Assassinator Wrote:DivX and XviD are both video codecs. A difference being that DivX is proprietary, while XviD is freeware. I think XviD is actually tested to give better results than DivX.

Not really.  If I recall correctly, Xvid was actually developed by the same people who did DivX.  The issue is that you have to pay a license fee for using DivX.  Since Xvid is based on MPEG's technology as well, you should theoretically be doing the same thing, however, the developers got around the issue by distributing the source code on their website, as opposed to a compiled binary (probably some obscure clause in the license?).
It's still somewhat a legal gray issue.

Assassinator Wrote:Most MKV stuff you find out there probably uses x264.

Most of the MKVs I've seen, interestingly, use Xvid.  But a large proportion use H.264 as well.

Senseito Sakura Wrote:HOLY Spoon!!

Have you actually watched all of those!?!??!

Nope.

Assassinator Wrote:Each company wants their own codec so that people will have to pay to use theirs, and so that they don't pay others to use others. If some company wants to use their codec, they will have to pay. So if a game has DivX stuff in it, they would have to pay the owners = $$$.

Microsoft have theirs, so does apply (quicktime), Nero (Nero digital video), DivX is proprietary too...

There's not that many formats.  The majority as based off MPEG-4.  WMV is probably the only other one.



Anyways, with Adobe implementing AVC and HE-AAC into their latest versions of flash, I wonder how long it'll be before they become more popular streaming formats. (if you've noticed, all the embedded videos I've uploaded here are AVC + HE-AAC)

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:

Assassinator Wrote:Each company wants their own codec so that people will have to pay to use theirs, and so that they don't pay others to use others. If some company wants to use their codec, they will have to pay. So if a game has DivX stuff in it, they would have to pay the owners = $$$.

Microsoft have theirs, so does apply (quicktime), Nero (Nero digital video), DivX is proprietary too...

There's not that many formats.  The majority as based off MPEG-4.  WMV is probably the only other one.

WMA is far from the only non MPEG4 codec. On2 VP6, Real Video, Ogg Theora, Sorensen... lots more for other purposes, like huffyuv.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Anyways, with Adobe implementing AVC and HE-AAC into their latest versions of flash, I wonder how long it'll be before they become more popular streaming formats. (if you've noticed, all the embedded videos I've uploaded here are AVC + HE-AAC)

Become popular might not take that long. Depends on your desired degree of popularity. To become the most popular will probably takes AGES. (MP3 is still most popular audio format. after that long).

Also, there are a few problems, like AVC and HE-AAC aren't the easiest thing to decode, so the old crappy computers are going to fail on it. So commercial companies and stuff might not want to swap. Compatability is very important to them.

And AVC and HE-AAC aren't the easiest things to encode either. So high volume sites like youtube might have problems with that.

(This post was last modified: 03/06/2008 06:22 AM by Assassinator.)

^^ Interestingly, I think it's possible to stream reasonable quality HD resolution clips now, as long as you have a fast enough connection (probably 3+Mbps).

Assassinator Wrote:WMA is far from the only non MPEG4 codec. On2 VP6, Real Video, Ogg Theora, Sorensen... lots more for other purposes, like huffyuv.

Who actually uses those formats though?

VP6 was used a bit, in a few things (flash video, EVD).  Real, perhaps, but no one uses it nowadays (at least the newer versions of it).  Theora is royalty free.  Never seen anyone use Sorenson.

I said the wrong thing.  There's a number of video codecs, but in terms of the ones people actually use, it's either MPEG or WMV.

Assassinator Wrote:Become popular might not take that long. Depends on your desired degree of popularity. To become the most popular will probably takes AGES. (MP3 is still most popular audio format. after that long).

There are a number of things different from internet streaming and the field that MP3 occupies.
Internet typically evolves MUCH faster than other technologies.
But I'll give it that Youtube is unlikely going to change its codec, thus streaming H.264 won't become a majority any time soon.
Flash does have extensive coverage, so eventually, most computers will play it.
There are other potential interesting factors though, such as streaming HD TV...

Assassinator Wrote:Also, there are a few problems, like AVC and HE-AAC aren't the easiest thing to decode, so the old crappy computers are going to fail on it. So commercial companies and stuff might not want to swap. Compatability is very important to them.

True, but those types of computers are kinda dying out (I say that whilst my parents still use a Pentium 200MHz).
Besides, many flash games/animations probably won't play well on those older hardwares, so I doubt they'll bother catering for streaming videos on those machines at all.

(This post was last modified: 03/06/2008 06:27 AM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)

feinicks Wrote:what would be the need to download

Like Stage6 worked when it was working, stream it, save it.

Hardcopies For the win.

feinicks Wrote:Streaming is going to undergo a lot of changes as it is becoming more and more popular as over all internet connectivity improves. With new codecs being applied, the quality of the stream is also incresing, rendering downloads pointless in the future. I mean, if you can watch a movie or an ep @ 1200*800 resolution online, then what would be the need to download, if you do not intend to save it? currently its is difficult (and uneconomical) to implement hi-resolution streams, but in the coming times it can (and may be will) be done!

If you want to stream stuff at 1200*800, and have good quality, you'd need pretty fast internet. Not many people these days can support that. + It'll be a lot more heavy on the server. But you're talking about the future, so i guess it's possible.

And streaming requires something that supports it, try streaming to your DVD player. Streaming has lower quality, And lots of people do intend to keep what they watch. So streaming will never completely replace download.

And downloading is "cleaner". You're not depending on some streaming site, and there won't be any ads/random poo poo that's linked to these sites.

feinicks Wrote:Plus, for those who have a real good connection, its possible to stream 5-6 eps simultaneously, pausing the playback of the other ep while watching one!

And the point of streaming multiple streams simultaneously is? If you can stream 1 thing without lag, then you can stream all the rest of the eps when you need them without lag also.

Streaming has always been most popular for people with weaker internets, cause downloading is slow for them.

If you have crazy fast connection, downloading would definitely be better. If speed is not a problem for you, then people will be aiming at quality.

(This post was last modified: 03/06/2008 07:39 AM by Assassinator.)

Ultimately wee want fast connections to download and store HD Connect Efficiently and Effectively for our Enjoyment.

Sounds good to me!

feinicks Wrote:

Senseito Sakura Wrote:Ultimately wee want fast connections to download and store HD Connect Efficiently and Effectively for our Enjoyment.

Sounds good to me!

Most of the HD available for stream is hershey kisses!

what where??