What are your favourite Containers?

[Tuning]

The prefference of different containers by members are as follows.
First:Matroska
Second:OGM
Third:AVI
Fourth:MP4

@All
Thanks for polling.

[Tom|420]

Sorry I am late on this thread, but I'm a new member and wanted my first post to be about my opinion on those container formats.

First let's reply a previous questions with numbers (I had to test this, I was curious). Test performed with 10 minutes of video (XviD + AC3 5 channels)

Format / Size with VDM(1) / Size with GraphEdit(2)

AVI / 104,192,000 / 111,508,480
OGM / 104,621,610 / 104,621,616
MKV / 103,900,077 / 103,829,186

(1) VirtualDubMod 1.5.4.1
(2) DirectX 9 / Media Player 9 (not sure which one updates to the latest)

Conclusion:
For Ogg there is a very slight difference in size between VDM and GraphEdit... to small to consider I guess.
For Matroska the difference is larger (in favor of DirectShow) but still way under 1%.
My surprise came from the difference in AVI... a difference of 6.5% resulting in 7 MB difference.

At the end, it seems that Matroska wins it.


Until recently I thought AVI produced the larger overhead. Lately I took an AVI file from a CD, converted to OGM, then went to burn it to a new CD, and oh surprised! The new file didn't fit the new CD. So I went out for that topic. And did the test which I presented the results above. It seems that the idea that AVI is larger is only true when produced by MS (and as pointed out by someone most AVIs are probably not created by MS).


Now up to my opinion on those different containers.

AVI

To my opinion AVI is just to old and lacks too much of the features of the other containers. For one, seeking is slow and synchronization is not handled by the container, relaying on the codecs. I guess everyone will agree MP3 cannot be synchronized without a hack (one of such being part of VirtualDub).

OGM

This is my favorite one. First it supports Ogg (which is the purpose of the format), which is my sound format of choice now. In the past I used a hack over WMA for the sound stream in movies, because 1) MP3 cannot synchronize well (there wasn't a hack in VirtualDub at that time) 2) MP3 is not the best codec at lower bitrates such as 64 or 92 kbps 3) Ogg was too new, but from my experiments at that time it was promising. Second the seeking is lightning fast, which is something important to me.

Matroska

I did experiment with Matroska and found the format very promising, especially for those using subtitles in foreign languages (such as Asian languages) since (to my believes) this was one of the design ideas behind the format. However, from my experiences on my already dating Pentium 3 @ 500 MHz (it's almost 4 years old, but my wage doesn't permit me to upgrade eventhough computers is my life) Matroska is simply too ressource intensive; in the end the movies are unplayable, resulting in several seconds with no image during action scenes, and even in small pauses during slow motiion parts of the movies. Conclusion: this format is not suitable to me yet.

MP4

I did some testing with MP4 when DivX had a feature to output into this format. Found lack of support at the time and thus didn't experiment further. I don't even have a slight idea on the features of that format, thus no opinion.


So Ogg Media Container is my choice for now, but I guess I need to accept the inconvenience (the only one I see so far): larger overhead, resulting in larger file size.

Off Topic:
My video codec of choice is XviD (switched from DivX after the release of the really slow 5.1 codec)
My audio codec of choice is Ogg (for both movies and music)

For my problem of the new file not fitting the new CD, I will probably end up with this solution: recompresse the audio stream to Ogg (I don't have the hardware to appreciate the good quality of AC3 anyway, I have a 2.1 system and don't plan to upgrade in the near future).

Have a nice day
Tom :)

[alexnoe]

@Tom|420: AVI-Mux GUI will create even smaller AVI files than VirtualDubMod :p

The M$ DirectShow AVI filter does not even produce files meeting their own specs completely (and neither will it read all AVI spec compliant files). No one hopefully is using this shitty filter. It is terribly b0rked, and the only place it belongs to is behind a force field, so that it cannot annoy anyone!

[Koepi]

Well, OGM doesn't seem well suited for mp3 or ac3 soundtracks, this is true. But i want vorbis in OGM, and this is what it's good for. I didn't care about AVI+Vorbis size as it is unseekable and goes out of sync after time. It just serves my purposes well (multilanguage audio streams, chapters - and if i want, subtitles in the container) and will have standalone player support in ~2 months from now(elta player/mediatek based players. I hope they just don't make weird promises which they don't keep!).

So my choice still is clear :)

Regards
Koepi

[KpeX]

@Tom|420

Support for MP4 is growing fast and much better now, (IMHO) mainly due to the 3ivx DShow filters, which allow you to mux fully MP4 compliant streams even from packed bitstream AVIs, and the 3ivx splitter works great for windows playback. NeroDigital will probably bring some attention to MP4 as well. If you want more up to date MP4 info check out Bond's MP4 FAQ.

[Atamido]

@Tom|420

The difference in processing power required to process A/V in MKV as opposed to other formats should be negligible. IE, 1%. If you are experiencing a very big increase in CPU usage there is likely something else wrong.

Take an OGM file that you have created and convert it to MKV using MKVMerge. Try to play back just that file and see if there is much difference.

[Tom|420]

alexnoe

Glad I did the test. Now I will not create an AVI from DirectShow ever again. Promised :)

Koepi

That's why I haven't realized OGM file was larger than AVI file before: I just didn't care about those few KBs until I went into this situation where I couldn't fit the file to CD.

Pamel

Just for fun I took the file a generated yesterday for the math test, and it seems it played fine. I will make further experiment. Maybe the filter has improved since my last tests (several months ago), or maybe it was something else which is no more of a concern on my machine. I will test and see :)

[HarryM]

I prefer:

For 1 CD rips: OGM (at quality=3)
For 2 a more CD rips: AVI+AC3

:cool:

[Doom9]

with all these stats, don't forget that we only represent a small corner of the video editing world. At least 95% of the video editing apps out there do AVI, a few percent do only other formats. If you're serious about editing AVI is your only shot. It will take a lot for programs like Premiere to support anything but AVI.

And as the past has shown us, the best format doesn't necessarily win, it's the one that is used by the largest group of people.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Doom9
It will take a lot for programs like Premiere to support anything but AVI. I had looked at this previously and Premiere allows people to write plugins to support other formats. There are specs available on how to write these. This means that the main problem is finding someone that knows how to program Adobe plugins and wants to write one for other containers.

[mf]

Originally posted by Pamel
I had looked at this previously and Premiere allows people to write plugins to support other formats. There are specs available on how to write these. This means that the main problem is finding someone that knows how to program Adobe plugins and wants to write one for other containers.
Right! Let's go straight at it. I'd love to see you code it. :D

[Doom9]

actually, Premiere plugins are something really old... remember Flask? Flask is listed in the decoder section because it's just that.. a decoder. The output is offered via a Premiere plugin interface to whichever encoder you want. There is even an avi output Premiere plugin. But.. your source material is AVI, and if you're editing, you stay with AVI until the point where you have a final product that you'll then covert to something else (for instance using the CCE Premiere plugin). So, writing a Matroska Premiere plugin wouldn't change anything. It would still only be an end solution and you'd have to do all the intermediate editing using the AVI format.

[alexnoe]

Ever tried to feed Premiere with an AVI+AAC file? :D

[mf]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Ever tried to feed Premiere with an AVI+AAC file? :D
That sounds scary :scared:.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by mf
That sounds scary :scared:. LOOOOL ... there goes the glory of AVI, the 'most supported format' :D .... :p ....

[Tom|420]

If I am a professional (or even an amateur) who wish to distribute massevely a file, I better go with the most popular options (that is, formats which most people can support). In that area I believe AVI+DivX+MP3 is a safe choice. Even safer would be MPEG... but that's another thread.

But in my case I do movie edits mostly for myself, and in the largest extend for my friends which are very happy with the idea of installing a new filter/codec, having a chance to try new stuff and emit their opinion.

In that field I have the option of chosing any filter/codec that suits my needs

[mf]

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
LOOOOL ... there goes the glory of AVI, the 'most supported format' :D .... :p ....
I said it sounds scary, I'm not gonna claim it won't work or anything like that :D. Infact it'd be sweet if it worked :p.

[Doom9]

if you're into video editing, you'll most likely going to work with AVI one way or another. You get your DV content as an AVI, or your source in some form of lossless compression format. Then you edit the hell out of it staying in the AVI format until at the very last point you turn it into something else like MPEG-2 ES and AC3 audio for creating a DVD. But once you make that transition, your flexibility is pretty much gone. But until that point, I don't see any changes in the future when it comes to a container. Your "last storage" container might change, but not the source format container.

[DevilsChild]

I recently started using MKV as a container for most of my encodes. The versatility and features of Matroska are simply unmatched. Really hope some manufacturers will start supporting it.

[Swin]

I am fairly new to this and the more I read the more I realise I need to read more! What I would like to see are the latter containers to be supported in hardware players. However, with the recent emergence of DivX players, surely the AVI format will continue ad infinitum, even though it maybe inferior with regards to features that are incorporated into other containers.

As Doom9 says:-

And as the past has shown us, the best format doesn't necessarily win; it's the one that is used by the largest group of people.

Or, who ever has the money and confidence to push a given technology will win. Where have all the Betamax video's gone?

I can see that if a particular container gets accepted by the hardware manufactures it could gain a huge foothold over the others. So maybe, one of these (or hopefully all of these) manufacturers of hardware can produce players that support the more functional containers. But I assume the only way that is going to happen is if the developers of the containers converse with the manufactures of the players.

On another point, as an END user what I want several things from my container, which ever one that is (in no particular order and possibly with options I have not thought about yet): -

1) A video stream that is highly compressed yet of very high quality.
2) The ability to choose an audio format that suits me. If this is two channel stereo then a format that is again high quality yet high compression. I also want the ability to choose a very high quality audio in 6, 7 or 8 channels (5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 sound) and the ability to have multiple sound tracks (Many DVD’s now come with 4 or more sound tracks to a film).
3) A format that can contain multiple other features that I may find useful at a later date such as multiple set of synchronised subtitles, menu systems etc etc.
4) A format that can be played of hardware and software players without hours of set-up and confusing posts to obscure forums.
5) I want the system to work! This means no synchronisations losses, no stutters, no lockups, scans and goto’s that work, possibly other features.
6) A single format that is possible to extend into the future to account for new technologies without me having to go out and buy new stuff net week or learn 30 other competing formats.

Is this to much to ask for?

Now to me it looks as though I would go for the Matroska container, however after all that I have said is am forced into using AVI even though it rally doesn’t meet my future, or even present, wants or needs. This is because I pretty much know that others I give the files to will be able to play it and any hardware that I buy in the near future should also play these files. I wish it were different.

So what is going to happen in the future? I kinda think MP4 will win. Why? It’s where the big money is at and it is already a near household term. Christ, even my old mum knows what an MP3 and a DVD is (OK, she might not know that a DVD contains MPEG-2 video). Should the world move this way I’m sure that tools for the small man to create and manipulate MP4’s will start appearing.

Swin