AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > Fansub Groups

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-08-20, 17:45   Link #321
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to Starks
God, I so easily get lost in all this encoder technobabble.
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-20, 18:31   Link #322
DryFire
Panda Herder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
but everyone seems to be using AAC now anyway.
I still use vorbis. The only time I use anything else is when I want to leave the origional audio in tact (I'm only referring to stereo).


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

The only hardware I can think of that supports mp4 is the psp and the ipod, both of which can't play any of the current fansubs. Personally I see no reason to buy a set top box as an htpc still rules them all.
DryFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-20, 23:28   Link #323
Nicholi
King of Hosers
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 31
The only inaccuracies from using timecodes in MKV is improper use, otherwise there are no issues. And you didn't even use Matroska v2 Zero1 , it would have had the lowest overhead most likely (it does in every other situation at least).

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.
Nicholi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-21, 17:45   Link #324
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 29
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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


Quote:
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).


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff
And AC3.
Yes, good catch. DTS also (not a big loss IMO).


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-21, 18:10   Link #325
Eeknay
Gendo died for your sins.
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
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.
The resultant file plays fine, but VLC set ridiculously high PIDs for some reason.. probably what's throwing hdtv2mpeg2. I should probably watch the whole thing just to make sure D:
Eeknay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-21, 18:23   Link #326
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
Absolutely no interest at all?
No. My TV is a lot smaller and has a lot lower resolution than my computer screen does... and it's not like I leave the computer much when I'm at home, so personally I don't see the point at all. Now if I had some huge-ass plasma TV or something, I'd probably just use my laptop and a normal DVI cord instead. In my experience, I find computers to be a lot less of a pain to work with than set-top boxes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
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.
I think you missed the point. I just grabbed some number out of thin air... The thing is, there's a parameter to mkvmerge that lets you specify with what precision the timecodes should be stored; by default they're accurate to the millisecond, but that can be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
Yes, good catch. DTS also (not a big loss IMO).
I didn't even mention DTS, since noone sane releases anything with it (Y HALO THAR, BITRATE WASTE!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
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.
Actually, most raws I've bothered to poke at the audio of seem to have had a lowpass filter applied at ~16kHz for some reason, meaning that lowering the samplerate to 32kHz wouldn't make much of a difference. Not that I'd do that, but anyway...
Example from Night Head Genesis ep 4: http://kalle.blomdahls.net/random/spectrogram.png
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-21, 23:21   Link #327
Nicholi
King of Hosers
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
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.
I'm shocked and appalled that you forgot you wrote this just a few days ago :P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
Heh, the old argument of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.". Well my idiom is "If it ain't broke, improve it." (or break it >:3). I'll gladly take an improvement in coding efficiency that allows me to lower the filesize for the same quality, or improve quality at the same filesize. When you get into the really low bitrates, HE-AAC and HE-AAC with parametric stereo are pretty amazing all things considered (low bitrates being 64/48kbps or under). Perhaps I'm too pedantic, but I hate it that audio gets such low compression ratios compared to video, and that it takes up such a large chunk of bitrate compared to the video. I hate spending more bits on audio than I have to, I'm a videophile, screw audio >
http://z4.invisionfree.com/KissSub/i...?showtopic=174

It certainly seemed to me like you preferred HE at the time, and I can only read what you write. But aye I understand your reasons for not using HE in a release. The quasi-audiophile somewhere deep inside you screeches and hisses pretty loud too at times, amirite .

Since I think most fansubbers are interested in PC playback it seems obvious that the reason of 'MP4 might one day get hardware device support' is pretty much last on their list. In which case on a PC it is quite easy to say MKV is clearly superior in usable features as well as playback/tools/etc. The only excuses, in my opinion, for using MP4 usually seem to be anti-MKV'ness and glorious days of promised hardware support. As I've seen it with my own eyes the former seems to be the real reason and the latter used as an afterthought "reason". I've seen the words "industry standard" and other shit thrown around so much in hopes that hosers will go "yay industry standard" and follow along praising the new format. As though other formats don't follow their own specifications and are chaotic untrustable technologies.

I think it has quite clearly been established that H.264 decoding will be available on many new devices, but that does not mean MP4 playback of files with H.264 video will be supported. Clearly there has to specifically be support for the MP4 file format, which no one has seen any evidence of yet. Now I do think eventually one day such support will come about, but as of this point it is nothing but guesswork hopes. The world to you might be all about hardware support but that doesn't mean every chip maker in the world feels the same about MP4s.

Not to mention the clear problem of H.264 Profiles support. I am betting nearly all H.264 encodes nowadays are using High Profile because of the encoder using i8x8 motion vector searching (I haven't seen any custom quant matrices used yet but I donno). Just a theory of mine, unless people are specifically using Main Profile preparing for the glorious days of device playback. So otherwise it means the "promise" of one day being able to play these files on a hardware device will only be true if that device specifically plays High Profile encodes in the MP4 file format. Some devices in the future might have this support (once again no one can say shit one way or the other) but I have a strong feeling that not all of them will support every facet of H.264 and the MP4 format. It is true in today's market at least, there are the high-bling devices which support everything but there are much more devices with moderate support or specific uses. So even once MP4 device support comes around there will likely be huge confusion over which devices support whose files unless everyone starts encoding to the exact same resolution/bitrate/profiles/etc, reminds me of a particular scene. Otherwise there needs to be easily viewed information for the newbs of the world about the specs said group follows, thus they will know what is required to play them. Easy for us to look up, not so easy for them. But really as of today no one who is releasing MP4 files will even know how long it will be before their files get hardware support. It is what I call, a load of bullshit answer.

The great promises of one day being able to play these files are a pretty farfetched arguement for using MP4 as the container of choice. Not to mention using that as the exclusive reason when the demographic for set-top people is nowhere near the number of people that will play it on their PC. If compatibility/interoptibility are everyone's "zomg concerns" they should stick with basic ASP (DivX/XviD) in AVI as of August 2006. Since nothing has been forced to be more "compatible" in everything then these formats. Catering to the idea that MAYBE one day you will be able to play your files on hardware devices seems extremely stupid, once again in my opinion. However when MP4 playback has been more readily set in place I could almost understand such reasoning, except for the fact that you are catering to an even lower common denominator of users. But as of this point you will not know if any release will even be supported in the future. Thus the magic word guesswork.
Nicholi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-08-23, 06:47   Link #328
SirCanealot
What? I am washed up!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, England
Age: 29
Send a message via MSN to SirCanealot
I don't see the point in HE AAC for stereo sources when Ogg provisdes stupidly good audio at Q2, imo. I uploaded a sample of Q2 ogg here: http://www.sircanealot.homechoice.co...m%20Shift3.ogg

When you go below Q2, the sound of the drums and guitar start to get distorted, but Q2 is pretty listenable, imo. Although it's worth saying it did oversize to 108kps, but that's the nature of this music ^^;;
__________________
SirCanealot
And they shall know no fear....
SirCanealot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-05, 03:48   Link #329
mog08
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
second thought. i've read most posts here but there's a better forum for this kind of topic that is doom9.org.

with no quality in mind, a 2hr film can be compressed to under 20Mb in size. if you want High quality video at High compressing rate, you need a very fast multi core system with insane processing power to be able to produce one at an acceptable rate. until we all get massive upgrades, that's not going to happen very soon. but i'm all in favor of H.264 taking over.
__________________

Last edited by mog08; 2006-09-07 at 23:27.
mog08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 14:56   Link #330
DbzDP
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
When I use a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and try to play a h264 file in MPC using CoreAVC I see extra black space on top and bottom of the file. Someone told me to use "Correct Monitor/Desktop AR Diff" in MPC which fixed the problem for all other files such as AVI etc etc except for the h264, can anyone help me please.
DbzDP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 15:37   Link #331
Sylf
翻訳家わなびぃ
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Sylf Send a message via Yahoo to Sylf
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbzDP
When I use a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and try to play a h264 file in MPC using CoreAVC I see extra black space on top and bottom of the file. Someone told me to use "Correct Monitor/Desktop AR Diff" in MPC which fixed the problem for all other files such as AVI etc etc except for the h264, can anyone help me please.
Questions like this is better asked in Playback Help forum. Maybe one of the mods will split this topic.

Anyway. If you are using MPC (it doesn't matter if you're using CoreAVC or ffdshow), then go to the menu, and select View->Video Frame->Override Aspect Ration->5:4. Remember to put it back to default (no override) when you watch the 16:9 (wide screen) video.
Sylf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 16:05   Link #332
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylf
Anyway. If you are using MPC (it doesn't matter if you're using CoreAVC or ffdshow), then go to the menu, and select View->Video Frame->Override Aspect Ration->5:4. Remember to put it back to default (no override) when you watch the 16:9 (wide screen) video.
What? NO! NONONO! BAD AND WRONG! 4:3 is NOT 5:4! Also, your MONITOR's aspect ratio is very probably not 5:4 either (unless it's an LCD/TFT), so DO NOT USE THAT ASPECT RATIO!

Ahem. Enough caps. Go read this thread, more specifically the posts about aspect ratios. Then come back, enlightened, and realize that black bars is Good and Right.

EDIT: if you have a CRT (which is most likely 4:3) and your desktop resolution is 1280x1024, you just need to change desktop resolution. 1280x1024 is NOT 4:3, it's 5:4, and that's very wrong to run on a 4:3 CRT. 1280x960 is the proper resolution you want. However, Sylf's trick will work if you really insist on keeping 1280x1024.
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read

Last edited by TheFluff; 2006-09-11 at 16:19.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 17:29   Link #333
DbzDP
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
I got a TFT. The aspect ratio does not work it just makes it full screen but cuts out some of the anime in the proccess. I will post in that thread thanks.
DbzDP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 18:34   Link #334
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbzDP
I got a TFT. The aspect ratio does not work it just makes it full screen but cuts out some of the anime in the proccess. I will post in that thread thanks.
If you have a TFT it's most likely 5:4, and that means that you will always have black bars if you're watching stuff in fullscreen at the proper aspect ratio, since no anime is ever made for 5:4.
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-11, 20:57   Link #335
Sylf
翻訳家わなびぃ
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Sylf Send a message via Yahoo to Sylf
I know full well that 5:4 isn't 4:3. I personally have a TFT screen with its native resolution of 5:4. I watch all of full screen anime with black bars.

But I know there are people who prefer not to have those black bars, even if that means not having the anime displayed in incorrect aspect ratio. If there weren't then MPC wouldn't have a built-in option to override the AR to 5:4.

I know anime isn't meant to be viewered at 5:4 AR. I know it irks you and others who care about the correctness. But I also know there are people who think otherwise, and I don't have a problem showing them how to achieve what they want.
Sylf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-12, 09:16   Link #336
Nei
Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Mplayerhq.hu's mplayer by default assumes a monitor AR of 4:3 even with a 5:4 resolution, so it unnaturally stretches anime to the full screen by default. Man I so hate this behaviour watching deformed anime xD
Nei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-12, 09:54   Link #337
emptyeighty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nei
Mplayerhq.hu's mplayer by default assumes a monitor AR of 4:3 even with a 5:4 resolution, so it unnaturally stretches anime to the full screen by default. Man I so hate this behaviour watching deformed anime xD
Use -monitoraspect 5:4 and all is well.
emptyeighty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-12, 10:08   Link #338
Sylf
翻訳家わなびぃ
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Sylf Send a message via Yahoo to Sylf
Put that in mplayer conf file, so you don't have to type that in each time.
Sylf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-13, 16:39   Link #339
Ronbo
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quick question!

Will Apple’s recent unveiling of their new iTV S.T.B. (or whatever they are calling it) have any effect on encouraging additional fan-sub groups into releasing more Anime in the MP4 format?
__________________
Those who resist change are doomed to extinction!
Ronbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-09-13, 16:59   Link #340
Eeknay
Gendo died for your sins.
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
There's absolutely no info on what it'll play, what resolutions/bitrates etc it'll support.

It looks like a [potentially] cool device, but it's too soon for "h264/MP4 hardware support... talk about owned" posts.
Eeknay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.