Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently December 18th, 2017, 1:33 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: AVI vs. MP4 vs. MKV
PostPosted: November 6th, 2007, 3:36 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
*Topic Split from Anime Advice Thread. Some continuity is slightly disrupted, but wholly it is all posts on the matter:

Caiobrz wrote:
Boring is to see anime you want in MKV that cannot be converted properly to some REAL format >.>

Spazmaster666 wrote:
Well MKV is the most versatile container in existence right now. And h264 is the most effecient codec out there right now so obviously h264-encoded videos in mkv containers are going to be the norm nowadays. And really, mkv is just a container, and hating on a container itself seems pretty nonsensical (since what matters is what content is inside the container)


Totally disagreed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 7th, 2007, 2:43 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
Totally disagreed, but not the point of this thread =p


As I've said, mkv is just a container, just like avi. The only difference between the two is that mkv can handle more advanced codecs and can handle more streams as well as soft subs whereas as avi cannot. However, you can take an avi file and mux it into an mkv file and they would play exactly the same because what matters is what content is inside the container, not the container itself.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 7th, 2007, 11:16 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Only for you to learn you never needed 62 new video codec formats, 23 audio codecs, softsubs and a new mux to begin with. THAN you will start getting where I went with how useless MKV is. If you keep this thought, in 10 years we will be saying the exact same about the all new DarthVader container which contains 62 new video codec formats, 23 audio codecs and 34 softsubs.

Yet, a good well encoded DivX or XviD at a good well enconded mp3 with a cute .srt laying aroud could do the same, except 488x less codecs instaled, 230x less overhead for useless tracks I will never care (3 dubs, 30 different subs) and 32x less CPU time.

WAIT, no, don't tell me I'm against evolution and better stuff ... DivX is evolving, MPEG is evolving, even mp3 is evolving, but even them, or others, have a limit, or you really do expect to fit a HDTV quality 2h video in 10k one day? :roll:

Yes MKV is just a proff that there are too many wannabe-famous script kids in the world with too much free time in their hands =/ and while they struggle, REAL WORLD indistry is still coping with DivX/Xvid hardware.

yeah MKV is better, but we never needed that in the first place unless it were REALLY better. It is not, period =p I still encode everything back to xvid/mp3/srt and watch the same way, and it can even play at my new 1.4Ghz laptop! ... except some damn combinations as you know, which looks more like "let's make it so complicated people won't be able to convert to avi and will have to keep the mkv!" ¬¬

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 1:11 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
Off-topic

Only for you to learn you never needed 62 new video codec formats, 23 audio codecs, softsubs and a new mux to begin with. THAN you will start getting where I went with how useless MKV is. If you keep this thought, in 10 years we will be saying the exact same about the all new DarthVader container which contains 62 new video codec formats, 23 audio codecs and 34 softsubs.


You're not getting my point. Like I said, MKV is just a container. You can put one audio track in there or you can put three. You can put whatever you want in MKV. And if you put the exact same content into MKV as you do into AVI, then you will get the same playback experience. Hence, hating on the container is, as I've said it, nonsensical. Unless you can prove to me that somehow a video file in MKV format does not perform the same as the exact same video file in AVI format (which I bet you cannot), then you're missing the point.

Caiobrz wrote:
Yet, a good well encoded DivX or XviD at a good well enconded mp3 with a cute .srt laying aroud could do the same, except 488x less codecs instaled, 230x less overhead for useless tracks I will never care (3 dubs, 30 different subs) and 32x less CPU time.


What does codecs have to do with it? What does useless tracks have to do with it? You don't have to put 20 tracks into an MKV file. You can just put in one or two. That's the beauty of MKV, it's versatile so that you can put in as many tracks as you want, or as few tracks as you want. Once again, mkv is just a container.

Caiobrz wrote:
WAIT, no, don't tell me I'm against evolution and better stuff ... DivX is evolving, MPEG is evolving, even mp3 is evolving, but even them, or others, have a limit, or you really do expect to fit a HDTV quality 2h video in 10k one day? :roll:


DivX is outdatted. It's still useful for fast encoding but for high-quality, high-efficiency encoding MPEG-4 AVC is going to be the standard. Nowadays, MPEG-4 AVC is what DivX was five years ago.

Caiobrz wrote:
Yes MKV is just a proff that there are too many wannabe-famous script kids in the world with too much free time in their hands =/ and while they struggle, REAL WORLD indistry is still coping with DivX/Xvid hardware.


Again, MKV is just a container, meaning you can put whatever you want in it. Hell you don't even have to put subtitles into an MKV file at all. It's totally up to you.

Caiobrz wrote:
yeah MKV is better, but we never needed that in the first place unless it were REALLY better. It is not, period =p I still encode everything back to xvid/mp3/srt and watch the same way, and it can even play at my new 1.4Ghz laptop! ... except some damn combinations as you know, which looks more like "let's make it so complicated people won't be able to convert to avi and will have to keep the mkv!" ¬¬


It looks like what you are hating on is the fact that MPEG-4 AVC (aka h264) uses up too much CPU power and that styled softsubs (ass files) also take up CPU overhead. But neither of these are directly related to MKV. You can put h264 into an MKV container, or you can put in Xvid or DivX. You can put in styled ass softsubs into an MKV container, or you can put in SRT. You can put in Vorbis or AAC audio, or you can put in MP3. Like I said, it's totally up to you. The reason why many fansubbing groups are switching to MKV is simply a matter of conserving space. Why have a 175MB xvid-encoded AVI file, when you can have a 100MB h264-encoded MKV file of the same quality. Sure those with slower PCs can stick with the 175MB AVI version, but those of use who have faster PCs can get the MKV version and save space on our hard drives. And obviously MKV is also the choice for HD-quality video since native h264 offers the best quality and highest efficiency, meaning an HD video doesn't have to be 20+ GB in size.

As I've said, hating on a container is nonsensical because the container itself is the cause of any of the issues you've mentioned, it all depends on what people put inside it.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 11:16 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
Like I said, MKV is just a container. You can put one audio track in there or you can put three. You can put whatever you want in MKV. And if you put the exact same content into MKV as you do into AVI, then you will get the same playback experience. Hence,


HENCE, MKV is useless. People pushing me around to use something useless is stupid

Quote:
Unless you can prove to me that somehow a video file in MKV format does not perform the same as the exact same video file in AVI format (which I bet you cannot), then you're missing the point


looks you are missing the point: if it's the same, we never need it, and I hate things that people push at me saying "you need this, this is awesome, this is the future" when it clearly is not the case

Quote:
What does codecs have to do with it?


?????? seriously did ask me that when the ONE tiny tini shread of reason people use to push MKV is that it supports "more and a wide variety of codecs"?? .... which I never needed to start with? yes, codecs have ALL to do with it, why? because they are the raw source of why people THINK MKV is better and should replace older formats. It's like saying you NEED Vista because it supports DirectX 10 ... when in fact, DirectX 10 is being made to run ONLY in Vista just to make Vista sell. Point? The reason why MKV is useless is not MKV itself, is the fact we never needed something like MKV in the first place. It's very hard to argue against MKV if you do not get to the root of things.

Quote:
DivX is outdatted. It's still useful for fast encoding but for high-quality, high-efficiency encoding MPEG-4 AVC is going to be the standard. Nowadays, MPEG-4 AVC is what DivX was five years ago.


Yeah DivX is outdatted, but Xvid is not, and if we add AVC into the picture that makes 3 video codecs that are good. I say: easier and SMARTER to fix .AVI to handle AVC (like they did with mp3Pro to handle some pitches), than to create a whole new container and push other 50 codecs as a discussible reason. Also, AVC, really? use .mp4 than, why you need to push MPEG into another container in the first place anyway?

Quote:
Again, MKV is just a container, meaning you can put whatever you want in it. Hell you don't even have to put subtitles into an MKV file at all. It's totally up to you.


When did I ever NEED a MKV in the first place? =p

Quote:
It looks like what you are hating on is the fact that MPEG-4 AVC (aka h264) uses up too much CPU power and that styled softsubs (ass files) also take up CPU overhead. But neither of these are directly related to MKV


Nothing against softsubs (I can load them externally as files, and I do), and AVC fits a lot better into a mp4. Why MKV again? ops, I lost it. MKV is an orphan useless container meant only to ... nothing. for AVC I have mp4, for legacy I have .avi, and we covered everything.

Quote:
The reason why many fansubbing groups are switching to MKV is simply a matter of conserving space.


That's bullshit, conserving space offering me bloated 2 audio tracks is pointless, and no you can't have a 100Mb AVC with the same quality as a 175Mb XVid, it almost looks like the kid speach I got when Xvid was still new and they said the EXACT SAME THING with the EXACT SAME NUMBERS when comparing DivX with Xvid. Now people evolved and learned it's not real. You will not say AVC can compact twice as XVid. Also, Take a look at the fansubs for a second would you? the GOOD ones release MKV and XVID the same size, or 25Mb in difference. And than I always love the statement of a well know fansubber (SS) I heard a day:

"Who burns CD's these days, it's all DVD, f___ file sizes!"

Quote:
And obviously MKV is also the choice for HD-quality video since native h264 offers the best quality and highest efficiency, meaning an HD video doesn't have to be 20+ GB in size.


Lie, blatant lie ... the native h264 container is mp4.

I hate people who goes all the lenghts necessary to "sell" me something I never needed, and MKV is one of the purest examples of it. All codecs were born for other native containers, AVI could handle them all up to AVC, which has mp4 now. If a tenth of the effort they put into mkv was put into tweeking avi container (or if microshit wanted) we would have AVC into AVIs and than a container that can handle them all.

AVI can also handle multiple audio-tracks, and for a while some geeks tryed to spread the word that AVI cannot handle AC3 ... well time proved them wrong in their desperate attempt to prove MKV did something AVI couldn't, and now I have lots of AVI with AC3 audio. Now congratulations, with AVS Avis cannot handle everything, but I would still go for the designed mp4.

MKV is exactly what it names says. A Matroska with another inside, and again one inside. That's all.

I can put all those codecs inside a .zip file too :roll:

MKV is useless, not because you don't have alternatives (because YOU DO), but because you never needed it in the first place. I don't need VISTA, but Microsoft wants me to think I need too ;) XP SP3 will probably be a lot better (I hope I could say the same about AVI SP2 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL)

note: You are a mod right?, can't you break this into another thread or to the "HD anime"? we are ruining this thread.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 12:55 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
HENCE, MKV is useless. People pushing me around to use something useless is stupid


That doesn't make sense. By that logic, AVI is useless also. Oh and MKV is not useless. The fact that it can handle codecs and formats that neither MP4 nor AVI is equipped to handle proves its not useless (there's also the little matter of reduced overhead of MKV compared to AVI). And even if it is useless, why complain?

Caiobrz wrote:
looks you are missing the point: if it's the same, we never need it, and I hate things that people push at me saying "you need this, this is awesome, this is the future" when it clearly is not the case


I never said they were the same. I said if you put the same content into each container, the results would be the same. However, MKV can handle content that AVI cannot handle properly. Hell AVI can't even really properly handle variable-bitrate audio tracks.

Caiobrz wrote:
?????? seriously did ask me that when the ONE tiny tini shread of reason people use to push MKV is that it supports "more and a wide variety of codecs"?? .... which I never needed to start with? yes, codecs have ALL to do with it, why? because they are the raw source of why people THINK MKV is better and should replace older formats. It's like saying you NEED Vista because it supports DirectX 10 ... when in fact, DirectX 10 is being made to run ONLY in Vista just to make Vista sell. Point? The reason why MKV is useless is not MKV itself, is the fact we never needed something like MKV in the first place. It's very hard to argue against MKV if you do not get to the root of things.


Well yeah MKV supports many different codecs, but that's not the only reason people prefer it over other containers. The main reason is likely ease of use and versatility. It's always useful to have a container that can support a wide range of codecs. But you still don't seem to get what I'm trying to say. No one is forcing you to use MKV. If you don't like it, don't use it. You don't HAVE to download fansubs in MKV format.

Caiobrz wrote:
Yeah DivX is outdatted, but Xvid is not, and if we add AVC into the picture that makes 3 video codecs that are good. I say: easier and SMARTER to fix .AVI to handle AVC (like they did with mp3Pro to handle some pitches), than to create a whole new container and push other 50 codecs as a discussible reason. Also, AVC, really? use .mp4 than, why you need to push MPEG into another container in the first place anyway?


You can't "fix" AVI to handle native AVC streams. AVI uses the VFW (Video for Windows) codec interface. This means that it simply cannot handle B frames, which is an important aspect of high-quality AVC encoding. Now there are hacks that you can do to work around this problem, but they are not guaranteed to be successful, nor can they be standardized in the way that MPEG-4 is.

Caiobrz wrote:
When did I ever NEED a MKV in the first place? =p


When did I ever say we NEED MKV? We don't NEED AVI either. I like MKV because it's easy to use and versatile.

Caiobrz wrote:
Nothing against softsubs (I can load them externally as files, and I do), and AVC fits a lot better into a mp4. Why MKV again? ops, I lost it. MKV is an orphan useless container meant only to ... nothing. for AVC I have mp4, for legacy I have .avi, and we covered everything.


AVC "fits better into MP4?" That doesn't make any sense. MP4 is a container just like MKV. Both are perfectly capable of handling native MPEG-4 AVC video. Saying AVC "fits better into MP4" is a pretty nonsensical statement. Oh, and BTW, MP4 really should only be used for audio/video under the MPEG-4 standard (this includes ISO 14496-2, which is Xvid/DivX, ISO 14496-3, which is AAC, and ISO 14496-10, which is AVC) While it's possible to mux other types of tracks in MP4 (i.e. Vorbis, DVD subtitles), it's again not standardized and hence can lead to playback/compatibility issues.

Quote:
The reason why many fansubbing groups are switching to MKV is simply a matter of conserving space.


Caiobrz wrote:
That's bullshit, conserving space offering me bloated 2 audio tracks is pointless, and no you can't have a 100Mb AVC with the same quality as a 175Mb XVid, it almost looks like the kid speach I got when Xvid was still new and they said the EXACT SAME THING with the EXACT SAME NUMBERS when comparing DivX with Xvid. Now people evolved and learned it's not real. You will not say AVC can compact twice as XVid. Also, Take a look at the fansubs for a second would you? the GOOD ones release MKV and XVID the same size, or 25Mb in difference.


Well not the exact same quality obviously, but with every setting maxed out, a 100 MB AVC file can be pretty close to a 175MB Xvid file. I've tried it myself with x264.

Caiobrz wrote:
Lie, blatant lie ... the native h264 container is mp4.


Like I said before both MP4 and MKV accept raw AVC streams. The difference is that MP4 wasn't built to handle non MPEG-4 standardized codecs, which is where Matroska comes in. Using MKV versus MP4 allows greater versatility, such as using the original AC3 or DTS tracks. MP4 was created as part of the MPEG-4 Standard (i.e. it was made for content distribution just like WMV, RMVB, VOB, etc). However, MKV was not created with a standard in mind, but rather flexibility. Hence the reason why we see so much more MKV as opposed to MP4 is that MKV allows a lot more freedom to the user as opposed to MP4 which, as I've said earlier, is standardized. The way I see it, MKV is an upgraded version of AVI, which was also a general-purpose container. MP4 however, is designed with content distribution in mind and hence the clear standardizations involved.

Caiobrz wrote:
I hate people who goes all the lenghts necessary to "sell" me something I never needed, and MKV is one of the purest examples of it. All codecs were born for other native containers, AVI could handle them all up to AVC, which has mp4 now. If a tenth of the effort they put into mkv was put into tweeking avi container (or if microshit wanted) we would have AVC into AVIs and than a container that can handle them all.


But what's the point? Why go back and try to modify an outdated container, when you have modern containers that can do the job better and do also do thing that AVI could never do.

Caiobrz wrote:
MKV is useless, not because you don't have alternatives (because YOU DO), but because you never needed it in the first place. I don't need VISTA, but Microsoft wants me to think I need too ;) XP SP3 will probably be a lot better (I hope I could say the same about AVI SP2 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL)


But that's a backwards way of thinking. Do we even really need XP? Hell, we could probably get by with just Windows 95 if we had to. In fact, we could probably get buy with just DOS if we had to. It's not a matter of NEED. It's a matter of flexibility and progress. Do we NEED MKV? Not really. Do we NEED the MPEG-4 Standard? Not really. Do we even NEED AVI? Not really.

Caiobrz wrote:
note: You are a mod right?, can't you break this into another thread or to the "HD anime"? we are ruining this thread.


Unfortunately, there's no real way to merge or split threads at this point. We may implement this feature when the upgrades are completed.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 2:14 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
why complain?


Because people put legacy video with legacy audio in legacy subs and SHOUVLE down my throat saying I must accept it's "better" ... it is not.

Quote:
Hell AVI can't even really properly handle variable-bitrate audio tracks.


I have a wide collection of VBR avis, want to see them?

Quote:
The main reason is likely ease of use and versatility.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH no point in discussing MKV after that, hands down. You really love MKV don't you? I guess you would stuff picture collections and word text into a MKV if you could ¬¬

On other less fanatism-related issues: Windows Vista did not bring anything, and XP SP3 will bundle the only real advances of Vista back to XP. Win9x could not handle PnP properly which is standard, and will most likelly never change (8 years of Vista development and it's still the same). Yeap, we can live with XP probably for a decade. I know places where they still use W98 because there is no need for the few improvements on XP for the VERY LARGE memory it uses.

I bought a notebook just to word processing and pass time, and the only thing that prevented me from installing W98 was some networking that XP can handle better, and for my surprise, except MKV, I can watch any anime I have, and play all games except Oblivion. BTW it can handle 720p XVid, while it freezes if I double click a MKV with that LOL.

Other than that, your mindset that "new" is "always better" is quite sad. In time you might learn that legacy support is way better. But hey, you seams to really think it's easiest to handle MKV so It might never happen, no offense.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 5:20 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
you do realize you are complaining about something you get for free. and it seems that the problem would go away if you had a faster computer...

just sayin'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 11:01 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
you do realize you are complaining about something you get for free. and it seems that the problem would go away if you had a faster computer...


Sorry but would you eat shit if I offered for free? so free argument dismissed.

Second, speed were never an issue, speed is just one of the points that AVC have issues but as spaz told repeated times, the point here is MKV not AVC.

To the mod who split the thread, the Thread subject makes me look like a moron, but I guess that was your intention. You can also close this thing down.

If you do not agree with my opinion there is no need to make that ok? I thought people here were adults.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 8th, 2007, 11:54 pm 
Offline
Resident Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 am
Posts: 2452
Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!
Hmm, wasn't my intention to make you look like a moron, not sure where you got that from anyway, but oh well. (You know very well I was the one that split the thread). Really, I don't know what you find objectionable about the title, but you can use the edit feature to make the title whatever you like, you are the first poster in this thread, feel free.

However, you're starting to get rather nasty about things, even more confrontational than you usually are. Your hate for .mkv seems to blind you as much as you think Spaz's love for .mkv blinds him. Spaz was very civil to you, but you started going off the deep end with ridiculous laughing and trying to make things more personal than they should be. Since this is mostly directed at Spaz, I will leave this unlocked and he can chose to do whatever he deems fit, whether that means locking the topic or further discussing it.

Let's try and use a little more tact, shall we?

_________________
Animetric Owner and Reviewer | My Anime List
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 9th, 2007, 12:19 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
Caiobrz wrote:
Sorry but would you eat shit if I offered for free? so free argument dismissed.
well there are certainly a lot of people using MKV... so i guess the answer is yes! frankly, i do not care what people use, as long as it works. MKV works well for it's purpose. if you do not like it, do not eat it. why so angry?

Caiobrz wrote:
Second, speed were never an issue, speed is just one of the points that AVC have issues but as spaz told repeated times, the point here is MKV not AVC.
then do not bring it up. ie. your word processing laptop that cannot handle MKV.

Caiobrz wrote:
If you do not agree with my opinion there is no need to make that ok? I thought people here were adults.
i thought so too...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 9th, 2007, 12:25 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: April 3rd, 2007, 8:57 pm
Posts: 859
I personally don't care which one is better, all I know is that .avi sounds a lot more familiar to me as well as xvid, but in the end i do have a bunch of codecs installed in my pc, not like I care, all I need are video, original dub and subtitles. But I'm a rather simple person...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 9th, 2007, 12:44 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
dbd_addict wrote:
if you do not like it, do not eat it. why so angry?

Caiobrz wrote:
Because people put legacy video with legacy audio in legacy subs and SHOUVLE down my throat saying I must accept it's "better" ... it is not.

dbd_addict wrote:
then do not bring it up. ie. your word processing laptop that cannot handle MKV.


Despite the clear fact you did not read all the discussions, I will try to illustrate the pointlessness of your rethoric on speed: My lap can run EVERYTHING, I can play GAMES (which use GPU and stuff), and I can even play DVD, but it cannot play AVC. No, it's not my lap that is slow, it's AVC that is overkilling it for a negligible improvement that I never asked for. If the world (and I know this will never happen!) should adopt AVC as a standard for COMMERCIAL videos, we would stop bothering with checking system specs when we buy Windows or a game, because it's already bloated with 5 CELL processors to handle AVC.

This DOES put things into perspective, doesn't it?

And it does not even have anything to do with MKV, AVC subject just poped up because it's >>supposedly<< one of the best reasons for the world to turn to MKV.

The same way as a couple of years ago people would really swear that OGM was the future, only OGM was not that heavy, I didn't care for the change back than.

Really, why one would need to upgrade their systems because some kids like a new bloated format while we have dozens of alternatives that can handle it pretty well?

Oh well only thing that soothes my soul is the knowledge that as much as script kids will keep trying to force MKV, it will never become a standard, the same way as after years of "standard", DivX/XviD is still just a "bonus" on hardware players, but standard is still mpeg (which sux, but than again industry rushed to it and a lot of money was involved into not getting mayo XviD as the standard)

And again before you can say "than don't use it":

dbd_addict wrote:
if you do not like it, do not eat it. why so angry?

Caiobrz wrote:
Because people put legacy video with legacy audio in legacy subs and SHOUVLE down my throat saying I must accept it's "better" ... it is not.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 9th, 2007, 2:01 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
Because people put legacy video with legacy audio in legacy subs and SHOUVLE down my throat saying I must accept it's "better" ... it is not.


Well if you compare avi and mkv feature for feature, mkv clearly has more features and greater compatibility with certain formats. So if that doesn't make it "better" at least it makes it more flexible (partly due to the very flexible EBML framework). Just look here for instance.

Caiobrz wrote:
I have a wide collection of VBR avis, want to see them?


I'm not saying it's not possible to mux VBR in avi, simply that avi does not support it properly like MP4 or MKV does.

Caiobrz wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH no point in discussing MKV after that, hands down. You really love MKV don't you? I guess you would stuff picture collections and word text into a MKV if you could ¬¬


Why because laughing about it and calling me a fan boy automatically invalidates my point? Why do you think people continue to release fansubs in mkv, because of "peer pressure?" No, because it's an easy to use and versatile container. Also it's open source, unlike MP4 which is a commercial container. Like I said before, MKV is essentially an upgraded version of AVI, except it's an open source one not created by Microsoft or any other major corporation.

Caiobrz wrote:
On other less fanatism-related issues: Windows Vista did not bring anything, and XP SP3 will bundle the only real advances of Vista back to XP. Win9x could not handle PnP properly which is standard, and will most likelly never change (8 years of Vista development and it's still the same). Yeap, we can live with XP probably for a decade. I know places where they still use W98 because there is no need for the few improvements on XP for the VERY LARGE memory it uses.


Actually Vista brings a lot including DirectX 10, better out of the box security, and excellent out of the box driver compatibility. It also handles memory very differently compared to XP. In fact, the code for Windows Vista is dramatically different from the core code used for XP. For instance, HAL is no longer present in Vista. Microsoft has also locked most of the core kernels, which isn't the case with XP either. This makes Vista more secure out of the box, but also makes it more difficult to code anti-virus and firewall software. And don't talk about DirectX 10 not being a useful feature because it's only coming out to Vista. Fact is, DirectX 10 was built with Vista in mind. Honestly have you even used Vista for any significant amount of time? I've been using Vista since early 2006, and while it was buggy and slow at first (the beta versions) the final version is in fact faster than XP in many ways on my PC and runs with fewer problems. In fact I can't even go back to XP anymore after using Vista for so long.

Caiobrz wrote:
I bought a notebook just to word processing and pass time, and the only thing that prevented me from installing W98 was some networking that XP can handle better, and for my surprise, except MKV, I can watch any anime I have, and play all games except Oblivion. BTW it can handle 720p XVid, while it freezes if I double click a MKV with that LOL.


Again, it's freezing because of AVC, not MKV. If you put the same 720p Xvid file into an mkv container, it would play just as well as if it were in an AVI container.

Caiobrz wrote:
Other than that, your mindset that "new" is "always better" is quite sad. In time you might learn that legacy support is way better. But hey, you seams to really think it's easiest to handle MKV so It might never happen, no offense.


I never said that. Don't try to twist my words. I said that MKV is better than AVI because it can do things that AVI cannot while at the same time reduces the amount of overhead involved. Also it's open source which makes it easily accessible to people who want to modify it for their specific needs, unlike MP4 which is strictly standardized.

Caiobrz wrote:
If the world (and I know this will never happen!) should adopt AVC as a standard for COMMERCIAL videos, we would stop bothering with checking system specs when we buy Windows or a game, because it's already bloated with 5 CELL processors to handle AVC.


Actually AVC is already a standard for Commercial video. It's called Bluray and HD-DVD. Almost all Blurays nowadays use AVC, with a few exceptions that use VC-1. Most HD-DVD still use VC-1 but MPEG-4 AVC is used when size becomes an issue (since AVC is about 10-20% more efficient than VC-1) And since either Bluray or HDDVD will one day replace DVD, I'd say that AVC will definitely become the major commercial standard. As for hardware requirements, nvidia and ATI both have video cards that can offload AVC decoding to the GPU rather than the CPU. The 8600GT for instance, a medium-end GPU, can offload almost all of the processing requirements for AVC to the GPU, leaving the CPU practically unused during AVC playback. Hence in the future, we'll most likely see GPUs doing most of the hardwork since that makes more sense anyway.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 9th, 2007, 9:19 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2007, 7:39 am
Posts: 199
spazmaster666 wrote:
I've been using Vista since early 2006, and while it was buggy and slow at first (the beta versions) the final version is in fact faster than XP in many ways on my PC and runs with fewer problems. In fact I can't even go back to XP anymore after using Vista for so long.


Wow. That's nice to know.

I downloaded fansubs of Gundam 00. I can't give you the group name, per Animetric policy, so you'll have to take my word for it.

MKV: 60fps, 200MB
AVI: 24fps, 230MB

I believe the MKV also had a higher audio bitrate. In any case, my PC isn't fast enough to run MKVs.

There really is a movement in programming where people try to give more responsibility to the CPU: Procedural Generation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group