. as it's your right to disagree with that decision but you don't have to try and convert them to your beliefs just because of that, do you?

[neo_sapien]

The decision to preclude Ogg containers from scene releases is narrow minded at best. I've encoded something like 300 gigs of DivX SBC, DivX 4, XviD and DivX 5 in the year that I've been encoding and the simple fact seems to me that AVI goes bad. If you burn an AVI file to CD-R and then proceed to look at it sideways it'll become corrupt and unplayable. Not so with Ogg-the error detection makes certain that the file will play even if a good part is error-laden. And what about downloading an AVI file? If you get, for instance, 300 megs of a 700 meg ogg file, you can actually play back the partial ogg file right off the bat. Not so for AVI, unless you want to go through the trouble of rekeying the file in vdub and direct streaming it to a new avi file.

Ogg is remarkably error resistant, which is why back in March I went through the trouble of converting my entire collection to Ogg, even scene releases I had downloaded. The only CDs that go into my movie archive (basically a small cardboard box :) ) are those containing Ogg files (with the exception of MP4 test rips) because I know that they'll last and I'll be able to play them a year from now.

The move to XviD is nice-with luck we'll see that the majority of releases in the DivX scene have b-frames now.

Rather than advocating the old AVI SBC/MP3 sort of standardization, the scene should be advocating future MPEG-4 compliance as a new form of standardization so that in 6 months we can sit down and watch these rips on a TV.

Just my $.02

[int 21h]

Originally posted by neo_sapien
The decision to preclude Ogg containers from scene releases is narrow minded at best. I've encoded something like 300 gigs of DivX SBC, DivX 4, XviD and DivX 5 in the year that I've been encoding and the simple fact seems to me that AVI goes bad. If you burn an AVI file to CD-R and then proceed to look at it sideways it'll become corrupt and unplayable. Not so with Ogg-the error detection makes certain that the file will play even if a good part is error-laden. And what about downloading an AVI file? If you get, for instance, 300 megs of a 700 meg ogg file, you can actually play back the partial ogg file right off the bat. Not so for AVI, unless you want to go through the trouble of rekeying the file in vdub and direct streaming it to a new avi file.

Ogg is remarkably error resistant, which is why back in March I went through the trouble of converting my entire collection to Ogg, even scene releases I had downloaded. The only CDs that go into my movie archive (basically a small cardboard box :) ) are those containing Ogg files (with the exception of MP4 test rips) because I know that they'll last and I'll be able to play them a year from now.

The move to XviD is nice-with luck we'll see that the majority of releases in the DivX scene have b-frames now.

Rather than advocating the old AVI SBC/MP3 sort of standardization, the scene should be advocating future MPEG-4 compliance as a new form of standardization so that in 6 months we can sit down and watch these rips on a TV.

Just my $.02

MPEG-4 compliance doesn't currently exist in a small little package that we can put our rips into.

Its ironic that in one paragraph you're advocating OGM, a proprietary open source format, and in the next you're talking about moving on to MPEG-4 compliance. You think all those OGM files will load right up into your MPEG-4 set top player?

Far be it from me to bring you back to reality, dream away.

[NeVeRLiFt]

@int 21h

Hi

Everyone knows after the Mpeg4 Home DVD unit (set top box, etc)is released, alot will change, people will be making there encodes so they play on the unit. The settings will be what works on the unit. Resolution, and audio compliance are a biggie, and maybe even bitrate.

I look forward to the day the first Mpeg4 set top box is released :D

I'm sure TDX will change to make there releases work on the units.

[neo_sapien]

Of course this has occurred to me. Note that I'm advocating Ogg as a storage container. I don't mean for it to be permanent. It would take something like 5 minutes to demux the component streams and remux them to an MP4 container. Heck, I could do it right now with Graphedit, Virtualdub and mp4tools. The only thing preventing me from making rips directly into MP4 now is the lack of b-frame ISO decoder support. If I didn't mind not having any advanced simple profile options in all my rips, I'd have found it prudent already to switch to making purely MP4 rips.

The thing is, though, in several months when MPEG-4 set tops are released, the Ogg containers will have kept these movies intact and ready for conversion to an MP4 container. With the AVI container, the lack of error detection means that X amount of movies will have gone bad by conversion time.

Now one of these containers will ensure future compliance through conversion to a bonafide MPEG-4 container. The other container will ensure that we have 700 (795) megs of errors.

Originally posted by int 21h


MPEG-4 compliance doesn't currently exist in a small little package that we can put our rips into.

Its ironic that in one paragraph you're advocating OGM, a proprietary open source format, and in the next you're talking about moving on to MPEG-4 compliance. You think all those OGM files will load right up into your MPEG-4 set top player?

Far be it from me to bring you back to reality, dream away.