Nero/ Atheme and Community development

[ivan_alias]

Originally posted by sasam
To NERO:
Why don't you make your codec vfw and sell it separately. I know many people that would pay more money for vfw codec than for whole NeroVision Express, and I like to use my VirtualDub, adobe premiere filters and functions. In my eyes you are no competition to on2 vp7 codec just because their codec can be used anywhere.
What is the reason for this? You can still sell NeroVision to beginner users, but professionals require a lot more...



In my view it would be strategically a very smart move for Nero / Atheme to embrace the community to help develop its software. (and I mean beyone closed beta testing programmes) If their stated aim is to compete with Microsoft to have Nero Digital adopted as a standard for delivery to Mobiles / PC / Standalones etc. then the more available the content is the better. Just look at the success of Divx (and less so XviD) in this area.

Make the codecs easy to use for the early adopter community. Relase VFW implementations and support for comandline encoders or include in projects such as mencoder and allow Nero to make use of the community to help improve their codecs. This is the model Divx uses and is very successful. Last time I looked there were a heck of a lot more Divx enabled hardware players than Nero ones.

Now Nero may just be late to the game, but keeping Nero Digital locked up within tools such as recode only creates barriers for users. Sure have the premium applications to support your business model, but users such as those on doom9.org don't like pay software on the whole. However, they are a wonderful resource for helping to develop, test and promote new video encoding software, embrace them.

Nero / Atheme you are missig a trick. Get Nero Digital into more tools, get your codec established as the leading AVC implementation. Its the only way you're going to be able to fight off Divx / Windows Media etc in this market.

Do you think we would have ever had Divx enabled hardware without support in Virtualdub / Gknot?

The arguments are very different in the corporate space, if you are after mainconcept, moonlight and others the approach is very different.

Thoughts anyone?

[temporance]

To my mind, there is no reason for Nero to release a VCM/VfW codec. This would just confuse things and would result in lots of random content in AVI files with assorted audio formats. Nero should focus on the 100% strict compliance route.

My answer to all of the points in your post would be

"but you can use x264 to do that"

X264 is to Nero what xvid is to DivX. It fills the cracks allowing people to do what the companies don't want you to do. Want to use AVC in an AVI file? Then download x264. Want to use ASP without paying for DivX Pro? Then download xvid.

[JohnV]

Originally posted by temporance
To my mind, there is no reason for Nero to release a VCM/VfW codec. This would just confuse things and would result in lots of random content in AVI files with assorted audio formats. Nero should focus on the 100% strict compliance route. Exactly. Why release something which doesn't produce Nero Digital anymore? One of Nero Digital's main point is strict MP4/MPEG4 compliancy.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by JohnV

Exactly. Why release something which doesn't produce Nero Digital anymore? One of Nero Digital's main point is strict MP4/MPEG4 compliancy.

Time to repeat my request...

http://img92.exs.cx/img92/5324/neroenc8ze.png


Bye

[ivan_alias]

Originally posted by JohnV
Exactly. Why release something which doesn't produce Nero Digital anymore? One of Nero Digital's main point is strict MP4/MPEG4 compliancy.

Sorry I wasn't clear here, don't get lost in the specifics, I'm not advocating VFW for any reason other than the support is engenders from the community.

Personally I'd rather see a commandline encoder or dll that can be encorporated into other GUIs in the way the nero AAC encoder can be - but without the requirement to own the commercial version of Nero.

@temporance

Yep, you can indeed use x264 for all those things, as I indeed do and I'm very happy with it, with many thanks to the great hard work of the volunteers that code it.

My post is simply posing the arguements around wheather corporations can learn more lessons from projects like XviD and x264 other than as a place to hire good coders. Commnity support, development and advocacy are surely very valuable in the fight to gain traction and support agasint companies such as Microsoft, they should embrace that anyway they can. It does not mean sacrificing business models to do so. There is always a market for premium software for the mass market.

[len0x]

Originally posted by ivan_alias
It does not mean sacrificing business models to do so. There is always a market for premium software for the mass market.

Good wording. Its all about the vision - what the company wants to do now, next year, in 5 years... Short sighting can improve things now, but loose in the future...

[Mug Funky]

a directshow filter would be nice, and perhaps (if they're feeling REEEAALLY generous) a very basic generic directshow encoding app like virtualdub is for vfw

[sasam]

The moment you decide to sell codec separately .mp4 VirtualDub will be available or something like VirtualDubMod which supports matroska, ogg...
I like Nero audio and video codecs but i hate using nero recode. Maybe you can make an option: Expert mode, Novice mode, where expert mode would be a lot like virtualdub and novice like its now... but ability to use it in any program would be the best...

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ivan_alias
In my view it would be strategically a very smart move for Nero / Atheme to embrace the community to help develop its software. (and I mean beyone closed beta testing programmes) If their stated aim is to compete with Microsoft to have Nero Digital adopted as a standard for delivery to Mobiles / PC / Standalones etc. then the more available the content is the better. Just look at the success of Divx (and less so XviD) in this area.

DXN is perhaps a not so good example. Sure right now they are ahead. Pun not intended. But I think that may have more to do with brand recognition etc and piggybacking on Microsoft's legally questionable MPEG4 codec. It worked it's way into the vernacular before it started to die. Give your lay friends an AVI with Xvid video and they will just give you blank stares. Tell them it's a Divx video and the lightbulb goes on. A Divx video for all intents and purposes is any MPEG4 videostream in an AVI. And DXN is gambling the business on this nearly sinking ship. Proud of it. Think DMF. I personally think the Divx name is jynxed.

And I am all for embracing the community. But lets not be indian givers like DXN either. DXN did not necesarrily do anything wrong with the OPENDivx incident. But it left a very bad taste in alot of peoples mouths. Which I think gave rise to alot of technical users jumping ship. So if this community thing is to be attempted it should be with tact, planning, and clear mutually inclusive goals in mind.

Originally posted by ivan_alias
Make the codecs easy to use for the early adopter community. Relase VFW implementations and support for comandline encoders

In this case VFW encoders equal crippled encoders. So lets keep those private. CLI/Directshow/Gstreamer encoding components would be welcome though. ;)

Originally posted by ivan_alias
or include in projects such as mencoder and allow Nero to make use of the community to help improve their codecs. This is the model Divx uses and is very successful. Last time I looked there were a heck of a lot more Divx enabled hardware players than Nero ones.

Color me confused. Of all the things you mentioned that DXN did to achieve it's sucess the only one that actually happened is the VFW codec. They don't have a CLI version AFAIK.(Not in general distribution at least.) There is not support in Mencoder for Divx IIRC. And lets not rehash the opendivx community thing again.

Originally posted by ivan_alias
Now Nero may just be late to the game, but keeping Nero Digital locked up within tools such as recode only creates barriers for users.

I agree. But I suspect Nero will publish an API or two to cover that in the future. I think there is precident.

Originally posted by ivan_alias
Sure have the premium applications to support your business model, but users such as those on doom9.org don't like pay software on the whole. However, they are a wonderful resource for helping to develop, test and promote new video encoding software, embrace them.

I don't have a problem with pay software. ;) It's the ripoffs like MS Windows and MS Office I can't stand. :p

And while I like your idea of them embracing the community there are issues with it. Simply put. They can't embrace the community for free. As a commercial entity distributing licensed codecs using pattented technology they are financially responsible for all those binaries. The only possibility would be to contribute to something like X264 and have unrelated 3rd parties releasing compiled binaries. They would have to stear clear of such binary distribution as they are a much bigger/more-atractive target than the Xvid group is.

In this case they alerady have a codec. But don't perhaps strictly own it. So what they can do with it is limited and then further so by any contracts in place. They can't just go "Here you are. Have at it!". What would Ateme say? :eek: The thing stopping most people from really using Nero's set up at the moment is lack of free decoding setups etc. But even that is not long. CVS Videolan builds handle it just fine. And the only thing we lack in directshow land is a good common splitter for MP4 that accepts AVC. Recent FFDShow builds are already doing everything else.

Originally posted by ivan_alias
Nero / Atheme you are missig a trick. Get Nero Digital into more tools, get your codec established as the leading AVC implementation. Its the only way you're going to be able to fight off Divx / Windows Media etc in this market.

Well they already are the leading AVC implemnetation IIRC. More people have Nero's implementation than probably have all other commercially avalible implementations combined. ;) And fighting off Divx should be trivial. AVC just blows Divx and MPEG4 part-2 in general away. And just think Nero Digital certified players should be able to play back all MPEG4 content. Including multiple B frames, GMC, Qpel, etc, etc, etc that Divx certified players are really hit or miss on. Mostly the latter. DXN has a head start. Not a better product by any visible measure.

Microsoft on the other hand could be a bit tricky. But seeing as their codec is nothing much more than a subset of AVC. AVC will just have more to offer. Especially in combination with other MPEG4 technologies. The one thing Nero will have to worry about and not be able to do much about is Microsoft leveraging the monopoly etc against them in every market they are in. They are entering a market Microsoft want's very bad. Someone best be prepared to loose a few limbs. Cause it's not going to be easy.

Originally posted by ivan_alias
Do you think we would have ever had Divx enabled hardware without support in Virtualdub / Gknot?

I sure do. But where do you think Divx would be without such tools? ;)

[temporance]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
And fighting off Divx should be trivial. AVC just blows Divx and MPEG4 part-2 in general away.Maybe it should. AVC should be a superior technology, but it comes at a high price and in many situations only video gurus can see the difference. Try telling that to the general public some of whom will be trying to playback on P3 300MHz machines....

Look at the audio world. AAC and Vorbis could be argued to offer superior compression than mp3. But look around you: what are 99% of people using? mp3 is everywhere, people listening to it in the gym, in their cars. DivX is the mp3 of video.

Edit:
In this case VFW encoders equal crippled encoders. So lets keep those private. CLI/Directshow/Gstreamer encoding components would be welcome though. ;)My opinion of VfW is rather sunnier than yours, Neo.

VfW is a clean and simple codec API. It's two main shortcomings are that it cannot handle encode/decode delay (i.e. B-frames) or video with a variable frame rate. There is a de-facto API enhancement (some would call it a "hack" because it is not specified by Microsoft) that allows temporally accurate B-frames. For many applicaions, constant framerate is enough.

So VfW encoders are not crippled: they can be fully featured animals operating on a constant framerate input. Do you consider xvid and DivX to be crippled by VfW?

DirectShow is actually a big mess. Sure, when you open graphedit it all looks clean and simple. The problem is that the various DS interfaces are badly implemented by 99% of filter authors. Critical sections are not placed right (or used at all). Persistence is implemented using the Registry (yuck!). Timestamps are not set correctly on output samples. Media types are not quite right, or consistent with what the filter says it will accept. Allocators are negoticated badly and committed at the wrong time. Seeking/position interfaces are not implemented correctly. Flush / EOS messages are not delivered. State transistions can be unpredictable. The list goes on. DirectShow is not a holy grail, although from an advanced user or application programmer's POV, it looks wonderful!

[yaz]

@temporance
if u go out to the street the situation is much simpler. the only question is 'support'. namely, how easy to produce the stuff and how easy to play it back. if u can buy it all simply in the mall, it's just much better.
mp3 is so popular as its listening ( and production !) is heavily supported. just think of that ridiculous 'neck-lace players'. they look good and they produce some sound. quality is not so important when u're just crowding on the bus, but it's quite easy to handle. and it's quite 'trendy'.
and in general, the ease of usage is much more important for the mass than some 0.1dB gain in the quality. and if the playback needs more (and more) bucks to invest coupled w/endless tampering w/the hardware, it's rather threatening.
all in all, the future of aac/avc depends on the decision of hw manufacturers. w/o real hw support it will leave for us, hopeless and helpless audio/video freaks (nerds ?)

the bests
y

[Elias]

Originally posted by JohnV
Exactly. Why release something which doesn't produce Nero Digital anymore? One of Nero Digital's main point is strict MP4/MPEG4 compliancy. This is what I like with Nero. You aim for the right track. Strict *.mp4/MPEG-4 compliance is awesome. My only qualm however is the chapters/subtitles issue that actually isn't MPEG-4. Why is that so? I'm sure Nero could make these two stuff MPEG-4 compliant as well. And well, Display Aspect Ratio would be awesome :) But that's another thing.

[LRDX]

..to have Nero Digital adopted as a standard for delivery to Mobiles / PC / Standalones etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nero Digital is already standardized by 2 groups: MPEG (MPEG-4 part 15) and ITU (H.264)..

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by LRDX
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nero Digital is already standardized by 2 groups: MPEG (MPEG-4 part 15) and ITU (H.264)..
Actually, vice versa. ND hasn't been standardised but ND implements those standards and something more (vobsub in mp4) which hasn't been standardised.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by temporance
Maybe it should. AVC should be a superior technology, but it comes at a high price and in many situations only video gurus can see the difference. Try telling that to the general public some of whom will be trying to playback on P3 300MHz machines....

People on 300Mhx X86 machines can't play back full NTSC or pal resolution Divx content smoothly. Let alone H264. I thought we had for simplicities sake decided to ignore such people as they don't have an effect one way or another.

Trust me I know. I had a PII 400. and 640x480 was taking everything it had and then some.

Originally posted by temporance
Look at the audio world. AAC and Vorbis could be argued to offer superior compression than mp3. But look around you: what are 99% of people using? mp3 is everywhere, people listening to it in the gym, in their cars. DivX is the mp3 of video.

Oh I get you now! It is the same reason those horesless carrage things never caught on. MP3 was here first and has been around longer. That is the only reason it has wider support currently. What is the most popular portable music player currently. The iPod perhaps? Doesn't the iPod support AAC? Isn't AAC the only format used on ITMS? Couldn't it be said then that AAC will eventually overtake MP3? I mean MP3 didn't get where it is overnight. MP3 is being phased out. As is Divx. That does not mean it will not be used. Just that it will be used less.

Originally posted by temporance
Edit:
My opinion of VfW is rather sunnier than yours, Neo.

VfW is a clean and simple codec API. It's two main shortcomings are that it cannot handle encode/decode delay (i.e. B-frames) or video with a variable frame rate. There is a de-facto API enhancement (some would call it a "hack" because it is not specified by Microsoft) that allows temporally accurate B-frames. For many applicaions, constant framerate is enough.

1. If Microsoft sets the VFW standards and they did not set this it is a hack.

2. If as in Divx's case it does not produce propper MPEG4 video bitstreams it is an incompatable hack.

3. Good enough is not good enough. I want something better or the solution that is best. This often rules out Divx for me anymore.

Originally posted by temporance
So VfW encoders are not crippled: they can be fully featured animals operating on a constant framerate input.

But being limited to constant frame rate means that it is not fully featured and indeed crippled among other things. Oh the paradox!

Originally posted by temporance
Do you consider xvid and DivX to be crippled by VfW?

Divx moreso than Xvid. But hell yes! To say otherwise would be false if not hypocritical.

Originally posted by temporance
DirectShow is actually a big mess. Sure, when you open graphedit it all looks clean and simple. The problem is that the various DS interfaces are badly implemented by 99% of filter authors. Critical sections are not placed right (or used at all). Persistence is implemented using the Registry (yuck!). Timestamps are not set correctly on output samples. Media types are not quite right, or consistent with what the filter says it will accept. Allocators are negoticated badly and committed at the wrong time. Seeking/position interfaces are not implemented correctly. Flush / EOS messages are not delivered. State transistions can be unpredictable. The list goes on. DirectShow is not a holy grail, although from an advanced user or application programmer's POV, it looks wonderful!

I never said it was best. I said it was better. At least in many respects. Quite frankly mencoder etc have become very usefull to even Windows users thanks to work like that of Doom9's etc. It has been what I have been using to encode for some time now under Windows and Linux. And I can't say I have suffered any. And things are only looking up getting ready for the transition to ffmpeg. Perhaps syskin and others at Nero can improve recode and even port it to Linux etc. Now wouldn't that be nice. ;)

[temporance]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
People on 300Mhx X86 machines can't play back full NTSC or pal resolution Divx content smoothly. Let alone H264. I thought we had for simplicities sake decided to ignore such people as they don't have an effect one way or another.But you get my point: there are a large number of lowish-spec PCs in the hands of average users that are perfectly adequate for everything else they do (surfing, writing docs, printing some photos). Do we have to wait for this massive user base to upgrade before H.264 becomes ubiquitous? That could take another decade.

What is the most popular portable music player currently. The iPod perhaps? Doesn't the iPod support AAC? Isn't AAC the only format used on ITMS? Couldn't it be said then that AAC will eventually overtake MP3? I mean MP3 didn't get where it is overnight.Look at another example. The humble VHS tape. If betamax (and 8mm for that matter) were so much better, why didn't we see a wholesale switch to the superior format? Even the superior and backwards-compatible standard SVHS never achieved ubiquity.

MP3 is being phased out. As is Divx. That does not mean it will not be used. Just that it will be used less.Who is phasing these standards out? If you were to look at some industry statistics you would see both are still in a growth phase. Sure, their "superior" competitors are also growing, but from a lower starting point.

1. If Microsoft sets the VFW standards and they did not set this it is a hack.Is OpenDML a hack? Microsoft did not specify that particular extension of their AVI standard, but no-one calls it a hack. What makes something a hack? It doesn't break anything and is forwards- and backwards- compatible.

[B]2. If as in Divx's case it does not produce propper MPEG4 video bitstreams it is an incompatable hack.Not true. No-one is pretending that the resultant AVI file is a valid MPEG-4 bitstream. The AVI file is a container inside of which is a 100% valid video bitstream. Extract and concatenate the video chunks from a packed-bitstream DivX/xvid file and you will have a complaint MPEG-4 pt.2 video bitstream.

[Andrey]

IMHO, AVC have a good chances to beat ASP because
1. It will be used in HDDVD, so it should have a huge hardware support.
2. ASP was intended to be used on low bitrates, while AVC is aimed to be good with both low and high ones...

[Elias]

Originally posted by Andrey
IMHO, AVC have a good chances to beat ASP because
1. It will be used in HDDVD, so it should have a huge hardware support.
2. ASP was intended to be used on low bitrates, while AVC is aimed to be good with both low and high ones...

1. Don't be surprised if those hardware players will play ASP as well.
2. ASP looks good at both high and low bitrates. It all depends on the video and how fast/low motion it is, and how much bitrate eating colours there are.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by temporance
But you get my point: there are a large number of lowish-spec PCs in the hands of average users that are perfectly adequate for everything else they do (surfing, writing docs, printing some photos). Do we have to wait for this massive user base to upgrade before H.264 becomes ubiquitous? That could take another decade.

But I'm not sure you get my point. ;) It is almost going to take just as long for good MPEG4-part 2 supporting hardware. :p

Originally posted by temporance
Look at another example. The humble VHS tape. If betamax (and 8mm for that matter) were so much better, why didn't we see a wholesale switch to the superior format? Even the superior and backwards-compatible standard SVHS never achieved ubiquity.

Well with Beta Vs. VHS there was another overriding concern that entered into the equation. Cost. And eventually avalibility. Which in the end made VHS the actual better solution. Beta had a technical superiority where quality was concerned. But the cost was what largely hampered it. But even with that I know people who have working Beta decks and avalible blank tapes. ;)

On SVHS. By the time SVHS came out conditions were not favorable for it. Things like Macrovision were already in place eroding fair use rights so a person could not backup media they owned. And most people already had VHS recorders. Which were adequate for time shifting on the crappy sets most people owned at the time. Only within the last year or 2 did I get my first TV with S-VHS inputs. They were not widely avalible here untill not to long ago. And it's not like I live in a 3rd world country or out in the boondocks. Recently my old RCA VHS deck died. I went out And got me a nice JVC 6 head SVHS VCR to replace it. It has been great. I just wish it had been more avalible before.

Originally posted by temporance
Who is phasing these standards out? If you were to look at some industry statistics you would see both are still in a growth phase. Sure, their "superior" competitors are also growing, but from a lower starting point.

1. Divx is not a standard. It's not quite even MPEG4. But it is thankfully close enough that the bitstream can be tweaked to make it MPEG4. But if that's all it takes to make something standard then MSMPEG4 is standard as well. Cause I can convert them to MPEG4 compliant bitstreams as well.

2. Divx is hardly growing. Neither is MP3 for that matter. DXN has missed a release forecast or two now and all we have to show for it is DMF which most players don't fully support and probably never will. I have not seen any estimates or announcements on the first players that will support DMF menus or subtitles.

Nero is playing the smart bet. They are not isolating themselves as much as DXN is. DXN's not quite MPEG4 bitstreams in not quite AVI files. Currently excluding subtitles etc it should be possible to create files that will play on anything that supports MP4 files. From quicktime to cell-phones. MP4 is the file format most companies are looking at using. Not AVI. Most set top makers that support Divx and AVI are generally smaller players looking to tap into an established albeit largely black market. When legal the legal content hits it will not be in AVI.

There was a recent announcement of another extrasolar planet being discovered. NASA JPL was hosting articles, pictures and even videos on the announcement. The videos were hosted in 3 formats. WMV, Quicktime, and MP4. Ok that is more or less two formats. But it was quite refreshing. All the videos were in good quality. And the MP4 file was easily playable on all my OS and all my players. Noticably absent was AVI and RM. Isolated case as it may be.

Originally posted by temporance
Is OpenDML a hack? Microsoft did not specify that particular extension of their AVI standard, but no-one calls it a hack.

IIRC the OpenDML specs were not the sole work of Microsoft. But Microsoft indeed had a hand in it.

Originally posted by temporance
What makes something a hack? It [B-frames in AVI] doesn't break anything and is forwards- and backwards- compatible.

You think it does not break anything. Are you sure? Didn't alot of work have to be done for others to decode packed bitstream? (IIRC work had to be done for Virtualdub to encode it well) 3ivx, Xvid, FFMPEG anyone? I am quite sure they could not just take Divx bitstreams and feed it to a straight MPEG4 decoder and expect it to work. You can with Xvid, FFMPEG, and 3ivx though. I think there was alot of work done behind the sceens to support Divx in the past. The foreward/backward compatablility of Divx is an illusion.

Originally posted by temporance
Not true. No-one is pretending that the resultant AVI file is a valid MPEG-4 bitstream. The AVI file is a container inside of which is a 100% valid video bitstream.

If the bitstream's packed it must be wack. I was not talkning about bistream including container. I believe I used the term "video bitstream". And the video bitstream is not 100% valid. Packing the bitstream is not part of any of the MPEG specs and must be undone before putting the bitstream inside an MP4 file or passing the data to a general MPEG4 decoder for decoding. So it can't be valid.

Nero has their problems to. But I think they will handle them better. Time will tell though. But if I was buying one or the other at this point I am afraid my money would go to Nero.

[mp34ever]

VFW wouldn't work.

CLI encoder would be the best way.

Directshow not that demanding.

Overall people could code a vfw gui to run off the cli encoder.

How would we use the cli encoder.

The best way I think it could be done is a cli encoder to be built into the recode.exe and should only work by checking to see if the licenses are there.

[snacky]

Warning, pointless trivia follows.
Originally posted by Neo Neko
There is not support in Mencoder for Divx IIRC.
In Linux, Divx has been supported in mencoder since 2002. As far as I can tell, it is only ever used by clueless newbies who don't understand they can use xvid or libavcodec's mpeg4 codec to acheive better results.

[Andrey]

1. Don't be surprised if those hardware players will play ASP as well.
2. ASP looks good at both high and low bitrates. It all depends on the video and how fast/low motion it is, and how much bitrate eating colours there are.
1. I would. :) Nobody plan to support GMC still... May be Nero will help in this field.
2. High bitrates were not a goal, while ASP was developed. mpeg matrixes and so on was added later. AVC was initially designed with this in mind. So my point was not "AVC would surely win", but "AVC have good chances"... :p

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by snacky
Warning, pointless trivia follows.

In Linux, Divx has been supported in mencoder since 2002. As far as I can tell, it is only ever used by clueless newbies who don't understand they can use xvid or libavcodec's mpeg4 codec to acheive better results.

Aaaah. Interesting. Good to know. To bad Divx has not supported Linux for some time IIRC. :p Can't blame em though. I think sales were not that great. :)

[Latexxx]

I thought that mencoder's "divx" reverts to libavcodec.

[SeeMoreDigital]

It looks like Mpeg4/AVC hardware is going to become very accessible over here in Euroland, now that the standards for HDTV have been announced by Sky and Euro1080.

So no (more) HD Mpeg2 for us. It's Mpeg4/AVC all the way ;)


Cheers

[opsis81]

I don't understand why people request a Nero Digital VFW codec for NL video editors.Nero Digital is a complete audio/video solution,it's not a video codec.
What Nero has to release is Nero Digital plugins for major NL video editors.
Nero Digital plugin for Adome Premiere
Nero Digital plugin for Vegas
etc
For example Mainconcept or Custom Tecnhology (Cinema Craft Encoder) haven't released a VFW MPEG-2 codec for usage in Premiere.They released complete and specific plugins.
The same thing should finally happen for MPEG-4.
As regard VirtualDub/Mod we have finally to accept the facts.VirtualDub is a AVI/OGM/MKV(only V_MS/VFW/FOURCC and A_MS/ACM) encoder.Nero Digital is a complete audio/video solution which fully supports the MPEG-4 standard (ISO 14496-14).Those things can't be combined.
Nero should also release cli encoders.I don't even mind if they require new licence/money.This way everyone could create his own GUI for encoding to Nero Digital and wouldn't have to use tolerate the awful Recode GUI.(this is my personal opinion of cource,some people might like this GUI)

[Mug Funky]

hmm... IIRC both the Mainconcept and CCE plugins are broken in premiere (or at least do annoying things). stuff like out-of-order frames in output, but not during editing. all the more reason to use Vegas, i guess (i really must get this program as premiere makes me want to kill, and there's no avs based NLE out there).


but then again, Premiere doesn't properly support VfW anyway, so a Nerodigital plugin doesn't seem like a bad idea so long as it's done right.

on the mp4 format - on the internet it's actually used more often than avi. with more sites doing streaming, there's just no way anyone can use avi. mp4 is the most cross-platform streaming format out there (but unfortunately most people use the shitty quicktime mp4 codec to create these streams).

my number 1 frustration with xvid/VDM/etc is the inability to easily create mp4 stuff.

[opsis81]

@ Mug Funky
I don't use Premiere in regular basis.I mostly use Vegas with it's wonderful built-in AC-3 encoder and it's built-in mainconcept plugin.Never had out-of-order frames.Sometimes I use Debugmode FrameServer with standalone CCE for quality reasons.

Now my MPEG-4 horror in Vegas.
Analyse video (first pass) in vfw :devil: with xvid to avi.
Encode video (second pass) in vfw :devil: with xvid to avi.
Export audio to wav from Vegas.
Encode wav to aac with besweet.
Finally mux audio and video with mp4box.

As mp4 format and internet: MP4 with AVC is going to rule the world.QuickTime 7 with H264 support is coming...

[Patrick1970]

Opsis81:

Why not just use Doom9's GUI for mencoder (MeGUI)
You can do Mpeg 4 ASP (libavcodec)/Xvid/AVC (x264) and Snow encoding with it.

You bring in the audio wav file to and it will use Besweet to make a AAC audio file

And finally it will use mp4creator to mux it all together in a mp4 if you want.

Just a thought if you want to automate some of your processes.

[mp34ever]

Originally posted by opsis81
Nero should also release cli encoders.I don't even mind if they require new licence/money.This way everyone could create his own GUI for encoding to Nero Digital and wouldn't have to use tolerate the awful Recode GUI.(this is my personal opinion of cource,some people might like this GUI)

I agree 100%, This would be awesome nero should really consider it as it will boost sales and make us happer.And would also keep all the mp4 stuff in order and wouldn't be stuffing around with vfw coding and directshow encoding.

[opsis81]

@ Patrick1970
I'm using MeGUI and Recode for DVD backups.
MeGUI has become a wonderful encoder but it imports avisynth scripts.Avisynth is a powerful tool but it can't replace professional NL video editors like Premiere or Vegas (at least for my needs).

@ mp34ever
I hope Nero guys are smart enough to see their own good.AVC competition isn't huge right now but I'm sure it will be.
Dissatisfied customers never forget.:o

[hworldjj]

In my opinion, Nero shouldn't deserve that blames since it is it's own choice. We cannot expect every company follow the same way like Divx or something. Let's see other successful companies such as Cyberlink or InterVideo, and their products are widely accepted by PC manufacturers and the mass even though they didn't put them on any public community. Any industrial company's aim is to gain as many profits as possible in whatever way.

[opsis81]

Nero products are widely accepted by PC manufacturers and the mass.There is no doubt about that.But we are talking about Nero and its relationships with this community.I'm backing up my DVDs since 1999,I'm not a newbie and I have many expectations from them.Also I'm not requesting something that doesn't exist.Their cli encoders already exist and I'm simply requesting to update them and release them to the public.

[Doom9]

Avisynth is a powerful tool but it can't replace professional NL video editors like Premiere or Vegas (at least for my needs).There is a frameserving app for the major NLEs at www.videotools.net. It allows you to frameserve their output into your encoding application of choice via AviSynth. And by all means if you aim for MP4, it's a matter of NLE makers adding that capability ;)

I thought that mencoder's "divx" reverts to libavcodec.Actually, it supports the real divx4, and divx3 (ms mpeg4v3), but not divx5.

[thegeby]

It looks like Mpeg4/AVC hardware is going to become very accessible over here in Euroland, now that the standards for HDTV have been announced by Sky and Euro1080.

Actually, it is really DVB that standardised HD receivers, which is much more important (DVB-S worldwide, DVB-T in most of the world outside NA, DVB-C very common). Things do indeed look good...

[JnZ]

Originally posted by JohnV
Exactly. Why release something which doesn't produce Nero Digital anymore? One of Nero Digital's main point is strict MP4/MPEG4 compliancy.
My opinion is, that MP4 is in this time worst container.
Why I assert this?
1) No support for AC3!
2) No software can fix/repair broken MP4!!!!!
3) There is no good software like Vdub, to support it.

AVI is very old, but still very good. It need to be replaced, but MP4 is disappointment. Matroska is more promising that MP4.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by JnZ
My opinion is, that MP4 is in this time worst container.
Why I assert this?
1) No support for AC3!
2) No software can fix/repair broken MP4!!!!!
3) There is no good software like Vdub, to support it.

AVI is very old, but still very good. It need to be replaced, but MP4 is disappointment. Matroska is more promising that MP4.
I may be sounding newbie-ish by saying this (not sure), but also isn't MP4 pretty much intended for MPEG4? Why a container specifically for one type of compression? It seems shortsighted to me... e.g. would you want to put MPEG2 video in an .mp4 container, and if not -- why not? A container is just that, it should be holding whatever you want. This is probably why AVI survived so long, because it's not tied to some specific codec like others.

What happens when the next latest/greatest compression format comes around, are we needing a new container again (with corresponding lack of tools, etc)?

[Sharktooth]

It can hold everything as private streams. For example Recode stores vobsubs in MP4 even if they are not explicit in the specs.
So, basically, it supports everything (AC3, MP3, Vobsubs ...) but since it was made for containing MPEG4 only, it's not reccomended to store non-MPEG4 streams in it coz ppl expect those files are MPEG4.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
It can hold everything as private streams. For example Recode stores vobsubs in MP4 even if they are not in the specs.
So, basically, it supports everything (AC3, MP3, Vobsubs ...) but since it was made for containing MPEG4 only, it's not reccomended to store non-MPEG4 streams in it.
IMHO that's somewhat shortsighted on the part of a container format. MPEG4 won't be around forever, so after all these supporting tools get written we'll need to rewrite them again to support the next container. .AVI has its limitations (and really does need replaced), but at least it's not designed for some specific compression format. Considering its limitations, wouldn't you call it a spectacular success?

Just purely my opinion -- I much prefer the notion of general purpose container formats, the more flexible/extensible the better.

[bond]

1) first of all .mp4 is able to store any stream technically. mp4 is derived from .mov and therefore isnt "made to store only mpeg-4 content". i am not sure but it seems as if ffmpeg is able to store any stream in .mp4 already, but i didnt test that till now, as i dont think its a good idea of doing so as
2) it makes sense to not place any stream in mp4, but use only specific streams when you look at it from the interoperability point of view. does anyone question that it isnt really a good idea to place ac3 or vorbis in the .wmv container for the same reason?
3) if the container format is good enough it can be extended to support new technologies properly. an example is avc, which introduced a lot of new technologies (eg arbitrary frame coding orders). mp4 was designed long before avc was near standardisation and still it was extendable and can hold all avc streams _correctly_, not only with flaws and workarounds like avi
4) there are mp4 editing tools, like quicktime or ulead's videostudio, its just that noone realises that they offer these things

[fewtch]

Originally posted by bond
2) it makes sense to not place any stream in mp4, but use only specific streams when you look at it from the interoperability point of view. does anyone question that it isnt really a good idea to place ac3 or vorbis in the .wmv container for the same reason?
Nope, but WMV is yet another specific-purpose container designed for Windows Media formats. We have all these .mov, .mp4, .wmv, etc. and eventually it's going to be too much. Which will take the 'market'? The general purpose, flexible "made for anything" container that's designed for that purpose from the start. Notice how .avi refuses to die (just how long has it been around anyway)?

Again, just IMO. Since this is off topic I'll shut up now.

Edit -- was just reading on Matroska (didn't know much about it): "so as a matter of fact we can now mux a complete DVD into a single MKV file, including video, audio, subtitles and menus."

Looks pretty impressive...

[Sharktooth]

you can do it in avi too just like DXN has done it with divx media format... btw i agree with you. this is all OT so lets get back IT.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by fewtch
Nope, but WMV is yet another specific-purpose container designed for Windows Media formats.

Actually it is not that WM specific. No one uses if for anything else mainly because Microsoft was a real ass about the file format. (think Avery Lee and ASF etc) And Microsoft themselves do not see a need for anyones products other than their own. So they only split their own products reliably. I can however use something like videolan to create an ASF/WMV file with MP3 audio and the MS ASF parser will split it out just fine often times. ;) In fact if Microsoft had not purposefully limited their splitter you could use ASF just like AVI only better.

Originally posted by fewtch
We have all these .mov, .mp4, .wmv, etc. and eventually it's going to be too much. Which will take the 'market'?

The answer is none of the above. They will each take over what they were meant to more or less. WMV/ASF due to Microsoft's general short sightedness will be the defacto and almost only option when you use their products. MOV/MP4/3GP will be defacto for Quicktime, MPEG4 standalones, and MPEG4 portables. Things like Matroska etc will be used on general computing hardware where there is a need for cross platform/hardware compatability. And AVI will not be actively used much. The does after all come a point where it is just as easy to implement an new official format as it is to implement a heavily hacked and non-uniform AVI parser.