Just as another strike against .mp4, I was unable to play Omega's output.mp4 with my basic setup.
I'm using Media Player Classic with the most recent k-lite codec pack.
Just as another strike against just as another strike, this video played back perfectly on MPC 6.4.9.0 and K-Lite Mega Codec Pack 1.50.
I don't know, maybe MP4 loves me more than you lol. ‰)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Just as another strike against .mp4, I was unable to play Omega's output.mp4 with my basic setup.
I'm using Media Player Classic with the most recent k-lite codec pack. The error I get is...
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/58/error7be.jpg
I could try and get it to work with my other stuff, but it's honestly not worth the effort to try and fulfill a standard.
Media Player Classic's weird. It's a stand-alone player which contains a complete decoding library for MPEG-1, 2, and 4, like VLC, but it's also a front-end for DirectShow and can utilize your "Video for Windows" codecs/containers. Maybe it's confusing itself about where it should be decoding from.
JXQ wrote:
MPC (with ffdshow), what I use to watch all the AVI's I download here, did not play this file for me. It loaded it, detected its length (2:30 or so), and then just sat there and wouldn't play.
I also have Quicktime Alternative installed, but I wouldn't think that should cause problems.
QuickTime and RealPlayer architectures
Although this player is primarily based on the DirectShow architecture, if installed on your computer, it can also use the QuickTime and the RealPlayer architectures to play their native files.
The playing compatibility of Media Player depends on the availability of DirectShow, QuickTime, RealMedia and Shockwave filters. There are two distributions known as QuickTime Alternative and Real Alternative which bundle the required QuickTime and RealPlayer components without the need to install the corresponding players.
I believe QuickTime Alternative supports up to QuickTime 6, but doesn't have the new H.264 codec introduced in QuickTime 7. Instead of falling back on a DirectShow decoder (or, hell, even its own built-in MPEG-4 implementation), Media Player Classic is digging in the QuickTime library and it can't find the codec QA doesn't support. That's the program's problem, if you ask me. And a hell of an obscure one. It hardly spells doom for my graph.
So these other decoding things we've been telling people to download are ruining their media players' ability to play mp4 correctly?
Only in MPC's case, due to its schizophrenia of having potentially three fucking decoders in separate places that do the same goddam thing.
All the other players are either strictly DirectShow front-ends (Windows Media Player, Winamp) or all-in-one players with everything built-in (VLC, MPlayer).
The race is on to see who will solve this problem first! Will QuickTime Alternative support H.264 first? Or will MPC learn to leave the QuickTime library alone for anything that isn't .mov? I'M ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT.
Why didn't you call me out on that in my first post, where I didn't only use fuck three times, but used it in two consecutive sentences!
MPEG-4 gets me angry, man. Some people get pissed about sloppy, IE-only web design. For me, it's about the general apathy towards seeing the best media format on earth go to shit.
MPEG-4 gets me angry, man. Some people get pissed about sloppy, IE-only web design. For me, it's about the general apathy towards seeing the best media format on earth go to shit.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you, myself. The published movies work - what else do you expect? They're not going to work more because you use a different container format. :)
That being said... chill and relax. It's not worth it getting that worked up over things like this. :)
Only in MPC's case, due to its schizophrenia of having potentially three fucking decoders in separate places that do the same goddam thing.
So how do I watch Quicktime and Realmedia if I'm supposed to use MPC without QA and RA?
Well, ffmpeg has reverse-engineered that pesky Sorenson 3 video codec that's in all the QuickTime movies (the audio's usually only MP3).
You can play them in VLC, as I think that's the only player that has support for both ffmpeg and the MOV file format (which is actually what MP4 is based on).
MOV hasn't been implemented in a DirectShow decoder mostly out of apathy, I guess. The format is openly documented, and is really just a subset of the already-supported MP4. So. The code's already written.
schneelocke wrote:
I'm not quite sure I'm following you, myself. The published movies work - what else do you expect? They're not going to work more because you use a different container format. :)
The published files work in players specifically designed to accomodate them, not on the rest of the MPEG-4 platform. Any commercial version of MPEG-4 -- QuickTime, an iPod, an HD-DVD you burned that you want to work in an HD-DVD player, or maybe on the PS3's media center capabilities -- that is actually following the spec and going by the book doesn't know how to read AVI, because it's not part of the spec.
Now, I'm not saying I would be watching a speed-run on an iPod, or anything, but every step towards legitimacy and uniformity the format takes brings us closer to the day when we don't have to have these kinds of threads about, oh, maybe the problem is that player x is looking for codec y in library z, but I don't know what the problem is. Wouldn't it be nice to download a video file and just know it's going to work, just like an MP3 or a JPEG?
And I'm not getting "worked up." I've been up over 24 hours at this point. I feel like Jack Bauer. Hunting down the evil AVI-using terrorists.
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
...Or is it? You could change the world if you manage to tell enough people about something!
This isn't the first place I've raised this issue with. I don't actively go out looking for sites like this, but if I happen to be a member/user of the site, of course I'm going to educate them. Some people just don't give a fuck, some people thank me, say "I had no idea." Because now they don't have to worry about who can open the peanut bag and who can't.
The published files work in players specifically designed to accomodate them, not on the rest of the MPEG-4 platform. Any commercial version of MPEG-4 -- QuickTime, an iPod, an HD-DVD you burned that you want to work in an HD-DVD player, or maybe on the PS3's media center capabilities -- that is actually following the spec and going by the book doesn't know how to read AVI, because it's not part of the spec.
In other words... the problem with AVI is that players not designed to play AVI files cannot play AVI files?
You could use the same reasoning to argue that we shouldn't use H.264 at all because DivX-certified DVD players won't be able to play that. But you're missing the point, I think: the main concern [1] is that people can watch these videos on their computers, so while the ability to watch stuff on other devices is a plus, it's not really relevant for determining what the best container format, codec and all that is.
1. Well, as far as I can see... someone correct me if I'm wrong. :)
And I'm not getting "worked up." I've been up over 24 hours at this point. I feel like Jack Bauer. Hunting down the evil AVI-using terrorists.
But you're missing the point, I think: the main concern [1] is that people can watch these videos on their computers, so while the ability to watch stuff on other devices is a plus, it's not really relevant for determining what the best container format, codec and all that is.
QuickTime's not a device. Millions of people have QuickTime on their computers, and that is an instant MPEG-4 platform right there. And RealPlayer is either in the process of or has put MPEG-4 into their player. What if someone else wanted to make a GPL player that followed the spec to the letter and didn't bother implementing the nonstandard AVI hacks?
And what should be relevant for determining what the best container format?
- Ubiquity?
MP4 wins here. QuickTime is preinstalled on tons of computers (easily eclipses users of all codec packs combined), and also comes with every copy of iTunes, and we know how popular that's become.
- Actual support for the features of the codec?
MP4 wins again. We've been over the B-frame issue.
- File size and performance?
MP4 has a faster seek time than AVI, has less overhead, and muxes faster.
So basically the only argument for AVI is "That's the way we've always done it," because we like complexity for the sake of complexity.
I think you definitely need some sleep. ^^
I was joking. Well, I mean, I've still actually been up for 24 hours, but not that it has anything to do with this thread. I'm waiting until it gets as late as possible before sleep right now so that my days and nights don't suddenly get flipflopped.
>So basically the only argument for AVI is "That's the way we've always done it," ...
Yeah. That. And the fact that it actually works, which couldn't be said about your MP4-file for a lot of people in this thread.
I'd rather stick with something that works. We get enough "the movie won't play!" threads as it is because people don't read the faq and download ffdshow.
And another problem with mp4 is that people here are probably not experienced enough (see DeHackEd) to encode mp4 files perfectly nor find a good software. I use Virtual Dub as it allows pretty everything you can do with a movie-file (cut, append, mix, encode etc.) and it doesn't support mp4 at all which is a big minus in my book.
It's sadly absurd when a community built around the concept of technical excellence for its own sake is criticizing and ridiculing someone for delivering technical information just because it might eventually encourage the improving of certain behaviors. What is it about people who cringe from the implication of maybe eventually considering changing a behavior, as if a taskmaster just cracked a whip over their head this very moment? Are we sheep?
Learning file formats is not entertaining, and isn't self-serving to 100% of the population. Oh well. Get over it or ignore it. The information is entirely well founded in principle, well reasoned, objectively proven, and re-explained in a more-than-patient-and-thorough fashion in the face of blatant incoherence and naysaying. Please share legitimate concerns, but there is no reason to detract or obfuscate an idea just for the sake of naysaying.
While we're on the subject of potentially altering behaviors for a better experience, we may as well invite people to use <a href="http://mplayerhq.hu">real</a> <a href="http://videolan.org">software</a> to play their files with as well.
Perhaps it would help if someone elaborated on the problems people are having with playing these nonstandard AVI files, so that more naysayers and people who learn through experience rather than principles will understand the potential gravity of the situation. As an example of creative compromise instead of pointless naysaying and bleating, maybe we can publish both formats (avi vs. mkv/mp4) for some time.
Let's get back to the idea of doing our best to pursue technical excellence for its own sake.
Well said... I'm surprised that people like Dehacked or Bisqwit would favor a hacky solution over a simple, standardized one. But it's probably a bad idea to host multiple versions of the same video, since that's more videos to upload and download and there will be fewer seeds for a single video.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
I'm surprised enough just that community leaders would make a post for the sole purpose of stripping a robust technical discussion down to a pithy personal remark.
Here, I do have Media player classic + FFDSHOW+Quicktime alternative+real alternative and NO MPC doesn't rely on QT alternative to try opening Mpeg-4 file but FFDShow does the job.
So that's not the problem.
Again, dear BoMF, I'd like to point out that we're talking both about future technical excellence for its *own* sake, as well as solving existing problems. A migration path is clearly needed. There are plenty of unpopular videos hosted here, and the elegant solution thereof (http://tasvideos.org/Helping.html). That's pretty much how it's done.
It'd be a matter of optionally uploading two videos if someone's feeling generous, and it's a matter of even just a couple of people seeding them. It's purely optional. The main thing is to publish as many encoding HOWTOs and playback HOWTOs as possible. People who absolutely must use nonfree software are debugging their codec combos and posting info, which will lead to a playback HOWTO.
I'll reiterate that the use of free/libre software (especially VLC and mplayer) makes all this a nonissue.
