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 330762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Schrodinger
by J. M. on Fri 19th Sep 2008 03:05 UTC 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

RE[8]: Schrodinger
by elmimmo on Fri 19th Sep 2008 04:22 in reply to "RE[7]: Schrodinger"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

.wmv is just a filename extension, but the container is ASF.


What I said, then.

The AVI specification has been available for many years.


URL, please.

The MPEG-4 video (that is, the thing you put into the AVI files) specification is available, too. Nothing stops Apple from supporting it


And so then Apple does, natively, since years ago. MPEG-4 video, that is. They just don't support the AVI container (or more precisely, they did not bother writing an AVI parser, so then 3rd parties did; QuickTime player -not related to QuickTime container- is perfectly compatble with those 3rd party parsers). The QuickTime container, also, can contain MPEG-4 with all its features just fine, without resorting to hacks

QuickTime - the Apple playback software sucks.


And this relates to the topic or my post just how? I thought it was about video formats, their encoders/decoders, and containers.

It cannot play MPEG-4 video with advanced MPEG-4 features
.

It can, provided you have an appropriate decoder. Apple's is not an appropriate one for that. Neither is Microsoft's, by the way, which cannot play MPEG-4 at all, with or without advanced features (since, well, it doesn't actually even exist). I'd say partially is better than not at all.

Edited 2008-09-19 04:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Schrodinger
by J. M. on Fri 19th Sep 2008 05:21 in reply to "RE[8]: Schrodinger"
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

"The AVI specification has been available for many years.


URL, please.
"

For example:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms779636.aspx

http://www.jmcgowan.com/avitech.html#Format (If you scroll down a bit, you can also see that "In addition to the Video for Windows header files, Chapter Four of the Video for Windows Programmer's Guide, "AVI Files", gives a detailed specification of the AVI file format.")

OpenDML (the so called "AVI 2.0") format specification is available as a PDF:

http://www.the-labs.com/Video/odmlff2-avidef.pdf

"The MPEG-4 video (that is, the thing you put into the AVI files) specification is available, too. Nothing stops Apple from supporting it


And so then Apple does, natively, since years ago.MPEG-4 video, that is.
"
And poorly.

They just don't support the AVI container (or more precisely, they did not bother writing an AVI parser, so then 3rd parties did; QuickTime player -not related to QuickTime container- is perfectly compatble with those 3rd party parsers).

Then don't complain about AVI being not supported. It's just Apple's decision to rely on 3rd parties.

The QuickTime container, also, can contain MPEG-4 with all its features just fine, without resorting to hacks

So can other containers. The standard MPEG-4 container is MP4 anyway (which, although based on QuickTime, is slightly different, so using QuickTime for MPEG-4 is, in 2008, good only for advertising Apple's products).

"QuickTime - the Apple playback software sucks.


And this relates to the topic or my post just how? I thought it was about video formats, their encoders/decoders, and containers.
"

You said: "It's just that not actually all those many codecs were equally appropriate at one time. AVI (or more appropriately, DivX codec contained into it), for example, was a nightmare for Mac users pretty much". I say: the fact that Mac users are/were using crippled software does not make any format or codec "inappropriate". It is their choice. Use crippled software if you wish, but then don't complain. Good software is available.

"It cannot play MPEG-4 video with advanced MPEG-4 features
.

It can, provided you have an appropriate decoder. Apple's is not an appropriate one for that.
"

Then again, users cannot complain that they use inappropriate software. It is only their decision, for which they have to pay the price.

Neither is Microsoft's, by the way, which cannot play MPEG-4 at all, with or without advanced features (since, well, it doesn't actually even exist). I'd say partially is better than not at all.

Well, I'm not sure about that. No support is sometimes better than crippled support which makes users believe the product actually supports it, which in turn makes software that supports it properly look bad because it's "incompatible" (Internet Explorer is a prime example showing the harmful effects of crippled support).

Reply Parent Score: 2