[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Topic: [OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here! (Read 7490 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

2004-05-29 18:32:03

not much happening on hydrogen lately,so why not make it a bit warmer here...(i hope no too warm though)

i'm constantly reading bond's stuff on doom9(because i'm keeping my eyes open regarding h.264 which. btw. still has no *nice* implementation,but first clips look promising..in fact they look awesome for a codec this young...) and i don't understand this man!by god i don't!

let me elaborate;
he says

Quote

its a cycle of harming development, progress and quality in the long run, created by outdated technology: avi and vfw

read complete post here
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?post...ures#post502646

but what on earth does this mean,if i expose few simple facts:

-mp4 as a container is as new as h.264 (ie pretty new...we can argue about who came first, h264 or mp4 but it doesn't matter..they are both *new*..too new) and a support for new things cannot come overnight,as bond thought(now he doesn't think that anymore)

-a support for new things doesn't come that fast AT ALL if format is protected by some copyright laws (if mp4 is h264's container then it's protected by mpeg la same as codec itself(and same as all mpeg codecs are protected except mpeg1 which is too old to be of any use)!same as with other mpeg's!you CAN'T put anything you please in mp4..you just can't!this is LIMITING FACTOR,bond...LIMITING FACTOR!
mp4=h264!m1v=mpeg1video!m2v=mpeg2video:mpeg=mpeg1/2 a/v mux! )

-avery lee once thought he can put support for one format(asf) in vdub,but microsoft stopped him(not m$,but "microsoft"!a company that makes excellent OS' and gave at least one revolutionary mpeg4 codec...btw. no i'm not using WMV9 because it's too slow,quality is not so good on intermediate/high bitrates,and i only use nice codecs...if it was the best for my purposes i would use it,offcourse!because that codec doesn't cost money like mpeg's!)
why would avery want to investigate what will happen if he tries to put mp4 into vdub?
no mp4 in vdub=no mp4(mpeg-la,you loose).....vdub stays on avi alone...

-linked with everything stated above;support for mp4 is LOUSY!i have investigated these things sometime back and i didn't find
a)tools to make mp4 files (like vdubmp4 would be...perhaps fcchandler will make that vdub version...in 4 years...)
b)filters to playback that stuff (3ivx?to play what exactly?3ivx codec encodings?or should i play with 3ivx dshow muxers?nope...i don't like graphedit at all,and converting avi to mp4 is useless today...it makes less compatible files)

no tools,no filters,no opensource support=no mp4 as a container!

bond,your failure to understand mp4 as a container much alike mpeg container is what hurts the most!
if mp4 was the opensource container and a free container and excellent stuff,then we would all be using it by now!(for sure!)
i'm quite sure avery can put mp4 support in vdub quite easily!
where's the document that will explain detailed mp4 structure to him?
a doc that says on the end;THIS IS FREEWARE CONTAINER;USE IT AT WILL?
he did this for .avi(microsoft made avi specs available long time ago) and we all know that everything went just fine!
avi is with us mostly because of vdub(and programs that followed)

you said;

Quote

10) How can i play MP4 files?
as one of the big advantages of MP4 is interoperability and being an open standard (license free!)

but in one of the links at your mp4 faq i find this;

Quote

What is happening to the licensing of MPEG-4?
Patent Holders are currently working on developing the licensing necessary for MPEG-4. The current date for licensing the Simple and Core visual profiles is expected to be early 2002. See www.m4if.org/patents/index.php for the latest information.

Where can I purchase the standard?
The MPEG-4 Standard (ISO/IEC 14496) can be purchased online at the ISO website.

Why do I have to buy the standard? Shouldn't be free?
Developing a standard takes a lot of time and money. In order for ISO to recover some of the costs associated with the development of the MPEG-4 standard, it sells the specification. Considering the amount of work that has gone into developing this standard, it is certainly well worth the money.

to me,these are strong evidences that avery will NOT put mp4 support into vdub!

you said (in same thread)

Quote

still a commandline encoder with nice gui would be as easy usable

well,YES!
an encoder capable of doing nice h264..(not so soon i presume...h264 is young..it is also non-free codec!) and nice aac(any nice freeware aac encoders?are they legal too?how if roberto is afraid to host the binaries...and you know what happens with command line only,poor quality aac non-legal encoders?indeed,they stay on my hdd never to be used...) and putting all that to a (proprietary again) mp4 container!

i think you picked a wrong foe:you should make a signature against mpeg!
THEY are monopolizing the a/v encoding!
they are responsible for us not having free mpeg2 encoders (mencoder is NOT legal option!it violates every possible law...a laws that mpeg made!)
we're hiding like some sort of bastards(you too:xvid is only 'educational'!absolutely illegal!) while instead we should be encoding our stuff with best possible codecs!
i am NOT paying for the codecs i use OR for the containers i use;i'm NOT a freaking MGM so i'm making money on mpeg encoding!!!
the mpeg companies need money too?
no they don't!these companies are making so much money on selling teh devices(that use mpeg) that is makes you sick!
microsoft is givinng away their encoders:use it for free and worry not!
(at the moment,wmv9 is BEST lo-bitrate codec/format...i will beat any presently available h264 implementation with wmv9!)

so bond,you either
a)stop cursing avi.(.it did no harm to you...how many xvid's you put to .avi?)
or
b)provide some mp4 tools so we can use it...(beats me how will you do that...no developer in their right mind will mess with mpeg la!)
a decent encoder and dshow decoder would be enough..thanks...

look at my subject;no war here....no mp4 here....

if you can prove me wrong on any of the points i put out here,i will be gratefull!
because my intention is not to give any wrong info!

conclusion of this whole post;you have no choice but to use .avi
(and frankly i don't even have the need to use anything else on my stuff,but that's not important!i am not important!)

/ivo

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Reply #1 – 2004-05-29 19:04:15

Lol, another one of these. Ok, lets keep this container discussion civilized. First of all, the reason why there is no mp4 in virtualdub is simply because avery lee just isn't interested in it. It is the same reason why there is no matroska support. Also, it would be difficult to do without directshow directshow support since you would have to rely on vfw. Bond didn't like it that x264 has a vfw encoder that will allow people to put h.264 in avi of course this might lead to other things like packed bitstream etc. Thankfully no b-frames have been added to the vfw although x264 supports them although the support is a little buggy. Although the tools that allow people to put video and audio are limited at the moment, Nero, apple and others have demonstrated that you can easily put any stream in mp4 you want. Nero can mux vobsubs as a private stream and apple has put apple lossless audio in mp4, while another muxer can do ogg vorbis also as a private stream. The amount of support for mp4 is a little depressing I would agree. But I disagree with you about the quality of support. The 3ivx muxer is a wonderful piece of software. It removes packed bitstreams. The splitter is pretty good too. Also Nero seems to be strongly in behind mp4 as well. But we are missing some things. Mostly what we are missing is a open source splitter. We all have bothered gabest from time to time to make us a mp4 splitter but he is totally uninterested in it (mostly because it is quicktimish) and obviously is more interested in supporting nut and matroska. As for a open source muxer, mp4creator is ok however it doesn't do all the things the 3ivx muxer does. mp4box which can be found at on rarewares can remove packed bitstream and also encode nice things like menus, subs and practically any type of interactivity you can imagine.

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Reply #2 – 2004-05-29 19:33:27

bonzi,would you be willing to consider making a paragraphs when you're entering a text?
'one-breath 100 thoughts' is even worse than my 'one post 1000 thoughts'...

Quote

It is the same reason why there is no matroska support

well..matroska isn't really...well..finished...
avery generally hates unfinished business...heh...
he likes to take format specs in his hands and say..."aha..nice format,free format...let me make vdub use it"
so far he tried it once (asf) and he failed...now he's MUCH more carefull....

Quote

Also, it would be difficult to do without directshow directshow support since you would have to rely on vfw.

why?
vfw(.avi or mpeg2..as we already can do that) as input and mp4 as output...
you know this was already done:YMPEG vdub plugin.....
no problems there at all...

Quote

Although the tools that allow people to put video and audio are limited at the moment,

if the tools are limited,then he should also be limited in speaking against the only container (ie avi) which can serve as a place to host h264 at this time..

when he(bond) can proudly present nice h264+aac+mp4 encoder(nice gui with ALL the switches and options!),i will shut up,and i think Carrot will shut up too....

Quote

Nero, apple and others have demonstrated that you can easily put any stream in mp4 you want.

you mean "any mpeg4 compatible stream",right?
can i put divx3 in mp4?

Quote

The amount of support for mp4 is a little depressing I would agree.

that's the main issue.....
opensource took vfw/avi as their own....doesn't realy happening with mp4...is it..

Quote

But we are missing some things.

only one thing,bonzi:only one!
vdubmp4!
it is hillarious idea to first make mpeg4.avi and then to remux it into mp4!
it is nice idea to put appropriate streams into appropriate container..DIRECTLY!

there is one more thing bothering me:
bond presents mp4 as a system to make some sort of 'mini-dvd's' with chapters and what-not.....(and a pretty complicated work at that,it seems)

i think more attention should be devoted to encoding video and audio than to cosmetics that come with dvd.....
(and one can easily put chapters and stuff via avi players too....no menus?uhh.coming from capping world,.i feel so sad about that.... )

btw. i started this thread because of growing discontent by bond's stuff on doom9 forum....so he can(at least) speak for himself here....

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Reply #3 – 2004-05-29 19:53:40

Useless posts with replies moved here. Topic temporarily closed until everyone writing another flaming reply notices the split. Next person contributing to i4004 vs rjamorim war here will get their account suspended.

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Reply #4 – 2004-05-29 19:59:09

Quote

bonzi,would you be willing to consider making a paragraphs when you're entering a text?
'one-breath 100 thoughts' is even worse than my 'one post 1000 thoughts'...

Sure, but it honestly is not that hard to read nor is it that long nor are the thoughts jumbed.

Quote

so far he tried it once (asf) and he failed...now he's MUCH more carefull....

Nope he didn't fail his asf support was fine. Microsoft didn't like it and he was asked to remove it.

Quote

why?
vfw(.avi or mpeg2..as we already can do that) as input and mp4 as output...
you know this was already done:YMPEG vdub plugin.....
no problems there at all...

Yeah, you can do it. And BTW I have never tried YMPEG. However, as we know vfw only does one frame in and one frame out? How are you going to avoid b-frame hacks without a better api? You can't really if you did it this way they would still be present in the mp4. If you had directshow support then what a program like virtualdub would do is build the chain like this avs->xvid encoder->mp4 muxer->file.mp4 you could even use the 3ivx muxer and mux aac as well.

Quote

you mean "any mpeg4 compatible stream",right?
can i put divx3 in mp4?

No I mean you can put any stream in mp4 as long as it is supported by the muxing software. Unfortunately all the the muxers so far have been quite restricted. I personally would like to have a muxer that can put ac3/dts in mp4.

[OFFENSIVE] AVI versus MP4 container?no war here!

Reply #5 – 2004-05-29 21:01:22

Quote from: i4004,May 29 2004, 06:32 PM

i'm constantly reading bond's stuff on doom9(because i'm keeping my eyes open regarding h.264 which. btw. still has no *nice* implementation,but first clips look promising..in fact they look awesome for a codec this young...) and i don't understand this man!by god i don't!

i am looking forward to read your arguments, so lets get it on...

Quote

but what on earth does this mean,if i expose few simple facts:

-mp4 as a container is as new as h.264 (ie pretty new...we can argue about who came first, h264 or mp4 but it doesn't matter..they are both *new*..too new) and a support for new things cannot come overnight,as bond thought(now he doesn't think that anymore)

tough both are part of the mpeg-4 standard, the mp4 container is older than h.264
a copy of the mp4 standard i have here is from 2001 (it was long time part of mpeg-4 14996-1, mpeg systems)
on the contrary h.264 was standardized in 2003

Quote

-a support for new things doesn't come that fast AT ALL if format is protected by some copyright laws (if mp4 is h264's container then it's protected by mpeg la same as codec itself(and same as all mpeg codecs are protected except mpeg1 which is too old to be of any use)

yes the mp4 container is patented technology, still patented doesnt mean that you have to pay anything to be allowed to use it to the patent holder
in contrary to mpeg-4 part 2/3/10 .mp4 is license free, meaning you can legally offer tools using .mp4 without having to pay anything

Quote

!same as with other mpeg's!you CAN'T put anything you please in mp4..you just can't!this is LIMITING FACTOR,bond...LIMITING FACTOR!
mp4=h264!m1v=mpeg1video!m2v=mpeg2video:mpeg=mpeg1/2 a/v mux! )

again wrong, you can place any codec into .mp4 you want. the mpeg-4 standard defines how to place non-mpeg streams in .mp4 and in fact there exist already 3 tools which make use of this:
- nero recode2 places dvd vobsubs in .mp4
- itunes places alac (lossless audio) in .mp4
- a mod of mpeg4ips mp4creator is able to place vorbis in .mp4

Quote

-avery lee once thought he can put support for one format(asf) in vdub,but microsoft stopped him(not m$,but "microsoft"!a company that makes excellent OS' and gave at least one revolutionary mpeg4 codec...btw. no i'm not using WMV9 because it's too slow,quality is not so good on intermediate/high bitrates,and i only use nice codecs...if it was the best for my purposes i would use it,offcourse!because that codec doesn't cost money like mpeg's!)
why would avery want to investigate what will happen if he tries to put mp4 into vdub?
no mp4 in vdub=no mp4(mpeg-la,you loose).....vdub stays on avi alone...

as i wrote above .mp4 is license free, avery lee wouldnt have to pay anything to be able to offer mp4 support in virtualdub

Quote

-linked with everything stated above;support for mp4 is LOUSY!i have investigated these things sometime back and i didn't find
a)tools to make mp4 files (like vdubmp4 would be...perhaps fcchandler will make that vdub version...in 4 years...)

maybe you should have used search a little bit more before making such a statement
if you would have a look at my mp4 faq on doom9 you will find not less than 11 tools able to create .mp4 files and i am sure there are much more out there

Quote

b)filters to playback that stuff (3ivx?to play what exactly?3ivx codec encodings?or should i play with 3ivx dshow muxers?nope...i don't like graphedit at all,and converting avi to mp4 is useless today...it makes less compatible files)

you dont understand how mpeg-4 streams are placed in .mp4
in mp4 all mpeg-4/2/1 streams are placed the same way, meaning it doesnt matter which codec was used to create the video stream, its always the same mpeg-4 compatible stream
therefore 3ivx allows the playback of all .mp4 files, no matter whether they carry a stream created with xvid or any other mpeg-4 codec
also you can use all big mpeg-4 decoder filters for playback of .mp4 files with 3ivx: divx5, xvid, ffdshow and of course also 3ivx itself

Quote

no tools,no filters,no opensource support=no mp4 as a container!

from the mp4 tools i know more than 10 are opensource
and regarding the directshow filters there exist not less than 5 different filters... how much exist fro .avi? - one from m$ and one from gabest...
and from the not dshow based players i know able to handle mp4 6 are opensource

Quote

bond,your failure to understand mp4 as a container much alike mpeg container is what hurts the most!

your failure is that you absolutely have no clue what you are talking about

Quote

if mp4 was the opensource container and a free container and excellent stuff,then we would all be using it by now!(for sure!)

mp4 is license free and opensource implementations exist as written above already

Quote

i'm quite sure avery can put mp4 support in vdub quite easily!
where's the document that will explain detailed mp4 structure to him?
a doc that says on the end;THIS IS FREEWARE CONTAINER;USE IT AT WILL?
he did this for .avi(microsoft made avi specs available long time ago) and we all know that everything went just fine!
avi is with us mostly because of vdub(and programs that followed)

the mp4 container is defined in iso 14996-14, if someone wants a copy it will not be a problem to get one

Quote

you said;
Quote
10) How can i play MP4 files?
as one of the big advantages of MP4 is interoperability and being an open standard (license free!)

but in one of the links at your mp4 faq i find this;
Quote
What is happening to the licensing of MPEG-4?
Patent Holders are currently working on developing the licensing necessary for MPEG-4. The current date for licensing the Simple and Core visual profiles is expected to be early 2002. See www.m4if.org/patents/index.php for the latest information.

as i said some parts of the mpeg-4 standard need to be licensed some not, mp4 is license free

Quote

Quote
Where can I purchase the standard?
The MPEG-4 Standard (ISO/IEC 14496) can be purchased online at the ISO website.

Why do I have to buy the standard? Shouldn't be free?
Developing a standard takes a lot of time and money. In order for ISO to recover some of the costs associated with the development of the MPEG-4 standard, it sells the specification. Considering the amount of work that has gone into developing this standard, it is certainly well worth the money.

to me,these are strong evidences that avery will NOT put mp4 support into vdub!

well there are copies of the mpeg-4 standard floating around, if avery wants one it would be easy for him to get it

Quote

you said (in same thread)
Quote
still a commandline encoder with nice gui would be as easy usable

well,YES!
an encoder capable of doing nice h264..(not so soon i presume...h264 is young..it is also non-free codec!) and nice aac(any nice freeware aac encoders?are they legal too?how if roberto is afraid to host the binaries...and you know what happens with command line only,poor quality aac non-legal encoders?indeed,they stay on my hdd never to be used...) and putting all that to a (proprietary again) mp4 container!

yes you have to pay license fees when you want to offer a h.264 and aac encoder! still what does this have to do with .mp4? you will also have to pay licenses if you place h.264 in avi, so whats the point...
and as i said before you dont have to pay licenses for using .mp4

Quote

i think you picked a wrong foe:you should make a signature against mpeg!
THEY are monopolizing the a/v encoding!
they are responsible for us not having free mpeg2 encoders (mencoder is NOT legal option!it violates every possible law...a laws that mpeg made!)
we're hiding like some sort of bastards(you too:xvid is only 'educational'!absolutely illegal!) while instead we should be encoding our stuff with best possible codecs!
i am NOT paying for the codecs i use OR for the containers i use;i'm NOT a freaking MGM so i'm making money on mpeg encoding!!!
the mpeg companies need money too?
no they don't!these companies are making so much money on selling teh devices(that use mpeg) that is makes you sick!
microsoft is givinng away their encoders:use it for free and worry not!
(at the moment,wmv9 is BEST lo-bitrate codec/format...i will beat any presently available h264 implementation with wmv9!)

well than go with m$ and be happy

Quote

b)provide some mp4 tools so we can use it...(beats me how will you do that...no developer in their right mind will mess with mpeg la!)
a decent encoder and dshow decoder would be enough..thanks...

as i said already, there are lots of tools available

Quote

so bond,you either
a)stop cursing avi.(.it did no harm to you...how many xvid's you put to .avi?)
or

altough i think this thread deserves no more attention, some arguments from my side at the end:

avi and/or video for windows (vfw) dont handle the following things at all or only with hacks:
- variable framerate (both avi and vfw)
- b-frames (both avi and vfw)
- variable bitrate audio (including mp3 and aac)
- non adjacent references (both avi and vfw)
- markers
- chapters
- subtitles
- mpeg-4 video itself has problems (the vol is repeated on each i-frame)
and who knows what else more

my point is that writting a modern h.264 codec based on outdated technologies, like avi and vfw, will exclude the usage of advanced features right from the beginning, which in the long run hurts the quality which would be possible with the format

take for example variable framerate, which would be possible with mpeg-4:
avi and vfw are not able to do it, currently nobody thinks about using vfr when encoding, altough it would help a lot, especially on animes, as the two popular mpeg-4 codecs (xvid and divx5) are vfw based and therefore simply are not able to do vfr encodes
a lost chance, limiting what mpeg-4 could be able to do, not only manually but also in our brains...
the decision on what interface/container to base your codec on has to be made at the beginning and is very important for the future performance of the codec

therefore also simply adding .mp4 support to virtualdub would not really help as still vfw would cause lots of problems and limitations
virtualdub is a great tool and still more than usefull, but when it comes to encoding with modern technologies, like h.264, its sad but true outdated because of vfw and the strong avi focus

Quote

if you can prove me wrong on any of the points i put out here,i will be gratefull!
because my intention is not to give any wrong info!

well basically all your points were wrong, did i leave any point out?

next time insults because of a lack of knowledge will not be tolerated anymore, be aware!

Notice