AAC in AVI possible now!

[alexnoe]

He can't speak about me, because I have not yet gone crazy: my AAC - in - AVI works (soon to be released as avi-mux gui 1.15.4. I'm currently working around another b0rk in the seekhead of VDM files).

[Tuning]

Originally posted by alexnoe
my AAC - in - AVI works (soon to be released as avi-mux gui 1.15.4.

Alexnoe, You are great!. Thanks for the effort. Yet another hack to avi. I'm sure this is going to be important for avi users.
Btw, i'm curious too, is there "AAC is SBR" or some other option need in avi?:)

[alexnoe]

Yes, you have to set it manually, just like with mkvmerge.

Of course, if there is anyone who can tell me how I can find out if a file is SBR or not, then tell me (and Mosu).

[Stux]

HE-AAC can be detected two ways

Implicitly and Explicitly, explicit detection requires you to parse the audioconfig (preferred). The problem is that when an aac.mp4 is extracted into an .aac file the audioconfig tends to get lost, and then the only way is to decode the first frame of the aac stream.

PS: hacking AAC into AVI is madness ;)

BUT if you are determined, all I can request is you make sure that whatever hack you do come up with is compatible with the various AAC decoder DS filters out there, and hopefully our MP4 Muxer

[alexnoe]

It's up.

This is what I have (unless there is a bug):
- ADTS headers are striped
- auto config is as defined here (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/faac/faad2/common/mp4av/aac.cpp?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.2)
- one chunk contains one RAW data block
- if a file contains ADTS packets of different numbers of raw data blocks, the user is warned that muxing this into AVI is not recommended
- the RTFM.txt file tells the user to test his files
- as in mkvmerge, one raw data block is assumed to have 1024 samples

[Doom9]

@alex: I'm sure the anti-AVI crowd will hate you even more for this ;) Good job. If only more editing programs supported all the stuff your tool can mux into an AVI.

[alexnoe]

I'm sure the anti-AVI crowd will hate you even more for this Wrong tense :p

[Tuning]

Thanks alexnoe.:)

They started hating centuries ago when you posted above.:D

[bond]

i allowed myself to split the AAC in AVI part from the vdm thread as it deserves an own discussion imo :)

nice hack alexnoe ;)
you maybe want to edit the first thread

[DKDIB]

To AlexNoe
Will you implemente Vorbis muxing also? Isn' t it similar to AAC muxing?



P.S.:
:thanks:
___

Stux wrote:
> [...] to decode the first frame of the aac stream.

Thanks a lot: now I understand why foobar2000 recognizes HE AAC without mp4 container automatically! :D

[Doom9]

Wrong tense Well, to my defense, some might only learn about your latest achievement sometime in the future ;)

[The Rabbit]

Originally posted by alexnoe
He can't speak about me, because I have not yet gone crazy: my AAC - in - AVI works (soon to be released as avi-mux gui 1.15.4. I'm currently working around another b0rk in the seekhead of VDM files).

Hi,

Just curious...

I wonder what's the wFormatTag you use for AAC? What will you use for Vorbis? Is there an official way to choose wFormatTag for every newly developed audio codec? Or does some organization accept registration and maintain the list?

Thanks!

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by Tuning
Thanks alexnoe.:)

They started hating centuries ago when you posted above.:D

No, no, no...
They started hating him when he posted this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=15232&view=findpost&p=160668) @ Hydrogenaudio.

[Koepi]

Vorbis in AVI will be _very_ hard to achieve properly, the bitstream format (OGG) is simply very weird. Ingo Ralf Blum tried it for 1 1/2 years, produced very impressive tools (he's a very good coder) but didn't manage to solve that.

I'd like to get proven wrong, but I fear that hack won't be possible :-/ (well, and if it worked i only needed chapter info in avi and would be happy :) )

Regards
Koepi

[bilu]

(I'm drooling to see ChrisHJW posting here... :D )

Bilu

[Atamido]

AAC in AVI is evil. Vorbis in AVI could come only from the dark lord himself. :devil:

You can't even imagine how hackish you have to get to get Vorbis in AVI working. Its a combination of Variable Bitrate AND Variable Framerate because not only are all of the packets different sizes, they also each contain a different number of samples.

Heck, Ogg really isn't even an ideal editing solution for it since you can't tell what timecode most of the packets should have without actually decoding it.

Yes, I think he could get it to work. He mentioned before what he wants to do, and it makes sense. But it is certainly not a good thing to be doing.

[ChristianHJW]

I dont hate Alex. He is acting very normal, like so many other developers before him. He has invested a lot of time into his tool, and there were never as many users as expected for it. As a result, he is making it more attractive to the users, by implementing new 'features' .

Still, i have my very own opinion about this, and spent a lot of time explaining myself on the thread linked above on HA.org, so please dont ask me to invest this time again.

Of course, everybody will assume that its only my involvement with matroska that makes me think like i do. Those who know me better know this isnt the only truth. I have been spending a lot of time helping video compression Newbies during the last 3 years, answering questions and helping frustrated users on various boards, and Nandub's VBR MP3 trick was definitely one of the main reasons for that, with little or no impact on quality IMHO.

Again, if i had to choose ( fortunately this isnt the case ;) ) between matroska disappearing and MOV/MP4 finally making AVI redundant, or AVI getting a 2nd Life, i'd rather see matroska die than AVI live ....

[bond]

btw grap avimux-gui 1.15.5 with aac in avi support here (http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~noe/Video-Zeug/AVIMux%20GUI/index-eng.html)

[DAvenger]

Originally posted by Pamel
AAC in AVI is evil. Vorbis in AVI could come only from the dark lord himself. :devil:

:D You never know ...

[alexnoe]

Will you implemente Vorbis muxing also? Isn' t it similar to AAC muxing?I will TRY to. And no, it is not similar to AAC. AAC has a constant frame duration within one file, Vorbis does not.

[DKDIB]

Koepi wrote:
> Vorbis in AVI will be _very_ hard to achieve properly, the
> bitstream format (OGG) is simply very weird. [...]

Pamel wrote:
> [...] Its a combination of Variable Bitrate AND Variable
> Framerate because not only are all of the packets
> different sizes, they also each contain a different number
> of samples.

AlexNoe wrote:
> [...] And no, it is not similar to AAC. AAC has a constant
> frame duration within one file, Vorbis does not.

Thanks for explanations! ^__^

[mf]

Originally posted by Pamel
You can't even imagine how hackish you have to get to get Vorbis in AVI working. Its a combination of Variable Bitrate AND Variable Framerate because not only are all of the packets different sizes, they also each contain a different number of samples.
Packed bitstream? :D

[alexnoe]

what are *typical* frame durations?

[Stux]

Originally posted by Pamel
You can't even imagine how hackish you have to get to get Vorbis in AVI working. Its a combination of Variable Bitrate AND Variable Framerate because not only are all of the packets different sizes, they also each contain a different number of samples.

You know.... MP4 support VFR and VBR ;)

[Atamido]

Originally posted by mf
Packed bitstream? :D Yes. But you have to vary the number of packets you pack because of how irregular Vorbis packets are. Really, its not pretty.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Stux
You know.... MP4 support VFR and VBR ;) As does Matroska. ;) OGM does too, but its a little hackish, and Xiph has no plans to implement it as it would make the overhead higher.

[mf]

Originally posted by Pamel
Yes. But you have to vary the number of packets you pack because of how irregular Vorbis packets are. Really, its not pretty.
Good. So that would work. Alexnoe, I'm counting on you :D.

[DAvenger]

Originally posted by Pamel
Really, its not pretty.

Stop pretending you really care ;) You better put your famous "Just use Matroska" into your signature :p

[Atamido]

Originally posted by DAvenger
Stop pretending you really care ;) You better put your famous "Just use Matroska" into your signature :p I am intrigued by the idea, but I think that the distribution of a tool that could do this is a bad idea. As far as what container, I try to advocate what would be the best for each purpose, but it just happens that for many purposes Matroska is the best. But I have advocated the use of AVI, MPEG-1/2, MP4, etc. for specific circumstances.

[mf]

Originally posted by Pamel
I am intrigued by the idea, but I think that the distribution of a tool that could do this is a bad idea.
If it works, it works. No reason not to distribute a tool that produces working things.

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by mf If it works, it works. No reason not to distribute a tool that produces working things.
I dont agree. Technicians like to think that way, but they are wrong with that. Otto Hahn was possessed by the idea to get the chain reaction working. By publishing his results, he is partially responsible for the death of thousands of Japanese citizens, thats a fact.

Technicians like to do what is technically possible, but they tend to deny any form of responsibility for what they are doing. I cant stop that, but at least i can tell them they are making a mistake with that ....

[mf]

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
I dont agree. Technicians like to think that way, but they are wrong with that. Otto Hahn was possessed by the idea to get the chain reaction working. By publishing his results, he is partially responsible for the death of thousands of Japanese citizens, thats a fact.

Technicians like to do what is technically possible, but they tend to deny any form of responsibility for what they are doing. I cant stop that, but at least i can tell them they are making a mistake with that ....
Oh yeah. And alexnoe is going to kill thousands of Matroska files. Wait, that's not possible. Alexnoe is going to stop thousands of Matroska files from being made. Don't get into the RIAA reasoning of "potential losses" ;). My point is, his research is harmless.

[Hiro2k]

This is just a warning. I'm not addressing any one member in particular, so don't feel singled out. I do not want a repeat of what happened in the HA Forums to happen in this thread. I don't mind you sharing your views and ideas, but do it in a professional way (no name calling, or insults).

Thank You


I feel that what Alexnoe has done is great. AVI is not dead, Alexnoe just proved that. So that means the rest of you guys will have to try much harder to kill this format by making your's Superior. =P And I might add, AVI is much more popular so I suggest you start promoting whats new and innovative about your format, rather than saying how much crappier AVI is.

[alexnoe]

I dont agree. Technicians like to think that way, but they are wrong with that. Otto Hahn was possessed by the idea to get the chain reaction working. By publishing his results, he is partially responsible for the death of thousands of Japanese citizens, thats a fact.If he had not helped to develop it, someone else would.

The difference here is that i'm not sure if anyone else is going to try to get Vorbis into AVI...

[IvS]

I seriously don't understand why *developers* would choose to hang on to an outdated suboptimal container such as AVI.
Is it because of AVI being the currently most popular/used/widespread? If that's the reason then sorry, that's not a good enough reason.
Containers such as Matroska and MP4 are obviously much better/flexible/non-hack-demending. Instead of struggling to keep AVI alive just because it's the most used, better new formats that ease the life of developers and users should be focused on. Claiming that there's nothing wrong with AVI won't do, sorry. Since words i've read from every serious developer indicate how suboptimal and hellish AVI is. People need *better* things. If some don't care about what developers and users need, that's ok, it's their right. But other people should care about things other than themselves (especially users that is) and realize that newer better formats should be supported, and not the latest AVI hacking technology.
Anyway, i'm not claiming BS like "oh nos you can't distribute this. what yuo're doing si evil!" etc., this kind of remarks makes no sense.

And to those who choose to blame Christian for being some Matroska zealot or something, yeah he is highly involved in Matroska, but if you knew him just a little you'd know that he actually *cares* about giving people better things and supports Matroska, not just because it's Matroska, but because it's better, and it's for YOU and everybody.

ShyK, supporting the good of the majority.

[alexnoe]

I seriously don't understand why *developers* would choose to hang on to an outdated suboptimal container such as AVI.I've explained something like 10 times already: Someone, especially someone who does not code himself, claiming AAC in AVI being impossible is reason enough to implement it.

[IvS]

Originally posted by alexnoe
I've explained something like 10 times already: Someone, especially someone who does not code himself, claiming AAC in AVI being impossible is reason enough to implement it.
Wow that was a fast reply.
Yes i've read that. If you claim that *this* is a good enough reason, then that's pretty funny, because there are *always* people who say "that's impossible" and are completely clueless. So sorry i don't consider *this* a good enough reason. Do you have any better reason?

[alexnoe]

So sorry i don't consider *this* a good enough reasonAh....that's why you did not implement it :p

[IvS]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Ah....that's why you did not implement it :p
Hehe. OK. That's pretty funny too. I assume you care more to implement this beacuse some clueless people say it's impossible than the fact that you're helping to preserve AVI and slowing down the acceptance of MP4 and Matroska. Anyway that doesn't really matter, someone would have done it anyway. Funny that you don't mind being actually the person who "did it anyway".

[Christos]

@alexnoe
If you are looking for respect and admiration for your coding skills, and brainpower, then I think you certainly got it.
Now, maybe you should find a better way to put them in use.
But, on the other hand, who am I to tell you what to do...

@everyone
The majority of people don't even care what container they are using (they don't even see the file extention on their WinXP), and what kind of sound format that container supports. They only see the video and hear the sound that's within the container. So AAC in .avi doesn't really mean anything to them.
On the other hand, they will be able to see DVD like menus in .mp4, and they will like them a lot. Thats the kind of feature that makes a difference for containers. Thats what the matroska team should be focusing on if they hope for "global domination". Not fighting poor old .avi

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Christos @alexnoe
If you are looking for respect and admiration for your coding skills, and brainpower, then I think you certainly got it.
Now, maybe you should find a better way to put them in use. .. couldnt have said it better :). There is one very very positive aspect about alexnoe implementing AAC support into avi-mux GUI, and this is that now his tool can also write AAC into MKV. Looking forward to same happening with Vorbis, actually avi-mux GUI can do things like appending different MKV tracks already, and the more codecs are being supported the more people will actually start using it, as an alternative to mkvmerge. matroska is all about choices, instead of being fixed on a combination of codecs, and for matroska users having the choice for different muxing tools is just cool IMHO :) !


On the other hand, they will be able to see DVD like menus in .mp4, and they will like them a lot. Thats the kind of feature that makes a difference for containers. Thats what the matroska team should be focusing on if they hope for "global domination". Not fighting poor old .avi .. if people like it or not, if they claim i'm stupid or not, i dont care, AVI IS the VfW container. Hacking things into AVI which can not be supported by the VCM or ACM API makes no sense IMHO. To make this clear, i am not fighting AVI, not at all. It certainly has his use, and things will stay like this for a pretty long time for sure. I am simply turning against putting more and more non-VfW compliant stuff into AVI, because this perverts the read main advantage of AVI, being the wide spread support in many different tools. And it 'artificially' prolongues the life of AVI, without any necessity or sense behind it, because there are much better alternatives already, and these are getting better and better support already. Get my point ?

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by alexnoe I've explained something like 10 times already: Someone, especially someone who does not code himself, claiming AAC in AVI being impossible is reason enough to implement it.

Just curious, who was the moron ? You cant be talking about me, because i know since a couple of month that AAC can be put into AVI ( CBR would be even pretty easy, via an ACM codec ) , and i certainly never was stating differently. Still, its my right to question the sense behind doing that, but being the precise mathematical person you are always presenting yourself, you certainly didnt swob the one with the other, no ?

[alexnoe]

( CBR would be even pretty easy, via an ACM codec )Cyrius tried that: The DirectShow AAC Decoder b0rks if you try to feed it with 'CBR'-AVI headers and, consequently, assume byte-access on the stream...

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by alexnoe Cyrius tried that: The DirectShow AAC Decoder b0rks if you try to feed it with 'CBR'-AVI headers and, consequently, assume byte-access on the stream... ... you ran out of arguments meanwhile ? You wonna tell us if i can make an ACM codec to write CBR AAC in AVI ( and menno from Ahead told me this would be feasible ), there is no way to make a DShow filter to play those AVI files ? Just because current decoders dont work, this doesnt mean its impossible to do, no ? Oh, i understand, if such ACM codec existed, people would start using VdubMod again, instead of avi-mux GUI ;) ...

[Suiryc]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Cyrius tried that: The DirectShow AAC Decoder b0rks if you try to feed it with 'CBR'-AVI headers and, consequently, assume byte-access on the stream...
In the HydrogenAudio thread I asked menno directly and here is what I could understand : faad (i.e. the most used AAC decoder out there - in CoreAAC, and the 3viX AAC decoder IIRC) can only properly decompress AAC when you give it a full frames (if there is crap before the frame then faad will likely return an error).
In every implementation of AAC in a container (that I know of, i.e. AVI, OGM, MP4 and MKV) the ADTS headers (see the AAC specs) are stripped from the stream and the RAW data blocks (attached to each ADTS header) are muxed in one entity of the container (chunk for AVI, Packet for OGM, atom for MP4, Block for MKV). This is the only safe way so that full frames are given to the decoder when playing back the file.

On the contrary to other containers (which by default support without hacks ;p VBR audio) you need to change a bit the AVI headers (a way similar to the one used for MP3 VBR).
The problem : while other containers will likely keep their "full AAC RAW data blocks per entity" rule, AVI won't with standard tools (i.e. VirtualDub). With such tools the AAC stream will be rewritten as CBR ... and you know what happens with faad in this case : no full RAW data blocks, error returned, no audio (actually it even crashed for me when I tried to play the file).

[alexnoe]

there is no way to make a DShow filter to play those AVI files ?Not with the current decoders. You'd need one that does not require to be fed with whole frames. If you wanna write one, then write one...

[Suiryc]

Originally posted by ChristianHJW
... you ran out of arguments meanwhile ? You wonna tell us if i can make an ACM codec to write CBR AAC in AVI ( and menno from Ahead told me this would be feasible ), there is no way to make a DShow filter to play those AVI files ? Just because current decoders dont work, this doesnt mean its impossible to do, no ? Oh, i understand, if such ACM codec existed, people would start using VdubMod again, instead of avi-mux GUI ;) ...
If I read correctly menno (or someone else) said that the ADTS headers were kept in the ACM codec. But both CoreAAC and the 3viX decoder froze when I tried to mux an AAC stream with ADTS headers inside an OGM file ...

[SSIXS]

Alexnoe,

I like to take a moment to applaud you for your development achievements and hope that the narrow mindedness of some individuals does not diminish your perseverance to push the limits as far as you can. I've tested your method and it worked out great. TY for the time you spent in implementing it.

Now, I seriously cant believe that one individual who wishes to expand the capabilities of the AVI container would be verbally persecuted for his efforts and told that it’s just a “hack”. How do you think this all started? If memory serves me correctly, the first widely distributed divx codec was in itself nothing more than a “hack” and look where that has taken us.

The AVI container, some individuals seem to want to write it off as archaic and outdated and yet, there still doesn’t appear to be anything quite as universally used to take its place. Is it feasible to capture huffyuv into the OGM or Matroska container yet, or directly open one of these other containers in Adobe Premier or any other commercial editing suite (without the use of Avisynth)? not that I’ve seen. For the sake of pure simplicity and expandability, the AVI container seems to be the choice for quite a few people, otherwise why would we have such programs as Virtualdub, Nandub, AutoGK etc…which cater to the majority of people out here.

“Technicians like to do what is technically possible, but they tend to deny any form of responsibility for what they are doing.”

I really like that statement, spoken like a true conservative :D Let’s be honest for a moment shall we. If we didn’t have any technicians that thought “outside the box” where would the world be today or even more specifically, where would the audio/video encoding community be? In my experience around here, if someone has a problem with how to accomplish something, rarely does that question go unanswered, either by the developer or someone familiar with what the individual is proposing. Just because a new technique is introduced, doesn’t mean any one individual is on the hook for solving all the worlds’ problems. That’s why we have a community here, to help each other out in our endeavors, not to “pimp” any new software or container while ridiculing the efforts of others. That, in my opinion, is just juvenile and bad form.

There’s a saying…one mans sugar is another mans poison. If you don’t like something, that doesn’t mean it's bad for everyone else.

I thank all the developers that have given us all such great tools to work with and hope that they continue to think “outside the box” for that is what enables this hobby and community to thrive.

Derek

[mf]

Originally posted by SSIXS
If we didn’t have any technicians that thought “outside the box” where would the world be today or even more specifically, where would the audio/video encoding community be?
We probably wouldn't have interlacing in our TVs, because the problem would have been solved in a more conservative way, like a signal doubling unit to convert 30Hz progressive to 60Hz progressive to match the mains frequency.

[bill_baroud]

in Adobe Première 6.0 : "can't open file, file use an unknow compressor"
in After Effect 5.0 : "After Effect Error : no such AVI compressor"

but my avi play fine in WMP :confused:
how can this happen ?

[Neo Neko]

There is no problem with thinking outside the box. Or at least I have none. :D But strictly speaking trying to moddify, trick, or hack AVI to work with moddern codecs is a clear case of thinking inside the box if I ever saw one. Not that there is anything horribly wrong with that.

AVI "IS" dead. Nothing Alex or anyone else outside Microsoft can do will change that. Personally I would love to see Alex put some of his considderable tallent behind one or more of the new formats. But they are his tallents and he is free to put them where he wants. We don't have to like it but we have to deal with it.

But when you really think outside the box you can see that in a round about way Alex's efforts will really only hurt AVI and help alternatives in the long run. Think how many novices give up when faced with something as basic as AC3 in AVI. To us it may be trivial to find out the codec used. But to the average joe it is near impossible. Now there will just be more AVI out with more nonstandard things which will only frustrate the average user. And if they ever do find the codec used and a way to play it back they will likely someday want to create similar files of their own. Which will again lead only to frustration as they are unable to find the one page on the internet they need because when dealing with AVI Alex's page IIRC is not even in google's top 10. Or the relative vecinity of it. Should I mention standalone woes?!

What is technically possible and what should be done are not synonimous. It is technically possible to moddify AVI to handle one or two new formats it was not designed to. But this will only make using AVI harder in the long run if it catches on to any extent. Heck it already has. Technicians should be free to think of what is technically possible. But they should also considder what would be responsible.

[SSIXS]

"AVI "IS" dead" ? then would you or someone else be a real sport and let me know where I can find a utility that will allow me to capture video in one of these "supposed" more advanced formats? I'm all for something new if it exists and doesnt require any more processing power than the AVI container.

Yes, some people might have trouble with figuring out the technique that Alex has come up with, but that's why this community is here, to develope new things and lend a hand explaining how they're used. As for people obtaining a video file and trying to figure out how to play it, you'd think that whoever was distributing the file would offer some insite as to what was required for playback, correct? Though, if you're refferring to obtaining a file from some peer-to-peer type utility chances are they might be violating copyrights, in that case I feel no pity for them whatsoever. :D

Standalone woes? maybe I've missed something (wouldnt be the first time ;) ) but are there hardware players for containers such as OGM, Matroska etc...? As far as what standalones will and wont play, we're at the mercy of the manufacturers, not the developers here who are implementing things that we can use for one purpose or another.

"Technicians should be free to think of what is technically possible. But they should also considder what would be responsible."

I have to wonder...what IS considered "responsible"?

I dont know Alex, but I would wager, that if someone approached him with a question concerning how something was done, he'd be more than willing to explain it to them, as any developer would more than likely do.

Are you thinking responsible means dedicating an individuals talents to further developing a newer format that you and a smaller niche of people make use of? Are you, somewhere in the back of your mind, wanting to halt any further additions to the AVI container because if may somehow affect the use of your own format of choice?

I just dont understand what is so irresponsible about making an addition to a container that most of us use in some form or another.

Yes, I'll grant you that the MP4, OGM, Matroska etc...containers may be more flexible or feature packed, but for my own personal purposes these extra features (such as DVD-like menus) are just frivelous and take up room on a CD that could be better used for the actual video. I just prefer a more straight forward approach.

Everything is dependent upon individual taste, some people will swear by WM9, others SBC, divx 4.x, Divx 5.x, Xvid, 3ivx etc... That's the beauty of this, people have the ability to read guides, look at examples and try things for themselves. Only THEY can decide what's best in their own eyes.

For example, I've always been partial to manual encoding with SBC or Divx 4.x. Just last night I had some time to kill and tried AutoGK...for a simplified almost single click backup solution I was quite impressed. (and heaven forbid, it outputs to an archaic "dead" container) Will I abandon manual encoding? Probably not, but it's nice to see something very simple for the masses that still delivers good quality.

It all comes down to this, if something is developed that you yourself have no use for, then fine dont use it, but dont rain on the accomplishments of the individual that developed it and tell them their time was wasted. ;)

[hoola]

Now there will just be more AVI out with more nonstandard things which will only frustrate the average user. And if they ever do find the codec used and a way to play it back they will likely someday want to create similar files of their own.

well hopefully they arent downloading illegal files with or without nonstandard or standard output.and if they do and have trouble well that is what they get.that is why i love this place. it is a place to go to get help with standard?nonstandard? video/audio yes?

but doesnt this happen with newer formats already as well? i see posts on the net all the time like. ((how do i play a ogm file? how do i play a mkv file? oh no not another codec i have to install on my pc.)) yes the newer ones may not be NONstandard but still cause havoc to newbies.

i myself use rv9/ogg in matroska container which i may add will probably never be able to be played on any kind of standalone hardware player but who cares its for me and me only.I love to see new ways AVI can be used beit a hack or not because even though i dont use avi anymore the majority of the peeps out there do. it (IS) the preffered container unfortunatly. lets face it all these means are *for a big part* used for piracy anyways so i think they could really care less what is standard or not.

great work to all authors. thinking outside the box is very usefull but when your working on the inside of the box sometimes its better to be on the inside. :cool:

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SSIXS
"AVI "IS" dead" ? then would you or someone else be a real sport and let me know where I can find a utility that will allow me to capture video in one of these "supposed" more advanced formats? I'm all for something new if it exists and doesnt require any more processing power than the AVI container.

You are treading a fine line. Use the search young padewan. -> http://forum.doom9.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=821439&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

Originally posted by SSIXS
Yes, some people might have trouble with figuring out the technique that Alex has come up with, but that's why this community is here, to develope new things and lend a hand explaining how they're used. As for people obtaining a video file and trying to figure out how to play it, you'd think that whoever was distributing the file would offer some insite as to what was required for playback, correct?

If you thought that you would be wrong. And as good as this site is it is not unfortuantly where everyone gets their information. But I am always finding quirky files or files that are unlabled as to anything in them. I even found some AVI recently with Vorbis in Ogg inside the AVI!! I experimented with it years ago. But it was never a feesable or responsible thing to do. But people do those sort of things anyway.

Originally posted by SSIXS
Though, if you're refferring to obtaining a file from some peer-to-peer type utility chances are they might be violating copyrights, in that case I feel no pity for them whatsoever. :D

You may not feel pity. I don't see a need for pitty. But it most ceartainly have a backlash no matter what you think of them.

Originally posted by SSIXS
Standalone woes? maybe I've missed something (wouldnt be the first time ;) ) but are there hardware players for containers such as OGM, Matroska etc...?

No. But see here is the issue that is key. ATM no one is going to burn a MKV or OGM to CD and expect it to play in current standalones. But you can rest assured that when it is possible it will work better than AVI even when dealing with unknown codecs. OTOH lots of people might just get these stand alones and burn an AVI figuring that they either use MP3 or AC3 and get frustrated when it refuses to play at all or play without synch.

Originally posted by SSIXS
As far as what standalones will and wont play, we're at the mercy of the manufacturers, not the developers here who are implementing things that we can use for one purpose or another.

But manufacturers are likely only going to implement features specified by the developers. And since last I saw Microsoft was the developer of AVI and not Alex. So who are the manufacturers going to go to if they have questions or issues? Microsoft who will tell them to get bent and support the new ASF format or Alex? They will go to MS of course. :D

Originally posted by SSIXS
"Technicians should be free to think of what is technically possible. But they should also considder what would be responsible."

I have to wonder...what IS considered "responsible"?

I dont know Alex, but I would wager, that if someone approached him with a question concerning how something was done, he'd be more than willing to explain it to them, as any developer would more than likely do.

Unfortunatly he is not AFAIK on any of their contact lists. And is rather invisable outside of such usercentric communities. It would be a boon indeed if any manufacturer consulted him. I see no chance of that happening.

Originally posted by SSIXS
Are you thinking responsible means dedicating an individuals talents to further developing a newer format that you and a smaller niche of people make use of? Are you, somewhere in the back of your mind, wanting to halt any further additions to the AVI container because if may somehow affect the use of your own format of choice?

No I would halt further additions to AVI simply because it's developer has declaired it dead by creating a new format and not updating AVI in any way for many many years. I have no specific dislike against AVI. I still use it regularly. Notice when I said AVI was dead I did not say it was gone. It is still in the process of rotting slowly and degrading to an eventually almost non-existant state.

Originally posted by SSIXS
I just dont understand what is so irresponsible about making an addition to a container that most of us use in some form or another.


It is considderation for the user public at large. Back when I found how to get Vorbis in AVI and have it keep synch I could see that in the long run it would be most problematic and best if I dropped it in favor of other solutions. Which I did and another now dead format burst on the sceen. OGM of course. It was a bit more dificult to handle. But that was being actively addressed and uniformly implemented unlike these AVI solutions. Till today it has been replaced by much more capable formats like MP4 and Matroska.

Originally posted by SSIXS
Yes, I'll grant you that the MP4, OGM, Matroska etc...containers may be more flexible or feature packed, but for my own personal purposes these extra features (such as DVD-like menus) are just frivelous and take up room on a CD that could be better used for the actual video. I just prefer a more straight forward approach.

For one preffering a straight foreward approach it is supremely ironic you arrive at it by such serruptitious and circumventing routes.

Originally posted by SSIXS
Everything is dependent upon individual taste, some people will swear by WM9, others SBC, divx 4.x, Divx 5.x, Xvid, 3ivx etc... That's the beauty of this, people have the ability to read guides, look at examples and try things for themselves. Only THEY can decide what's best in their own eyes.

Yeah but that cant change the fact that something is dead. SBC is dead. Divx4 is dead. Divx3 is dead. MSMPEG4vX is dead. Just not yet gone. But soon to be.

Originally posted by SSIXS
For example, I've always been partial to manual encoding with SBC or Divx 4.x. Just last night I had some time to kill and tried AutoGK...for a simplified almost single click backup solution I was quite impressed. (and heaven forbid, it outputs to an archaic "dead" container) Will I abandon manual encoding? Probably not, but it's nice to see something very simple for the masses that still delivers good quality.

Again your misconception that if something is dead it is gone. When you die you will not automatically disappear. Sure whould save on funeral expenses if that were the case though. No you will linger around on a cold slab till they get to putting you in the ground. Then you will linger there untill your flesh is dissolved away. But even after that your bones may linger on forever as fossils. But they never again actively grow etc.

Originally posted by SSIXS
It all comes down to this, if something is developed that you yourself have no use for, then fine dont use it, but dont rain on the accomplishments of the individual that developed it and tell them their time was wasted. ;)

I am not that concerned if he wastes his time. It is his to waste however he likes it. But don't expect me to praise what I might see as pointless or even misguided or dammaging. Alex is a very capable guy and quite skilled. But I believe that even in this thread he expressed he did this as more of a dare rather than thinking this will bennefit the world. I am not here to put Alex down or belittle his work. Because it is impressive. But don't blame me if I think he could work wonders for more current formats as well. ;) Notice I am not saying which format. Pick one. Because I think he could bring something to all of them.

[avih]

@Alexnoe, Chris,

you're both respectable, don't do this pls.
this thread is about announcing AAC in avi. it's not a political thread.

[IvS]

Originally posted by avih
@Alexnoe, Chris,

you're both respectable, don't do this pls.
this thread is about announcing AAC in avi. it's not a political thread.
A political thread? Alex himself admits his AAC in AVI project is a "proof of concept". Someone who proves a concept expects opinions about it. And this is exactly what is happening here, an exchange of opinions. There is nothing "political" about this thread, not as far as i can see. I've been reading interesting posts of users here. And indeed there have been annoying "attacks" but as you can see everybody's moving on. Many opinions and exchange of words here that anyone can learn from. I consider this a good thing, don't you?
Regards.

edit: and people can determine who is or is not respectable by the words that person says.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by IvS
I seriously don't understand why *developers* would choose to hang on to an outdated suboptimal container such as AVI. I think a better question would be, "Why does alexnoe want to do goofy stuff like put AAC in AVI?" The answer to this actually points at a particular part of alexnoe's psyche. Two parts really. One part of him can't stand to see something incorrect. He constantly corrects spelling and grammar mistakes that people make. He will point out how some point is impossible in physics (unless using some particular piece of technology from StarTrek). If he reads some specs and sees that some extreme situation is possible, and asks someone if it can be done, if they say "no", then they basically committed him to doing it.

AVI isn't he only thing that he has hacked. For instance, in Matroska, Blocks(frames) are grouped into Clusters. A Cluster usually contains up to 32 seconds worth of Blocks. (This is because the Blocks each have a timecode that is stored in a signed INT16. So, it can be -32Kms to 32Kms. But really only positive intergers are used.) Well, alexnoe was reading the Matroska specs and saw that it was theoretically possible to put up to 64 seconds worth of Blocks in a Cluster. When he asked if it was possible, he was told that it was in theory, but it would be a b0rked way to do things. So, he did it.

In the US we might use the term "quirky" to describe alexnoe, but thats what we love so much about him.

[alexnoe]

Microsoft who will tell them to get bent and support the new ASF format or Alex? Any developer who wants to waste his time with a bloated format, which has a 100 pages long unreadable spec like ASF is free to do so.
this thread is about announcing AAC in avi. Actually, I did neither start this thread, nor did I inform Doom9 about this being possible... it made its way to the main page on its own :p
He constantly corrects spelling and grammar mistakes that people make. I just say *frenglish* each time someone talks frenglish :D
I even found some AVI recently with Vorbis in Ogg inside the AVI!! I experimented with it years ago. But it was never a feesable or responsible thing to do. But people do those sort of things anyway.Do you seriously claim that someone else having failed makes Vorbis-in-AVI impossible? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Hint: Just think about how VBR seeking works, think about the typical size of an OGG page, check how long it takes to play that, and then you'll see why OGG-in-AVI is a b0rked idea.
No I would halt further additions to AVI simply because it's developer has declaired it dead by creating a new format and not updating AVI in any way for many many years. The same this developper which released Win ME to haunt users? The same developper which is not able to write a DirectShow Muxer or Demuxer, compliant with their own format? The same developper which installs spyware into their OSes? The same developper which released a mail clients which can be made crash the entire OS by clicking onto a certain email adress?

You know, M$ is trying to gain control over the entire world....but the manufacturers of standalone players want to sell units. And unless they are stupid, then support what users want them to support :-)
Well, alexnoe was reading the Matroska specs and saw that it was theoretically possible to put up to 64 seconds worth of Blocks in a Cluster. When he asked if it was possible, he was told that it was in theory, but it would be a b0rked way to do things. Don't forget the long laces of 1 seconds, meaning like 42 MP3 frames in one block. I think some of you did not like that either :p This would never have been possible if I were using libmatroska :)

[Suiryc]

I just say *frenglish* each time someone talks frenglish :D

Oops :D

Do you seriously claim that someone else having failed makes Vorbis-in-AVI impossible? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Hint: Just think about how VBR seeking works, think about the typical size of an OGG page, check how long it takes to play that, and then you'll see why OGG-in-AVI is a b0rked idea.
The same this developper which released Win ME to haunt users? The same developper which is not able to write a DirectShow Muxer or Demuxer, compliant with their own format? The same developper which installs spyware into their OSes? The same developper which released a mail clients which can be made crash the entire OS by clicking onto a certain email adress?
BTW I think that Ogg Vorbis in AVI (yeah, not Ogg in AVI ;p) would require 2 'major' hacks ;). One in the AVI container (since the 'standard' VBR hack wouldn't work all the time), but also one in all the AVI parsers and the decoders that are attached to the streams when playing back the file.
Indeed don't forget that you need to initialize the Vorbis decoder for playback, and none of the 'official' (talking about OggDS and CoreVorbis ;), I think many of the players under Linux wouldn't handle it out of the box either) decoders would be able to handle something coming from this hack out of the box.
Moreover those decoders generally (actually I would even say 'always') need to be given one Vorbis frame (a Packet) at a time. The hack you have been considering (packing frames in each chunk) would thus be a problem for normal AVI parsers which don't interpret the stream (to get back each individual Vorbis frame).

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by alexnoe
Any developer who wants to waste his time with a bloated format, which has a 100 pages long unreadable spec like ASF is free to do so.


Aaaah! You raise a good point. ASF has a complete well documented specification avalible to any manufacturer who will pay for it. OTOH AFAIK there is no such complete documentation for AVI anywhere. At least one that is in terms of what is possible and what is commonly supported.

Originally posted by alexnoe
Do you seriously claim that someone else having failed makes Vorbis-in-AVI impossible? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

Just so you don't waste your time..... No. I actually got Vorbis in AVI and had synch. But it did not work in a convinient or overly usable way.

Originally posted by alexnoe
The same this developper which released Win ME to haunt users? The same developper which is not able to write a DirectShow Muxer or Demuxer, compliant with their own format? The same developper which installs spyware into their OSes? The same developper which released a mail clients which can be made crash the entire OS by clicking onto a certain email adress?

Yes. It would have killed any normal company. But MS has such a monopoly and so many people under their thumb that people are willing to forgive and even ignore catastrophic mistakes.

Originally posted by alexnoe
You know, M$ is trying to gain control over the entire world....but the manufacturers of standalone players want to sell units. And unless they are stupid, then support what users want them to support :-)

MS tells users what they want, where they wanna go today, and even what they can do. It's that simple. I don't like it. But I am not naieve enough to ignore it. ;) That is part of why I think it is rather important to form a united front to push one new format as an alternative to MS and ASF. MP4 is of a rather narrow focus but still a great and superior alternative to ASF. What MP4 does not cover matroska does in spades. MP4 has alot of industry support. But you are already doing a bit of support for Matroska so I have no real issues. I would just love to see you do more. But I am not here to force you or tell you that you must. Simply to guide and nudge. Those who might be seeking direction. ;)

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
OTOH AFAIK there is no such complete documentation for AVI anywhere. At least one that is in terms of what is possible and what is commonly supported. AVI OpenDML specs. (http://www.matrox.com/video/press/papers/odmlff2.pdf) (as per alexnoe) As far as what is supported, you can use Google to search MSDN, but sadly Microsoft is not the greatest at making knowledgebase articles that contain useful and complete information.

[Neo Neko]

Still there is no one central be all end all repository of things yoiu need to know about AVI. ASF OTOH. :D

[unmei]

moo this thread has some comical aspects :)

I don't care what alex does to avi since i stopped using avi some months ago -of course i still play avis (god beware me from converting them all to mkv), but i don't produce them anymore.

<rant>
It was partly "the fault" of the people bashing alex for the AAC in AVI that he implemented it, their disbelief or diapproval pushed him to do it "by all means" - kick your own bottom .)
</rant>

To me alex is simply a very valuable part of #matroska, his picky pointing out of problems and inconsistencies probably saved us from discovering problems only when they would really had turned into problems once the container is more etablished.

What he implements beside the matroska stuff influences my thinking of him not more or less than the brand of trousers he wears or his haircut (hmm i don't know these, but like i said it doesn't matter to me ;p ).

[Neo Neko]

All I can say is. Indeed.

I have nothing against what he has done. It is pretty much useless to me. But it's not like I am paying him to do anything. :P We all have to have our pet projects to keep us from going insane. :sly: And it appears that Alex's is AVI. :D