View Single Post
Old 2006-08-21, 23:21   Link #327
Nicholi
King of Hosers
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
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