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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-04-03, 19:48   Link #281
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
Am I ok with this setup or will I have to upgrade?

Super Alien 12bay tower case w/6 fans
Antec 550w Truecontrol power supply
3ghz P4 HT (Intel)
Abit IC7 800MHZ FSB Motherboard
1GB DDR Ram PC3200
ATI Radion 9800 Pro 256MB
19” Samsung 995DF Monitor
1-WD 120GB HD (Main)
1-WD 250GB Internal HD
4-Maxtor 250GB Internal HD’s
2-Maxtor 300GB External HD’s
1-Maxtor 500GB External HD
1-TDK 840G Multiformat DVD recorder
1-TDK 440N Multiformat DVD recorder
No, because I will now find your address and steal your computer.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-03, 20:15   Link #282
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarkboy
No, because I will now find your address and steal your computer.
But eww, it's Intel

Only thing it might struggle with is 1080p (using coreavc) or maybe 720p using FFDShow.

At the moment I've underclocked my A64 3400 to less than 1/3 of it's speed (stock is 2.2GHz, now running at 680MHz (fanless FTW)) and my encode of the Gundam 0083 OP averages at ~70% with CoreAVC.

As for 1080p; I can just about play Nero's "The Greatest Game" trailer (we seem to be using that as a benchmark these days ) at ~80-90% with the occasional peak that maxes the CPU enough to cause slowdown (it soon recovers, but it's not that bad).

I notice that CoreAVC Pro has planned GPU support... I wonder if we will be seeing the awesome efficiency of CoreAVC coupled with the acceleration from ATI or the likes?
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-04, 06:18   Link #283
jfs
Aegisub dev
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 29
Anyone know how much the optimisations in libavcodec improves performance, and whether there's SMP support on its way in it? If there is, I don't see any reason to switch to CoreAVC, at least for myself.
__________________

Aegisub developer [ Forum | Manual | Feature requests | Bug reports | IRC ]
Don't ask for: More VSFilter changes (I won't), karaoke effects, help in PM's
jfs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-04, 06:44   Link #284
ArchMageZeratuL
Aegisub dev
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florianópolis, Brazil, Pale Blue Dot
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfs
Anyone know how much the optimisations in libavcodec improves performance, and whether there's SMP support on its way in it? If there is, I don't see any reason to switch to CoreAVC, at least for myself.
CoreAVC claims that they will support GPU acceleration "at a future date"... my video card supports that, so I would be interested in THAT.
__________________
Aegisub developer [ Forum | Wiki | Bugtracker | IRC ]
ArchMageZeratuL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-04, 07:39   Link #285
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 27
http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/cgi-bin/cvs...y=date#dirlist
I've seen a bunch of optimizations in various stuff here over the past months... I dunno how much faster it is in reality, though. As for SMP, you'd have to ask pengvado.
__________________
| 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 2006-04-10, 03:24   Link #286
Nicholi
King of Hosers
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
Well, where to start. Calling H.264 encodes by their encoder name (in one case, x264) is already starting to confuse people. What does it matter if you encode a H.264 video with x264, Ateme, Elecard, Quicktime or Mainconcept? Do you expect people to label their encodes as such? The syntax of the bitstream should be the same, and thus interoperable with compliant H.264 decoders. A H.264 bitstream is a H.264 bitstream is a H.264 bitstream... (Unless you use VfW which requires hacks). The whole idea of MPEG and what they do is to give some kind of "open" industry standard, rather than us being ruled by the likes of Real and Microsoft with their proprietary codecs and containers.

How about if people start labelling their MP3's or the audio in their fansubs as LAME or Fraunhofer, or Nero, iTunes, Winamp, 3GP reference or FAAC for AAC? That would cause a bunch of confusion, since Mainconcept and Ateme produce other encoders also (MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Visual). The fact is that while the encoders might vary in quality and features, they all output the same compliant streams that are playable through capable, compliant decoders, be it hardware or software.

Then you get hardware. Since MPEG-4 ASP has effectively been partitioned as DivX and XviD, almost implying that they are different codecs, or somehow incompatible, you get "DivX" players, not MPEG-4 ASP players, but "DivX" players. You might say, "hang on, what about the incompatibilities I've seen", well that's a combination of people using AVI and VfW, and DivX disregarding the specs somewhat, and creating their own unofficial profiles. One of these was due to DivX's half assed GMC decoding implementation which only used to support 1 warp point, if you know XviD, you may know it uses 3. I believe (though I might be wrong) that a compliant decoder should support all the features of a selected profile, that would mean that the DivX decoders and players would be able to decode up to 6 warp point GMC (the maximum available). In other words, if a decoder claims to be an ASP decoder, it should support ALL of the features of ASP fully, and not partially implemented.

Again, this goes back to DivX's name and disregard for the specs.

Players that are not obligated to decode XviD encodes, because they are made to DivX Networks specifications. That means they are only guaranteed to decode DivX encodes (which means that there is only partial implementation of ASP decoding features). If it was a MPEG-4 ASP player, it would have to play any compliant MPEG-4 ASP stream, meaning that there should be no issue of compatibility between DivX and XviD encodes, barring the fact that they use hacks for VfW compatibility. That would mean (if DivX, XviD and libavcodec decoders follow the spec) that you could use any ASP feature you wanted without worry, be it GMC, QPEL or B-frames. It's an excuse for opensource, since they are only people doing it in their free time, but a company should do things properly, especially when they expect people to pay for their products.

In my opinion, since DivX3.11a, the knock on effect of MPEG-4 in AVI has been damaging. Given that DivX 3.11a was a hack, it didn't do or require anything particularly undesirable specs (AVI/VfW) wise (as opposed to ASP which uses B-frames and requiring hacks). Maybe SBC's/Nandub's Low/Fast motion DLL switching was a bit naughty, I don't know, it was before my time .

Why do I think DivX3.11a had a damaging knock on effect? Well basically (I guess) people was labelling the encodes as DivX, or DivX SBC to differentiate from MSMPEG4 (which I believe is a non standard simple profile implementation). Then comes natural progression, DivX (several versions later) eventually moved to ASP (which means B-frames, yay!). So as not to upset their userbase, they thought it wise to stick with AVI and just develop a hack called packed bitstream, which basically packs P and B frames together so two frames get forced through and read at once, since VfW has a one frame in, one frame out limitation (you need multiple frames to decode B-frames).

Even later on down the line, we see the .divx format, which is nothing more than AVI with even more hacks. These hacks are even more evil though in my opinion. Yes, I'm talking about dual audio and menus in AVI. Yes, about dual audio, it is possible with AVI, but the default splitter supplied with Windows does not support it AFAIK (which accounts for like 99% of people using Windows). I think you will probably just get 2 audio streams playing at once. I don't know, and don't care to find out if Haali's splitter has the capability; I'm content with MKV and MP4.

IF YOU WANT DUAL AUDIO AND/OR MENUS, CONTRIBUTE TO MP4 AND/OR MKV RATHER THAN WASTING MANPOWER HACKING OLD FORMATS, AND HINDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEWER ONES.

But no, they are content to stick with packed bitstreams and/or frame lag, and CBR audio (or VBR if you don't mind a workaround).

It's not so much the "hacking" that bothers me, it's that it's counter productive. There are capable, well implemented AND opensource projects out there, that would be grateful for some help.

Had people have done things "right" all those years ago, we would be seeing DivX and XviD encodes, no, MPEG-4 ASP encodes in MP4 (no, this isn't an MP4 hoaring, it's just the simple fact that MP4 existed before MKV and would have been used instead of AVI), and the general support (although very, very good even right now) would be much higher. The fact that it's an ISO standard means companies are happy to implement it. I mean just look at the amount of mobile phones that support .mp4, you also have the iPod, and the PSP (which requires some custom atom I believe).

This is why I believe it's important to use H.264 as a fresh start. We are already doing the right thing by creating native streams (read: non hacked for VfW), and for the most part people refer to it as H.264. Also some people are using the native container (MP4), and others with requirements that MP4 does not aim to fulfil (due to the intention of interoperability), such as AC3, or the opensource softsub formats, use MKV (one thing I don't get is when people put H.264 + AAC in MKV, and don't make use of a single MKV feature, not softsubs, not even chapters). Sometimes you get AVC thrown in, but maybe that's just a dual standard we will end up living with, think anime; do you call a short series an OAV (original animated video) or an OVA (original video animation)?

I'm not a complete specs Nazi, I just dislike the actions of idiot people that makes stuff incompatible.

Sidenote: For those of you that dislike the idea of being "confined" to profiles and levels, you will be happy to know that you can encode up to 4096x2304@26.7 FPS and still fall within a specified level (that also translates to 1920x1088@120.5 FPS). So encode freely, and still be "compliant"
In case anyone didn't buy the novel, read this excerpt again. See how perfectly good standards get screwed up because a few bad ideas get overused and multiply like crazy with file distribution. See that crazy look in his eyes when you start talking about this stuff @_@. PHEAR!

Then I lawled when I saw myself quoted later in his novel. n_n

Truly we have a fresh start with H.264/AVC. Correct implementation of it in now in releases will make things less complicated in the future, which is why you see people like Zero1 getting crazy aggravated about misuse. Continuing to distribute and support compliant files will only cause further implementation of H.264/AVC as time rolls on because there will be an abundance of compliant files to make support for. Rather then a shitload of crazy files which all require their own specific hacks and fixes, which in the end would cause anyone with a sane mind to say "fuck all, we are going with Plan C" which will only support a marginal number of files and set new standards of what can be supported.

See it is already all worked out for us with H.264/AVC. You want to make an application to support H.264? Well how much H.264 do you want to support? Just Main Profile encodes, or perhaps also High and Extended? Or something so simple as Baseline (no friggin b-frames even for gods sake!)? Thankfully both ITU and the MPEG group made this standard even more robust then their previous attempts by learning from what happened to their other standards in the past. All we have to do is fucking use it! They already handed it to us on a platter, we just have to use it and try to not fuck it all up and add our own queer shit on the way.
Nicholi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 04:27   Link #287
lamer_de
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: somewhere far beyond
Quote:
Continuing to distribute and support compliant files will only cause further implementation of H.264/AVC as time rolls on because there will be an abundance of compliant files to make support for. Rather then a shitload of crazy files which all require their own specific hacks and fixes, which in the end would cause anyone with a sane mind to say "fuck all, we are going with Plan C" which will only support a marginal number of files and set new standards of what can be supported.
Great, I'm all for abandoning mkv. I somehow doubt "people that have been in the DVD rip community" will agree here, though

Quote:
See it is already all worked out for us with H.264/AVC. You want to make an application to support H.264? Well how much H.264 do you want to support? Just Main Profile encodes, or perhaps also High and Extended? Or something so simple as Baseline (no friggin b-frames even for gods sake!)? Thankfully both ITU and the MPEG group made this standard even more robust then their previous attempts by learning from what happened to their other standards in the past. All we have to do is fucking use it!
That's a good point already, because with the different profile levels, you already have a messed up situation again. Most if not all standlaone devies like the ipod or psp don't support high and extended, yet everybody uses it for encoding because the features offered there are the interesting ones. So, you have a file that is "spec compliant"(H264 high+aac inmp4) but can't be played back anywhere and a "non-spec" compliant (xvid+bframe+vbrmp3 in avi) one that can. Why should people switch?
For example, the Blue-Ray specs (or were it the HD DVD ones?) don't mention anything about AAC. They'll use some dolby stuff like DTS EX. So, no support for spec-compliant files either (Although I'd guess that there will be MP4/AAC capable standalone players in the future because of the support of Nero).

The idea that widely spread files of a certain type do set a status quo is true, but anime has way too little "market penetration" to achieve that. You could bring that argument when the movie scene had adopted h264, but apparently that's not the case.

CU,
lamer_de
__________________
Proud to be a Warezubber!
lamer_de is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 04:41   Link #288
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
For example, the Blue-Ray specs (or were it the HD DVD ones?) don't mention anything about AAC. They'll use some dolby stuff like DTS EX. So, no support for spec-compliant files either (Although I'd guess that there will be MP4/AAC capable standalone players in the future because of the support of Nero).
If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that most standalone players WILL natively support AAC audio, just like all DVD players support DVDs with only mp3 audio (even though that's technically not compliant). Why? Because they'll need AAC playback capability to play music CD/DVDs made using Itunes. So any decently engineered player that can play mp4's would be able to play the aac audio. Maybe not with support for he-aac though.... we'll see.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 05:12   Link #289
Sides
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
For example, the Blue-Ray specs (or were it the HD DVD ones?) don't mention anything about AAC. They'll use some dolby stuff like DTS EX. So, no support for spec-compliant files either (Although I'd guess that there will be MP4/AAC capable standalone players in the future because of the support of Nero).
As far as i see, none of the HD formats will support "the" mp4 contanier,
as defined by the ITU and the MPEG group, anyway (maybe supported as streaming thou).
HD-DVD are using *.EVO and blu-ray something else.
The situation will be like the DVD era, where mpeg2 is supported only
via vob container (players that plays mpegiso are not really standard players).
I reckon nero will later offer authouring methods for h264 into EVO.

So personlly i don't see a point to support mp4 or even any industrial standards.

Btw AAC is pretty useless, if you can have dts-ex and dolby whatever (truehd ?).
Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 06:51   Link #290
SirCanealot
What? I am washed up!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, England
Age: 29
Send a message via MSN to SirCanealot
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
Great, I'm all for abandoning mkv. I somehow doubt "people that have been in the DVD rip community" will agree here, though
Or people that like using .ogg audio and VFR. I've ripped a DVD for release before, but I use the first and will probably use the second when I get around to needing it :P
__________________
SirCanealot
And they shall know no fear....
SirCanealot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 17:48   Link #291
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
Great, I'm all for abandoning mkv. I somehow doubt "people that have been in the DVD rip community" will agree here, though
It would be bad to see MKV abandoned as such, since it's an awesome project with great flexibility. I mean I use it for muxing crap I split from transport streams (DVB), which means I save a ton of space, and can watch and transcode my stuff without whacky MPEG splitters/demuxer conflicts, or lacking features.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
That's a good point already, because with the different profile levels, you already have a messed up situation again. Most if not all standlaone devies like the ipod or psp don't support high and extended, yet everybody uses it for encoding because the features offered there are the interesting ones.
It's not a messed up situation when you think about it, in fact it's no better or worse than it is with MPEG-4 Visual. The reason profiles exist is to place a limit on which encoding "tools" (features might be a better word) can be used, which invariably affects the complexity of the file. If you use baseline, it means no CABAC or B-frames, which of course reduces the decoding requirements. This is suitable for handheld devices with limited battery and CPU power, among other things such as RAM. It's not as desirable as encoding using High profile, but it's required if you want such puny devices to play H.264. The biggest thing you will notice is that even with the lowest settings, they will struggle or refuse to play full resolution stuff (assuming 480p), which usually means transcoding to a lower resolution anyway. So even if the device could handle high profile, it's likely you would need to re-encode it anyway, owing to the complexity of it.

People use high profile because it offers increased effeciency at the cost of CPU power. Profiles and levels practically don't exist in a PC environment (or fansubbing) and never will do, because there isn't an upper limit to what can be decoded. PC's are always becoming faster, so there is no need to cripple an encode for "compatability" (at worst you will isolate some leechers who invariably are due an upgrade). If you are encoding for hardware devices though, you have constrained paramaters that you should stick to, to ensure a file will be playable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
So, you have a file that is "spec compliant"(H264 high+aac inmp4) but can't be played back anywhere and a "non-spec" compliant (xvid+bframe+vbrmp3 in avi) one that can. Why should people switch?
As mentioned before, chances are, even for ASP+B-frames+VBR MP3, you would need to reduce the resolution and re-encode it. Also, you may even have to reduce the number of B-frames or turn them off. These two actions alone could mean that an encode falls within a lower Profile and Level, so using baseline for H.264 is really no different, you just have a common name for it now (since no one seems to bother with MPEG-4 Visual Profiles).

Basically, (as you know) people encode fansubs for PC users, which does not have a profile or level since it's impossible to grade them due to how much the abilities of two computers can differ. Encoding for a hardware player like a PSP or iPod is different, since you have a set processor speed and platform. Set capabilities. These capabilities are "graded" and deemed able to decode a given profile and level combination. Any encode that conforms to this given profile or level, will be decodable on that hardware device. If you encode things how you want, disregarding profiles and levels, one encode of yours might play (if it has low motion and low complexity) but another encode using the same settings might push the hardware too far and be undecodable in real time.

Profiles and levels eliminate this "it might" area as far as hardware is concerned. Again, with PCs it's a grey area.

It would make trouble shooting a whole lot easier though, if for instance you knew what the CPU was capable of.

"Oh you have a Duron 750 which is capable of High@L3, you can't play X group's encode because it is a little more complex at High@L3.1. You need a minimum Duron 900 or P3 1.2GHz to decode High@L3.1"

Heh, ideal worlds eh? Well I guess if a system like that ever existed that a group could choose the minimum CPU speed they are willing to support, and encode to those levels, "Our encodes are High@L3, therefore the minimum CPU you can use to decode this is a Duron 650"

It would sure be nicer than, "You can decode group A's encode on a P3 1GHz, but then again a Duron 750 might do" or "Group B's encode stutters on my P3 1.2GHz!". Ah well...

Anyway, I'll drop this table in which I put together for my guide. Maybe it would be interesting for some of you to glance at just out of curiosity. I might get round to adding the Profiles and tools sometime.




Quote:
Originally Posted by lamer_de
For example, the Blue-Ray specs (or were it the HD DVD ones?) don't mention anything about AAC. They'll use some dolby stuff like DTS EX. So, no support for spec-compliant files either (Although I'd guess that there will be MP4/AAC capable standalone players in the future because of the support of Nero).

The idea that widely spread files of a certain type do set a status quo is true, but anime has way too little "market penetration" to achieve that. You could bring that argument when the movie scene had adopted h264, but apparently that's not the case.
It was bluray, and I couldn't care less really. Sony have this way, they come up with a potentially killer app, and do something retarded and cripple it. Think back to their first Harddrive walkman... It was ATRAC-3. No support for even MP3 (until pissed off customers voiced their opinion and got a firmware upgrade and new versions).

Then the PSP. It "supports" Main@L3, which is pretty decent, but you have stupid Sony limitations such as framerate and resolution, even though the PSP is capable of more on paper, unless Sony is bullshitting, which I wouldn't put it past them since they claimed the HD walkman had MP3 compatability, but failed to mention the compatability is in the software which converts it to ATRAC-3.

You now have bluray, I don't read into it much, but I heard a while ago that they had jumped ship from using H.264 on pre-recorded discs to MPEG-2.

Some Sony bigshot, Don Eklund said, "Advanced (formats) don't necessarily improve picture quality. Our goal is to present the best picture quality for Blu-ray. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that's with MPEG-2."

Consider that MPEG-2 at 1080p resolutions will typically require 25-35mbps (even up into the 40's for HQ), and H.264 6-10mbps. Now consider that a single layer HD-DVD is typically 15GB, compared with a single layer Bluray which is 25GB. Hold on, something isn't working here...

25/15=1.6 recurring. Bluray has 1.6r x more storage than a comparable HD-DVD, yet lets take the bitrates.

25/6=4.16 recurring.
35/10=3.5

Hmm, so a HD MPEG-2 movie requires approx 3.5 - 4x the bitrate of it's H.264 counterpart, but the storage media for the MPEG-2 version has only 1.6x as much storage the medium used for the H.264 version. I won't insult people by drawing a conclusion for you.

Actually I just fired up my bitrate calculator for amusement:
Code:
15GB HD-DVD - LQ 1080p H.264  = 5 hrs 30mins  @ 6130  kbps video and 224 kbps audio
15GB HD-DVD - HQ 1080p H.264  = 3 hrs 30mins  @ 9760  kbps video and 224 kbps audio

25GB Bluray - LQ 1080p MPEG-2 = 2 hrs 15 mins @ 25660 kbps video and 224 kbps audio
25GB Bluray - HQ 1080p MPEG-2 = 1 hrs 40 mins @ 34730 kbps video and 224 kbps audio

4.7GB DVD   - LQ 1080p H.264  = 1 hrs 40 mins @ 6040  kbps video and 224 kbps audio
4.7GB DVD   - HQ 1080p H.264  = 1 hrs 00 mins @ 10220 kbps video and 224 kbps audio
4.7GB DVD   - LQ 1080p MPEG-2 = 0 hrs 25 mins @ 24845 kbps video and 224 kbps audio
4.7GB DVD   - HQ 1080p MPEG-2 = 0 hrs 18 mins @ 34595 kbps video and 224 kbps audio
That said, things are subject to change, but it doesn't look like a smart move so far.

BTW, I loled at 1080p MPEG-2 on standard DVD.

As for market penetration, don't you believe it. Fansubs probably make up a large chunk of online video distribution. It's also a fact that the XviD and x264 devs are fellow anime fans; coincidence?

Fansubs, no matter how insignificant you regard their numbers, spread the usage of formats such as H.264 + MPEG-4 Visual, it's a fact. It also gets spread by word of mouth too, so one fansub viewer might tell a guy he knows about this codec he needs to be able to see new videos etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sides
As far as i see, none of the HD formats will support "the" mp4 contanier,
as defined by the ITU and the MPEG group, anyway (maybe supported as streaming thou).
HD-DVD are using *.EVO and blu-ray something else.
The situation will be like the DVD era, where mpeg2 is supported only
via vob container (players that plays mpegiso are not really standard players).
I reckon nero will later offer authouring methods for h264 into EVO.

So personlly i don't see a point to support mp4 or even any industrial standards.

Btw AAC is pretty useless, if you can have dts-ex and dolby whatever (truehd ?).
Whether or not bluray or HD-DVD will use different containers for their program streams is possibly a non issue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
What with the Nero/KiSS player talks a while back (and Nero selling software that can create .mp4 files), I would say it's highly likely that at least Nero/KiSS players will support MP4 (Think about it, it's a selling point for both the software and hardware). In fact I hate to make such an assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if MP4 was supported by default by most if not all HD/Bluray players (Kind of like how (some/most?) DVD players also play MP3 files burned as a data disc, and also (S)VCDs & Photo CDs).
While no one is making any guarantees, I would be quite happy to take this for granted. Think of it as a side function that will be integrated that is set to become common place. The hardware is capable, it's just the case of adding a .mp4 parser to the ROM or whatever, virtually at no extra cost.

So it's an extra selling point for almost no cost. I can't see that any sane company would turn that down. Especially how MP4 is gaining limelight what with mobile phones, iPod and PSP supporting it. Even the non tech savvy are coming into contact with mp4 files. Give it some time and it will eventually be almost as commonplace as mp3.

Anyhow, suitable replacements for DTS might be MPEG-4 SLS or even ALS, so don't rule out MPEG-4 formats so soon.
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-10, 17:59   Link #292
Eeknay
Gendo died for your sins.
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Regarding Blu-Ray MPEG2/h264... it depends on the movie. You don't need ULTIMATE 30MBIT/S BITRATE GET for it to look good. There are plenty of good examples out there where sensiible bitrates are used (~15-18Mbit/s) and it looks awesome. Once you reach the threshold (probably 20Mbit/s) then you're uselessly throwing bitrate at it (again depending on the movie). And of course animation isn't going to need anywhere near those levels...

Sony said they're not using h264 anyway. Hopefully other studios will make use of it.
Eeknay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-11, 05:36   Link #293
Sides
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
While no one is making any guarantees, I would be quite happy to take this for granted. Think of it as a side function that will be integrated that is set to become common place. The hardware is capable, it's just the case of adding a .mp4 parser to the ROM or whatever, virtually at no extra cost.
Well if it supports *.mp4 they would need to pay fees right ?
So there would be an extra cost.
It is probably up to the manufacturer, if they want to make
a non standard player and pay some extra fee.

Remember mp3 support on DVD players is not a standard,
only players marked with the logo supports it.
The first generation of dvd player doesn't supported mp3 as a file.
(obviously you can make a VCD without picture, if you want mp3 playback ^_-)

But at the moment i don't think that the toshiba hd-a1 nor hd-xa1
can playback mp4 or avi files, i might be wrong.
Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-14, 16:07   Link #294
Mikademus
Only somewhat obstinate
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Send a message via ICQ to Mikademus
Just read the backup of the old thread and this one in all their 37 page glory! Whew...! The only thing I regret is that several of the legendary troll GUTB's posts were deleted - much amusement potential lost there... Also, Zero1, you've got some outlandishly long posts going on! Like another poster said, I've never before seen anyone break vB's character limit!

Now, what is that xh.246 everyone are ruminating about?
</joke>
Mikademus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-14, 22:14   Link #295
sweetcream
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingdarkness
I truley don't understand the whole H.264 craze that's going on right now...Perhaps it makes encoder's jobs easier, but as a veiwer I much rather xvid/divx decodable projects...Let me be the one to choose if I want to use ffdshow all the time(which I don't hate, but I'm not a huge fan of ffdshow)...Higher quality 230+mbs DVD rips look pretty good with it, but 200 and under fansubs look superior in divx format IMO...I just don't see the HUGE advantage...Lower sized fansubs should stick with divx I think...and don't get me started on CCCP that would be kissing ffdshow's ring if it was the "God-father"...
Probably arguing in the wrong thread since most people here are supporters, but I agree, this new format is a nightmare at the moment. Kaizoku-fansubs snatched the mp4 format almost as soon as it came out, only providing a few avi eps during the transfer.
My PC is perfectly fine for playing on mp4 but I like watching anime on my 45 inch TV. So I'm left with no choice but to convert it back to avi. I love their subs but I can't wait till they sub up to ep 220, then I'm switching to Gerusama which at the moment still has avis.
I don't care how well the quality mp4 can manage, I don't find anything wrong with the quality of avis at present. All the techinical mojo in this thread dosen't impress me one bit.
sweetcream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-15, 09:02   Link #296
Ronbo
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
To my knowledge H.264 is the only compression technology that will in the long run require me to trash a perfectly good system just in order to play these encodes.
The argument that in the past there were other compression formats that people did not like and complained about but were eventually accepted does not apply here! These older formats could always be decoded using a software based codec on any decent system. And yes I know that getting H.264 to playback properly on our current systems is based on how it was encoded, but any of these current H.264 encodes could have been encoded using any other format, in current broadcast resolutions, that is more widely accepted and useable by all, not just a select few!
So what if the file size larger using an older codec!
If you have problems playing H.264 files on your current system whereas older codec’s work just fine then there is something wrong in the thinking that H.264 is better.
For playback from files give me something that actually works regardless of the file size! It’s not that hard to figure out that adding another hard drive is much more cost effective than upgrading an entire system (or just the graphics card) just to be able to play H.264 encodes!
Ronbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-15, 10:52   Link #297
SirCanealot
What? I am washed up!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, England
Age: 29
Send a message via MSN to SirCanealot
Quote:
To my knowledge H.264 is the only compression technology that will in the long run require me to trash a perfectly good system just in order to play these encodes.
A sub 1ghz system isn't a "perfectly good system". You're long overdue for an upgrade :/


Quote:
The argument that in the past there were other compression formats that people did not like and complained about but were eventually accepted does not apply here! These older formats could always be decoded using a software based codec on any decent system.
The same applys to H.264.

Quote:
not just a select few!
I think you'll find the majority of people have an above 1ghz processor, or the will to upgrade for a meager amount of money.

Quote:
So what if the file size larger using an older codec!
I assume you donate often to fansub groups to help offset bandwidth costs, then?
__________________
SirCanealot
And they shall know no fear....
SirCanealot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-15, 15:06   Link #298
zalas
tsubasa o sagashite
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Send a message via ICQ to zalas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
To my knowledge H.264 is the only compression technology that will in the long run require me to trash a perfectly good system just in order to play these encodes.
The argument that in the past there were other compression formats that people did not like and complained about but were eventually accepted does not apply here! These older formats could always be decoded using a software based codec on any decent system.
Why doesn't it apply? When Divx5 came out, a lot of people did not have the power to decode those videos realtime. I know I had problems on my Athlon when it first came out, especially with high bitrate streams. Try telling people still running Pentium II's at the time to run those... Of course, eventually more efficient decoders came out, and systems got faster and people now pretty much settled on some variant of DivX. I still remember when I couldn't play a MPEG1 video stream on my computer because it could not draw to the screen fast enough. Face it; just as newer games constantly challenge the computing power of your computer, so do newer codecs.
zalas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-07-07, 04:46   Link #299
faith
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Question help me

who do you know the cqm of the h.264. there are some difference between the cqm jvt and flat especially on the image or vedio effect ? thanks in advance !
faith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-07-07, 06:13   Link #300
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Frankly, I don't think anyone has done any kind of thorough testing with the cqm's that exist at the moment when it comes to anime.

Most groups don't use any cqms at this point, I believe. Also, those matrices that are included are extrapolations of xvid cqms, and haven't been optimized for the h264 codec, so although the basic theory behind them should work the same, I don't think anyone has really started to tweak them at all.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy 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 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.