mpeg-4 question

[trythil]

Show me the spec sheet, because I certainly don't see the difference on it.

o_O

How 'bout you just download Nero and look at the options in the left hand corner of the wizard thing. Free cl00, don't pick the one that says Data CD, pick the one that says SVCD.

I'm not gonna go into this any further, if you don't know what it means to burn an SVCD, I don't think any explanation from me is gonna help. (another cl00, burning an SVCD is not the same as encoding a video file to meet SVCD specs).

I don't think you're getting it.


As Jon said, I'm talking about the technical definition of a Data CD, which is what I gathered you to be talking about. I didn't know you were talking in terms of Nero.

An SVCD is, to my knowledge, a data CD (not an audio CD) using the CD-XA (i.e. mode 2 form 2) sector format. If you can show me how an SVCD is NOT that, using SVCD specifications, please feel free to do so.

By the way I have burned SVCDs before, so please don't assume that you've done this and I haven't. It only makes you look immature.

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

Trythil is talking about the exact technical aspect of the SVCD standard (SVCD is a binary image file burnt to a CD using the specific CD-XA sector format). You are thinking of the common terms used by Nero that are there so that users don't get the different kinds of Data-CD formats mixed up.


Or at least, that's what I'm gathering from the situation.

So then why is he trying to confuse people? Calling an SVCD a data CD, while at the core may be technically correct, it's wrong as far as common knowledge. For example, technically speaking, an audio CD is a data CD, but you don't call it a data CD, you call it an audio CD. *shrugs*

[trythil]

Trythil is talking about the exact technical aspect of the SVCD standard (SVCD is a binary image file burnt to a CD using the specific CD-XA sector format). You are thinking of the common terms used by Nero that are there so that users don't get the different kinds of Data-CD formats mixed up.


Or at least, that's what I'm gathering from the situation.

So then why is he trying to confuse people? Calling an SVCD a data CD, while at the core may be technically correct, it's wrong as far as common knowledge. For example, technically speaking, an audio CD is a data CD, but you don't call it a data CD, you call it an audio CD. *shrugs*

Because I'm not. "Data CD" and "Audio CD" are two labels which are commonly used and understood to be separate things.

Don't make this more philosophical than it has to be.

Anyway this is way off thread topic now. I for one would like to see more rebuttals of what I had to say re: MPEG-4 and MPEG-4 video codecs in development.

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

Ah, here's the secret of how Hatter got his stupidity. He followed Nero's wizard burning method. Free cl00, it's wrong.

Basically, an SVCD is this:

Video - MPEG-2 480x480 29.97fps/23.976fps (480x576 25fps for PAL)
Audio - 44kHz, MP2, I believe 284kbps

That's the SVCD spec, it's not what we're talking about though, we're talking about an SVCD disk vs a data disk.

Burned onto a CD as Mode 2 Form 1 data, 2352 bytes per sector. Go look at the SVCD standard.

That's the general consensus, no one is arguing the XA Multitrack Mode 2 fact. What this discussion is about, is whether a burned SVCD, done obviously in XA Multitrack Mode 2 is a data CD, it's not, it's an SVCD. Basically we're arguing semantics...I have no idea why, I guess maybe we're all just really bored... o_O

[the Black Monarch]

480x480? A square image? That's slightly messed up...

[NicholasDWolfwood]

It's 480x480/480x576 when played back on a computer, but when encoded with something like TMPGEnc, as an SVCD MPEG-2, it generates flags that make the DVD/VCD player resize up to your standard (NTSC 720x480 or PAL 720x576)

On another note, Hatter, stfu. SVCD = data CD burned in an organized way with flags. That's it. SVCD is a DATA CD.

[Onideus_Mad_Hatter]

It's 480x480/480x576 when played back on a computer, but when encoded with something like TMPGEnc, as an SVCD MPEG-2, it generates flags that make the DVD/VCD player resize up to your standard (NTSC 720x480 or PAL 720x576)

On another note, Hatter, stfu. SVCD = data CD burned in an organized way with flags. That's it. SVCD is a DATA CD.

It takes balls to look stupid just to be disagreeable, NDW, kudos to you!

[the Black Monarch]

It's 480x480/480x576 when played back on a computer, but when encoded with something like TMPGEnc, as an SVCD MPEG-2, it generates flags that make the DVD/VCD player resize up to your standard (NTSC 720x480 or PAL 720x576)

Ooh, strong are you with the force I see, yeeeess.

[Tab.]

Oh fuck, if Trythil hadn't thrown in the bit about CD-XA mode2form2 I would have said data CD and SVCD are different.
Arguments only happen when people are stupid or the answer isn't simple. Technically CD-XA is a data CD, as opposed to CD-DA. However, CD-XA m2f2 acts a lot more like CD-DA than it does the commonly used CD format for programs and stuff (m2f1). So it's different, but under the same classification.
Of course, CD-I, VCD's predecessor, couldn't rightfully be called a data CD I don't think.
whatever.

Mpeg 4 ISN'T confusing. It's the opposite. Microsoft fucked it all up. I'm not gonna go into the whole history. Just suffice to say that as soon as we get more people using PROPER mpeg 4 and more tools for creating proper mpeg 4, it'll be a lot more widespread and a lot less confusing.
And for the last time, mpeg 4 is not specifically for low bandwidth, in fact it sucks at low bitrates compared to it's non standard bound competetors WMV9 and RV9. AVC might be a different story. I'd hope so. Sure it was in the proposal since CD rate video was covered by mpeg 1 and high bandwidth broadcast was covered by mpeg 2, but that was before they realized that important improvements could be made to the established and half-established standards (mpeg 1 in '89, mpeg 2 in '95, mpeg 4 proposed in '94). That's why mpeg 4 was built with a profile system that could be upgraded systematically as technology enhances, and why the just barely maturing advanced simple profile encoders will in not too long be overshadowed by AVC (/part 10/H.264) encoders. It's a way to maintain a standard in a constantly advancing field.

As for the developmental stuff, xvid is already a stable simple profile encoder (doesn't have the stuff to define levels though in dev-api-3 and below, which is somewhat important for certain decoder conformance). It's on it's way to becoming a very good Simple, Advanced Real Time Simple, and Advanced Simple Profile encoder with dev-api-4's maturing into Xvid 1.0. api-4 also lets you define the level and adjusts the VBV and max bits/frame etc accordingly.
Still, the only way xvid gets by legally is through the educational loophole, so you can't use it to create actual mpeg 4 content to share, nor can you distribute compiled binaries. But most general users take that crap about as seriously as getting sued by the RIAA.

[Scintilla]

Ah, here's the secret of how Hatter got his stupidity. He followed Nero's wizard burning method. Free cl00, it's wrong.

Basically, an SVCD is this:

Video - MPEG-2 480x480 29.97fps/23.976fps (480x576 25fps for PAL)
Audio - 44kHz, MP2, I believe 284kbps

That's the SVCD spec, it's not what we're talking about though, we're talking about an SVCD disk vs a data disk.

Pay attention:

An SVCD is, to my knowledge, a data CD (not an audio CD) using the CD-XA (i.e. mode 2 form 2) sector format. If you can show me how an SVCD is NOT that, using SVCD specifications, please feel free to do so.

By the way I have burned SVCDs before, so please don't assume that you've done this and I haven't. It only makes you look immature.