Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Question about video codecs/containers and playback differences.

(1/2) > >>

superboyac:
I have questions about video player formats, codecs, containers, etc. that never gets properly answered because people get carried away with the technical jargon of it.  My question is, what are the differences and what causes the differences?  Please keep this novice friendly, don't go crazy about the technical details.

For example, I know if someone asks, "What is better; avi or mpg?"  The answer they will get is a long thing about how avi is a container and many formats fit in it.  Ok, i get that.  Whatever.

My real question is how come I get different playback experiences with the different formats?  Is it just me or what?  In light of all this, I'll give little nuggets of information, based on my experiences in the past:

--wmv files normally have more issues for me compared to avi or mpg.  Seeking in a player is usually more quirky.  I think it's more sluggish also.

--avi files seem to generally play back the best for me.  Never any problems.  Seeking is quick and pleasant.  Sometimes there are sync issues with audio.

--mpg files also seem to generally be trouble free.  Not as common as avi, but stable.

--mp4 are usually ok, but problems come up often.  I blame this largely on it being an apple format and how most pc's will not want to play those out of the box.  So you have to get quicktime.  but i don't want quicktime, so I get Quicktime Alternative, or a player like KMPlayer which plays everything.

but does anyone experience this also, where you have different experiences with different extensions (regardless of what combo of containers/codecs you use)?  I do.  Even now, if I see a wmv file, i'm always a little hesitant.  If I see an avi and wmv of the same thing available, I'll get the avi.  These are my impressions, however uninformed.

Renegade:
A lot depends on your codecs and media player. Not all are equal, and there are alternatives for almost everything out there. e.g. Fraunhofer vs. LAME vs. Blade, etc.

Overall, there's no simple answer.

If you're on Windows, then you're ahead of the game. Macs just don't have any support for a lot of codecs. Same with Linux. Not a poke at the OS, but a weakness in how many developers are attracted to the platforms and willing to do codecs.

On Windows, buffering is generally fairly short, which gives you smooth video at the risk of decreased stability.

For AVI, it's highly dependent on the codecs used. Again, no simple answer.

DiVX and XViD are both very good. They're usually in AVI files.

Matroska files can be very heavy sometimes. (MKV)

Basically, I think MPG and AVI are safest, but I tend towards AVI there as well.

Size (resolution) is also a big factor. Full HD is much more taxing on your CPU. Normal TV resolution is easier to play.

Not sure if that helps any.

superboyac:
No, that's helpful.  I'm just looking for a discussion here, not an in depth analysis.  Yes, i also find mkv files to be very heavy, as you say.  But I also notice that people who use mkv files are making more high quality videos, like full HD or just very big multi gigabyte files.  For example, the only mkv files I have rips of music dvd's that are uncompressed, I think.  I use that program makemkv.  The quality is great, but I can't play those files on my old computer.

So what is it about wmv files that make them more annoying than avi?

Renegade:
WMV and WMA are actually extremely good. The problem is WMP. WMP is a platform, and not really a player so much. It's better to fire up Visual Studio, drop in the WMP control, and get that working. You don't have the WMP heaviness then. WMP, Real/RealPlayer/QuickTime are all platforms. My favorite there is RealPlayer, then WMP running very close behind. QT is just garbage to use.

If you work with WMV, try using the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder. It's pretty good. Keep in mind that it's really a platform, and so you have a bit of overhead for a few platformish things there.

I'm not sure, but WMV seems to be a bit heavier to decode than some others. Perhaps someone that's more up on things can comment. I've not done a lot of work with it in a few years.

superboyac:
I'm not sure, but WMV seems to be a bit heavier to decode than some others. Perhaps someone that's more up on things can comment. I've not done a lot of work with it in a few years.
-Renegade (July 06, 2010, 09:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, it is heavier.  And I bet I know why.  Copyright copyright copyright.  wmv has that copyright stuff built in.  The ability to only allow playback a certain number of times and stuff.  It's all built into the codec, so it makes it run slower, harder to move the seek bar around...just generally makes it a worse experience so that copyright features can be added.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page