Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
As long as you can install and use these codecs in Windows, it makes no difference to me. I haven't used WMP since 6.3. I just need it to work in Media Player Classic, VirtualDub, and XviD4PSP mainly.
But if I can't use ffdshow in those in Win 7... forget it. It's no longer useful as an OS to me.
Microsoft wouldn't be so stupid as to actually block codecs. Blocking third-party formats would be a big Fuck-You to users overall. I think (and hope) that this is just a niggle in the beta build, not something that will reflect on the final product.
If this turns out to be some method of protecting users from potentially hazardous codecs, I say forget it. There's no need to nanny people in such a fashion.
I don't know what the reasoning behind this is but I wonder how much this actually impacts anyone or how much it's media-FUD.
Boohoo, when I play a video back it uses a built in codec that works and I can't alternately choose to render it with a third party codec that does exactly the same thing...? Can someone explain to me why I should care? What compelling reason is there for me to say "I want to view h.264s with a third party codec that I install instead of the built in one"?
This isn't forcing a user to use IE over Firefox, where there may be a clear user preference or reason to provide options.
I have no knowledge or information about this, but I wonder if baking certain codecs right in is part of a performance movement... If it were a requirement to be able to decode h.264 video on a low end netbook I could see all corners being cut to boost performance, even at the cost of some flexibility.
@closhedbb: Except Mac doesn't behave this way. It doesn't come with every codec under the sun, but I can install plugins to get .flvs to play on Quicktime, and I can play .avi video from Front Row.
"(All of the MPEG codecs we talk about, btw, will have an associated layer, since the video section is only part of the full standard, which includes audio and other stuff. MPEG-1 Layer 3, you probably know, is MP3.) "
You've got the wrong terminology there buddy. Part 2 of the MPEG-1 specification is indeed for video and part 3 is for audio, but part 3 and layer 3 are not the same. The MPEG-1 Part 3 audio specification includes three layers of audio formats, layers 1, 2 and 3 â each one building upon the other. Thus, layer 3 includes all the elements of layers 1 and 2 plus some new stuff. This is actually a bit inefficient because of the layering, but it was ultimately decided to implement the specification in this manner to allow for the greatest compatibility. The OGG audio codec is actually very similar to MP3, just without the layer 1 and 2 compatibility â hence it is marginally better than MP3.
All the Blu-ray AVC, VC-1, and MPEG-2 codecs are wrapped inside MPEG-2 transport stream containers (.m2ts). The HDDVD VC-1 and AVC codes were wrapped inside .EVO containers.
Can we please stop using the mkv container? It's the most resource hungry format I've ever encountered. Thus, it ends up taking ~100min to convert an hour of HD video to play on the Apple TV. And Boxes can't even handle mkv files.
@teexcue: MKV has nothing to do with your encoding/transcoding times. It's just a wrapper, or container. What governs your computational time is what's inside that wrapper. Admittedly, most MKV files on the web contain heavily compressed H264 video streams, which are very resource-intensive. But, that's not MKV's fault. If the MKV file were to contain an equivalently long and resolutioned MPEG-2 stream, it would be much faster to convert.
03/26/09
But if I can't use ffdshow in those in Win 7... forget it. It's no longer useful as an OS to me.
03/26/09
If this turns out to be some method of protecting users from potentially hazardous codecs, I say forget it. There's no need to nanny people in such a fashion.
03/26/09
Boohoo, when I play a video back it uses a built in codec that works and I can't alternately choose to render it with a third party codec that does exactly the same thing...? Can someone explain to me why I should care? What compelling reason is there for me to say "I want to view h.264s with a third party codec that I install instead of the built in one"?
This isn't forcing a user to use IE over Firefox, where there may be a clear user preference or reason to provide options.
I have no knowledge or information about this, but I wonder if baking certain codecs right in is part of a performance movement... If it were a requirement to be able to decode h.264 video on a low end netbook I could see all corners being cut to boost performance, even at the cost of some flexibility.
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
RTFA fail. on myself. ouch.
11/20/08
You've got the wrong terminology there buddy. Part 2 of the MPEG-1 specification is indeed for video and part 3 is for audio, but part 3 and layer 3 are not the same. The MPEG-1 Part 3 audio specification includes three layers of audio formats, layers 1, 2 and 3 â each one building upon the other. Thus, layer 3 includes all the elements of layers 1 and 2 plus some new stuff. This is actually a bit inefficient because of the layering, but it was ultimately decided to implement the specification in this manner to allow for the greatest compatibility. The OGG audio codec is actually very similar to MP3, just without the layer 1 and 2 compatibility â hence it is marginally better than MP3.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Pretty Cool
Poetically Curvacious
Perfectly Capable
Perversely Corrupt
Pleasant Company
I could go on but I'm sure you've heard, or read enough already.... ;)
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
MKV has nothing to do with your encoding/transcoding times. It's just a wrapper, or container. What governs your computational time is what's inside that wrapper. Admittedly, most MKV files on the web contain heavily compressed H264 video streams, which are very resource-intensive. But, that's not MKV's fault. If the MKV file were to contain an equivalently long and resolutioned MPEG-2 stream, it would be much faster to convert.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Also, they are usually at a better quality than those shabby .avi's (of course, all my .mkv's usually say 720p so that's probably why xD)
Oh, also. VLC laughs at those codecs! In a smug, french way. No-ho-ho-ho!
11/20/08