What are your favourite Containers?

[Tuning]

What are your favourite Containers?

Options are AVI,OGM(OGG MEDIA),MKV(MATROSKA) and the MP4 containers.I have tried all of them and most of the different tools to mux them.VirtualDubMod to be the best of all muxers, allowing us to create AVI/OGM/MKV with a few clicks.MP4 can be created using MP4UI or MPEG4IP tools as described by doom9 here : www.doom9.org/mp4.htm (Nice...?).

Challenging Factors :-

Overhead Problem:
I think the Overhead required when muxing different streams creates difference in size between each of these containers for same video.AVI lagging behind all of these- as it require large overhead.

My observations about these containers according to use of

Newer Audio Formats:
AVI going to be unpopular as the newer audio formats could not be muxed to it.OGM and MKV on other hand supports most of the newer audio formats.I could not test well on MP4 with different audio formats as i don't know the muxers required for the same.But I have tried AAC audio and got excellent results.

Subtitle Formats:
Another thing is the subtitle issue,AVI supporting most of the subtitle formats came above all as OGM/MKV are restricted to some particular subtitle formats(say SRT).And i don't know which subs are eligible of muxing in MP4.

Personal Favourite:Matroska

Because of the Matroska team and their solutions enabling us to use this quality container,it is my new favourite.The capability of Muxing/playback AAC is my favourite option on going for it.
With HE-AAC 5.1 and SRT subtitles the Matroska container is the one suitable for our needs.With great development going on, the matroska will become the best container in distant future.

Again,What are your favourite Containers? and Why?


Thanks

PS:Correct me if anything posted is wrong. :p

-Tuning

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Tuning
What is your favourite Container? Because you are able to make multiple selections, this should probably say "What are your favorite containers?" Also, it appears that you are missing WMV and the Real container.Challenging Factors :-
Overhead Problem:
I think the Overhead required when muxing different streams creates difference in size between each of these containers for same video.AVI lagging behind all of these- as it require large overhead. Now, with a statement like this you are sure to get alexnoe to post saying to look at his overhead comparison (http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~noe/Video-Zeug/AVIMux%20GUI/en_myths.html#overhead). It has recently been updated with a some new data, but his tool, AVIMuxGui produces AVI's with less overhead than most. In his overhead comparison OGM actually comes out with the highest overhead each time between OGM/AVI/MKV. And with the recent changes (to be announced soon) MKV will always have the lowest overhead.

His comparison does not currently include MP4 unfortunately, so we don't know how it holds up to everything else.Newer Audio Formats:
AVI going to be unpopular as the newer audio formats could not be muxed to it. OGM and MKV on other hand supports most of the newer audio formats.I could not test well on MP4 with different audio formats as i don't know the muxers required for the same.But I have tried AAC audio and got excellent results. Well, since Vorbis cannot be put in AVI, this is already partially true. I don't know any reason why OGM couldn't support any other audio format. AFAIK, MP4 is limited to a narrow set of audio streams that have been specified by the MPEG specs, but could anyone shed more light on this?Subtitle Formats:
Another thing is the subtitle issue,AVI supporting most of the subtitle formats came above all as OGM/MKV are restricted to some particular subtitle formats(say SRT).And i don't know which subs are eligible of muxing in MP4. MKV is not restricted to any particular format. The only limitations are tools to mux and playback. Mosu already has VobSub muxing into MKV working, but it can only be played back in mplayer as Gabest has not been around to update his VSFilter to accept VobSub from MKV rather than a seperate file. MKV also fully supports UTF-8/SRT and SSA.

AVI also supports SRT, but it is not stored as a stream like in OGM or MKV.

AFAIK, MP4 is restricted to VobSub type subtitles.Because of the Matroska team and their solutions enabling us to use this quality container,it is my new favourite.The capability of Muxing/playback AAC is my favourite option on going for it.
With HE-AAC 5.1 and SRT subtitles the Matroska container is the one suitable for our needs.With great development going on, the matroska will become the best container in distant future. On the basis of pure future stand-alone hardware compatability, one would have to say MP4 because of the huge corporate backing. But as I use a PC connected to my surround sound system and TV, this is not an issue to me.

However, if I want to put RV9, Vorbis, and SSA together in one container the I would definately say MKV. Or if I wanted to put any other combination of streams together in a single file, I would pick MKV. If I wanted to distribute an audio/video file that I did not want to risk synchronization issues with, I would pick MKV. It fulfills all my needs and any foreseeable future need for a long time.

Personal Favorite:Matroska

[Koepi]

OGM was mainly "developed" to include OGG Vorbis as soundtrack - which is why the comparison of alexnoe is flawed. If you'd redo it with vorbis sound, the results will look a little different. There is no need for new containers if you use ac3 or mp3, avi copes with them quite well.

Regards
Koepi

[Atamido]

The reason for the comparison was to disprove all of the statements that OGM or MKV has a much lower overhead than AVI. As Vorbis cannot be stored in AVI, there was no reason to include it in the comparison.

Coping was not the only issue. There is also the concern of overhead. There are other issues too, but this isn't really the place for those kinds of talks. ;)

[Gaia]

Is this poll somekind of trick to ask what is the best container? Like that audio poll...

Or you're asking more information about different containers?

[BoNz1]

Pamel, it is possible to put vorbis audio in mp4, in fact mp4creator allows for this atm if I am not mistaken. In fact you could put anything you wanted in it just like matroska but obviously this isn't going to be supported and it would be kind of silly to anyway since this isn't what it is for. The only subtitles that are supported are text which have to be hardcoded into a BIFS which is great but unfortunately not too much can play it atm. Also, I don't think picture subs are supported although I know it is possible to put png/jpeg/bmp images in mp4 and control it through BIFS. Also, with mpeg4 systems it allows for incredible interactivity that completely outclasses even DVD menuing :eek: :eek: Personally, I like mp4 the best, unfortunately, it isn't too well supported at least not yet. But I believe it has the most potential.

[Tuning]

@Pamel & @Koepi,

First of all blame me over my dumbness.I thought there were only these four containers.Sorry for that...please....And let us try to limit our discussion over these four.

The overhead comparison is true with AVI-Mux as in alexnoe comparisons.I was aware of this.But what about using VirtualDubMod,here the overhead is larger and most of us(may be)use this tool to create these files.And the overhead for other containers is less with the same tool.

Originally posted by Koepi
There is no need for new containers if you use ac3 or mp3, avi copes with them quite well.
But if you prefer using AAC,a new container is necessary(in the mean time).;)

Originally posted by Pamel
As Vorbis cannot be stored in AVI, there was no reason to include it in the comparison.
alexnoe is working on it to create a new AVI Mux capable of Vorbis Muxing.Hope he could build it soon and all we have better comparison.

Originally posted by Pamel
There are other issues too
If it is a secret please don't mention.Any way we are ready to hear from you.

@Gaia
Originally posted by Gaia
Is this poll somekind of trick to ask what is the best container? Like that audio poll... Or you're asking more information about different containers?
Hmmm..... :D ... :)
There is no trick here Gaia,Only trying to reveal what is the best container format and simultaneously learning from others comments.

@BoNz1
Are u pointing to GPAC menuing system which bond was reffering?

Thanks

[bond]

Originally posted by Pamel
AFAIK, MP4 is limited to a narrow set of audio streams that have been specified by the MPEG specs, but could anyone shed more light on this?Originally posted by BoNz1
it is possible to put vorbis audio in mp4, in fact mp4creator allows for this atm if I am not mistaken. In fact you could put anything you wanted in it just like matroska but obviously this isn't going to be supported and it would be kind of silly to anyway since this isn't what it is for.true, you can put anything you want in it, but to stay spec compliant you have to put specific audio formats into the mp4 container (as i wrote in my mp4 faq that can be AAC, MP3, CELP (for speech), TwinVQ (very low bitrates) or SAOL (for midi))

AFAIK, MP4 is restricted to VobSub type subtitles.no, there are two possibilites to store subs in mp4:
1) as bonz1 already wrote, the official way, you will have to have the subs translated to xmt/bt text format and then encoded to bifs binary format (i already posted a tool that can do that)
you will have to have a specific 2D renderer filter to play this back (thats for example already possible in directshow with enviviotv or with the gpac-osmo4 player)
2) the unofficial way (some might call it a hack!?), there is the possibility to attach anyhing you want to a mp4 file (viruses, family pictures, tags :D), called "user space"
ND will store the subs that way as attachment in mp4 files

i am using matroska atm but because of the possibility of real interactivity in mp4 (dvd-like menues atc...) i also see a great potential for mp4 (dvd-successor!?)
of course there is a lack of free tools to make this available for the "end-users"

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Tuning
alexnoe is working on it to create a new AVI Mux capable of Vorbis Muxing.Hope he could build it soon and all we have better comparison. The last I heard, he had decided not to implement this. It would (as even he would tell you) be a HUGE hack. Although, from how he was going to do it, I don't think that it would get over the overhead of OGM.

[Tuning]

I was in a dreamland Pamel,thinking of Muxing Ogg to AVI..:( .....everything lost..:( ..no more dreams....So lets conclude the use of Ogg in AVI is still impossible!


-Tuning :(

[Koepi]

Ingo Ralf Blum tried ogg vorbis in avi for over a year and gave up - there's no proper way of doing it. For a comparison use nandub to mux vorbis into avi - but be aware of the drawbacks: no seeking will be possible and the sound will go out of synch in most of the cases.

regards
Koepi

P.S.: i didn't (and won't) vote for any container - I think i have to stay objective as developer...

[Tuning]

Originally posted by Koepi
For a comparison use nandub to mux vorbis into avi - but be aware of the drawbacks: no seeking will be possible and the sound will go out of synch in most of the cases.

This was a thread replied by alexnoe regarding use of Nandub with Ogg Vorbis.
Thread on VDM and Ogg's muxing (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62295&highlight=VDM+and+Oggs+Mux)
Here alexnoe says use of Nandub is an exagerration and Koepi says I can do it...........I'm little confused..:confused:

Which is true?:confused:


Thanks

[mf]

Where's MCF? :scared:
http://mcf.sf.net

[Brother John]

I never understood those tries to put Vorbis into AVI? VBR mp3 works fine and at the time it was a really useful hack. But why bother with AVI when there are other containers offering all desired features natively?
Maybe standalone support? Hm... I don't own one so I don't know. Do standalone-divx-players support even the vbr mp3 hack?


P.S.: Voted ogm and mkv, though I'm planning to use mkv exclusively now.

[DAvenger]

Originally posted by mf
Where's MCF? :scared:
http://mcf.sf.net

You seem to be in contact with the MCF developer ... could you share with us what's the status of this project?

Thanks,
Martin

[Hiro2k]

Damn School made miss this great thread. Pamel, Bond, and Koepi did a great job of clarifying everything up. I voted for OGM and MKV personally. I like them both equally well and I'll continue to test both, until they either die or one is really superior to the other. Hasn't happened happened yet.

[Tuning]

Where's MCF? http://mcf.sf.net
When it will be released!
Quote from mcf.sf.net
Latest News:
Getting ready for release Posted by: ???? (Tronic) Okay, as you probably know, things around MCF have been really quiet for a long time. However, now people are working on it again and the format specification is available too.
-Tuning

[Tronic]

I'm currently the only -active- MCF developer. We have several interested coders who'd like to work with it (libmcf, ATM), but are so new to the project that they cannot, yet.

For questions about when it is released...
* We need a library (libmcf), which I'm currently working on, but due to other things (university courses), the work is currently progressing very slowly
* We need software for that library - I can write some simple commandline utils, but anything graphical really is somewhat overkill for one person
* DirectShow filter is naturally the most important for you, but there is no-one who could write one - on this area, help is really required! (I don't use Windows at all)
* Developers of many UNIX programs have promised to support it as soon as the library is ready
* I think we can expect Avery Lee to support this in original VirtualDub, (and no, I'm not going to make yet another fork of it)

In comparison to other formats, implementing support for MCF should be much easier, because the library is designed to take care of most things automatically, so the application using it doesn't need to know much about MCF internals. This should allow more apps to support it.

Also, handling things like movies splitted into several files transparently in the library, will make nearly all applications actually support these features.

On apps that support Matroska, the basic infrastructure is already there (we need to remember that MCF and Matroska have same roots, and very similar basic design; the data storage format is what is completely different, and there are some feature differences too).

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Tronic On apps that support Matroska, the basic infrastructure is already there (we need to remember that MCF and Matroska have same roots, and very similar basic design; the data storage format is what is completely different, and there are some feature differences too).
We know you have plans to use existing matroska apps with libmcf. Thats ok from an opensource aspect, no question.
* I think we can expect Avery Lee to support this in original VirtualDub, (and no, I'm not going to make yet another fork of it)
Sorry Tronic, but i guess you are raising false expectations here Lasse. I was talking to Avery many times already, even in public on the Virtualdub Support Forum, about adding matroska support to Virtualdub. His opinion is clearly that he doesnt see any necessity to support other containers in general, and this is certainly valid for both MCF and matroska. If ever, he was thinking about extending AVI another time, still using a RIFF structure.
If you dont believe, i can point you to the corresponding threads, but please understand the forum rules dont allow me to link to there. And no, this is not only because he thinks MKV is complex. He generally has no intention to support any other container, IMHO.

[alexnoe]

alexnoe is working on it to create a new AVI Mux capable of Vorbis Muxing.Hope he could build it soon and all we have better comparison.While a day on Malcor III has 29 hours, mine only have 24, which is not enough :angry:
Ingo Ralf Blum tried ogg vorbis in avi for over a year and gave up - there's no proper way of doing it. For a comparison use nandub to mux vorbis into avi - but be aware of the drawbacks: no seeking will be possible and the sound will go out of synch in most of the cases.There is no proper way, that's right. But if I find the time to make a vorbis parser, i'll try an improper way (bundling several vorbis frames to bigger ones of, in average, equal duration, see them as units, and use the general vbr hack on those units).
But why bother with AVI when there are other containers offering all desired features natively?To prove that it is possible. You are thinking way too practical!
Here alexnoe says use of Nandub is an exagerration and Koepi says I can do it...........I'm little confused..NanDub can produce those files which get out of sync each time you seek. I personally do not consider that a 'support' for vorbis audio.
Yes, NanDub can put it into AVI, but it does not support it
which is why the comparison of alexnoe is flawed. If you'd redo it with vorbis sound, the results will look a little different. I will if
- I find a way to put vorbis into AVI
- the b0rks in all those vorbis filters get fixed, so that mkv+vorbis files don't b0rk when you use lacing

Theory says 10 bytes of overhead per vorbis frame in mkv without lacing, which is far beyond what's funny, considering the avg duration of one vorbis frame.

[Koepi]

alexnoe,

take a look at ralf's work here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mediaxw/

No need to reinvent the wheel. Plenty of information. And some explanations on the mailing lists why he gave up - even a hack wasn't the way to go if i recall correctly :( (that's the point where OGM came into the game - if it doesn't work to put ogg vorbis into an avi, then try putting an avi into ogg with vorbis ;) ).

Btw., did you try if there's a size/overhead difference when muxing OGM via OggDS(OggMux) and VDubMod(OggMuxNic)? It's quite possible because the VdubMod-like tools where worked out by reverse-engineering OggDS-created files.

Regards
Koepi

[alexnoe]

No need to reinvent the wheel. Maybe there is no need, but I like to :)
even a hack wasn't the way to go if i recall correctly'even'? Without a hack, there is no chance anyway.
Btw., did you try if there's a size/overhead difference when muxing OGM via OggDS(OggMux) and VDubMod(OggMuxNic)?Cyrius said that there is not much choice when writing OGMs, so the overhead should not differ too much. But i'll try.

EDIT OggMux does not even want to read plain AC3 files :angry: Maybe I just use an AVI file as source in graphedit...

[Hiro2k]

Try the OggMux by Nic. It supports AC3 files.

It's a much better muxer IMO.

[Koepi]

OggMux non-OggDS routine is a port of cyrius' tools (-> same as vdubmod). I totally forgot about that mater (ac3 via oggmux), the one way of doing it is to take an avi with ac3 stream, load that into OggMux and then select an output file and it works (you have to ignore the error message though).

Regards
Koepi

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by alexnoe To prove that it is possible. You are thinking way too practical! ..... :sigh: .... technicians .... :sigh: ....

[mf]

How about putting the actual compressed sound into an MP3-like structure (as good as rewriting vorbis data stream) - applying the generic MP3 hack, and have playback filters "translate" it to a real ogg stream on playback :D.

[DAvenger]

Originally posted by mf
How about putting the actual compressed sound into an MP3-like structure (as good as rewriting vorbis data stream) - applying the generic MP3 hack, and have playback filters "translate" it to a real ogg stream on playback :D.

That sounds way too easy (and crazy) so I bet it won't work :p

[Atamido]

No, the problem with Vorbis is that there is a variable number of samples per packet. This is the same as variable framerate because you have to read a different number of samples each second. What alexnoe was suggesting was to put several packets together and get as close to the correct timecode as possible. Unfortunately you can only get so close because of the erratic nature of Vorbis packet sizes.

[alexnoe]

I've remuxed test file 4 using graphedit from MKV to OGM, and the output file size did not differ noticeably from the VDM output

[Brother John]

by ChristianHJW
..... :sigh: .... technicians .... :sigh: ....
Oh well, don't we all need some kind of personal playground?

To be honest, I can't deny being interested in the result of the Vorbis in AVI experiment...

[Koepi]

alexnoe:

ok, thanks for testing that and spending the time. At least we can see, there is a difference in how the muxers do their job.

Regards
Koepi

[tiki4]

Originally posted by Koepi
OggMux non-OggDS routine is a port of cyrius' tools (-> same as vdubmod). I totally forgot about that mater (ac3 via oggmux), the one way of doing it is to take an avi with ac3 stream, load that into OggMux and then select an output file and it works (you have to ignore the error message though).

Regards
Koepi

What about using Cyrius' Ogmuxer to put AC3 into OGM (like ogmuxer -o track1.ogg track1.ac3) and use that as input for your OggMux. I did all my OGMs with AC3 this way and I never ran into problems.

Regards,

tiki4

[Tuning]

The current votes shows there was no need of multiple choice,even with it MKV leads @58%.Older and newer formats,i.e AVI & MP4 hand-hand at 11 % and in second place we have OGM.Happy matroska team ?.I think mp4 is not as popular as other containers,and got less votes.[Is that correct alexnoe?:)]

-Tuning

[alexnoe]

IMO,mp4 container lost votes only because of lack of good muxers.Not being able to create files is not exactly good for a container :devil:

[Tuning]

Thanks alexnoe for the information. :)
Bye :)
-Tuning

[bond]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Not being able to create files is not exactly good for a containerhey, there are already some ways to create multimedia MP4 files :p

[Barker]

Disclaimer:
I'm somewhat just a newbie (lurking b4 vBulletin when graphedit and flask ruled). I just started posting, so don't please don't flame me.

OGM when it came out, this forum was much smaller and as it was advertised when it was going to be released, it didn't dominate forum.doom9.net. MKV however, has been in every conversation I've seen regarding containers, and it's blatent that it would win this poll regardless of its functionality. I like both for different reasons, and I think that both work well for their individual features, but this poll (to me) seems useless. Reason I say that is because its all about "Whats Better?"

IMO, (I never thought I would say this but...) I think every person that uses this forum should stay away from the polls and just try the containers based on the features that are most suitable for what they are trying to do. This bickering about "This does this better" should be up to the developers, and more ispiring to them to make their container better.

Competiton just makes bad blood, and we spend more time arguing with each other rather than just testing and coding.

I love this forum, but at the same time, Im sick of the useless threads.

Regards,
Barker

[Tuning]

Welldone! Barker,for concluding this thread to be a waste of time.Thanks.Infact you need to blame me ...as I posted this thread.
I think I'm newest newbie(Aug 2003)than you to ask such a poor poll.
So please don't be hard at me.:(

First of all I have to say the poll was not meant to find which is better than the best.I'm sorry as i have already used the term "best" on several earlier occasions,but it was not meant to cause any bad impression to these containers.On my point,the thread helped me to learn the limitations and qualities each one has and simultaneosly allowed me to learn others opinion over them.If you cannot figure out them,it is not because of this "useless thread",and no one in this universe will take into account this poll here as the final word.It is just suggestions and members views and nothing more.It is just like .......more or less general how every one views each container. :)

BTW,If you don't like any of them(Or the thread itself) don't vote..if you like all of them vote all.....no restriction.This is why multiple choice were allowed.And you can always ask moderators to what to do.

Thanks Barker :) -Tuning :p

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Barker Disclaimer: I'm somewhat just a newbie (lurking b4 vBulletin when graphedit and flask ruled). I just started posting, so don't please don't flame me.

OGM when it came out .... but this poll (to me) seems useless. Reason I say that is because its all about "Whats Better?"

Sorry, but i cant agree, not at all. First, this poll doesnt mention anywhere if people think either container is 'better' than another, its simply asks 'whats your favourite', or else 'what container are you using for your movies currently' , thats it.

Second, this poll is multiple choice, so those people who use all 3 containers, for different use, could easily vote for each of them.

If there is something i am really sick of are posts from people who dont take the time reading what others actually say, but x-read about it quickly and then reply based on their interpretation of the quick x-read ....

[alexnoe]

You mean like people who judge AVI without even reading its specs? :devil:

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by alexnoe You mean like people who judge AVI without even reading its specs? :devil: ... alex, i prepare to get flamed now because matroska, for a very long time, was only existing of specs with no working code yet, but still :

There is a HUGE difference between how AVI could be, described in some famous specs made by some famous organisations .... and how AVI really is existing in today's implementations.

Accept it, Virtualdub is THE instance for AVI file creation and maybe some 70% of all existing AVIs are made by it, so as long as Virtualdub does not create AVI files that are different from the ones i see and get every day, i will still continue claiming that AVI IS limited in its capabilities ..... and if i do that i will speak about true existing AVI files, supported by 95% of all apps that are handling AVI, not imaginary ones created by some super special tools developed by East-German genius coders, making AVI files that no other apps can read and process any longer ....

[alexnoe]

and maybe some 70% of all existing AVIs are made by itYou are able to get statistics on how many people use which tool to create files? :eek:

[Tuning]

Lets change it - (Making Future proof....This will be the phrase after XX years )
AVI-MUX is THE instance for AVI file creation and maybe some 90% of all existing AVIs are made by it.
I'm really happy then......someone here will be more happy.....
.....guess......:D ..........
.........:D......
....:p

[alexnoe]

/me still wonders where those stats come from.

[Atamido]

I would think that the stats are a guess. But, given that most AVI files that you see in the wild are either pirated movies or home creations, and given that most of these are made by either NanDub or VirtualDub, then I would also guess that these numbers are not that far off. But getting real numbers would be hard. This isn't a statement of which the best muxer is as NanDub should have been phased out long ago.

Files that I see that are made by professional sources are usually MOV, MPEG, RV, or ASF/WMV so that doesn't come into the equation much.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I voted for MP4.

However, I think it's a real shame there are no easy to use A/V encoding applications available at the moment.

Is there anybody out there who has developed an all in one application that will allow you to say.... Input .vob streams. Make various user selections. And output Mpeg4 video with aac audio in an .mp4 container?

Never mind subs, chapters menu's etc

Cheers

[bilu]

@SeeMoreDigital

"Mpeg Card: Sigma Xcard c/w JovePlayer software"?

That is probably a good reason to choose MP4 indeed :D

Bilu

[bond]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Is there anybody out there who has developed an all in one application that will allow you to say.... Input .vob streams. Make various user selections. And output Mpeg4 video with aac audio in an .mp4 container?not that i know of, but also note that i wouldnt use such a tool even if it exists for avi ;)

[Tuning]

Originally posted by bond
note that i wouldnt use such a tool even if it exists for avi ;)

Don't want to be lazy no?.I always have same opinion.
Bye.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well, using lazy tools (encoders) has it's place too!

The one I use works very well for generating avi's. It's very quick and provides the user with a lot of options!

And at the end of the day. What is really needed is a well thought out encoder (and GUI) that can offer the user plenty of options!

Sorenson Squeeze 3.5 is very nearly such an encoder. Unfortunately it sets it's sights too high by offering encoding to just about any format including SWF. And as a result it's way too expensive. It's too bad Sorenson does not make a 'lite' version that can encode to just the 'high compression formats' like WMV9, RV9 and Mpeg4!

Cheers

[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