Talk:Comparison of video container formats: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:00, 16 July 2009

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

OGG

This article should contain information on what codecs ogg can handle without DirectShow filters (i.e. ogg with DirectShow filters is ogm). I know it can at least handle vorbis, speex and Theora (probably flac, too). Shoreu (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Required

The .TS container does support VC-1 video. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-channel audio capability

I read somewhere that .mov can contain multi-channel (>2 channels) audio, while mp4 cannot? Sounds weird since mp4 is so modern. Would be interesting to know anyway, and maybe add as a column.--62.84.192.238 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. For example, MP4 supports AAC, which has specifications for multi-channel audio. What probably was meant, is that MP4 does not support AC3, the multi-channel format for DVDs, which as far as I know is true. But AC3 is not the only multi-channel format in the world. MOV on the other hand is not much more than a slight modification of MP4. It could be they added support for AC3. --81.241.180.45 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False or not, two years later I still don't see a column for multi-channel audio support. I need to know which containers support this and compare them. Any reasoning behind this column missing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.51.102 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading. Stereo is multi-channel audio (there are 2 channels and multi actually means >1 not >2 ) but I suspect the poster means multiple audio streams in the same container (e.g. an English track, a Spanish track and a director's commentary). MP4 can do this.86.0.254.239 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patented?

How about another column describing whether each is patent-free and open? --Oldak Quill 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "owned by" column is misleading. It conflates the idea of "Who maintains the standard?" (informational) with "If I write a program that uses this format, who can legally stop me from selling that program?" (patent law) with "If I print a bunch of copies of the standard document, who can legally stop me from selling those documents?" (copyright law). I'm pretty sure all three can be different. For example, at one time (parts of) the GIF file format was patented by Unisys, but the file format specification was copyrighted by Compuserve. For example, U.S. Federal standards (such as Federal Information Processing Standard) are maintained by a particular group in the government, but are released into the public domain.

Would splitting it into 2 columns "maintained by" and "patented by" be adequate, or do we need all 3 columns? --65.70.89.241 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Owned by' column - comments on my changes regarding matroska container

The matroska specs are not owned by any entity. They belong into the public domaine, and are therefore owned by every person on this planet, in the very second when they are released publically. The matroska.org opensource team, consisting of (currently) three project administrators and an undefined number of project supporters, care about the specs and the software tools to create, edit and play matroska files. This, however, will NOT effect the various licenses for the code of these tools. It up to the individual programmer to decide on a license for his code, as long as he is not bound by the license of code he was building his tools on.

Christian HJ Wiesner matroska project admin Sao Paulo, Oct. 2005

JFIF?

Although the article doesn't explicitly say so, the page is very much titled towards containers that can contain video/audio data. All of the other containers are video/audio, and all of the headings of the table relate to audio/video. JFIF doesn't belong in this comparison. Any objections to removing it? Qutezuce 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Maybe the title could be "Comparison of media container formats" or "Comparison of multimedia container formats" to distinguish it from tar (file format), etc. —Fleminra 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "container format" is used pretty widely on Wikipedia with this specific meaning, so this probably isn't the forum where such a change could be decided. —Fleminra 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMVB missing..

RMVB

Not anymore... --Kamasutra 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anamorphism

Should anamorphism be added? I think it's a pretty important feature for a container to support even though workarounds like storing the AR in the video bitstream are used for non-supporting containers like AVI. However, I would be be putting {{dunno}} next to all but three. --Kamasutra 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting dunno is ok, people will come by and fill it in. I've seen it happen on this page. IMO, go ahead and add it. Qutezuce 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to AVI

I made a few changes to AVI:
1. Chapters are possible through the 'Vidomi' hack.
2. A quick Google search told me about variable framerates ([1]). MrTroy 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacks or not?

I disagree with the use of the word 'hack' as in "Yes, but only through hacks".

This doesn't give the reader enough information other than a general bad feeling about AVI's support for the feature. 'Hack' is an emotive word which implies a hastily implemented quick-fix.

Your proposed change was "extension to the format" instead of "hack". But the name for those 'extensions' IS hack! The ones who made the hacks call them 'hacks' themselves, should we ignore that? MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to answer the following questions:

- does the 'hack' work? - does the 'hack' work well? - does the 'hack' result in a valid AVI file?

Of course it doesn't, that's why it's a hack. MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- is the 'hack' specified / described somewhere? (the fact it is not described in original MS AVI documentation doesn't mean it's a hack)

If the answer to most of these questions is yes, then 'hack' is an inappropriate word. A footnote would be helpful.

Attaching a bigger pipe to a moped makes it go faster. Does it work? Yes. Does it work well? Yes. Is it still a good moped? Yes. Is this method for speeding up a moped described somewhere? Yes. ..... I guess we should start calling it an 'extension to the moped' now, shouldn't we.......? MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the word "problematic" is vague and unhelpful. Do these containers support these formats or not? If I understood why these formats are problematic, I'd add a footnote explaining why.

To be honest, I don't understand it either. For instance, using the x264 CLI, h264 doesn't go into avi. But using x264 VFW, it perfectly does. That's hardly problematic. MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, recent FFDShow update and X264 enabled possible use of H.264 on Avi without any problem or bug found what so ever. I have the video file of proof (22 minute; 150 megabytes; 29.97/30fps), and there seems to be no error or supposed "problemomatic". I did add in the extra, and not removed anything, however. User:Dooly00000 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filesize?

Can anyone tell me which format gives you the smallest possible file size? --207.237.119.236 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends entirely on what kind of video you put in it. Because AVI supports hardly anything natively, it COULD produce the smallest file if your video doesn't contain B-frames, variable framerate, chapters and subtitles. But if your video does include such, Matroska may be smaller. MrTroy 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVI - RIFF

AVI is really more of a descriptor than a container format, it is a RIFF chunk identifier. This table should be updated to describe it properly or remove it, but this will take much work, I suggest we work on it in a userspace or an unlinked 'subpage' to make it more technically correct. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVI a container format implemented as RIFF. That AVI files are RIFF files does not mean that they are not containers, or that AVI is not a container format. Shinobu (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased towards MOV

When mov only half supports something or requires apple's direct support and implementation of a format, MOV gets a YES, but when another format say OGM has the same restrictions it gets a partial rating. --206.191.28.13 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a feature is not fully supported then indicate so. Also, I'm not entirely sure the purpose of your message since you weren't very specific. --Kamasutra 06:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XVID

Where does xvid fit into all this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.72.90 (talk • contribs)

XviD is a video codec, not a container format. It goes inside the container as a video stream. But for your information, its standard container is MP4. --Kamasutra 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, actually, XviD standardly goes into AVI. But for compatibility it is indeed better to mux it into an MP4 file. MrTroy 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, actually. Just because it is possible doesn't mean that it is the standard. The MPEG consortium created MPEG-4 Part 14 as the container in which to put MPEG media streams. Obviously MPEG-4 ASP is able to go into AVI, as that was the container most streams were put into before Part 14 was finalized. Also, I wouldn't call having to use hacks for B frames very standardly. --Kamasutra 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitstream packing isn't a hack. The MPEG Consortium doesn't decide what container is standard for a codec. If I would create a new codec, I would be the one to choose the container format, not the MPEG Consortium. In the XviD case, they chose AVI. Some time later, the MPEG Consortium came with part 14, in which it's possible to mux XviD. But that doesn't mean it's the standard! MrTroy 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't waste my time arguing over this any further, but try taking a look here and decide if you still disagree that it's a hack. --Kamasutra 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in-place

What is "Edit in-place"?--Hhielscher 10:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to ask that question. Maybe it's got something to do with video editing? Shinobu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it means that each frame is independent, so that you can cut into it anywhere, not just on I-frames. MPEG2 isn't very editable for this reason, if you cut on a P-frame it loses the I-Frame that it refers to. But I don't know if that's what this column means. Perhaps if no-one else does it should be deleted.--stib (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then that seems like it would be a property of the underlying video format, and not the container. I searched for about thirty minutes trying to figure out what this column means, and I'm still unclear on what it is, why it would be desirable, and whether or not it's a property of the container format itself or the underlying video/audio codec. It's been a few months and nobody seems to know what this column means, so I think it should be struck from the page. Jnoring (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment

The page contains "Note: The following table may be biased by the encoders preference."

What is that supposed to mean? Suoerh2 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash as a video format?

I'm not sure about the last column in video formats supported. Isn't VP6 that is used as video codec in flash format? If it is, Matroska and Avi suport it. Manabu 02:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Flash is neither a codec nor a container. FLV is the container which contains either Sorensen (Flash 6+) or VP6 (Flash 8+) encoded video streams. -84.59.131.131 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASX missing ?

Can axs (MS) be considered as a container formats ? 2006.11.21

ASX is not a container format, but a playlist file. -84.59.131.131 04:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compression

Would anyone object to a new column for transparent container level compression? --Tene 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MXF missing?

MXF is described in [[2]] as a container format but it is missing from this page. My understanding is that this is a widely used professional format. Is there a reason for its exclusion here? 62.49.253.115 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it; it's appropriate.

FLV metadata

I corrected the table for the FLV container. It does support metadata. See:

In fact, I see the metadata, and can edit it (title, subject, author, category, keywords, comments), in the properties sheet | summary tab on my system in Explorer, just like an ASF container file, or a JPEG file. — Becksguy (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MetaData

3GP can imho have the same ISO metadata as MP4 files. The containers are build on the same principles (like also mov).
AVI (like any other RIFF file) can have a INFO chunk with metadata chunks

Ensonic (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rename

I suggest renaming the article to Comparison of digital media container formats. SharkD (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

column 'streaming capable'

It's been important for me whether a container is streaming capable, mostly for playing partially downloaded videos to check their quality so I could decide whether to download them completely. It has been my experience that avi does not support streaming, while mp(e)g does. Darsie from german wiki pedia (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :This is false. For example, MP4 supports AAC, which has specifications for multi-channel audio. What probably was meant, is that MP4 does not support AC3, the multi-channel format for DVDs, which as far as I know is true. But AC3 is not the only multi-channel format in the world. MOV on the other hand is not much more than a slight modification of MP4. It could be they added support for AC3. --[[User:81.241.180.45|81.241.180.45]] 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 False or not, two years later I still don't see a column for multi-channel audio support. I need to know which containers support this and compare them. Any reasoning behind this column missing ?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.113.51.102|79.113.51.102]] ([[User talk:79.113.51.102|talk]]) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+This is misleading. Stereo is multi-channel audio (there are 2 channels and multi actually means >1 not >2 ) but I suspect the poster means multiple audio ''streams'' in the same container (e.g. an English track, a Spanish track and a director's commentary). MP4 can do this.[[Special:Contributions/86.0.254.239|86.0.254.239]] ([[User talk:86.0.254.239|talk]]) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 ==Patented?==