mpeg4?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:11 pm

Tab. wrote:...
Have you read any of this thread?

Are you trolling me? This could get ugly.

-Zero

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:26 pm

Zero Serenity wrote:
Tab. wrote:...
Have you read any of this thread?
Are you trolling me? This could get ugly.

Okay, so, um... define "core MPEG-4", please, and could someone point out to Maver that people DO use DivX and XviD, all the time (especially on a site like this)?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:12 pm

Zero Serenity wrote:Are you trolling me? This could get ugly.

Not much uglier than that last post :|

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:01 pm

Core? Simple. Containing the .mp4 or .m4a file extensions.

Non-cores I reffer to as the .avi and codec attached extensions.

-Zero

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:08 pm

The container has very little, if anything to do with the resources required for playback. Also your anoalgy between jpg and mpg makes absolutely no sense at all.

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:08 pm

In that case, here's why everything you said was wrong:
.avi doesn't require more processing power than .mp4 to play and of course there's no such thing as a container causing a difference in quality. Most people don't use .mp4 over .avi. Your contrasting of xvid and divx to .mp4 was a crosstalk between the codec and the container, which is... as I already said, a no-no. Comparing .mp4 and .avi to jpeg and bitmap makes no sense whatsoever.

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:08 pm

*JPG and BMP

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:14 pm

Zero Serenity wrote:Core? Simple.

Main, Studio, Advanced Simple, Core Scalable, ACE...

I couldn't resist

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:23 pm

I won't get into this. I think I've said myself clear enough. Not all .avi's require massive processing power, but high compression and high quality codecs require better hardware to play without lag. For example, back in my day, when I had an AMV (NGE - Chop Suey) it was in DivX format. It played terribly. The section where the music really picked up and the scene change became rapid slowed down to a crawl and the whole video was at least half a minute out of sync when I got about halfway done. I converted it to the same size and same resolution to .mpg (my school had the power to do that) and took it back home. It played like a dream because of the lack of Deflash needed. Also, do you know the difference between .bmp and .jpg?

.bmp: Every pixel is painted out with the values corresponding to each one. (Large file size)
.jpg: Uses a slight blurring technique in small and subtle places to give it an extremely similar, if not, the same look as a .bmp. (Smaller size)

So if you think about it, you can compare the two. As for popularity of using the XviD and DivX codecs, I don't really give much about it. I'm just sharing what I know from what I have learned over the years.

-Zero

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:39 pm

You're getting more and more off track here bub. DivX = Mpeg 4. If you had a laggy DivX avi... it would have been the same laggy "DivX" .mp4. I put that in quotations because despite userdata, once in .mp4, codec is indistinguishable.
I think maybe you've confused Mpeg 1 with Mpeg 4.

And a "slight blurring technique in small and subtle places" is a pretty strange way of describing the process of transform, quantization, and entropy coding as defined in the JPEG standard.

I've thought about it, and I still don't see the comparison. BMP is uncompressed pixeldata. JPEG is quantized cosine terms. The relevance to .avi vs .mp4 as container formats is zilch. If you were speaking of uncompressed avi, then you'd be closer to a sensible comparison. But that doesn't fit in much at all with the topic at hand.