[Zero1]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

The reason why I prefer MP4 over MKV is simple! MKV is not supported as an industry standard whereas MP4 is! Why encode files in a non-industry standard format?

Just make a list of all the devices that support MP4 and then compare them to those that support MKV and I think my point will have been made.

It's beyond me also, especially when you see people encoding hardsubbed H.264 with AAC audio. Fair enough if they want to use softsubs, Vorbis/AC3 or something like that not officially covered by MP4, but I think if you don't have any special requirements, that you might as well use the standard container (afterall, H.264 to .MP4 is what MPEG-2 is to .MPG (ASP would be like MPEG-1)). It's not something against MKV, but at that simple level of encode, it's not like MKV or MP4 have any direct advantage over eachother. The only sort of advantage I could think of would be that MP4 has more support in commercial/3rd party software; which is one of the things I like about it (the interoperability). There is the issue of decoder support in said commercial/3rd party apps, last time I knew, Nero was pretty good, Apple/Quicktime was Ok but didn't support High Profile (which I believe to be a requirement of HD-DVD/Bluray, so they ought to implement it sometime).

Hardware support is a funny subject. Yes there are more and more mobile devices supporting .3gp (essentially a stripped down .mp4) and .mp4, and yes, they don't play current HP@L4 H.264 fansubs, but the point Ronbo is making is that the format is being used more and more in hardware. It's just a matter of cost (and time) before we get H.264 decoding (obviously faster CPUs are required).

I reckon the KiSS DP-700 will support H.264 in MP4; based on the partnership with nero.
"Nero Digital(tm) AVC is the top of the line when it comes to quality, compression and innovation," said Martin Manniche, COO KiSS. "KiSS customers will be given the tools and technology to create their own Nero Digital(tm) AVC files, experiencing first hand this next generation technology."

Nero Digital AVC files being .mp4; but only time will tell for sure.

Originally Posted by Eeknay

Also, I just transmuxed a .mpg to a .ts (for archival purposes, not to spite you :P) and the TS came out smaller (normally I would have used Videoredo but I was getting some fruity errors, so I used *gasp* VLC). I thought it was interesting, but then again hdtv2mpeg2 doesn't like the file...

Heh, something is seriously wrong if a TS is coming out smaller than a program stream (due to the nature of .ts and all the extra crap it has). What with you saying hdtv2mpeg2 won't accept it, I wonder if it has invalid or missing PMTs/PATs or whatever.

Originally Posted by SirCanealot

Exactly, you can't say any of this for sure because it's simply not fact.

It is a fact that Bluray players will have to support H.264 @ L4.1 minimum; it's in the specifications. What I was referring to is that all will be fine providing Sony stick to the specs. That's exactly why profiles and levels exist, so you can see "Player X supports Level Z, so therefore it is automatically capable of encodes that only require level Y" I am just cautious with Sony that they don't disregard the specs and put whack ass restrictions in the firmware (like with the PSP and it's retarded framerates/resolution requirement despite being fully capable). For the record, I'm in the HD-DVD camp.

Bluray specs:
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/do...2955-13403.pdf

Originally Posted by SirCanealot

If this is all true, then why am I simply quoting the things people have complained about before with mp4? Are you saying that all those problems have been fixed over the last few months? If so, fair enough. I haven't actually researched the topic myself (I don't care to); this is what I've seen several other people complain about in the past when comparing the two containers.

Because people are using it as a way of justifying the use of AVI or MKV? Because most people are too scared to get stuck into a CLI and use some unofficial GUI that lacks features? Because people that don't understand stuff often spout crap, just like newbs with MKV saying it's buggy or uses more CPU?

I've been using x264 and mp4box for 18 months or so, possibly more. I've been muxing MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP (non hacked XviD), H.264, MP2, MP3, AAC, softsubs and even scripted my own test menu in MP4 and the only thing I recall is one build wouldn't mux HE-AAC (and that was an unofficial build to boot). What (other) problems are you talking about? Seriously mate, I'm not playing the zealot card or trying to be difficult, I've genuinely never had a serious problem aside from the HE-AAC issue (and thankfully I also had an older version).

Originally Posted by SirCanealot

I think it is more likely that mp4 support will appear and work. However, the same "sane level" choice applies now, with PCs running windows/whathaveyou.

Anyway, WMV/Realmedia don't matter anyway and shouldn't be considered.

And this is another reason why corperate players are always going to suck. It's all about using them for what they are and using something like an X-Box or a PC for everything else. Laptop + S-Video cable (or something better) = daddy.

The sane level I refered to has already been defined in MPEG levels and profiles; what I meant was more to do with softsubs and rendering. For example how do you deal with something like that on a standalone with something advanced like .ASS? I mean where do you draw the line, it's not like softsubs can have a fixed complexity (ie one scene could be simple on and off text, or another could have 3 or 4 layers of karaoke if you are batshit insane).

I only referred to WMV because I know quite a few DVD rippers used to use the WMV9 VCM back in the days, and a few odd people use RV10 or whatever they call it.

You know it's funny, why the hell did I never consider a laptop as some kind of media centre when I'm at home? I've thought about mini-itx (too slow), and both of my encoding rigs are too fucking noisy (hence my wanting a nice quiet standalone player). Haha, I may just look into that; I've been considering a laptop to play games and videos on lunchbreak at work (and internets with my N91 with WLAN \o/).
You deserve a cookie, good thinking batman.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

DO NOT WANT
(or at least, DO NOT CARE)

Absolutely no interest at all? I dunno about you, but I tend to burn all my crap onto DVD. It appeals in as much that I could pull out one of my DVDs and chuck it into the DVD player (in theory ) rather than booting one of my encoding rigs and having to put up with all the noise (having said that, I'm quite taken on SirCane's suggestion now). What about if MKV got hardware support tomorrow, any different?

Originally Posted by TheFluff

But what's your point? It's not like anyone or anything will care about those 0.3 millisecond inaccuracies...

The point was just to explain to SirCane that VFR in MP4 is on par with MKV. Had I known that the inaccuracies were as insignificant as 0.3ms, I wouldn't have even wasted my time mentioning it. No one cares about 0.3ms, but as far as I was concerned (without being in the know), it could have been 0.0001ms or 100ms, I really had no idea of the scale of it.

Originally Posted by TheFluff

And AC3.

Yes, good catch. DTS also (not a big loss IMO).

Originally Posted by DryFire

I also find mkv easier to use and h264 + vorbis with softsubs is my favorite format right now... so it's mkv for me

Can't fault you, at least you are getting the benefit of MKV.

Originally Posted by Nicholi

And you didn't even use Matroska v2 Zero1

If someone wants to tell me how, I will do it no problem. I did ask you in the channel, but you probably pinged out like usual . I checked the mkvmerge CLI, but didn't see anything useful. It might be a case that I "can't see the wood for the trees" (ie perhaps I am looking for the wrong option/terminology and it's something really simple/obvious).

Originally Posted by Nicholi

I myself could care less about 128kbps cbr AAC tests. I'd rather choose an encoder with the full set of AAC features, which isn't iTunes. And for the guy who I am most positive said somewhere else that he could care less about audio and wants maximum compression...I'm surprised you would pimp a non HE encoder.

I encode to my requirements, that is I don't use one single AAC encoder. If I want good quality LC-AAC I will tend to use iTunes (it's a tough job but someone's gotta do it), or for HE-AAC I might use Nero. I don't use HE-AAC a lot, so there are probably better encoders than Nero now.

I might hate spending bits on audio, but I wouldn't use HE-AAC on a release for that reason. I'm shocked and appauled that you think I'd stoop to those levels(!). In my opinion HE is too destructive for high quality encoding. Obviously at low bitrates though, halving the sample rate is preferable to having annoying compression artifacts, ringing, flange and whatever; but it doesn't cut it for high quality IMO, not at the ~96-128kbps range. You may tempt me to go down to 80kbps; but that might be a grey area, which is better at that bitrate, HE or LC? Would be interesting testing sometime; I would have been tempted to guess at LC though.

Even for multichannel; I'd consider LC-AAC first, probably testing at the 224kbps area. I don't expect miracles, but what with the channel coupling I imagine it should sound decent.

I definitely don't want to pimp iTunes as such, I hate the software also; but you do what you gotta do.

You know what I think would be awesome? If the LAME dev coded an AAC encoder. The potential is there for masses of awesome, especially if it ended up well tuned like LAME, and used more efficient AAC enhancement layers like Main or LTP.