Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 17th Sep 2008 23:09 UTC
Multimedia, AV Dirac is an advanced royalty-free video compression format designed for a wide range of uses, from delivering low-resolution web content to broadcasting HD and beyond, to near-lossless studio editing. The v1.0.0 version was released yesterday, and the new VLC version supports playback of .ts/.drc Dirac files.
Thread beginning with comment 330737
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Schrodinger
by J. M. on Thu 18th Sep 2008 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Schrodinger"
J. M.
Member since:
2005-07-24

According to Wikipedia WMV is ASF, so if true I would say it is rather used, if only typically tied to Windows Media codecs. Not that I actually know, though.


ASF is a container (like AVI, MP4, QuickTime, Matroska, Ogg etc.) WMV is a video format. Those are two different categories.

AVI (or more appropriately, DivX codec contained into it), for example, was a nightmare for Mac users pretty much until Perian, VLC or MPlayer for OS X came by, which is not that too long ago.


AVI files do not contain the DivX codec or any other codec. Codec is a software library, while AVI (and ASF MP4 etc.) files contain audio and video streams (typically) compressed with audio and video codecs. That is, A/V streams in some formats, because codecs use formats, usually common standards developed by someone else (for example, the video format that the DivX codec uses is standard MPEG-4 ASP, which means that AVI files containing streams encoded with DivX contain MPEG-4 ASP video).

Furthermore, it's not AVI's (or MPEG-4's or the codec makers') fault that QuickTime sucks big time. Anyone who uses Apple software for video playback on Mac OS X gets what he/she deserves. It could never play MPEG-4 ASP video properly, and in 2008, it still cannot play H.264 video properly. That does not mean MPEG-4 ASP or H.264 is bad, it just means QuickTime is really impotent (and therefore should be ignored completely when it comes to discussions about A/V format decisions).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Schrodinger
by elmimmo on Fri 19th Sep 2008 00:22 in reply to "RE[5]: Schrodinger"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

"According to Wikipedia WMV is ASF


ASF is a container. WMV is a video format. Those are two different categories.
"

Uh... Yes and no. The format being called WMV too does not take out the fact that, obviously, .wmv files must be in a specific container format, and that is what I meant with WMV (files) purportedly being ASF despite their file extension.

"AVI (or more appropriately, DivX codec contained into it), for example, was a nightmare for Mac users


AVI files do not contain the DivX codec or any other codec.
"

OK, my bad. AVI files containing video streams encoded with the DivX codec.

Furthermore, it's not AVI's (or MPEG-4's or the codec makers') fault that QuickTime sucks big time.


Your answer makes me assume that you speak from technical knowledge of the container specs. I definitely am not versed to that level, so if you would care to elaborate...

It is AVI's fault though that it has no publicly accessible official specification, and that it is an overly hacked file format, while QuickTime has had one for eons BTW. So spare me the "sucks big time" unless you switch on the pedagogic mode.

Edited 2008-09-19 00:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Schrodinger
by J. M. on Fri 19th Sep 2008 03:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Schrodinger"
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

.wmv is just a filename extension, but the container is ASF. That's what makes people believe WMV and ASF is the same thing. But it isn't.

The AVI specification has been available for many years. That's why the format is so popular in so many applications, virtually any playback and editing software on earth supports it. The MPEG-4 video (that is, the thing you put into the AVI files) specification is available, too. Nothing stops Apple from supporting it, except for their own interests. When any single hobbyist can implement it in their software in a couple of weeks (the internet is full of examples), Apple can do it, too.

And what I mean is QuickTime - the Apple playback software (not the container), the player, sucks. It does. It cannot play MPEG-4 video with advanced MPEG-4 features, which makes its users believe that MPEG-4 video (either ASP or H.264) produced with popular video editing/encoding software is broken, or that the applications that created the video are broken. Or that the formats are "bad", "problematic" etc. The users then demand that the applications should somehow be "fixed" in order for the video to be playable in the feeble QuickTime player, and when it does not happen, they think the software authors are jerks or that the software is unusable "in the real world". But it's just Apple's fault. So until QuickTime can play things all decent (and even half-decent) players can play with no problems whatsoever, it is simply a useless player that should not be taken into account in any serious discussion about multimedia. There are good video players available for Mac OS X, just like for any other common operating system.

Reply Parent Score: 3