Slashdot Mirror


DivX 7 Adds Support For Blu-ray Rips (H.264/MKV)

mrspin writes "DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content, with the company announcing that version 7 adds support for H.264 video and, more significantly, the Matroska (MKV) container. Anybody familiar with Blu-ray rips found on BitTorrent sites or other filesharing networks will instantly recognize the MKV file format in combination with the H.264 codec as a popular way to deliver High Definition video on a PC. And now that DivX is throwing its weight behind the Matroska container, MKV support should increasingly find its way on a range of non-PC devices, such as Blu-ray players, HD digital televisions and set-top boxes."

294 comments

  1. H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While it wasn't mentioned in the article, it was mentioned in one of the many articles that it links to but DivX is facing Adobe in the marketshare for being the predominant technology streaming H.264. I believe this is Flash being used as a container to stream H.264 instead of the Matroska container.

    And now that DivX is throwing its weight behind the Matroska container, MKV support should increasingly find its way on a range of non-PC devices, such as Blu-ray players, HD digital televisions and set-top boxes.

    I don't know man, I think both DivX & Adobe have hidden costs even if both like you to view them as "open." I would put my money on Adobe coming through with better player/container support & marketing. On top of that, I don't know of any plans for DRM in Matroska.

    So while this is great news for the people who want to put their home videos out there with software that doesn't support DRM (is the average user really going to care though?), I think that the MPAA & porn industry are going to be the deciders here (as they usually are).

    My prediction: Flash 9 will become so pervasive that everyone will use that as a container instead of asking their users to download & install a DivX codec.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't understand why you think DivX won't succeed. For years no-name DVD players have almost all supported DivX, and now even my Pioneer unit is DivX 6 certified. It doesn't seem like a stretch that they will support 7.

      Personally, I love having 3 or 4 DVDs on a single disk for traveling. Since my portable player supports DivX, I can fit more than a whole season of Dora on a single disk and keep the little one quiet on long trips.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the rest of this comment?

      I don't think so!

    3. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless Adobe majorly changes direction wrt supporting non x86 platforms it WILL lose the race. More and more people are consuming content on non-PC platforms and people are starting to not care that their device doesn't support flash, they are starting to demand that content providers offer an alternate container. A prime example is Google with youtube which now streams standard x.264 which while originally meant for iPhone support is being used more and more for all sorts of devices (I use it on my BB).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by cj1127 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, it'll never catch on! http://www.youtube.com/

    5. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash is not a container. Not for H264 anyway.

      H264 video delivered to the Flash plugin is actually in the MPEG 4 standard container format. In other words, the same thing that Quicktime uses.

    6. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by HiVizDiver · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can fit more than a whole season of Dora on a single disk and keep the little one quiet on long trips

      Careful, statements like that will get you ragged on in here about how you're a horrible parent (by people who have never even touched a member of the opposite sex, let alone had kids of their own), and you should be taking your child outside to play - while you're in the car on long trips. ;-)

    7. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, well I'd agree with them, most of the time. :) I don't think TV is good for kids, but I make exceptions sometimes. The local parents' association has movie nights, for instance. I generally let her watch something while I comb her hair, as well - since she'd just fight me the whole time otherwise.

      But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by INTERNET+EXPERT · · Score: 1

      I can fit more than a whole season of Dora on a single disk and keep the little one quiet on long trips

      They should be watching Toradora!

      A healthy dose of Minorin is vital for any child's development.

    9. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by phoenix321 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Followed by rabid environmentalists demanding that you don't use your car for long trips or that you don't even travel that far.

      They will then battle with the radical feminists claiming you subjugated a free womyn by forcing her to have kids.

      Well, let's get some popcorn while we wait :)

    10. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Careful, statements like that will get you ragged on in here about how you're a horrible parent ... and you should be taking your child outside to play - while you're in the car on long trips. ;-)

      If you haven't been pulled over because your kid had their head out a window/sunroof, you're doing it wrong.
      /sorry dad, but you only got a warning

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!

      It's called the "backhand" slap" which usually followed the exclamation "I'll turn this car around!"

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    12. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, schoolgirls. How did I not expect a Japanese cartoon to contain schoolgirls?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slacker. I accelerate to 100, roll the minivan down the off-ramp, powerslide across four lanes of traffic, and then hop back on the interstate. No need for this "backhand" or "I'll turn this car around!" you speak off. Although everyone will need a change of pants at your destination.

    14. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can fit more than a whole season of Dora on a single disk and keep the little one quiet on long trips

      Careful, statements like that will get you ragged on in here about how you're a horrible parent

      I know; think of the quality loss! Your kid's eyesight is going to develop poorly after being exposed to those compression artifacts.

    15. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Funny

      They will then battle with the radical feminists claiming you subjugated a free womyn by forcing her to have kids.

      Sometimes it's hard to have a conversation on Slashdot with the radical feminists leaping in all the time. :)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    16. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by sholsinger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dad, is that you?

    17. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is old news, and you're misrepresenting it. The Flash player supports H.264 in the standard MP4 container, not only in the old FLV container. In fact it seems like FLV is being phased out. So, surprisingly, Flash has become the leader in standardization of video formats. AVC/AAC is likely to become a new de-facto standard, whether in Matroska or MP4 containers. Container formats don't matter much. It's very easy and fast to remux something into another container if the stream formats are supported.

    18. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While it's cool to say that porn is always leading the industry, frankly most of the porn I download is still in either MPEG1 or WMV formats, unless it's a DVD ripped by a 3rd party.

    19. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by PhillC · · Score: 1

      The Flash player supports H.264 in the standard MP4 container, not only in the old FLV container.

      And in a MOV container.

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    20. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The problem is flash can't be used to create portable files without buying additional software. DivX is free to create, and is pervasive throughout PMPs, home theater receivers, and is potentially playable on every computer.

    21. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by PhillC · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing more embedded Flash players for this type of activity. (NSFW)

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    22. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by rograndom · · Score: 1

      You can do this with MPEG-2 already. I can shove 4-5 2 hours movies on a standard Single-Layer DVD that plays in my son's $99 Wal-mart portable DVD player. I'm sure the quality isn't great, but you can't really tell the difference on a 7" screen in the back of the car anyways.

    23. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      FLV was never a streaming container in the first place. In fact, being nothing more than a unmanaged HTTP download that you watch while it still loads, it's a very crappy way of "streaming" data. I can do that with most formats, by downloading them to the disk, and then playing them in my favorite media player. I did this with MP3s since 1999.

      I did not even have to re-download it, every time I wanted to play it.

      FLV can't even come close to MKV in things of media containers. MKV supports multiple streams of video, audio, subtitles, or in fact anything that you can think of (eg a stream for some special effects device), stream tags, timecodes, cues, stereoscopy, stretching/compressing, attachments (eg cover, background information, reviews), segment linking and chapters. Oh, and of course, because it's EBML, you can add your own "tags" and functionality as you like, without affecting the compatibility to old programs. And it's made for very flexible streaming.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    24. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      True, but for any given quality a MPEG4 movie will be smaller. So, if you are willing to deal with the nasty quality that comes from 4-5 MPEG2 movies on one disk, then you could put a few more using MPEG4. Plus, the MP3 audio of DivX will compress more highly than the MP2/AC3 audio on a regular DVD. Finally, authoring is easier - just let the OS burn you a DVD rather than mucking with menus and such.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by lakerrl3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another consideration is that windows 7 supports DIVX out of the box. This could turn the tables by not requiring the end user to do anything more than play the file, no codec required.

    26. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft. Fuck streaming, it is always crappy.

      Generalizations always suck.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!"

      Well, I played with toys in the back seat of the car....and as I got older..I'd read.

      (never had to wear a seatbelt back there back then tho....so I was free to move around)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative

      But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!

      Books ? Games ? Talking ?

    29. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With a toddler?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the seatbelt is the thing. She's strapped into not just a seatbelt, but a 5-point harness in a car seat and is just miserable.

      We do singing, she has toys, we bring stuff to eat, stuff to draw. But when all else fails, that video player is still effective.

      It's not like we travel often... heck we don't even have a car. So I doubt it will warp her in any significant way :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why you think DivX won't succeed. For years no-name DVD players have almost all supported DivX, and now even my Pioneer unit is DivX 6 certified. It doesn't seem like a stretch that they will support 7.

      My uncle is always extremely annoyed that my grandparents' no name DVD player plays any DVD, while his doesn't play the stuff friends and family buy for him (not all of it legit, but some is, like a wacky conspirational-theory video one of his "friends" gave him).

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    32. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by profplump · · Score: 1

      Which is essentially indifferent, other than MOV is not limited to H.264/AAC. I mean, there are some differences between the two containers, but if you've written a parser for MP4 you've already written 97% of a parser for MOV.

    33. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by nametaken · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I met you on the way to work this morning.

      Dick.

    34. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Yeah, the seatbelt is the thing. She's strapped into not just a seatbelt, but a 5-point harness in a car seat and is just miserable."

      Ok...you're talking about VERY young kids. Well, when she gets a little older, she won't have to stay confined like that...so, that should help.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by swb · · Score: 1

      But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!

      I think there were some stern beatings if calm wasn't maintained.

      My wife had to say the rosary with her mom on long trips across North Dakota, while her dad chain smoked, with all the windows up in the winter.

      I also think in many families there was liberal use of "cough medicine" (anything containing codeine or diphenhydramine) or Dramamine to just drug the kids into submission.

    36. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Drugs. I'll have to remember drugs.

      My kid has, um, CAR SICKNESS! Yes, that's it. Car sickness. So, um, I have to give her Dramamine. Yup.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Curien · · Score: 1

      FLV was never a streaming container in the first place. In fact, being nothing more than a unmanaged HTTP download that you watch while it still loads

      That's incorrect. You can jump straight to a point close to an arbitrary byte without downloading the whole file.

      FLV can't even come close to MKV in things of media containers.

      Flash usually uses MP4 as the container for H.264 video. The question is not about FLV vs MKV; it's about MP4 vs MKV.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    38. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      ...people are starting to not care that their device doesn't support flash...

      starting to?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    39. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed seeing the ones with sexy adult vampires.

    40. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's hard to have a conversation on Slashdot with the radical feminists leaping in all the time. :)

      Don't you mean feminist

      Is she back again?

    41. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a Mexican son who likes to watch girly cartoons?

    42. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Um, daughter?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    43. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sexy for a cartoon, I suppose. Jessica Rabbit is more my thing, once you get into lusting after paint.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    44. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      But long car trips without TV? I don't know how our ancient ancestors did it!

      It was easy, you just had a special seat attached way back on the tip of the brontosaurus' tail...

      Wait, now I sound like a Creationist.

    45. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Wait, now I sound like a Creationist.

      Or a Flintstone...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by aztektum · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like kids are utterly incompetent. If you spend time talking to them at a young age and explaining things to them, you'll realize kids are able to pick things up incredibly well and don't default to acting like a spoiled shit.

      I should add, no I don't have kids. My experience comes from dating a girl that had a 2 year old and a 4 year old that she actually sat and hashed out their tantrums with and taught them about the world. I know sounds a bit hippie, but it fuckin' works. Ultimately I got along better with the kids than I did her though :)

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    47. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Although everyone will need a change of pants at your destination.

      That reminds me of the pirate joke.

      When the pirate captain took his ship into battle, he asked the cabin boy, "Fetch me my red shirt!" The cabin boy eventually asked why, and he said that it drew the crew's attention, to give them courage since he was fighting alongside them, and also if he was wounded, it would not show, so the crew would not be discouraged. And they won.

      The next battle, he again asked, "Fetch me my red shirt!" And they won, again.

      The next battle, though, they were up against a much more fearsome ship, and he instead requested of the cabin boy, "Fetch me my brown pants!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    48. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Ha! What you just said, in fact, is a generalisation itself! It also sucks, because obviously, that statement itself is the exception, because it's true, and...

      Oh wait.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    49. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No 2-year-old will handle a 5 hour car ride without at least one tantrum. Tantrums don't help me drive, so I try to minimize them. It was one of these 5-hour drives that led me to purchase a portable DVD player. Even with the player, we still typically get a tantrum toward the end.

      I don't have the luxury of pulling over and comforting my toddler in the middle of a highway. It's not safe. When we aren't in the car, we talk about our feelings a LOT. It's not hippie, it's good parenting.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      My prediction: Flash 9 will become so pervasive that everyone will use that as a container instead of asking their users to download & install a DivX codec.

      A hose is not a container.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    51. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Swiper · · Score: 1

      Speaking from experience,I disagree! We have been on many long car trips (as in between 8 and 16hrs) with our daughter who is now 5. Before she could speak she would just sit and stare wide-eyed at the countryside flashing past, now we talk, sing, take-turns drawing on an etch-a-sketch type board, play guessing games, read , etc... She has also learnt to spend time occupying herself, and has also learnt that at certain times she just needs to shut up and sit still because daddy is concentrating on traffic and finding the way. OK, it probably varies from kid to kid, but don't say it's impossible!

      --
      ~We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty~
    52. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      They're almost as bad as assumptions. You're probably some dumb kid that's not even out of high school yet.

    53. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Just because MKV supports it doesn't mean DivX will. People assume that suddenly a DivX 7 device will play whatever crap they have lying around in MKV containers when that obviously won't be the case at all. The specification will have very specific requirements about what audio, video codecs it supports and what extra content such as subtitles it supports. Everything else will just be ignored. It may also put a cap on the maximum file size, or on the max bits per second - the sort of thing that hardware manufactures need to know to produce a compliant device. So if you threw some random file at it, it might work or then again it might not.

    54. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      It may have caught on, but it is still crappy.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    55. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, it varies from kid to kid. You were lucky :)

      I suppose she goes right to sleep at night, too, huh? lol

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh, forgot to add... we don't have a car and so the experience is doubly traumatic - she's not used to any kind of restraint. I think the whole production would be easier if she were used to car rides. She's fine on the bus, train, or even airplane. I hardly ever resort to breaking out the video player then, if only because I don't want to bother the other people on board.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    57. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by harl · · Score: 1

      Actually the MPAA will have nothing to do with it. They're still stuck on physical media with Blu-Ray. The format war is over. Physical media lost. Blu-ray will never see wide spread acceptance.

      DVD is good enough for the vast majority of the population. BR doesn't offer anything to justify the 3-6x cost of movies, and the 2-10x cost of the players. Especially when you can turn on your xbox and receive HD content without having to leave your house. Or in the case of Netflix streaming, without spending any extra money.

      The new administration in the USA is claiming to try and bring their broadband levels up to the rest of the world. The new format war will be a last mile war.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    58. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

    59. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by snaptography · · Score: 1

      I understand why companies would want the DRM although I'm pretty sure (at least I hope) the market will win in this one and kill the DRM industry. Creative Commons and other OpenSource licenses FTW!

      --
      -- www.kiwicommunications.com --
    60. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me, that FLV is just another extension for MP4, or that FLV is another container around an MPEG4 container? If that were true, then i could find a tool to extract an MP4 from a FLV, or simply rename it. Both of wich is not know to me.

      Do you have more information on this? prehaps a link to a tool, and/or a link to some details?

      Wikipedia tells us nothing about the actual container format of FLV. Only that Flash (the program) supports (=imports) MPGE4, among others. And that FLV contains MPEG4/AVC video streams. Also among others. There is no information on the format of tha container itself.

      So I say: [citation needed]

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    61. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      For years, I just wonder, who needs a hardware player anyway? TVs are long gone or catch dust at me and most of my friends. When we watch videos, we connect a beamer to our computer/amplifier setup. Finito.

      Ok, our computers are in our living rooms. We can't afford any working rooms.
      But still. What are you doing in your living room when it has not got a computer?? You can't even do a proper party, because you've got no music there. (Especially no shoutcast.com, which is the source of all party music dj radios since we discovered it back in the days.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    62. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Curien · · Score: 1

      No. I'm telling you that there are TWO codecs popularly used with Flash: H.264 and VP6. The FLV container *only* uses VP6, so often people say FLV (which is the container) when they really mean VP6 (which is the codec). For example, with mencoder and libavcodec, using "vcodec=flv" activates the VP6 encoder. There is an open-source tool, flvtool2, which you can use to insert "hints" into an FLV file, which allows you to stream it.

      Only the newest versions of Flash support H.264 (9.2+, according to Wikipedia), so the vast majority of Flash videos use VP6/FLV. Youtube has been making all new videos available in either codec/container for a few months. This is pretty much all on the Wikipedia page for Flash video, but it could probably be stated much more clearly. It does talk about how limitations of the FLV container prevented Adobe from using it with H.264, so they came up with a few other containers, and that Flash also supports the ISO-standard MP4 container.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    63. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by DrXym · · Score: 1

      HTPCs are grotesquely over the top in terms of maintenance, usability, space, cost and power consumption for most people. I think if someone did produce a cheap, usable HTPC that they might have a hit on their hands.

    64. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That's right. But I'm not talking about HTPCs. I'd not put such a thing in any room if you gave me $10,000.

      I'm talking about full-blown PCs. With a big tower, with water cooling, two or three displays, and a 5.1 system connected to it. (At least here that's the case.)

      And: Yes, I see girls! Not in spite of it, but because of it. Home cinema with popcorn, and huge screen, and bass that makes you tingle, is one thing. But also being able to play games with that complete setup in use really brings them home. (I have extension cables. Wireless is just too slow for many games. [Yes. Still!]) All I need is a Wii ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    65. Re:H.264/HE-AAC support in Flash Player 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I dont understand how I am support my YouTube video site. How I am imported this. Thank you

  2. I don't understand by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is DivX, a video codec, going to support H.264, another video codec. If a video is in divx, then it's not in H.264, and vice versa. And you can already put a divx encoded video stream into an .mkv container. So what is new here?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:I don't understand by darkvad0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA: "The new DivX Plus HD format, which enables the creation and playback of H.264 video in an .mkv file container with high-quality AAC audio" So I'm guessing it's their implementation of H.264 but my guess is as good as yours ...

    2. Re:I don't understand by Milvuss · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's simple : DivX is a video software, not a video format. It always has been. DivX 4-6 is based on one standard format : MPEG-4 Part 2 (aka MPEG-4 Visual, aka MPEG-4 ASP). So they are just updating their software to support the latest standard format, H.264 (aka MPEG-4 part 10, aka MPEG-4 AVC).

      The equation video codec = video format is just a bad habit, and most of the time false today with proprietary things like Indeo ou RealVideo less and less used.

    3. Re:I don't understand by Stavr0 · · Score: 1
      DVD players implements firmware from DivX. Whatever goes in DIVX's implementation goes in all the DivX certified players.

      It would be even better to support M4V MP4 iPod containers too.

    4. Re:I don't understand by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Funny

      DivX certified players still exist? Where do you live? Some backwater country like America?*

      *This asterisk inserted for the humor impaired. Laugh.

    5. Re:I don't understand by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      That's simple : DivX is a video software, not a video format. It always has been. DivX 4-6 is based on one standard format : MPEG-4 Part 2 (aka MPEG-4 Visual, aka MPEG-4 ASP). So they are just updating their software to support the latest standard format, H.264 (aka MPEG-4 part 10, aka MPEG-4 AVC).

      The question should be which container are the using. If they are using the AVI container then I have to ask why? Surely the MPEG4 container is doing the job just fine? When Divx first came out I could understand the need, since they were dealing with a codec which wasn't officially available, with a container which wasn't officially available, which isn't the case right now with H.264 & MPEG 4.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    6. Re:I don't understand by Milvuss · · Score: 1

      At first they use the AVI container because they came from the windows world. Then they extend it ("DIVX Container") to support subtitles and menus without breaking compatibility with the first hardware players. MP4 would have been easy to implement on PC, but not for hardware players (not enough memory for example).

      But today, since they use H.264, they have to break compatibility, and current hardware players are more versatile, enabling theme to support more recent container formats. That's why they discarded AVI. The choice of MKV over MP4 is debatable, but not illogic. MKV natively support more formats for audio and subtitles, is largely used for "Rips"...

    7. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So DivX is now mostly going to compete with http://www.coreavc.com/ and http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow (with filters)?

    8. Re:I don't understand by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I just hope it is backwards compatible(I RTFA, but it is just a press release) because that is why I have always gone out of my way to make sure my families DVD players are always DivX players. My sis can kill a Sherman Tank with a toothbrush, and mom is notorius for losing anything she gets her hands on. With DivX I can just rip their DVDs to a DivX disc and keep the originals in my possession where they can't tear them up or lose them. So as long as it is backwards compatible I'll be happy.

      Would have preferred .mp4 over .mkv though. It is hard to find a good tool on Windows to change a .mkv into anything else. So does anyone know of a good, preferably freeware tool that will let me convert to/from .mkv in WinXP? Because I have looked around and I can't find any that will let me switch as easily and reliably as I can to/from .mp4.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:I don't understand by Sancho · · Score: 3, Informative

      MKV also supports variable frame rate encodings, which is very useful for encoding animation.

    10. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://handbrake.fr/

      Handbrake works great for (de)muxing and transcoding.
      Enjoy.

    11. Re:I don't understand by sexconker · · Score: 1

      H.264 is part of the MPEG-4 spec. (Part 10, I believe). Also known as MPEG-4 AVC. Various implementations of the spec are known as compressors and decompressors. Typically, an implementation provides both a compressor and a decompressor, and we call it a codec.

      What's new here is that DivX is finally going full steam ahead with H.264 after having sat in MPEG-4 ASP for so long.

      Now you'll have a choice other than x.264 or Nero's shitty (good quality, but buggy as hell) locked down codec. DivX's focus for the past few years has been on getting devices certified (very useful!) and on streaming. With Stage6 gone now, I wonder what, if anything, they have up their sleeves in terms of streaming. (Netflix/Hulu/etc. partnerships?)

      What I do know is that DivX-encoded videos will very high quality, and the codec will be very reliable and versatile. Of course, the main point DivX pushes now is the efficiency of their decoder (this goes hand-in-hand witch getting devices certified for DivX). From the alpha's they had last year, the new decoder looks like it'll could be the most efficient and reliable of the bunch.

    12. Re:I don't understand by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      The choice of MKV over MP4 is debatable

      After a quick google/wiki check all i can find to differentiate the 2 is
      1) slightly less overhead
      2) mkv is already widely used by pirates (due to multiple soft subs )

      But more importantly
      MKV is an open standard free Container format, this is Slashdot if you even try to suggest mp4 is superior you will be shot. Generally MKV is widely supported in FOSS, but a major non-foss player supporting it is still great news especially as divx is so widely used.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    13. Re:I don't understand by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      That's simple : DivX is a video software, not a video format. It always has been. DivX 4-6 is based on one standard format ...

      Have they always been at war with Eastasia too?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    14. Re:I don't understand by yuna49 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fansubbed anime has been distributed as 720p/H.264/AAC in the Matroska container for at least a few years now. In fact, this is now the pretty much the standard format for most fansubs. So now that a commercial entity is doing the same thing it's somehow news?

    15. Re:I don't understand by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    16. Re:I don't understand by DrXym · · Score: 1

      DivX isn't a codec. It is a brand which specifies audio, video codecs, container formats, resolutions, subtitles etc. for devices to implement. The component pieces of DivX are mostly international standards but most people think of it as just DivX. This does have one benefit to the consumer - a common specification that devices from different manufactures can implement and conform to. Anything with a DivX 7 logo should be able to play content encoded from any other compliant device or software. It's just too bad that it was left to a private company to do so that they can skim certification fees from devices, as well as inveigle their own DRM platform into the spec. The industry should have sat down and hashed all this out and stuck a consumer friendly name on it. After all, H264, AAC and others are industry standards to start. It should not have required a huge amount of effort to say which profiles/levels of these codecs should be used to gain certification.

    17. Re:I don't understand by w000t · · Score: 1

      It's news because DivX (the company) is the one defining the term "DivX complaint" (as applied to DVD players). Now that they (also) support what you describe, there's a bigger chance that future DVD/Blu-Ray players will be able to play that stuff as well.

  3. So, remind me again... by mr_da3m0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remind me again, how does Matroska + H.264 automagically equals "Blu-ray Rips" and piracy in general?

    Isn't that a bit like saying that Bittorrent automatically equals pirated software?

    1. Re:So, remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      H.264 gives unequalled compression on CP and terrorist training videos.
      I'm not sure about the technical reasons behind this.

    2. Re:So, remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither the summary nor the article said anything about piracy, whether "in general" or otherwise. You made that association on your own.

    3. Re:So, remind me again... by Schiphol · · Score: 2, Informative

      The note only says that if you are familiar with Blue-ray rips found on BitTorrent sites you will instantly recognise Matroska + H.264. No "automatic equality" is involved in this (largely correct) claim, that I see.

      And, yes, anyone familiar with BitTorrent will instantly recognise pirated software -some prefer to talk of software being shared, what with no pirates being involved in the activity.

    4. Re:So, remind me again... by mr_da3m0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither the summary nor the article said anything about piracy, whether "in general" or otherwise. You made that association on your own.

      Are we reading the same article?
      From TFA:

      DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content

      Anybody familiar with Blu-ray rips found on BitTorrent sites or other filesharing networks will instantly recognize the MKV file format in combination with the H.264 codec as a popular way

      Now, unless you are aware of a completely legit interpretation of the words "Blu-ray rips on filesharing networks" that I am not aware of...

    5. Re:So, remind me again... by mr_da3m0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come on, the article is titled "DivX 7 adds support for Blu-ray rips", not "DivX 7 adds supports for popular HD formats"...

    6. Re:So, remind me again... by Stavr0 · · Score: 1

      Remind me again, how does Matroska + H.264 automagically equals "Blu-ray Rips" and piracy in general?

      Isn't that a bit like saying that Bittorrent automatically equals pirated software?

      Yes, just like MP3 = music piracy. It's what our MAFIAA corporate masters have decreed. Now move along citizen.

    7. Re:So, remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, unless you are aware of a completely legit interpretation of the words "Blu-ray rips on filesharing networks" that I am not aware of...

      That's where I put my backups from my Bluray collection, duh.

      What? Can you honestly say you know ANYONE who has gone to the trouble of making Blu ray rips just to keep them around for giggles? No, you either play your legit media on your PS3, or you pirate like everyone else.

    8. Re:So, remind me again... by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, technically it doesn't equal that.

      But really, that particular argument would carry more weight if there existed any MKV+h.264 files that weren't pirated. I can't recall ever seeing one.

    9. Re:So, remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the open-source Blender movies? Elephants Dream, and some shorter ones?

    10. Re:So, remind me again... by Goaway · · Score: 1

      There are, what, three of those? That nobody's ever seen who didn't do it just because of open source?

    11. Re:So, remind me again... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The majority of traffic over bittorrent is pirated software/tv shows/music/movies.

    12. Re:So, remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so there's no reason to keep copies of your stuff just in case? I'll say I told you so when your supposedly scratch-proof Bluray discs stop playing.

      Keeping personal backups is legal and legitimate. And on another note, pirating decade-old content hurts no one.

    13. Re:So, remind me again... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Now, unless you are aware of a completely legit interpretation of the words "Blu-ray rips on filesharing networks" that I am not aware of...

      I call on the linus defense

      Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)

      I just want to backup all my Bluerays.
      Unfortunatly without multi site backups, a fire could easily take the backups out too.
      If i were to just buy multi-continental offsite backup then id have to stay awake at night to make sure that Yellowstone/WWIII/aliens hadn't taken one of them out and leave me needing me to find a new host.
      No sir the only way to be sure is to upload it TPB.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    14. Re:So, remind me again... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have 1000 DVD's all "tagged and bagged" in my media center.

      It's all tied together through the home network so that a
      number of "thin clients" attached to TV's and any computer
      attached to the home network can see all of that.

      That is VERY convenient.

      I don't have any BD-ROMs yet, but I will. They will get
      sucked into the media center like everything else. They
      might even end up as MKVs.

      HELL, based on this news it might end up shuffled around
      so that it's in MKV rather than AVI.

      BTW, every one of those ripped DVDs is within reaching
      distance of where I am sitting presently.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:So, remind me again... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Remind me again, how does Matroska + H.264 automagically equals "Blu-ray Rips" and piracy in general?

      Everyone knows that's wrong. It clearly automagically equals HDTV ripped anime fansubs and piracy in general instead.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    16. Re:So, remind me again... by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      First you say that you've only seen the format used with pirated (presumably Hollywood) movies.

      Then you say that "everyone" (presumably you) ignore independent filmmakers.

      It seems to me that the second statement is causing the first to become true.

    17. Re:So, remind me again... by Goaway · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And?

    18. Re:So, remind me again... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Remind me again, how does Matroska + H.264 automagically equals "Blu-ray Rips" and piracy in general? Isn't that a bit like saying that Bittorrent automatically equals pirated software?

      You're right, only 99.9% of torrent traffic is software piracy. How presumptuous of the GP.

      (No I don't have an exact figure on that, but do you know anyone with binders upon binders of DVD's full of software and/or media they downloaded legitimately?)

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    19. Re:So, remind me again... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Hey now, one day a year it's all pirates.

    20. Re:So, remind me again... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      But really, that particular argument would carry more weight if there existed any MKV+h.264 files that weren't pirated. I can't recall ever seeing one.

      Erm, perhaps try looking. Here you go.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    21. Re:So, remind me again... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is also illegal.

      The DMCA has removed the ability to legally backup protected content, for any reason.

    22. Re:So, remind me again... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Sure, technically it doesn't equal that.

      But really, that particular argument would carry more weight if there existed any MKV+h.264 files that weren't pirated. I can't recall ever seeing one.

      Damn, I better inform all those EVE Online players who create hours worth of material and encode it to h.264 that they're pirates....oh, wait.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    23. Re:So, remind me again... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Of course, that depends on where you look.

      If you don't know any amateur filmmakers, for instance, you're less likely to find examples.

      Mind you, I'd include ripping disks to display HD content on other devices.... buuuuut I don't see how that's practical. "HD content" and "other devices" is a silly combination in most cases. You won't notice on a PSP or netbook whether the content is HD or not.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:So, remind me again... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You're grossly overstating things.

      Although that wouldn't necessarily keep the MPAA from trying.

      That would be a very entertaining set of opening arguments.

      It's too bad the whole "actual damages" bits of tort reform rhetoric weren't more generalized.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    25. Re:So, remind me again... by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Why would an amateur filmmaker ever want to use MKV rather than just plain MP4? The former has far less support. I'd assume he wants people to actually see his movies, and would thus choose the format with the widest availability.

    26. Re:So, remind me again... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Well, like most things, it depends. When the filmmaker is also doing the presentation, the format (s)he chooses is the most practical under the circumstances, not necessarily the most popular.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    27. Re:So, remind me again... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      You're grossly overstating things.

      Not really. Merely operating a "circumvention device", like DeCSS, is a felony under the DMCA. In order to rip your DVDs you had to use DeCSS or something similar and therefore you are subject to prosecution. MPAA, RIAA, etc. need not make any case.

      And even though nobody has been prosecuted for operating a "circumvention device", people certainly HAVE been prosecuted for creating such devices/software. And I'd argue that amounts to the same thing. If you can't legally create the tools to backup the media you can't legally backup the media. There are people serving time in Federal prison right now for making cracking tools.

  4. DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by Tack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's nice to see DivX (the company) back Matroska, but does anyone really use DivX (the codec) anymore? Their ASP codec is consistently inferior to Xvid, and so my faith that they will be able to develop a new AVC codec that bests x264 is not terribly strong.

    1. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by Stavr0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's nice to see DivX (the company) back Matroska, but does anyone really use DivX (the codec) anymore?

      Yes they do! It's what gets implemented in the firmware of all those DivX(TM) certified DVD players. It's why the XVID codec must be tuned to produce a 'player compatible' file. There's still a lot of DivX enabled players who are limited to 720x480 playback. Hopefully, this will break the HD barrier for user generated content.

    2. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's nice to see DivX (the company) back Matroska, but does anyone really use DivX (the codec) anymore? Their ASP codec is consistently inferior to Xvid, and so my faith that they will be able to develop a new AVC codec that bests x264 is not terribly strong.

      Yes, people still use Divx. Go to the alt.* groups on Usenet to see how many. I watch a foreign TV that is unavailable in the USA and I watch it via Divx encodes that people who live in the broadcast country make and place on Usenet.

      As far as "inferiority" to Xvid goes, that was true years ago, but today I doubt that you'd be able to tell any difference between Xvid encoded material and stuff correctly encoded with the commerical Divx codec.

    3. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that those rips you find on Usenet, P2P, Rapidshare and what not are almost all XviD and not DivX.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    4. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      I don't live in the USA and I follow a number of TV Shows (Galactica, Terminator, Lost) that take a while to reach here (Chile).
      This way I'm able to participate in forums, etc. form current episodes, otherwise I would receive too many spoilers

      Everything is coded in DivX (mostly 720p, another plus, as we won't have HD anytime soon - only on premium cable, with a special HDMI output decoder).

      I'm lucky to live in a -*third world*- country where communications are on the bleeding edge (test platform even)... 8Mbps is common, so I'm able to watch everything on the same day (some times before) they are aired in the US. (no kidding... some episodes you can get are high quality HD without any logos, available one o two days before schedule).
      I still don't get why there is the need to add H.264 support to DivX.
      DivX format can handle 1080p resolutions pretty well. What I'm missing?

    5. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's been my experience with it. If it's MPEG-4, almost all the "pirated" material I come across is Xvid, not Divx.

      That said, H.264/MKV has been showing up more and more lately. That's both a good and bad thing. Good, because the quality is MUCH better, but bad, because VirtualDub nor AviDemux seems to handle editing them quite right as of yet, and also they seek and start much slower than a lower bitrate file. Updating my CPU might help some here (but I'm already on a dual core 2.3Ghz Athlon), but most of my media files still reside on a SAN so disk access is limited in speed to what it can proivde over a Gigabit LAN connection.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, no one uses it. I guess that's why Sony and Microsoft added real divx support to the PS3 and xbox360. Why would any of the combined 45 million users want to use the format?

    7. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by idlemachine · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see DivX (the company) back Matroska, but does anyone really use DivX (the codec) anymore?

      The PS3 has official DivX support.

      (Cue jokes about the size of the PS3 userbase...)

    8. Re:DivX (the codec) is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DivX is going to become a whole lot more irrelevant to people since Windows 7 will ship with a hardware accelerated 32-bit/64-bit H.264/MPEG4 decoder. All you will need to play content is the Haali Media Splitter which demuxes MKV containers. This combination will also allow you to play most of the modern Quicktime .mov/.mp4 files.

  5. DivX? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Xvid seems to have taken over as the 'gray area' encoder of choice from what I've seen.

    And do people still pay much attention to the actual "DiVX" people? Even when I used Divx it was all mplayer/mencoder, ffmpeg, vlc, etc.

    1. Re:DivX? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      And do people still pay much attention to the actual "DiVX" people?

      As the article states, I think it can be of some importance for hardware devices.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  6. Grey area by papasui · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate comments like this, they make a rather popular codec. It's not popular because of piracy, it's popular because it works well. It's like blamming the MP3 format for music piracy, before that it was casettes. If DivX/Xvid/Mp3 wasn't around piracy would exist in another format.

    1. Re:Grey area by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's popular because it's good, why is it still mostly used for piracy rather than other things?

      Let me rephrase that: What it is used for other than piracy?

      I have seen a couple really low-budget games that use it. (And both the game and video was shitty quality.) Some (really high-tech) people send their personal videos in it. I've not seen -anything- else use it.

      So their comments are spot-on. It is what people use it for, and it got popular because people use it for that.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Grey area by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1, Redundant

      What do games even use for their video codecs these days? I can't even remember the last time I saw an in-game video, and I'm certain it was Bink. When, excatly, was the consumer able to use Bink for anything? Never? Naturally, they'll be using the best thing they can. Just because Piracy happens to use it also doesn't mean it's popular BECAUSE of piracy.

    3. Re:Grey area by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's popular because of piracy because piracy made it popular. I'm not using logic to say it's popular because of piracy. I'm using history.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:Grey area by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Did you play BioShock last year? That had a fair amount of pre-rendered video. The thing is that they actually blended it in pretty well. It wasn't until I was done playing and I wanted to watch the other endings that I realized just how many scenes were pre-rendered instead of rendered on-the-fly.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    5. Re:Grey area by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 1

      In reply to you and your parent post:

      The reasons that it's not used for much else other than piracy, even though it has superior compression, is because most vendors want to lock you into a format. Microsoft would never use it because they have WMV, which has been around for a while and they don't want to ditch it. Apple also has their own proprietary formats, and as the article says, there is no DRM support for the format at the moment. Long story short: All the companies that would "make it popular" have their own formats and DRM schemes. The advantages of using a superior codec aren't worth the effort to switch for them, since they don't care what quality you watch videos in.

      As for Bink videos, you can download a free decompressor at Bink's own website. Bink is not used because it's better for video, it's used because it can act as a standalone executable video, and run regardless of the codecs installed on the machine. In addition, the Bink format is designed to run with low decoding requirements, making it nice to use on lower end machines as well. It's way easier to just throw something into Bink and launch an executable for a video, than it is to have to worry about codecs and a lot of other bullshit.

    6. Re:Grey area by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It didn't say that it was popular because of piracy, but only that it was "the video format of choice for 'grey' content", i.e. that it's popular among pirates. There's a difference.

      I will say, however, that I don't see DivX being used frequently for legitimate commercial purposes. Maybe I'm missing something. But even if that's the case-- that it's popular among pirates and no one else-- then to me the interesting question is "why is it popular among pirates?" I would think that there'd be some other encoder that would do a better job. If you can answer that, then my next question would be "why isn't it popular in other settings?"

      That is, assuming that it's true, that it's popular among pirates and no one else. I'm somewhat clueless as to why people use DivX.

    7. Re:Grey area by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase that: What it is used for other than piracy?

      Legit DVD rips. Not everything that comes from DVD ripping software goes straight to the internet.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Grey area by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      Some (really high-tech) people send their personal videos in it. I've not seen -anything- else use it.

      Well, that's an interesting and important legit use. I know of a former coworker (ok, a techie) who saves all his kids' videos in compressed formats (probably this one if he heard of it).

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    9. Re:Grey area by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase that: What it is used for other than piracy?

      What is any non-proprietary codec not blessed by hardware manufacturers for use in common consumer electronics used for other than piracy?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    10. Re:Grey area by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but whatever is used in C&CRA3 is complete shit.

    11. Re:Grey area by Draek · · Score: 1

      Independant movies, I can't remember one that *wasn't* encoded in either DivX or XviD (the open source descendant of DivX).

      As a matter of fact, DivX (the company in question) hosted many of them on their website until a short time ago, as a way to show the quality of their codec, unfortunately even with a good codec, a DVD-quality short movie is still a significant drain on your resources, but oh well.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  7. Really? Do you need to associate it with piracy? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, was the piracy spin really needed? Youtube uses them, DVD/Bluray players use them, MP3 players use them, heck Windows 7 is even including DivX, H.264 (though not sure if it's through the new DivX codec), and AAC support now. Hate to break it to you, but these codecs are used for a lot more things other than copyright infringement.

  8. PS3 by Krakadoom · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the DivX support on the PS3 will be updated to support it as well? If that is the case then ... er... I need a bigger usb drive. Maybe Sony should give up the resistance to making the PS3 a solid multimedia device (ie. add more format support) and just start making disk drive add-ons themselves for the extra buck :)

    1. Re:PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost certainly not, as MKV is so widely used for piracy. There is little legitimate reason to support it.

    2. Re:PS3 by vshade · · Score: 1

      I hope they update the PS3, but I don't see a point in using the bigger drive. My PS3 streams hd video just fine, but the convenience of not having to remux the video would be great.

    3. Re:PS3 by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      I'd love if that were the case, but I doubt the official PS3 OS will run it.

      You could try running PS3 ubuntu with the custom mplayer that uses the PS3's SPUs for color conversion, I believe with that optimization the PS3 can play HD MKV files without a hiccup, but I haven't taken the time to try it myself yet.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    4. Re:PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they would add it, but now they read the stupid headline and are thinking "no way in hell we are going to help them pirate our blu-rays"
      Thanks Slashdot!

    5. Re:PS3 by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

      Xbox 360 and PS3 media players already support h264 video and AAC audio in the MP4 container. It's what I use (yay for large portable USB hard drives). Repackaging MKV to MP4 to work on them is trivial, it generally involves using MKVdemux and MP4Box or YAMB unless your video/audio is a non-standard stream or has subtitles.

    6. Re:PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the PS3 couldn't read files larger than 4GB? Is that not true as long as it streams? I can't seem to get a straight answer on this.

    7. Re:PS3 by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      The PS3 can now play most AVI, MPEG, MP4, WMV, etc without issue, and without being converted. Its not 100%, you can get most of your library on the PS3 without conversion now... and if DivX gets mkv support, so will the PS3.

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    8. Re:PS3 by vshade · · Score: 1

      Yes it play most formats except the mkv one, which I have to remux into mp4

    9. Re:PS3 by k-macjapan · · Score: 1

      What Sony really needs to do with the PS3 is stop being so god damn cheap. Either licence NTFS from MS or add support for another format of drives EXT3 comes to mind. Only being able to connect a FAT32 formatted drive is ridiculous.

      As for MKV support I am sure Sony will add support for it at some time in the future.

  9. DivX AVC is MainConcept by Tack · · Score: 1

    Obviously I've been asleep a while. I wasn't aware that DivX acquired MainConcept.

    Well, MainConcept isn't horrible, but it still lags behind x264. It's to x264 what DivX is to Xvid. (Let the flaming begin!)

    1. Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept by PhillC · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm big supporter, and user, of x264, but I always thought MainConcept was the slightly better H.264 codec.

      This codec comparison is a year old now, but I've always used these generally yearly tests as a yard stick. MainConcept and X264 are the clear winners, with MainConcept probably slightly ahead overall. If you're short on time, just start reading at page 30.

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    2. Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept by Tack · · Score: 1

      I did read this comparison some time ago. I think a year makes all the difference though. x264 has, this year, added a lot of important (and beneficial) psychovisual improvements.

      doom9 is gearing up for a new comparison this year. Should be interesting.

    3. Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept by PhillC · · Score: 1

      Essentially I agree with you. I generally try to checkout the source and build x264 on a monthly basis.

      I guess I was just picking up on your comment that the MainConcept H.264 encoder "still lags behind" x264. Historically, it hasn't lagged behind. They've both been very close for some time, in terms of speed and quality.

      I'm looking forward to a more up to date comparison, and I hope x264 comes out a clear winner.

      --
      Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
    4. Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      And some significant speed improvements that matter to people with older hardware. If you build the current version of mplayer from Subversion and run it on a machine that had trouble decoding HD H.264 in the past, you might be surprised at how much better it works now.

    5. Re:DivX AVC is MainConcept by Tack · · Score: 1

      Note however that x264 has nothing to do with decoding. The improvements you refer to were added to libavodec's h264 decoder. (But you're right, they're definitely noticeable.)

  10. update console divx support, PLZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consoles use it, and this announcement means they might actually support matroska soon. For someone without a computer fast enough to play HD video...or for people who only have surround sound on their consoles...basically, for people who have shitty computers it's excellent news

  11. Downloading isn't even illegal... by Langfat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that Slashdot is US-centric, but it should be pointed out that in many other countries it is not illegal to download a copy of content that you already legally own.

    I can't be bothered to learn how to properly rip HD content from a blu-ray when there are already experts who can do/have done it for me.

    1. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by legoman666 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's always faster for me to grab an xvid copy of a movie from newsgroups I own on dvd than to rip it myself. Same with music. And like you said, they probably did a better job than me. Trying to understand what deinterlacing method to use gives me a headache.

    2. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I can't be bothered to learn how to properly rip HD content from a blu-ray when there are already experts who can do/have done it for me.

      Spot on.

      I used to love to tinker. I loved finding that shining program (usually not so shining, usually more like a command line with 15 parameters) that would take my CD/DVD/whatnot and pull the data off it and categorize it into my file library.

      But as I move out of the college lifestyle, where I had time to do that sort of thing, I just don't have the time anymore to find the program, tweak it just right, tailor it for each movie/cd/whatever, and get the perfect rip.

      I can go online, find someone who has already done the work, and reuse their work.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using P2P is a different story of course, because you upload to anyone who asks, not just people who you've verified owns the original.

      It's the uploading, not the downloading, which is technically illegal.

    4. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      They're both copyright infringement, thus illegal.

      It's just that distributors are treated more harshly and commonly than downloaders.

      After all, if there were no uploaders, there would be no downloaders.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    5. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      We were talking about the countries where downloading WASN'T illegal, if you own the original (see the post I was replying to). I was pointing out that using P2P to get it you are still breaking the law, because you'll be uploading too.

    6. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by Langfat · · Score: 1

      You are correct, however there are still many ways to get files without participating in the distribution of them (rapidshare, newsgroups for example).

      And it's really only Western/industrialized countries that forbid the distribution of copyrighted content. Places like Egypt and Colombia (IIRC) have no copyright laws whatsoever so if the uploader and host are in such places, no law is broken. That said, those are big "If's" -- but welcome to the problems of information technology in a globalized society...

    7. Re:Downloading isn't even illegal... by lorenzino · · Score: 0

      and where would that be?
      Here in the UK is getting worse and worse.
      Like or worst than germany I think.

  12. Consumer Electronics... by mambodog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While DivX is hardly the codec of choice for encoding MPEG-4 ASP for sharing online in .avi files, it has created a recognisable symbol and set of guidelines for various boxes, from DVD players to PVRs to games consoles, to make use of and to show they support this format. If this development means that new boxes like these add support for the Matroska container and H.264 as part of getting to put that little 'DivX Certified' logo on the front, then maybe that does actually mean something.

  13. MKV is instantly recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    as the container format nobody wants.

    It doesnt work on major brand portables, doesnt work in most standalone DVD players, nobody supports it
    Only a minority would download an obscure format and put up with re-coding hassle etc to get it displayed on their player of choice, why put up with the trouble when .AVI/.mpg/.mp4 is available and far more accessible
    so in summary MKV is another failed format, not because it wasnt technically any good,
    it just lost in public opinion resulting in no hardware support from manufacturers and no interest from customers,
    how bad is it if even the pirates/leechers won't use it ?.
    hmmm

    1. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MKV is highly used in high quality HD rips for home videos posted on mininova.

    2. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      MPEG4 (aka DivX/Xvid) has not always been there either. I remember the early days when everyone clamored for mpg or qt format over DivX as they didn't need the codecs.

      With DivX's "support" of H.264 and MKV, how long do you think it will be before the set-top boxes and the portables start coming out with support for that. Not too long if I don't miss my guess.

      Especially with the move to more "legal" online content, I think there will be less resistance, not to mention more support, for a higher quality option.

    3. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not failed, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's finally doing what mp4 never managed, that is killing AVI. Anime fansubbers would never use anything else these days - the only other container with reasonable softsub support is OGM, and that has a list of problems as long as my arm (if you want something tangible, it can't handle variable framerate). It's also the format of choice for high-quality rips of more regular content, both from new HD formats and even from DVDs - it has lower overhead, better tools, greater codec support, and is simply the best current container format by far. Of course there are a number of idiots who can't figure out how to play it, but that will be the case with any new technology.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few years ago, forums were full of "How do I convert from h264 to DivX?"

      Progress isn't instant. MKV is better, and the knowledgeable people are pushing it. It will likely catch on from sheer stubbornness... which will be good.

    5. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by aeiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      but the pirates do use it. its the defacto standard for scene released bluray rips in 720p and 1080p format, due to it being a convenient container for packaging multiple audio signals, subtitles and x264 encoded video and being all FOSS. its also a very popular format for anime, due mostly to its multiple audio and subtitle strengths.

      the piracy scene decided on x264 mkv for various reasons but wide compatibility probably wasnt one of them. potential for wide compatibility, open standards and high quality were probably bigger concerns. im pretty sure there werent any hardware xvid players around when they decided that that was the best option for dvdrips.

      the playstation 3 and xbox 360 can play x / h264 but not within the mkv container. this means its pretty simple and quick to convert on your pc, but more importantly it means that the console's hardware is fully capable of such playback, its merely a software limitation and this'll get sorted in time.

    6. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Duradin · · Score: 1

      If every little ripper out there didn't feel the need to have the bestest files on the intarweb by turning every knob to 11, having infinity+1.1 audio channels in the ogg codec for every audio stream and every-option-on h.264 with bitrates higher than the original studio masters and every subtitle, including the original Klingon, in the blingy-est graphical overlay format, people might have liked the container format.

      For shows "not available here" it'd be nice to be able to find them in a sensible format, like 13/26 episodes per dvd capacity and a bitrate that won't choke an eight core submersion cooled computer.

    7. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      MKV is popular with anime in regions that don't speak Japan largely because of how well it supports multiple streams within one container. It's far from dead.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    8. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by EdZ · · Score: 1

      For one small crowd of the internet (anime watchers), h.264 in MKV is the de-facto standard for soft-subs, with .avi being abandoned by all but the laziest or most incompetant users. Remember when most videos distributed online were realVideo or .mov? Yeah, that .avi container/xvid codec will never catch on...

    9. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      MKV is used for all bluray rips and the article is about how it's getting hardware support.

    10. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      People who complain about the mkv container are the same idiots who never used it. These are probably the same people that bitched because people used mp3, not completely free, over ogg, completely free. But yet they would rather you use a none gpl, {mp4,avi} container over one that completely gpl {mkv}.

      I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.

      Only amateurs and noobs use mp4 and avi anymore for containers. People that know what they are doing use mkv.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    11. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by m50d · · Score: 1
      These are probably the same people that bitched because people used mp3, not completely free, over ogg, completely free.

      I find that highly unlikely.

      I will admit I was one of those idiots. At first I preferred avi the mp4 for my container. Then I realized in some incredibly bout of stupidity the industrial standard for audio, ac3, was left out of the format. Let me rephrase that, the standard format for audio on dvd's, ac3, cannot be included in a standard mp4 container unless its in a "user" track.

      That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by kelnos · · Score: 1

      That's because ac3 is a subset of AAC; AAC is the new version and includes all its features.

      Incorrect. AAC is the successor to the MP3 format, being standardised as a part of the MPEG2 and MPEG4 specifications. AC3, however, is an audio compression format developed by Dolby. They're just about as completely unrelated as you can get while still performing the same function. The only link is that Dolby actually did participate in AAC development at one point.

      AAC is technically superior to AC3 at all bitrates, I believe, but AC3 is a much simpler codec: you essentially get more bang for your buck with AC3 where decoding complexity is concerned.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    13. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by ghetto2ivy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Shows how much all these posters know.

      MKV is an excellent container format. It supports multiple subtitles, chapters, menus, multiple audio/video streams. Its just now gaining popularity, so people are right to want to convert it to play portably. The whole idea is that if divx has accepted it for divx 7 then, it will be compatible with the next generation.

      I'd understand if MP4, M4V, MPG, or AVI were actually as GOOD and as OPEN as MKV, and MKV were closed or limited in licensing in any way, but none of this is the case. If people never pushed for new standards we'd all still be using animated gifs.

      Face it: MKV is a great container format for doing everything a DVD can in less space, in a single file.

    14. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by prelelat · · Score: 1

      umm wtf are you smoking the mkv container isn't loosing anything it's a high def format most of my protable players don't even support that. That's more of a failing of the device then the container. If divx puts the container support in their package then hell every device that supports divx that comes out in the future would support mkv. This would make mkv the new standard for divx type high def content. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU. Besides I'm a pirate and all the HD stuff I get is either an ISO or in MKV format. some people use other containers but where I lounge thats one of the main formats for HD.

    15. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      AAC is technically superior to AC3 at all bitrates, I believe, but AC3 is a much simpler codec: you essentially get more bang for your buck with AC3 where decoding complexity is concerned

      Yes, AAC is very much superior to ac3. I routinely recode 5.1 ac3 to 5.1 he-aac and stuff it into a mkv container. The space it saves vs the loss of audio quality from recoding is worth it. I actually have no beef against the aac codec. I think its an excellent successor to mp3/ac3.

      The real gripe I have is with the asshats that came up with the mp4 container. Acc maybe better than ac3 but ac3 is the standard audio codec used on dvd's To not make it apart of the regular mp4 specs is just fucking insane.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    16. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      A software limitation? I keep hearing that the reason MKV playback is so shitty (audio lag/etc) is because "your *hardware* is crappy."

    17. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one small crowd of the internet (anime watchers), h.264 in MKV is the de-facto standard for soft-subs

      Actually, you're wrong there. The de facto standard there is ASS (or more politely SSA, but you have to love the name of the library libass), and SRT. MKV just proves to be a very handy container supporting ASS which was designed with various typographic features in mind (colors, positioning, etc, which is such a requirement for subtitling cartoons that I can't fathom how I spent my younger years staring at white text on the television). You can use any of the supported codecs, including MPEG-1 or 2 (heavens forbid), Theora, or whatever is supported.

      incompetant

      Your incompetence at spelling is showing.

    18. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. You have a video in some container, lets say mkv. To decode and watch it you need a splitter, some decoders and some renderers.
      The splitter extracts the video and audio bitstreams from the container and hands them to the suitable decoders. This isn't a CPU intensive task. The only reason it could introduce lag is if the splitter has bugs or the file is corrupted.
      The video and audio decoders decode the respective streams and hand them to the renderers. The decoding phase is the most CPU intensive phase, especially with new video codecs like h.264. If your hardware is to slow this can cause audio lag, etc. That has nothing to to with the container.
      The consoles mentioned in the gp are fast enough to decode h.264 high profile @ level 4.1 (this is what blu-ray uses) so they are also fast enough to decode high profile @ level 4.0 (this is what DivX7 uses). The only thing that's missing is the splitter.
      Hope that answers your questions.

    19. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by atamido · · Score: 1

      ... a convenient container for packaging multiple audio signals, subtitles and x264 encoded video and being all FOSS. its also a very popular format for anime, due mostly to its multiple audio and subtitle strengths.

      the piracy scene decided on x264 mkv for various reasons but wide compatibility probably wasnt one of them...

      A number of fansubbers interacted heavily with the Matroska development team during Matroska's development. Many streams was a given due to the inherent design, but the extra interaction ensured a good, simple, and elegant subtitle design. Subtitles are just another packetized stream, with times and durations handled completely by the container. There is also a heavy focus on complete flexibility in which codecs can be played together. (If you can get it into Matroska, you can play it with any other codec.)

    20. Re:MKV is instantly recognized by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      bingo, mkv is the defacto standard for webrip videos. it has filled a gap quickly for hd rips. it is not like the previous situation where no codecs were easily available for mpeg4 rips. people had to rely on hacked ms codecs for a while which was not good, and divx made it easier. but this time its unnecessary. devices simply need to support h264 and mkv, no divx middle man required. some already do, like the western digital player.

  14. The Techno-Impaired and Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how well the technology-impaired will handle all these different file formats when they eventually find their way into mainstream devices.

    Then again, how many .MKV and H.264 users (COUGHpiratesCOUGH) are morons when it comes to technology?

    1. Re:The Techno-Impaired and Change by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I wonder how well the technology-impaired will handle all these different file formats when they eventually find their way into mainstream devices.

      Then again, how many .MKV and H.264 users (COUGHpiratesCOUGH) are morons when it comes to technology?

      Well, they could just actually commercially build an mplayer STB.

      I've been considering it a long time, but the overlords who wield telephone pole sized clubs labeled DMCA will never let me.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  15. What Gray Content? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DivX looks set to continue to be the video format of choice for 'grey' content,

    Not sure what gray content you are referring to. I'm assuming this is about legal shades of gray, but there aren't any in terms of content (or at least not the ones you are probably talking about):

    There is exactly nothing illegal about making copies of your own discs for personal use.

    There is a law against distributing ripping software (the DMCA), but it doesn't sound like you're talking about that.

    There is a law about distributing the content itself, but that isn't gray - it's illegal.

    The only gray areas are content used for criticism and education.

    'course - entirely possible I've misunderstood what "grey" is supposed to mean - maybe a hipster term for re-encoding or something.

    1. Re:What Gray Content? by kelnos · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is exactly nothing illegal about making copies of your own discs for personal use.

      In the US, at least, the DMCA would beg to differ with that interpretation, for media protected by an anti-circumvention device. That would be pretty much anything relevant today aside from audio CDs.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    2. Re:What Gray Content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By gray content, I think they mean black and white movies. The lack of color makes for higher compression ratios.

    3. Re:What Gray Content? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      In the US, at least, the DMCA would beg to differ with that interpretation, for media protected by an anti-circumvention device. That would be pretty much anything relevant today aside from audio CDs.

      Incorrect. Read the law. It restricts distribution of circumvention tools, but not circumvention for lawful purposes.

  16. MKVs by DurendalMac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I don't get about MKVs is that they take so much bloody horsepower, even in SD. I have a 1.5ghz Mac Mini I use as an HTPC. I've been able to play 480p and even some 720p HD on it with very few issues. However, I got a few SD MKVs. Both would stutter and choke on it. What the hell? Either VLC and MPlayer are very poorly optimized in MKV playback or that codec requires a ludicrous amount of horsepower to run. Quicktime with Perian managed to run it, but it appears there's a bug in Perian which will make the movie run at double speed while the audio remains the same if you watch it long enough. What's the deal? I've played back plenty of standard H.264 files just fine. What makes MKV so special?

    1. Re:MKVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 1.4GHz Celeron M laptop with an Intel 915GM chip. It can play back 720p h264 MKVs just fine in VLC under Windows (but not under MacOS, but that's probably the buggy drivers for Leopard. Yes it's a hackintosh).

      You're doing it wrong.

    2. Re:MKVs by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but MKV sucks on the Mac at the moment, unfortunately.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:MKVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MKV is a container format and not a codec.

      H.264 has has a range of different profiles with varying processor requirements. The differences in performance you are seeing will probably be because they are encoded using different H.264 profiles, it has nothing to do with the container format (MKV, AVI, MP4, etc.) which won't affect the performance.

    4. Re:MKVs by JewFish · · Score: 1

      I had the same problem playing back 720p MKV on my Mac Mini as you. I have a Core Solo 1.5 GHz and nothing that I tried, VLC or MPlayer, would play them back smoothly. Recently, I stuck Ubuntu 8.10 on my mac mini and was very surprised to see that it played back 720p MKV flawlessly with VLC. I really don't understand why VLC played the files so terribly under OS X and was able to play them fine under Ubuntu 8.10, but I am happy with the results. Now if only I could figure out how to get my apple remote to work with VLC in Linux.

    5. Re:MKVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MKV is just a container, it doesn't take a lot of horsepower to run it. I think the issue you're having is decoding H264, which due to the high compression and absolutely horrible multithreading support in the current 'free' decoders leads to a lot of playback issues. ffdshow-tryouts has a ffdshow-mt branch which actually performs a lot better on my quad core machine than the DivX 7 h264 decoder, but since you use a Mac Mini that's probably not for you.

      VLC used to give playback issues until I disabled the loop filter for H264 decoding. Might want to give that a try.

    6. Re:MKVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The videos were probably encoded with x264, with all the high profile options turned on. Those options improve video quality (or reduce filesize) by quite a lot, with two drawbacks.

      First, Quicktime doesn't support any high-profile features. Most H.264 video in an MPEG-4 container (.MP4 or .M4V) doesn't use high-profile features to maintain Quicktime compatibility, in the same way that Xvid's advanced features are rarely used to maintain compatibility with DivX hardware players. If you start using weird containers, like MKV, compatibility requirements go out the window, and people just turn every encoder feature on.

      Most importantly, it requires a lot more CPU to decode. A 480p high-profile video will almost certainly require as much CPU power as a 720p regular video.

      That said, if it were a high-profile file, I don't think that Quicktime would have been able to play it. Perian does not replace Quicktime's H.264 decoder. So unless Perian uses it's own H.264 decoder to decode videos from MKV files, that's probably not your problem.

    7. Re:MKVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a real operating system. Neither Windows nor Linux has any problems with playing MKV files.

    8. Re:MKVs by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I had the same problem playing back 720p MKV on my Mac Mini as you. I have a Core Solo 1.5 GHz and nothing that I tried, VLC or MPlayer, would play them back smoothly. Recently, I stuck Ubuntu 8.10 on my mac mini and was very surprised to see that it played back 720p MKV flawlessly with VLC. I really don't understand why VLC played the files so terribly under OS X and was able to play them fine under Ubuntu 8.10, but I am happy with the results. Now if only I could figure out how to get my apple remote to work with VLC in Linux.

      VLC will come bundled and configured differently on each machine iirc.

      Did you turn frame dropping on?

      1.5 ghz is a bit low even for standard definition.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    9. Re:MKVs by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      VLC used to give playback issues until I disabled the loop filter for H264 decoding. Might want to give that a try.

      because nothing says H.264 is worth it like killing the automatic deblocking and turning it into divx5 with 10X the cpu cycles.

      The issue is multithreading.

      ffmpeg team are working on it.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    10. Re:MKVs by macshome · · Score: 1

      I've just built out a Mac Mini HTPC (1.6ghz CoreDuo) and using QuickTime I can't play back any MKVs well at all. I can almost play 720p material, but 1080p is a lost cause.

      However when I fire Boxee up on it I can playback 1080p+DTS MKVs without any issue at all.

      I've seen on a few of the Mini HTPC forums that the current codec included with Perian isn't multi-threaded and will only run on one core. This would make sense for the stuttering QuickTime playback as with Boxee I can see that it consumes 150-175% of CPU time to decode and play.

    11. Re:MKVs by NorQue · · Score: 1

      1.5 ghz is a bit low even for standard definition.I beg to differ. I'm playing back a lot 720p x264 on an Intel T2400/Core Duo 1.86 GHz with Ubuntu without any problems. Granted, it's Core Duo, but decoders aren't optimized for multithreading, AFAIK. And I doubt that the speed difference really matters that much, one processor is only about 20-40% used during playback.

    12. Re:MKVs by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      they dont. 720p rips run on a pentium m 1.3ghz with coreavc. it depends on your decoder. and things mostly tend to go wrong if a bad/inefficient h264 decoder is being used. on modern pcs, even the lowest mainstream desktop processor today is able to do 1080p easily. so its not an issue anymore

  17. "Gray market" isn't illegal by argent · · Score: 1

    "Gray Market" traditionally doesn't imply "illegal", but rather "unapproved". If you buy a product overseas because the manufacturer doesn't want to sell it in the US (yet) or or want to charge more in the US, that's "gray market". Some people use the term to refer to any mechanism for any mechanism for bypassing restrictions manufacturers restrictions, others limit it to imports.

  18. Confusion... by Junta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MKV is a container format. It's not impossible for a container format to induce overhead, but in all likelihood that isn't the case.

    The codec would be something like h264,xvid,indeo,theora,etc for video, aac, mp3,vorbis,wav,etc.

    I don't know about Quicktime, but avi is horribly limited. Ogg seemed to have promise for a container format, but for whatever reason MKV came about with support for some killer features menus and vobsub format subtitle tracks. I have never seen an mkv with menu, but I have heard it exists.

    It would be interesting to know the codecs involved.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  19. This makes no sense.... by ConallB · · Score: 5, Informative

    DivX makes an announcement that thier DivX player can now support a format that even Media Player Classic can play with an open source codec?

    First off, MKV is a container which can add features to an encoded video stream such as chapters, subtitles, additional audio streams etc.

    The corresponding DivX container (Introduced with DivX6) is far inferior with its limited support for audio codecs and its insistence on DivX video encoding profiles.

    DivX the codec is simply a MP4 based video/audio encoder.

    You can wrap virtually any video or audio format in an MKV container and it should work just fine. I see no reason why DivX encoded movies could not be wrpped in an MKV container!

    I have never tried to encode DivX into an MKV container for several reasons:

    1. DivX is not the best MP4 Codec out there, XviD is better and freely availiable (It is a fork of the original OpenDivX).
    2. DivX started bundling thier codecs with all sorts of crapware some time ago which really tuned me off the codec.
    3. x264 is already availiable for high definition encoding.
    4. DivX encoding will cost you money with the Pro version.
    5. It is bloatware.

    Basically DivX are trying to make money by charging inexperienced users for functionality that is already freely availiable.

    If you want to watch virtually every availiable format without problems with a choice of video players I suggest the Combined Community Codec Pack (http://www.cccp-project.net/).

    Or you can go ahead and pay the ignorance tax that is DivX.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:This makes no sense.... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point. This is about slapping logos on things, so people know what they're getting. Here's how it works.

      My DVD player contains decoders for MPEG1 and MPEG2 video, and Dolby Digital. My receiver can also decode DTS. My HD DVD player can - on top of those standards - decode H.264, VC-1, and Dolby TrueHD (and a bunch of other Dolby standards.)

      But there are limitations. None of these players can decode an arbitrary MPEG1 stream. If I encode a 1080p24 MPEG1 stream, they'll choke. This is because 1080p24 is not a supported profile. Likewise, the Receiver will probably choke if I find a 1Mbps AC-3 Dolby Digital stream and try to get it to play it.

      The purpose of the DVD and HD DVD logos when put on players is to say "This equipment supports these standards", and the purpose of the logos when put on discs is to say "This disc is formatted to this standard."

      That's what DivX are selling. They're not selling you what you already have. They're selling you a known quality. They're making it possible to make DVD players that support H.264 video and AC-3 audio, in such a way that you know that IF you create an MKV of a supported bitrate, using a supported resolution, using a supported profile, using the supported codecs, using the supported framerates, you will know that that MKV will work on every player that carries the DivX 7 logo.

      Oh, and they're selling the software to player manufacturers, but the player manufacturers have to get it from somewhere...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:This makes no sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DivX6 is on par with or even sometimes better than Xvid. The inferiority of DivX MPEG4 implementation idea is old and outdated. Buying the pro version of DivX gets you a codec that supports multicore encoding for increased speed, and it works well. Xvid multithreaded was an alpha/beta product forever and now that it's finally released my preferred tools still don't support it so I would still have to use Xvid 1.1.3. No thank you, I don't really want to take almost twice as long to encode something just so I can be a self-righteous free software user. And I do encode a lot with x264, but I'm still using DivX and MPEG4 ASP because its FASTER and always will be and sometimes I don't want to take FOREVER to encode something in h.264. I agree the AVI container is ancient and lacks features and a lot of tools have difficulty going from MPEG2 to a DivX/Xvid file with audio actually in sync. As for DivX7 I could care less when there's x264.

    3. Re:This makes no sense.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accually you have to give DivX credz for setting the standards, there is a few standars out there but almost all "relesed" movies following the DivX 3.1 standard. That made the dvd-player creators start support this standard and is more or less why whe have mpeg4 support in todays players.

      It's more or less impossible to fully support MKV fully as I understand as you can't predict what future codecs/features will bli included.

      So DivX7 have a place here.

      O and about adobe.. Anyone heard of any flash(de|en)coding chip yet?
      Until then flash will be computer only.

    4. Re:This makes no sense.... by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and they're selling the software to player manufacturers, but the player manufacturers have to get it from somewhere...

      Don't be surprised when that cheapo player you just bought turns out to be using ffmpeg. I owned one of those players, until it let out the magic blue smoke.

    5. Re:This makes no sense.... by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Use of ffmpeg contrary to the GPL has become so common the developers now maintain a "hall of shame".

    6. Re:This makes no sense.... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      They're making it possible to make DVD players that support H.264 video and AC-3 audio

      So perhaps in the near future we'll see DVD players that support DivX 7, which could play full-resolution Blu-Ray rips without necessarily having to pay the Blu-Ray format tax. Kind of a shot the foot though, since Blu-Ray will be the primary source of HD video...

      This would then beg the question of how much HD video and MP2 audio will fit on a dual-layer DVD before compression artifacts start to show. My standard for single layer DVD has been 2 hours 45 minutes, but that's standard def. I dump the AC-3 stream since I don't have or want surround sound (that's another story).

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    7. Re:This makes no sense.... by ConallB · · Score: 1

      I conceed the point that it is more of a branding exercise than a technical merit argument. But I will state that if it is indeed a branding issue then some sort of independent org needs to be set up to create a suitable standard with associated logo that certifies players and gives them a suitlable rating without the commercial angle. Just my opinion.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    8. Re:This makes no sense.... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be good, but thus far that's proven difficult and one of the major issues is you get a lot of politics when that happens.

      As an example, there already is a perfectly good standard for encoding low-bit rate HD, SD, and LD content on DVDs, it's called 3XDVD and it's a DVD Forum standard. It's actually the HD DVD standard applied to regular red-laser media. It uses H.264 (or you can use VC-1 or MPEG2 or - for low resolutions only - MPEG1) and lots of beautiful audio codecs like DTS and Dolby TrueHD.

      And the DVD Forum fits your description. But the DVD Forum is a consortium of manufacturers, so the manufacturers all insist that something they did be a part of the standard, and then they get all huffy about wanting to license the technologies they've donated so they can collect royalties, and the end result is that the DVD Forum only makes the specs available to those willing to pay thousands of dollars, and there are very real costs to incorporating the technology into a regular player.

      Sometimes it's worth someone independently saying "Look, here are some open standards" (DivX originally did this with MPEG4 Part 2 and AVI), "Encode to/support these standards and here's a logo we'll license to you. In return, we'll market the bezeesus out of it." Sometimes that works. Hopefully it'll work now.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:This makes no sense.... by tepples · · Score: 1

      So perhaps in the near future we'll see DVD players that support DivX 7, which could play full-resolution Blu-Ray rips without necessarily having to pay the Blu-Ray format tax.

      But there's still an MPEG-4 tax.

      This would then beg the question of

      s/beg/raise/

  20. Divx ;-) , DIVX, or Stolen MmmmCode. by coretx · · Score: 1

    Some people seem to have forgotten roots ;)

  21. Why is Matroska used? by Telvin_3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Somewhat tangential, but can someone explain why Matroska is the favorite container for ripped H.264 video? While I can appreciate that it is the 'open' alternative to the other formats it does not have significant technical advantages. However, open source ideology doesn't usually trump practical concerns in the ripping communities. Many devices and programs commonly used with ripped video, like media servers, media extenders, portable media players and many software players deal poorly with .mkv files. So why the heavy bias for .mkv as a container format instead of something like .mp4?

    1. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would the other container option be? MP4? MP4 had certain audio limitations like no initial support for AC3 5.1 surround, which lead to MKV getting the initial foothold. OGM might have been feasible, but Theora is quite poor compared to H264. So mkv it is.

    2. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Somewhat tangential, but can someone explain why Matroska is the favorite container for ripped H.264 video? While I can appreciate that it is the 'open' alternative to the other formats it does not have significant technical advantages.

      The short answer is that AVI does not have proper support for the b-pyramids in H.264. You can put H.264 into AVI but this involves putting the b-frames into the same packets at the i-frames and this causes the timecodes and seeking to get messed up. Additionally AVI only allows a single audio track, which is a problem for multiple-language releases. Also many AVI players can not handle VBR audio properly. Subtitles are another issue. So yes, there are significant techinical reasons for using MKV instead of AVI.

    3. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Originally I was hoping the MP4 container would become ubiquitous, but it has many limitations that MKV doesn't - for example you cannot put in MP3 audio. Also the support for MP4 subtitles is very weak, and you can't use any of the standard formats.

    4. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Fluffy+Bunnies · · Score: 1

      Two audio tracks in avi is possible and has been done by at least one (then) well-known anime dvd-ripping group. Probably wasn't very standards compliant, though.

    5. Re:Why is Matroska used? by jettoblack · · Score: 1

      The problem has to do with the intricacies of variable bit rate (VBR) codecs and the way that audio and video are interleaved.

      AVI and MOV only support very limited types of VBR and limited ways of interleaving audio with video. The result is that trying to put both H.264 video and AC3 or DTS audio in an AVI/MOV just doesn't work.

      Most professional, standardized formats like DVD/Bluray/broadcast/etc. use MPEG-2 transport streams to tie together multiple streams like this. M2T works great when it works, but it is a really difficult format to work with, with a lot of conflicting specs you have to pay to get access to and various patents you have to worry about. M2T have really poor cross-compatibility even if you follow the specs precisely, and there are a number of $1000+ software packages which are made just for the purpose of twiddling a few bits in your M2T file to be just right for your intended hardware/software player.

      MKV was invented as an open source solution to these kinds of problems. It is a kind of transport stream, but with loose specs and an open format which is much easier to use. That's why you see a lot of H.264/AC3 video files using the MKV container rather than M2T or AVI/MOV.

    6. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it's simply the best out there for it. It support just about everything you can mux into it. AVI just don't cut it any more. MP4 was close and it is a good container but it left one important thing out. In a bout of stupidity rivaling the bay of pigs and the bush election the audio codec of choice for dvd, ac3, was left out of the spec. That's right. The standard audio format can't be used in mp4.

      Now to be fair you can mux ac3 in a mp4 container using what is called user tracks or streams, or something like that. But that is not a official way to do it so it won't play on some mp4 devices.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    7. Re:Why is Matroska used? by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      AVI seems to have alot more overhead than MKV. There is a utility to convert AVI files to MKV files and I noticed the resulting file was often a a megabyte or two smaller than the original AVI file. When you're targeting a storage medium with a relatively limited amount of space (e.g. DVDs, MP3 players, etc.) I suppose it could help fit a bit more content on there.

      I noticed occasionally I'd have audio sync problems on the converted files though so I stopped doing it since a few megabytes here and there doesn't mean much when you have a terabyte drive.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    8. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Sancho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know why it's currently a favorite, but like ZFS, the goal for Matroska is for it to be the end-all be-all of container formats. They eventually want to be able to have DVD-like menu systems, for example. How sweet would it be to be able to rip your DVD (including menus and special features?)

      Matroska also supports an unlimited number of tracks. That's pretty neat, though I don't know if anyone's doing much with that.

      As I noted in another post, it even allows for variable frame-rate (VFR) encodings, meaning that the frame-rate can change in the middle of the video stream. This addresses a common problem with encoding DVD rips from sources with mixed content.

      Most modern television is filmed at 24fps (really 23.976). The film is then sometimes telecined to 30fps (really 29.97) to display on interlaced NTSC TVs. A goal for encoding is to reduce filesize--so if you can recover the 24fps video from the 30fps "source" (from a capture card or from a telecined DVD) then you can encode only 24fps instead of 30fps. In addition, you don't have interlacing in your output. The recovery process is called inverse telecine (IVTC.)

      The problem comes when producers draw on the video. Special effects may be created at a different frame rate than the filmed scenes. IVTC will be unable to recover if the animation is at 30fps. You'll get awful-looking animated shots. Alternatively, you can try deinterlacing instead of IVTC, but then you get awful-looking motion in the non-animated segments.

      Enter Matroska. Now you can IVTC when appropriate, deinterlace when appropriate, and simply keep the source frame-rate when appropriate. You get the best of all worlds, and all because you can store VFR video streams.

    9. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Most of the things that ripping groups do with AVI is non-standard. You can't use variable-bitrate audio in an AVI without breaking the standard. That means no mp3.

    10. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Fluffy+Bunnies · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Constant bitrate mp3? Also, you're replying to a guy who has dled enough rips to have come across an AVI with two audio tracks: you really think I needed entry level container format education?

    11. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compatibility with portable media players isn't something you should be worrying about with Bluray quality rips...

    12. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Probably wasn't very standards compliant, though.

      By your phrasing, you didn't seem too sure about the container.

      Let me guess--you're a scener who feels like he has some sort of reputation to uphold, and instead of continuing with civil discourse, you resort to chest-thumping.

      A better response might have been:

      Yeah, I knew that. I've actually been involved in video-encoding for a long time.

      Or maybe just not feeling the need to respond at all.

      Help make the Internet a better place--try not to be a dick when using it.

    13. Re:Why is Matroska used? by tibman · · Score: 1

      I'd say one of the big reasons is a hardware box doesn't need a license from Divx or anyone else to implement MKV.

      Quoted from wikipedia: "The Matroska Multimedia Container is an open standard free Container format, a file format that can hold an unlimited number of video, audio, picture or subtitle tracks inside a single file.[1] It is intended to serve as a universal format for storing common multimedia content, like movies or TV shows. Matroska is similar in conception to other containers like AVI, MP4 or ASF, but is entirely open in specification, with implementations consisting mostly of open source software."

      If that doesn't sound like a big deal.. it kinda is. Here is a quote from a DIVX Quarterly Report earlier last year: "These downloads include those for which we receive revenue as well as free downloads, such as limited-time trial versions, and downloads provided as upgrades to existing end users of our products. After the significant grass-roots adoption of our codec, the next step towards our goal was to license similar technology to consumer hardware device manufacturers and certify their products to ensure the interoperable support of DivX-encoded content. Our customers include major consumer video hardware original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. We are entitled to receive a royalty and/or license fee for DivX Certified devices that our customers ship. In addition to technology licensing to consumer hardware device manufacturers, we currently generate revenue from software licensing and related support, advertising and content distribution."

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    14. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Fluffy+Bunnies · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, I'm just tired of slashbot besserwissers. You know, people know just a bit more about a given topic than Joe Sixpack and therefore feel the need to wave their knowledge around, for example, by pointing out a simple potential flaw the scientists and engineers who worked for years on a project couldn't possibly have missed but failed to discuss whenever an article about some new technology is posted. Being an insufferable know-it-all is not exactly the height of social elegance either, you know?

    15. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Like I said--the way you phrased it sounded like you weren't sure. I think my post was perfectly reasonable, in context.

    16. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because Matroska is much, much better than any other container format, including the Quicktime-based MP4.

      Matroska supports linked ordered chapters. That's potentially sharing one (separated) copy of an OP and ED between all the episodes in a series, potentially, saving bits to be used on the rest.

      Matroska is the only container that properly supports both variable frame-rate video and variable bit-rate tracks and still allows seeking.

      Matroska is the only container that supports embedded fonts (for styled Advanced SubStation alpha subtitles); or, indeed, other embedded content like SVG overlays.

      Not to mention multiple video, audio and soft-subtitle tracks (either bitmap or, preferably, text or styled subs) in as many languages, angles or tracks as you want.

      It even supports DVD-style menus, though I don't think anyone's actually implemented that part yet.

      And it does all this while being more efficient than almost any other container. Smaller files.

      The reason why those programs deal poorly with .MKV files is simply because they're poor programs unable to deal well with state-of-the-art rips. We don't want to be stuck with an inferior format like .AVI ever, ever again. And the reason the pirates are using it is the same reason everyone else is using it; not for an ideological reason, but because it's damn good at what it does.

      DivX throwing their weight behind it will hopefully mean that more hardware contains proper, compliant Matroska support. Good.

    17. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, MP4 now does officially support AC3 (woohoo!). But it may not have when DivX decided to go with MKV. There are also some other deficiencies, due to the fact that some of the stuff that MP4 does "support" is actually non-standard hacks introduced by third parties, such as Nero and Apple. For example, the non-standard chapters that MP4 does not define but Nero introduced and everyone else copied are not Unicode. Yeah, sucks, especially since, unlike MKV, the MP4 specs cannot be updated easily to fix such lacunæ.

    18. Re:Why is Matroska used? by mariushm · · Score: 1

      The AVI container is very old and does not support certain things that modern codecs use.

      For example, it was not designed for variable bitrate MP3. Of course, vbr MP3's work but it's a hack and only works because people doing MP3 decoders added additional code to make it work.

      Same goes for x264. Some features of the encoding algorithm are not supported in the standard. Like B-Frames for example. Again, it works because they guys making the video codecs made it work in AVI.
      x264 programmers don't even do a Video For Windows codec, precisely because of these limitations. The codec people use on Media Player is made by a third party and it so happens those developers added support for AVI and workarounds.

      AVI also doesn't support more than 2 audio files and lots of subtitles. With MKV you can have several video tracks, lots of audio tracks, lots of subtitles, chapters and so on...

    19. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to have a fast enough computer to display every frame it seems like with MKV. With AVI, the audio would sync back up with key frames if it skipped a frame I believe.

      I think MKV needs to be looked at a little more before it gets ruled as the standard for HD video. It works for my Linux box that has enough CPU/GPU power, but it isn't quite there on my laptop.

    20. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you said:

      No, I'm just tired of slashbot besserwissers. ... Being an insufferable know-it-all is not exactly the height of social elegance either, you know?

      What most people will read:

      HURR DURR YOU STUPID DURR

      If you think you're special because you've got an avi with two audio tracks, I think your ego is clogging up the blood supply to your brain. Your posts show the eloquence and elegance of the average baboon, but at least you showed him your superior codec wisdom.

    21. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matroska (MKV) doesn't introduce some of the limitations MP4 does. There are better tools, and you can actually use AC3 streams (there are ways to do it, but not very compatibly).

      MKV also has better subtitle support, chapter support, standardized embedded cover art, better handling of multiple audio/video streams, DTS support, etc.

      For bonus points, MKV was designed with streaming in mind, and makes some things technically easier.

    22. Re:Why is Matroska used? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Matroska also has less overhead, plays damaged files better than AVI, has better audio/video sync, streams better, supports more codecs, and you can skip to points better.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    23. Re:Why is Matroska used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very simple.

      In the pirate scene, mkv was the only acceptable container for h264, which was the codec of choice for HD content.

      The next contender was mpeg4, but it's too patent-laden for free tools to be distributed in fascist countries.

    24. Re:Why is Matroska used? by atamido · · Score: 1

      Matroska also supports an unlimited number of tracks. That's pretty neat, though I don't know if anyone's doing much with that.

      As I noted in another post, it even allows for variable frame-rate (VFR) encodings, meaning that the frame-rate can change in the middle of the video stream. This addresses a common problem with encoding DVD rips from sources with mixed content.

      These are the two big points. Matroska stores packets with timecodes instead of using a packet sequence number tied to a frame rate. This means that you can vary your frame rates, or have gaps of arbitrary size between frames. This makes it particularly easy to join video where the ending of the first video's audio and video don't end in the same exact spot (something nearly impossible to do with AVI with re-encoding).

      Most containers use a frame rate system, which makes variable frame rate codecs impossible to use. For instance, Vorbis is variable frame rate because packets cover a different amount of time. That is why it is impossible to place Vorbis in many containers.

      And because you can interleave packets from however many different streams, it's trivial to use however many video, audio, and subtitle streams playing simultaneously from a single video file.

      Of course, this is also its biggest hindrance. Video editing software is all designed around the idea of a constant frame rate, which Matroska has no sense of. Video editors and broadcasters are a different breed from computer people, and are stuck with the idea that video and audio be a constant frame rate at a constant bit rate. I remember the discussions for the (I believe it was the Chinese HD DVD format they were working on) where Vorbis was proposed. They wanted a constant bitrate audio format, and the Xiph folks told them Vorbis was a variable bit rate format, but it could have a ceiling for how high the bit rate got. This apparently wasn't good enough, and the Xiph folks had to tell them they could pad the Vorbis stream to make it constant bit rate.

  22. An open letter to the powers-that-be by pvera · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... or at least the ones that handle the media that can be read by the Xbox 360.

    Please add MKV support to the Xbox 360. Don't touch anything else.

    Thanks!

    --
    Pedro
    ----
    The Insomniac Coder
    1. Re:An open letter to the powers-that-be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will genuinely tell everyone I know to buy a 360 ASAP if MKV support is FINALLY added :)

    2. Re:An open letter to the powers-that-be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will genuinely tell everyone I know to buy a 360 ASAP if MKV support is FINALLY added :)

      As will I, but with one added condition: ditch the 4 GiB limit. Idiots.

    3. Re:An open letter to the powers-that-be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use Xenon MKV to repackage your MKVs and MP4s to play back on your 360. It doesn't take long.

    4. Re:An open letter to the powers-that-be by pvera · · Score: 1

      We *can* convert MKV to MP4 already, that's not the issue.

      All it takes is anything that knows how to do a video passthrough (like QT Pro + Perian) and convert just the audio. A normal TV episode is usually converted in 5 minutes or less, which is great but still means one thing to do before I can watch it on the 360.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
  23. Way to be out of touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles. It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions. I have a feeling MKV is exactly what's needed right now. A lot of hi-def media devices are already supporting it, everything from China these days supports it.

    You can imagine that media companies hate it simply because it doesn't allow lock in to a format.

    And in case you don't get it, this is not not like an OGG VOBIS debate; this is about using open standards for data. You're making the equivalent argument that all documents should be in MS Office format because that's all you ever use.

    MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.

    1. Re:Way to be out of touch by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles

      This is "superior"? The MPEG transport stream has supported all of that since MPEG2.

      We don't seem to be particularly good at making progress here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Way to be out of touch by Frenchman113 · · Score: 1

      MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles.

      You mean like AVI, MPEG, and MP4 all do? http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html

      It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions.

      It sure as hell does care. Read http://haali.net/mkv/codecs.pdf which goes into very specific detail on how to work with the "underlying codecs".

      I have a feeling MKV is exactly what's needed right now.

      And I have a feeling that you're wrong.

      A lot of hi-def media devices are already supporting it, everything from China these days supports it.

      Citation needed.

      You can imagine that media companies hate it simply because it doesn't allow lock in to a format.

      And in case you don't get it, this is not not like an OGG VOBIS debate; this is about using open standards for data.

      1) Are you trying to suggest that OGG and *Vorbis* are not open standards? 2) MPEG (all revisions) and VP1 are also open standards.

      You're making the equivalent argument that all documents should be in MS Office format because that's all you ever use.

      MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.

      When did he say that?

    3. Re:Way to be out of touch by tepples · · Score: 1

      MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles.

      AVI supports up to 256 streams, including video, audio, and subtitles. And variable bit rate audio streams aren't a "dirty hack"; they are just documented in MSDN as using video-style seeking. If your player can't demux them, it's a defect in your player, not the AVI specification. But unfortunately, even DirectShow's AVI demuxer has defects.

      It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions.

      Nor does AVI; your codec just has to have a four-character identifier ("fourcc").

      Source

    4. Re:Way to be out of touch by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.

      "this formats on it's way to the 'it list'! Blast-back kudos all around!"

      in all seriousness though.

      I agree with you on the superiority of the format, but I do think more easily accessible tools should be available for monkeying around inside the files. (for instance, altering subtitles, adding subtitles, adding audio tracks).

      I see nothing accessible for *nix right now beyond cli's so arcane they make sandscrit look common and easy.

      It is very hard for me to find ways to do simple split, concat, mux, and demux operations under *nix

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:Way to be out of touch by discord5 · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling MKV is exactly what's needed right now.

      And I have a feeling that you're wrong.

      Splendid argument! You clearly are victorious on this one.

      MPEG (all revisions) and VP1 are also open standards.

      For a fee MPEG is very open for you to implement. Have a look here and here. Mind you H.264 is equally open, so the argument about free and open is moot anyway. We can debate the legality of patents and the GPL as much as we want, but the truth is that in some countries you're very likely to get sued if you ship a commercial product without paying the fee.

      MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.

      I don't know if Matroska is here to stay, but I'm sure seeing a lot of it lately. I personally prefer Matroska because it's worked well enough for me. If it's here to stay is something we'll see if in 5 years. I'm pretty sure that its use will predominantly be by pirates/thieves/ninjas/media-liberators/whatever-term-you-fancy, and that a small minority will actually use it for something legal. The major media outlets will most likely ignore it completely, because they've already invested tons of money in MPEG and both standards still do the same damn thing. The average consumer won't care as long as the moving pictures keep coming to his giant widescreen tv.

      The thing I'm most hyped about anyway is H.264, or rather my experiences with x264. I've been using it to do some tests for encoding data from an HD camera and I'm quite pleased with the results.

    6. Re:Way to be out of touch by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      I think we'll see more tools to support .mkv once it reaches critical mass. A few months ago I hadn't heard of mkv, and now it doesn't seem so esoteric. Perhaps in another year, you'll see more/better support in standard tools.

      I could see Apple, Microsoft, or even Adobe challenging mkv by updating their proprietary standards, but to do it, they may have to swallow some corporate pride and agree to support a format they don't control. Nobody makes money from MKV, so it's never going to have the backing of AVI, MOV, or even MP3, so if it succeeds it will be on the merits.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    7. Re:Way to be out of touch by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      mkvtoolnix?

      It's a pretty nice GUI frontend to the (admittedly arcane) mkvmerge and friends that runs on windows, mac and linux. I use it all the time, and like any good CLI frontend should it tells you the command line it's using to aid in your future scripting efforts.

      http://www.videohelp.com/toolsimages/mkvtoolnix_609.jpg

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    8. Re:Way to be out of touch by atamido · · Score: 1

      MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles.

      You mean like AVI, MPEG, and MP4 all do? http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html

      AVI supports multiple streams *with severe limitations*. MPEG-TS/PS didn't carry anything other than MPEG formats, and was even worse than AVI for most circumstances. MP4 is the first industry container with proper support for more advanced features, though it has a heavy feature slant towards broadcaster design.

      It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions.

      It sure as hell does care. Read http://haali.net/mkv/codecs.pdf which goes into very specific detail on how to work with the "underlying codecs".

      You notice that most of that is just saying "the codec initialization data is placed in the CodecPrivate element? The rest is details on this as prior to Matroska, codec developers would just place initialization information wherever.

      In this respect, Matroska dramatically simplifies how codecs are used. My favorite is text subtitles, which are just timecoded Matroska data packets with the text to be displayed on the screen. The Matroska packet has the timecode the packet should be used at (when the subtitle appears on the screen), and the length of time the packet should be be used for (how long the subtitle stays on the screen for). Using another subtitle format, the exact same packet timecodes are used, with only the data for what displays on the screen changing.

      It's taken a while for developers to get used to the idea that stream information be kept at the container level instead of being hidden inside of the codec, but once they saw it, they never wanted to go back. Many codecs prior to Matroska would store timing and packetization information in their own proprietary method/container. Now codec and software developers can completely ignore that part of development and just work on improving the data compression/decompression.

      From the linked list, I see RealVideo, Theora/Vorbis, AC3, DTS, WAV, TTA Audio, WavPack, FLAC, SRT/Text, SSA/ASS, VOBSUB, and numerous MPEG containers. That's probably at least 15 different commonly used completely incompatible "containers". Now, a developer just needs to send data to and from a Matroska library and they can read/write any of those formats into the same file. Prior to Matroska there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get some of these codecs to work with each other.

      Just because you don't see the benefits doesn't mean they aren't there, and aren't a huge deal for developers and users.

  24. Why Matroska and similar questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For an entertaining and informative introduction to the many container formats and video codecs you could read this gentle introduction to video encoding by Mark Pilgrim.

  25. Re:Really? Do you need to associate it with piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H264 alone is not what many recognize as the format of choice for HD rips. H264 in a matroska container, which is not supported by any of the above (Bluray/ipods/etc.), is what the article is talking about.

  26. Re:Really? Do you need to associate it with piracy by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of those use MKV.

  27. At least on SageTV, it is the best. by coryking · · Score: 1

    DivX is the best format to use for archiving TV shows you've recorded. It will usually half to third the size of a one hour show and the quality reduction isn't very noticeable(as in, the lady doesn't notice). It is a native format of the media extender and its bigger, high-def brother.

    However, I do have to somewhat agree with you about both DivX and Mp3 getting their roots in piracy. I distinctly remember the first time I heard one of those new fangled mp3's in like 1997. Sneaker Pimps 6 Underground. The whole song, 4 megs and tons more on this new fangled XDCC thing on IRC. What could possibly go wrong :-) DivX? Years later, random Simpsons episodes, 50->100 megs a piece with a tolerable reduction in quality. Also available on that new refined XDCC thing.


    @joedcc list
    !joedcc "Blah blah blah.mp3"
    ... or something. It has been a long while.

  28. Codec vs Container by coryking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Took a while for that distinction to sink in. Here is another container format you'll be hearing about a lot more in the coming months. QAM and ATSC. QAM is only a signal modulation and can be used to stream any kind of container format--usually some variant of ATSC. Think of it, I guess, as like the low-level ethernet stuff--ethernet doesn't care if you use TCP/IP or IPX/SPX. ATSC is kind of like TCP/IP or IPX/SPX, it defines how information is sent over the low-level stuff, but for the most part it doesn't care what the information is (MPEG2, H.264). ATSC typically only carries MPEG2, but I guess it has been updated to carry H.264/MPEG4. I guess it can only carry AC-3 audio streams and not mp3.

    If you really want to force yourself to learn about video and audio codecs and containers, force yourself to use ffmpeg on the command line for a while. It's docs and number of switches can seem daunting at first, but just remember what you are trying to do is tell it what codecs to use, what bitrates to use, and any modification to the video/audio stream (aspect ratio, resolution, framerate, etc). If you type "ffmpeg -formats | less", you'll get a list of what your version of ffmpeg can read and what containers and codecs it can write to. Keep in mind not every container can hold all the codecs; you'll have to consult wikipedia for that. The whole exercise will make you think about every aspect of your transcoding experience.

    PS: is it me or does chrome have a horrible spellchecker?

    1. Re:Codec vs Container by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative

      QAM is not a container format. It is a modulation scheme (as implied by the name).

      A QAM (in the video world) normally carries an MPEG Transport Stream, which is sort of like a container, except that it's a sequential stream. But the MPEG TS does carry a mux of video, audio, and data such as subtitles, so it would be more analogous to a container format than QAM in this context. And, in fact, there is a container format that is a direct sibling to the MPEG TS, the MPEG Program Stream, which is the "container" that DVDs use. (Sorta. File size limits prevent the use of an absolutely pure MPEG PS.)

      A container is used to cram all the components of a program into a random-access file. QAMs are linear streams, so the two don't directly correlate.

      Okay, having said all that I did a little research, and many do call a TS a container. Either way, a QAM certainly isn't one. Also, everything I said applies equally to ATSC. (Though ATSC is a standards body, so the waters are somewhat muddier.)

      -Peter

  29. PS3 Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's hoping the PS3 gets MKV support soon!

    As Sony officially supports Divx hopefully its only a matter of time.

  30. AC3 by mahsah · · Score: 1

    Simple. Spec MP4 (the standard container) doesn't support AC3. You have to recode it to AAC 5.1 which is lossy and a pain in the ass.

    Plus the authoring tools for MKV are better. Not to mention the subtitle support if you are a fan of foreign films.

    1. Re:AC3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I accidentally posted this as a response to the wrong comment. Apologies.)

      Actually, MP4 now does officially support AC3 (woohoo!). But it may not have when DivX decided to go with MKV. There are also some other deficiencies, due to the fact that some of the stuff that MP4 does "support" is actually non-standard hacks introduced by third parties, such as Nero and Apple. For example, the non-standard chapters that MP4 does not define but Nero introduced and everyone else copied are not Unicode. Yeah, sucks, especially since, unlike MKV, the MP4 specs cannot be updated easily to fix such lacunæ.

  31. Playstation 3 then? by kylegordon · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that Sony will soon provide DivX 7 support on the PS3 and PSP? I wrote about the potential here - http://lodge.glasgownet.com/2008/12/29/ps3-and-matroska-could-be-soon/

    Could we soon be streaming MKV files over the network to it, or playing them directly, with no transcoding?

  32. Lol. This is their final joke... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ... to show, how ridiculous their DivX "format" is. What is DivX? It was an encoder for an old version of MPEG4. (Like XviD, 3ivX, and many others.)
    Now it's an encoder for H.264? Well, we already have x264 for that, and it work great.

    This is a name, with a whole company behind it, is search for a purpose where there is none.

    As long as they insist of "being their own format" (which they aren't, and never were), acting as if you needed their own player and file extension (for AVIs, or now MKVs?), and similar tactics, I will boycott them. Which isn't very hard, because I never needed them in the first place. I encode in Matroska + H.264 + AC3 or Vorbis for years now. And before that, it was XviD + AC3 or MP3 in AVI (for lack of other options).

    There is no DivX.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Lol. This is their final joke... by Chabo · · Score: 1

      DivX makes an encoder/decoder package that you can buy from them. However, their primary business seems to be certifying hardware devices for playback of their format.

      DivX 4-6 == MPEG-4 Part 2 (XviD is also MPEG-4 Part 2 compatible)
      DivX 7 == MPEG-4 Part 10 (MKV+H.264)

      A few months ago I bought a DVD player, and I got the specific model that I did because it was certified DivX 6 compatible. That means I can take a DVD filled with DivX 6-compatible files (actually encoded with XviD), and they'll play back to back. This is very handy.

      If I get a player that supports DivX 7, then that means I can take MKV files encoded with x264, and play them off of a disc as well.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  33. OMG. Is this the ministry of disinformation?? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is not illegal to download content at all!
    What is breaking a contract, is to actually give (offering is not enough) content to others (implicitly with no license), when the license under which you got it does not allow this.

    And even if this happens, you still have to clarify how to handle that breach of contract. Only if you refuse to come to terms with the other party, you will end up in court. And then it's not only up to them to define what you have to do, to make that breach Ok. It's just as much up to you. And the judge watches that you two come to terms on a legal, and hopefully fair level.

    Everything else is deliberate disinformation. Which of course is used to make you conform to their terms before going to court, and to manipulate the badly informed judge in court, so you won't get your part of the freedom, legality and fairness. And it's horrible, how many people here on Slashdot got already conditioned into that mindset, and are unknowingly spreading it.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  34. Let us know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us know when you find an AVI that supports 4+ sound streams (for different languages) and supports H264 and has MTS sound. And for good measure, show me how an AVI will support subtitles without resorting to external files (a.k.a. "hacks").

    Hell, I'm not sure an AVI will support more than 2 sound streams *period*, and certainly not with VBR audio and video. And let me know when AVI will support a direct DVD rip of menus and navigation structures within a DVD.

    AVI and MOV were great in 1995. But we're 10 years past that. At least.

  35. WD TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't anyone mentioned yet that theres a chipset out now that decodes mkv, VC-1, and anything else you throw at it? The Sigma SMP8635LF has started replacing the standard video decoding chip in set top media players. Therefor it matters not what DiVX does, they've already been beaten.

    My WD TV rocks playing 1080p on my big screen.
    http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37533
    http://www.wdc.com/en/products/wdtv/

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re:HDCP by Chabo · · Score: 1

    Any video card, or any monitor/TV, that includes HDMI must support HDCP. There are monitors and video cards that support HDCP over DVI but don't have an HDMI port, but if you want to be absolutely sure, that's probably the best way.

    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  38. Uhh.. that would be the POINT of divx recognition by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    as the container format nobody wants.

    It doesnt work on major brand portables, doesnt work in most standalone DVD players, nobody supports it
    Only a minority would download an obscure format and put up with re-coding hassle etc to get it displayed on their player of choice, why put up with the trouble when .AVI/.mpg/.mp4 is available and far more accessible

    And Divx supporting the matroska container will suddenly solve all those problems by providing a recognized "main-stream corporate" outlet which can screen and thereby add more permanence to the container format.

    Matroska has had spotty to non-existent support on many american portables because it is constantly evolving*. Divx will act as a periodic filter through which more stable releases can be made. Once the format can be made fixed for a year or two at a time, you will see more support.

    Note, however, that this does come at a price. This "main-stream" endorsement will put more pressure on the format to slow down its development. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, as the recent developments smack of "feature creep"

    *current progress is in using dvd style chapters to connect multiple clips in "object oriented videos", which allows tv series which engage in a lot of footage re-use to save a little space and production cost

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  39. Response from the powers-that-be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please add MKV support to the Xbox 360. Don't touch anything else.

    Thanks!

    Sure, great idea!

    We'll add MKV support in the next XBox 360 revision we're coming out with.

    We think it'll be out in March and be called the XBox 360: "We think we finally got all the bugs worked out of it" Edition. It'll come with a coupon for a free exchange if the machine suffers a RRoD or eats you DVD*.

    We think all our current users will want to upgrade to this new product, especially if we include MKV support as you suggest.

    Thanks!

    (*some restrictions apply, see back of coupon for details)

  40. Try using XBMC to play MKV by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    I have an old box hooked up to my parent's TV that is setup with XBMC and so far I've never yet had an issue with playing MKV...you might want to give that a try, see if it plays better on your system?

    --bornagainpenguin

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    1. Re:Try using XBMC to play MKV by watice · · Score: 1

      I had the same setup until recently. What I'm wondering is how bluray mkv rips play on Verizon's settop boxes.. the multihome DVRs should stream these, but how well? Does the playback depend on the hardware the settop boxes are running?

  41. Windows 7 mkv support by dingo8baby · · Score: 1

    It's possible the point will be moot, as Microsoft might even include mkv support out of the box for Windows 7. As of now, the current Beta does not play mkvs out of the box, BUT, the registry includes class keys for .mkv files, something previous versions of windows did not. Windows 7 already supports mp4 containers and h264/x264 and xvid codecs out of the box. It's possible Microsoft is working on their own mastroska splitter for use with their media foundation codecs for inclusion in the RTM. It would be nice if Microsoft made it unnecessary the need of third-party applications to handle the current codecs and file formats.

  42. Mod parent UP! by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    We all need to remember our roots! ;-)

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  43. It's your video card (or, rather, it isn't) by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    x264 is very processor intensive to decode; you'd need a Core 2 duo running at (not sure here) probably 2.4-2.8 GHz to successfully decode that content at 720p. Not sure of other resolutions. Most people who are able to decode with slower processors likely have hardware decoders in their video cards which do most of the heavy lifting. When I built my media PC, I skimped on the processor (1.6GHz C2D clocked at 2.2) and made sure the video card could decode AVC (aka x264) in hardware.

    My laptop, A 1.7GHz P mobile which can smoothly run WMVs at 720p (but not at 1080, also not sure of the actual codec...the stuff from MS website) can't even sniff at running a 720p x264.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:It's your video card (or, rather, it isn't) by Trixter · · Score: 1

      When I built my media PC, I skimped on the processor (1.6GHz C2D clocked at 2.2) and made sure the video card could decode AVC (aka x264) in hardware.

      What player do you use that decodes H.264 using the graphics card hardware?

    2. Re:It's your video card (or, rather, it isn't) by NorQue · · Score: 1
      Quoting myself from another thread here:

      I'm playing back a lot 720p x264 on an Intel T2400/Core Duo 1.86 GHz with Ubuntu without any problems. Granted, it's Core Duo, but decoders aren't optimized for multithreading, AFAIK. [...] one processor is only about 20-40% used during playback.

      I'm doing so since end of 2006 when the first 720p rips from HDTV surfaced, I also don't have any kind of hardware acceleration.

    3. Re:It's your video card (or, rather, it isn't) by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      wrong. it doesn't take much at all to decode 720p. a core 2 2.2ghz e2200 can decode 1080p encodes. and that is a old low end budget intel cpu probably being phased out as we speak.

  44. Not just Flash by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    QuickTime has supported streaming H.264 since well before Flash, and it's coming in the next version of Silverlight as well.

    http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/H264-and-AAC-support-coming-in-Silverlight/

    DivX has a very different useage model than Flash (downloads with a player app instead of streaming to a browser plugin). They're hardly competing head to head.

    As for container support, Flash is just MPEG-4. The Adobe model is to use "dumb" media formats and control high-level display functions via the Flash application itself.

    That said, a MKV parser could be written for Silverlight via managed code, including caption overlay support, multilanguage audio, etcetera. The Silverlight MediaStreamSource API allows for parsers and protocols to be written in managed code, while still using the native decoders built into Silverlight.

    http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/First-MediaStreamSource-example-is-up/

    That'd be a cool project to see!

  45. ...but not just from Blu-ray by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/First-MediaStreamSource-example-is-up/

    Well, not all from Blu-ray, though :).

    It's a bad article. There's nothing intrinsically infringing about MKV + H.264. And there's defintely nothing Blu-ray specific about this, unless they're saying that it can handle a MKV that encapsulates the unrecompressed original Blu-ray bitstreams. Is anyone actually using THAT for piracy? I thought most download HD was still 720p.

  46. Re:Way to be out of touch -WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong. The container format Apple donated years ago (2003) is well documented and supported on tens of millions of devices.

    It does EVERYTHING mkv does, and does it better.

    MPEG-4 Part 14 is also known as ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003

    These are .mp4 containers and can contain ANY type of codec and multiple streams, etc.

    Its identical to MOV format but also has a few additions.

    mkv files are typically horrible interlaced in such a way that the players do not take advantage of streaming or read ahead properly

    in 8 years from now MPEG (ISO) multimedia container will exist and mkv will be a relic like RIFF or the original AVI

    You claim "this is about using open standards for data" ? then you are ignorant if you do not know that MPEG has the worlds most superior container format definition. Even though its a massive specification. I am not talking about CODECS.

  47. MPlayer? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Does DivX/MKV content play in MPlayer? Specifically, the PPC version with the SPE drivers for the PS3?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  48. interestingly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of them HAVE in fact touched a woman before.

  49. load of tosh, divx late this time, mkv/h264 alread by Teriblows · · Score: 1

    its nothing like last time divx came out. in the bad old days of mpeg4's early days people had trouble encoding videos. there was a dearth of choices for encoding stuff, people had to rely on hacked ms codec. then the xvid alternative was still in development, and divx stepped in and filled the gap. there is no such need this time. h264/mkv is easily done by grey market standards and support for playback is also everywhere in the community.