Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Mar 2010 00:10 UTC
Multimedia, AV This one was accidentally deleted from the submission queue when it was first submitted some time ago, so I decided to keep it around for a slow news day (such as this one - dear lord, it's quiet). FFmpeg developer Mans penned down a number of crucial problems with the Ogg container format.
Thread beginning with comment 414004
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why not use Matroska?
by npcomplete on Thu 18th Mar 2010 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not use Matroska?"
npcomplete
Member since:
2009-08-21

MKV is intended for streaming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matroska


List of Goals

* creating a modern, flexible, extensible, cross-platform multimedia container format;
* developing robust streaming support;
...

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[3]: Why not use Matroska?
by lemur2 on Thu 18th Mar 2010 01:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use Matroska?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

MKV is intended for streaming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matroska " List of Goals * creating a modern, flexible, extensible, cross-platform multimedia container format; * developing robust streaming support; ...
"

OK, Matroska is better than Ogg as a file storage format, so the question boils down to this: is it as good as Ogg as a streaming format?

If so, then Matroska would seem to be the most sensible option, without any doubt.

PS: the points raised in the original article about the difficulty of "mapping" are moot, because lets face it Ogg is only ever going to be used for Xiph codecs, and that mapping has already been done.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Why not use Matroska?
by npcomplete on Thu 18th Mar 2010 02:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Matroska?"
npcomplete Member since:
2009-08-21

Yes, that is a comparison that I would also like to see.

I think though, from all that I've read and experienced as just a user of both containers, that it would probably be easier to improve streaming support in Matroska, should it prove significantly worse, than to address the deficiencies in Ogg at the moment (bringing it up to par with Mkv feature wise and technical flexibility/robustness)

Reply Parent Score: 1

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

PS: the points raised in the original article about the difficulty of "mapping" are moot, because lets face it Ogg is only ever going to be used for Xiph codecs, and that mapping has already been done.


Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Assume nothing. Theora et al are here today - but something else will be here tomorrow. Ogg should not be advocated any more. End of story. Please look at the bigger picture.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Why not use Matroska?
by segedunum on Thu 18th Mar 2010 11:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Matroska?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

PS: the points raised in the original article about the difficulty of "mapping" are moot, because lets face it Ogg is only ever going to be used for Xiph codecs, and that mapping has already been done.

That's the one part I didn't understand about the article. Ogg and the Xiph codec formats it is intended to use will largely come together.

Reply Parent Score: 2

pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

OK, Matroska is better than Ogg as a file storage format, so the question boils down to this: is it as good as Ogg as a streaming format?

The Matroska devs don't appear to think so:

Q: What makes Matroska better (worse?) than an ogg media container (.ogm)?

A: It's less a matter of better/worse, and more a matter of different. This is a little complex but we will try ad explain.

First Ogg is not the same thing as Ogm. Ogg was designed to stream audio, specifically Vorbis. Ogg was not designed to handle video, or any other type of audio. (Though their use is not prevented in the Ogg specs, it is not specifically supported either) Ogg is an RFC spec now, and is very useful for what it was designed for, streaming Vorbis and Ogm is an implementation of placing other 'things' in Ogg.

So, we have:

Ogg
1. Designed for streaming.
2. Designed to hold Vorbis.
3. Well documented for above two purposes.

Ogm
1. Implementation of Ogg to hold video, other audio codecs, and a type of subtitle.
2. Implements Chapter support.

Matroska
1. Designed to hold any type of codec. (Audio, Video, Subtitle, etc)
2. Designed for editability.
3. Purposely flexible design.
4. Well documented portions, others in process.
5. Initial design is to support presentation container features such as Chapters, Tags, AudioGain, Menus, etc.

Will Matroska be streamable? Yes, but low bitrate streaming like streaming Vorbis, will always be better in Ogg. This is because their design is for different purposes.

from: http://www.matroska.org/technical/guides/faq/index.html

Reply Parent Score: 9