Talk:Comparison of video container formats

Patented?

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

'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? Tnikkel 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

RMVB missing..

RMVB

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

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)

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. Tnikkel 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

Filesize?

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

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)

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)

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)