Once upon time, video codecs and formats were really only the concern of AV nerds, anime freaks and hardcore not-so-legal movie downloaders. Now, even the most part-time of geeks has to deal with them, whether they're trying to stream a flick across their house with an Apple TV, dump some video onto their phone or just trying to grab last night's episode of Dexter because they, uh, forgot to renew their Showtime subscription. It's messy and annoying, but we're here to clean it up. Take a deep breath.

You might recall our discussion about video bitrates earlier, or how much data is packed into a file. As a general rule, more bits per second translates into more betterer quality audio and video. The variable in that—the other part of the equation—is how the content is compressed and de-compressed. Better compression techniques—the zen of knowing what bits of data to pull out to make big data chunks smaller—make for better quality video while taking up less space on your hard drive. Basically, the part you need to know is that codecs are the software that make that magic happen.

Standard Standards
• H.261 is not a term you have to worry about, but it's the technology that most video standards and codecs were originally based on. Originating in 1990, it's the first major digital video compression standard, and like other "H" standards, it was developed by the International Telecommunication Union. This one was primarily for teleconferencing over ISDN lines, and as such, it looks like ass.

• MPEG-1 Part 2 is another oldie, developed by the Movie Picture Experts Group and approved in 1991. (BTW, the whole "part" thing is because video is just one "part" of each MPEG standard.) Based quite a bit on H.261, MPEG-1 was designed to take VHS quality video and squeeze it down to a bit rate of about 1.5Mbps, optimized for CD transfers. No surprise, it's the standard used for all VCDs (which can play in most DVD players), but not a standard you would see hanging around today.

• With MPEG-2 Part 2, approved in 1994, we're finally talking decent vid. Also known as H.262, since it was developed jointly by the ITU-T and ISO, MPEG-2 is an extension of MPEG-1 that delivers better resolution and higher bit rates (3-15Mbps for standard def and 15-30Mbps for HD, though the spec allows for up to 100Mbps). It's the video codec used by DVD and digital television, though now it's slowly being replaced by the more efficient MPEG-4, except on DVDs, where it'll ride out that disc format's lifetime.

• H.263 is designed for sending video over crappy connections. So it's used to encode most Flash video and to send video over mobile networks.

• MPEG-4 is where we really stand right now. It has a much broader scope than past MPEG standards, aiming to tackle both the low end (crappy cellphones on a crappy network) and the high end (Blu-ray). It's still developing, so it's not-so-coincidentally where this whole story gets messier. There are two relevant parts of the MPEG-4 standard for our myopic video purposes: There's Part 2. And there's Part 10—which is also known as H.264 or Advanced Video Coding (AVC). To be clear though, even though they're both part of the MPEG-4 standard, they're totally different formats. Nevertheless, both are more efficient at compression than past MPEG codecs, delivering better quality using less space.

• Okay, so if you've ever frequented a Torrent site, you've actually watched tons of videos that use MPEG-4 Part 2, though it's not like they would've had a flashing sign telling you so. MPEG-4 Part 2 actually has different "profiles"—the two that matter being Simple Profile, for low bitrate, low-res stuff, and Advanced Simple Profile. The latter profile is what's used by movies you would download in formats like DivX or XviD or 3ivx—which are all codecs that are essentially just differing implementations of the MPEG-4 Part 2 standard.

• MPEG-4 Part 10, the other part, was actually co-devopled by MPEG and the ITU-T, so it's also known—in fact, more commonly known—as H.264. It's more efficient than MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 2, delivering the same quality video in as little as half the space, making it suitable for the low and high-end. Because of this, it's quickly becoming the standardest standard. It's part of the HD DVD and Blu-ray spec, replacing MPEG-2 in digital TV (like with satellite services and AT&T's U-Verse IPTV) and supported by pretty much every portable video player on the planet from the iPod to the PSP. Apple has a decent, if Kool-Aid flavored, FAQ about H.264.

• VC-1 is essentially a Microsoft developed alternative video codec to H.264 released as a standard by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, though it descends from the same H.26X/MPEG family. (It essentially started life as WMV9, but then Microsoft shopped it to the SMPTE to make it an industry standard, and now it is.) It too, is part of the mandatory Blu-ray and HD DVD spec, and is the official video codec of the Xbox 360. It's pitch is the same as H.264's—trying to deliver better quality using less space, like HD video in 6-8Mbps.

Free-Floating Codecs
Okay, so all that stuff up there are industry-wide standard video codecs. On top of all of those, various entities love putting out their own spin on those standards. As we mentioned before, DivX (proprietary) and XviD (open source), for instance, use MPEG-4 Part 2 (more specifically, MPEG-4 ASP) compression, meaning stuff that'll natively play back MPEG-4 ASP will also play back DivX. Like the Xbox 360, for instance. There are a ton of MPEG-4 ASP-based codecs, actually, like FFmpeg, 3ivx and others, but DivX and XviD are the most common. Same deal with H.264: Some well known codecs that use it are Apple's Quicktime H.264, x264 and Nero Digital. You've also got Windows Media Video (WMV) codecs, which are Microsoft's proprietary twists on industry standards.

Containers aka Wrappers
Alright, well you've probably noticed that none of your video files have the extension .h264 or .vc1 or the like. That's because videos are packaged in containers or wrappers that stuff things like the audio, navigational info, etc. along with the video in a single pretty file. Naturally, there are about as many of them as there are codecs. To be clear, you would take a video encoded with, say, H.264, and wrap it up as a .mp4 or .avi file.

The majors ones are:
• AVI (Audio Video Interleave) is Windows' standard multimedia container
• MPEG-4 Part 14 (known to you as .mp4) is the standardized container for MPEG-4
• FLV (Flash Video) is the format used to deliver MPEG video through Flash Player
• MOV is Apple's QuickTime container format
• OGG, OGM and OGV are open-standard containers
• MKV (Mastroska) is another open-specification container that you've seen if you've ever downloaded anime
• VOB means DVD Video Object. Guess what? It's DVD's standard container, and what you get when you rip a DVD.
• ASF is a Microsoft format designed for WMV and WMA—files can end in .wmv or .asf

So, in order to play a video file, your setup has to be able to handle both the actual video codec and the container. It's why you can try to play an AVI file and Windows Media Player laughs at you, even though it totally played one a minute ago— the container was no problem, but it didn't have the right codec. Or conversely, even though an iPod could play back an H.264 encoded video, if it was wrapped up in MKV, it won't be able to read it.

Okay, my brain hurts. Hopefully this will make yours hurt less when it comes to dealing with pesky videos. If you'd like to do even more homework, Wikipedia, as always, has a more in-depth discussion. And Doom9 is always an amazing resource for all things digital video.

Something you still wanna know? Send any questions about codecs, kitties or pad thai (but not RealMedia) to tips@gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.

[Image: ME@Flickr]

Warner Bros. Licenses Content for Distribution on DivX Certified(R) Consumer Electronics Devices

Agreement Enables Retailers to Offer Premium Content in DivX(R) Format for Playback on Variety of Devices

SAN DIEGO & LOS ANGELES —(Business Wire)— Oct 14, 2008 DivX, Inc. (NASDAQ:DIVX) and Warner Bros. Entertainment today announced an agreement that will enable online retailers to offer Warner Bros. titles in the high-quality DivX® standard definition format in October 2008 and high definition format in September 2009 for playback on DivX Certified® consumer electronics devices.

The wide-ranging agreement covers all titles available for digital distribution in the Warner Bros. catalogue including current and back-catalogue major motion pictures and television programs. All titles offered in the DivX format are compatible with a variety of DivX Certified devices from major consumer electronics brands, including DVD players, Blu-ray devices, gaming consoles and more. The agreement allows retailers who sign additional agreements with DivX and Warner Bros. to offer Warner titles in the DivX digital media format.

“Using the DivX secure format is in keeping with our overall digital distribution strategy,” said Jim Wuthrich, Senior Vice President, Warner Bros. Digital Distribution. “The visual quality, security and widespread interoperability of the DivX format offers an excellent means for consumers to enjoy Warner Bros.’ content whenever and wherever they desire.”

“Warner Bros. offers an extremely compelling catalogue of premium, high-quality content enjoyed by consumers all over the world,” said Kevin Hell, CEO of DivX, Inc. “We’re very excited to work together to offer consumers premium content on any DivX device, from the PC to the living room and on the go.”

For more information about DivX, visit www.divx.com. To learn more about Warner Bros. Entertainment visit www.warnerbros.com.

This might seem like an odd topic for Giz Explains, our weekly "WTF is that?" series, but a bunch of comments last week revealed a need to plainly explain the tussle going on between internet service providers, the Federal Communications Commission, content providers and you, and how it's shaping the way you'll use internet over the next couple of years. First, a quick primer.

Comcast was caught slowing down BitTorrent traffic last year by the Associated Press. It (re)sparked cries for government-mandated net neutrality—treating all internet traffic equally, whether it's email, Skype or a bootleg of The Dark Knight over torrent. While that didn't happen, a complaint against Comcast went through the FCC, which ruled against it last week, saying that slowing down BitTorrent was a naughty thing to do, and that they must disclose all management practices to subscribers.

In the meantime, a different network management trend started to emerge among the major ISPs: metered broadband, aka data caps. It's like dial-up service or wireless data: After reaching your alotted amount of data for the month, you pay extra, maybe through the nose, as our northern neighbors in Canada are familiar with. Conveniently, it's "net neutral," since it doesn't discriminate against particular kinds of traffic, and it's fully disclosed to subscribers so it satisfies guidelines discussed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. In case you're looking to file a complaint, Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Fred Von Lohmann told us, "There's certainly nothing to stop them from pricing that way if they want to."

Time Warner was the first major to float the plan, which is currently in testing, with a 40GB cap at the high-end. Comcast is considering a metered approach as well, its spokesman has confirmed. AT&T is the most recent major ISP to jump onboard, and it'll be testing caps in the fall. Not to mention Cox Cable and a whole mess of regional ISPs already implement them.

Here's the rub: The P2P apps ISPs point to as pillaging their networks are increasingly a nonexistant bogeyman. Video is now the actual bandwidth monster, and it's only getting hungrier and hungrier.

The thing about all that video is that it competes with what your ISP is probably delivering to your other screen in the living room. Why watch 30 Rock on your couch at specific time when you can grab it on demand on your laptop with Hulu, or on a Netflix Roku box? That awesome Vudu box you bought? Pulling in Transformers in HD uses your cable provider's pipes, but it doesn't see a dime from the transaction.

Suppose you decide to be pseudo-green and opt for an all-digital approach from Vudu or Apple TV, and you have a moderate habit of two movies a week. A 90-minute movie running at a constant bitrate of 2.5 megabits per second (you're talking HD here) will swallow 1.69 GB. If you've got a 40GB cap, eight movies will eat over a quarter of it. And that's just your rental habit, with today's specs. The 1080p flicks they'll be streaming tomorrow will be even more bandwidth intensive.

More importantly, today's geek frontier is tomorrow's mainstream playground. Like game demos on Xbox Live? Or games-for-purchase on Steam? Those are a gig or two a pop, and as more and more games are distributed digitally, the gigs will add up. Which is also part of the problem as far as the ISPs are concerned: AT&T's tech chief glibly notes that "traffic on our backbone is growing 60 percent per year, but our revenue is not."

While I wanted to tell you that data caps will destroy the internet as we know it, really video is what's actually facing the greatest threat. Time Warner has openly said content providers can't have it both ways. And the EFF's von Lohmann told us that while he hasn't "seen any evidence that [metered broadband] will radically change the internet" he is "worried that companies that have their own video they're delivering over the same pipe they deliver internet service will have an incentive to reduce caps" and it's a "valid concern worth watching." It would effectively have us paying twice for video delivered over the internet. Most people can barely stand paying for it once.

The big question for those of you who bravely bought in: Will my bastard child videos still work even with the permanent closed sign in the store's window?

The videos you purchased and downloaded are yours to keep. Yes, you can play your videos as many times as you wish on the computer you used to download the videos. Due to licensing restrictions, you cannot copy or transfer your video files and play them on a different computer.

The store's sudden death actually isn't too surprising even though it was less than a year old and the first one to sport content from the "big six" studios. Who thinks "Wal-Mart" when they think "video downloads," and wants to deal with a clusterfuck of DRM, WMV files and Windows and IE-only compatibility? (Not Hollywood types!) Besides, its goose might've been cooked anyway when iTunes finally snagged a video rental deal.

On the other hand, its online music store is still going strong, or at least going enough to try to pressure labels to sell MP3s through it, though it looks like Amazon has the upper hand (in more ways than one.) Let's hope they weren't taking any cues from their cubicle mates in the vid store department! [Wal-Mart, Thanks MarktMan!]

It's well known that the iTunes video store isn't the titanic market juggernaut the music store is—to wit, NBC can walk, but Universal Records stays, despite the fact it's the biggest label and has notoriously strained relations with Apple. It's clear from the new iPod line that Apple sees video as its next frontier. But they're simply not selling the volume of video they expect or want to.

On one level, the idea's fairly compelling: the video download market right now is primordial at best, and 99 cents a show is a hard bargain—even just considering production for a TV episode vs. a single track—that's bound to pull in eyeballs and pump iTunes sales, maybe enough to start to grab the first foothold in the market.

Which might be exactly why the networks would balk, clipping half their check aside. The contentious situation between record labels and iTunes is largely because of the iPod/iTunes grip on the digital music market. It's leverage Hollywood is clearly wary of granting anyone wiggle room toward. So we'll be more than surprised if this comes to pass, even over in Disney land. [Variety, thanks John]

"People familiar with the situation say Mr. Stringer has been laying the groundwork in recent months to shift the company's focus to video downloading." In a nutshell, Sir Howard's pushing more cooperation across units and heightened hardware/software Zen, seeing them as necessary to establish dominance in the primordial soup that makes up the video download market right now.

But, proving that Sony's still Sony, Stringer "personally enforced a decision to adopt certain digital rights management software that will eventually be used in all of Sony's products." Guess there's still a few things Sony has left to learn. [WSJ]

In the deal, Blockbuster also picked up the rights to show flicks owned by Movielink's now-former owners, which include Warner Bros., MGM, and Paramount, giving it something of a leg up on Netflix's service, which has a slightly limited selection.

The war's only going to get uglier until it gets better, and by better, we mean when Netflix rolls out that set-top box we've been drooling over for God knows how long. [NYT]

That's right, starting in February of next year you'll be able to download-to-own (DTO) films and TV shows, or rent films on a video on-demand (VOD) basis from those studios in addition to the already agreed-upon Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, Egami Media, Hart Sharp, Koch Entertainment and The Orchard.

Take a look at a bit of told-ya-so ranting and partial list of the films that will be available:

Finally, Hollywood studios get their heads out of the sand and realize that unless they make deals for movie downloads, the downloads will happen anyway. Of course, we're assuming that none of these movies will be available in HDTV formats yet, where the conventional wisdom says that those films are much too big for download. Sure, maybe 1080p films are too bulky, but it's amazing what compression can do these days, especially over fat pipes.

Who knows what price the studios will attempt to charge for this content, but it better be cheap or this idea will tank.

And hey, does this have anything to do with Apple's upcoming iTV video distribution hardware that was teased a few months ago? Could that be BitTorrent equipped, too? – Charlie White

Through these new partnerships, BitTorrent customers will be able to select from a variety of popular film titles from 20th Century Fox, Kadokawa, Lionsgate, Palm, Paramount and Starz Media such as "X-Men The Last Stand," "Ringu," "Saw III," "13 Tzameti," "Mission: Impossible III," and "Ghost in the Shell." TV programming will include hits like "Attack of the Show" from G4; "24" and "Prison Break" from 20th Century Fox; "City of Men" from Palm; "Laguna Beach" and "Celebrity Deathmatch" from MTV: Music Television; Emmy and Peabody-Award winning "South Park" and "Chappelle's Show" from COMEDY CENTRAL; "Hogan Knows Best" from VH1; "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Avatar: The Last Airbender" from Nickelodeon; and "Skyland" from Nicktoons Network.

Press Release [BitTorrent Inc., via CrunchGear]