|
|
Lamenting the loss of mp4
Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost
defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:
Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Perhaps its due to its license requirement, which can be a disadvantage for business. Businesses have been moving to open source for some time, which I think, is good. Let's just hope that there won't be any better proprietary media container format in the future. However, proprietary video and audio encodings are still dominating. So, we should hope that open source video and audio encodings, will finally be better than proprietary ones. Because proprietary ones act as a wall of development, and monopolize digital media industry. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
JJ wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, Bill in Co wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Perhaps its due to its license requirement, which can be a disadvantage for business. Businesses have been moving to open source for some time, which I think, is good. Let's just hope that there won't be any better proprietary media container format in the future. However, proprietary video and audio encodings are still dominating. So, we should hope that open source video and audio encodings, will finally be better than proprietary ones. Because proprietary ones act as a wall of development, and monopolize digital media industry. I think you're right. It was probably due to some licensing and royalties. But the thing is, in practice, mp4 (with h264 video and aac audio) seemed pretty ubiquitous in its usage, and nobody seemed to mind (or at least so I thought). And ditto with mp3 for audio. Example case in point was YouTube, in allowing the use of mp4 for its videos. So, something must have changed, and I don't think it was any alleged superiority of webm and vp9 over mp4 and h264. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:06:29 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:
But the thing is, in practice, mp4 (with h264 video and aac audio) seemed pretty ubiquitous in its usage, and nobody seemed to mind (or at least so I thought). And ditto with mp3 for audio. Example case in point was YouTube, in allowing the use of mp4 for its videos. So, something must have changed, and I don't think it was any alleged superiority of webm and vp9 over mp4 and h264. I think it's because of MPEG's momentum, which has been going for quite a long time. Moreover, their initial innovation was a big deal for the digital multimedia field. And being accepted as an international standard gave it more steady footing as a leader. Many gadgets have adopted their media formats because of that. WebM/other formats haven't widely adopted yet, or even known yet. MPEG is simply to big to overcome right away. YouTube obviously paid the rolayties, for the sake of business. They want their videos to (still) be playable on gadgets, since most of them are still supporting MPEG's media formats. IMO... WebM is much better than MP4. VP9 is slightly better than H264, but MPEG have HEVC now. And Vorbis is mediocre in comparison with AAC. But these don't really matter. Who has the most good reputation, will keep leading. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
JJ wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:06:29 -0700, Bill in Co wrote: But the thing is, in practice, mp4 (with h264 video and aac audio) seemed pretty ubiquitous in its usage, and nobody seemed to mind (or at least so I thought). And ditto with mp3 for audio. Example case in point was YouTube, in allowing the use of mp4 for its videos. So, something must have changed, and I don't think it was any alleged superiority of webm and vp9 over mp4 and h264. I think it's because of MPEG's momentum, which has been going for quite a long time. Moreover, their initial innovation was a big deal for the digital multimedia field. And being accepted as an international standard gave it more steady footing as a leader. Many gadgets have adopted their media formats because of that. WebM/other formats haven't widely adopted yet, or even known yet. MPEG is simply to big to overcome right away. YouTube obviously paid the rolayties, for the sake of business. They want their videos to (still) be playable on gadgets, since most of them are still supporting MPEG's media formats. IMO... WebM is much better than MP4. VP9 is slightly better than H264, but MPEG have HEVC now. And Vorbis is mediocre in comparison with AAC. But these don't really matter. Who has the most good reputation, will keep leading. I am curious as to why you said webm is "much better" than mp4. One article said that webm is "specifically designed for the Internet" (whatever that exactly means, since mp4's seem to work pretty well on the Internet, too (and can also be stopped and paused, etc. etc). I'm aware that h265 or HEVC has come out now, although I don't know how many older players can accomodate that, or worse, VP9 and OGG, for that matter. But I guess it's principally come down the royalties thing. (As an aside, I guess VP8 is more comparable to h264, and VP9 to h265, so I'll add that as a correction). Like I said, too bad for a lot of us, since so much stuff that now works (with mp4 files) will be left out in the cold. And that includes some large screen TVs too, like my Samsung, which can directly play mp4 files on a USB stick. How many TV sets can directly play webm videos saved on a USB stick? I presume there are some shareware programs out there now that can work with webm video files just as effectively as they did with mp4 files, but maybe it's too soon. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 22:53:06 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:
I am curious as to why you said webm is "much better" than mp4. One article said that webm is "specifically designed for the Internet" (whatever that exactly means, since mp4's seem to work pretty well on the Internet, too (and can also be stopped and paused, etc. etc). WebM is more efficient than MP4. It has much less wasted data. i.e. media container overhead. IME, it's more reliable when there's data corruption in the media. Media container structure corruption, to be exact. I might be wrong, but I presume it's because WebM has time indexes, while MP4 doesn't. So, its media playback is more stuck resistant. Additionally, I don't think MP4 officially support open source streams. e.g. VP9, Vorbis, SSA subtitle, etc. Meaning that the streams aren't registered in MP4's specification. Although it actually can contain them. Like I said, too bad for a lot of us, since so much stuff that now works (with mp4 files) will be left out in the cold. And that includes some large screen TVs too, like my Samsung, which can directly play mp4 files on a USB stick. Well, that's true in a way. However, without this kind of competition, better innovations won't exist. I can't imagine how dull it is, if JPEG and in turns, MPEG never been invented. We'll me stuck with AVI and MOV. How many TV sets can directly play webm videos saved on a USB stick? Dunno... very few, or even none perhaps. I presume there are some shareware programs out there now that can work with webm video files just as effectively as they did with mp4 files, but maybe it's too soon. It's still too soon, I think. WebM won't be considered until MPEG's audio and video encodings have been overcome by others. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co"
surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
default wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. I don't have a smart TV, and skipped getting one, because I figured the Roku would give me more flexibility, in part for the reasons you just mentioned. However, this Samsung TV, which is just a few years old, has *native* mp4 capability built in, so when I select USB, it reads the plugged in USB flash drive, and shows all my mp4 folders and files just like a windows explorer interface, so then I can click on any one of them and play the mp4 file. I don't know how many other TV manufacturers have built that capability into their TV sets, but I'm guessing this is more the exception than the rule, at least for mp4 (video) files. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:11:17 -0700, "Bill in Co"
surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. I don't have a smart TV, and skipped getting one, because I figured the Roku would give me more flexibility, in part for the reasons you just mentioned. However, this Samsung TV, which is just a few years old, has *native* mp4 capability built in, so when I select USB, it reads the plugged in USB flash drive, and shows all my mp4 folders and files just like a windows explorer interface, so then I can click on any one of them and play the mp4 file. I don't know how many other TV manufacturers have built that capability into their TV sets, but I'm guessing this is more the exception than the rule, at least for mp4 (video) files. That sounds like mine. Samsung dumb TV but can read media files (mp4, avi, mkv) from a USB flash drive. I just replaced my "MXq Pro" TV box with an "H96 max" TV box so I can watch HEVC 265 format videos. How do you like the Roku (what do you like about it) and what model/year do you have? |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
default wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:11:17 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. I don't have a smart TV, and skipped getting one, because I figured the Roku would give me more flexibility, in part for the reasons you just mentioned. However, this Samsung TV, which is just a few years old, has *native* mp4 capability built in, so when I select USB, it reads the plugged in USB flash drive, and shows all my mp4 folders and files just like a windows explorer interface, so then I can click on any one of them and play the mp4 file. I don't know how many other TV manufacturers have built that capability into their TV sets, but I'm guessing this is more the exception than the rule, at least for mp4 (video) files. That sounds like mine. Samsung dumb TV but can read media files (mp4, avi, mkv) from a USB flash drive. I just replaced my "MXq Pro" TV box with an "H96 max" TV box so I can watch HEVC 265 format videos. How do you like the Roku (what do you like about it) and what model/year do you have? I had to look that up. I guess that's another streaming media player like the Roku? Well, the Roku has been great, since it seems to have thousands of channels, and a nice GUI interface (at least on the older ones). I'm using the older Roku 2, because I can't stand the new "upgraded" GUI that comes with the Roku 3 for a lot of stuff. What they've done with the newer version(s) is made the main GUI interface "more slick" (so they think) to appeal to mass consumers, who just love more bells and whistles thrown in their face, instead of functionality. My term for it is: "dumbed down for the masses to keep their attention". But I may be an outlier, and it may not bother most people :-) I could perhaps make an analogy with Firefox and the new Quantum version, or Windows 7, without Classic Shell. To me ALL of it is just dumbed down for the masses, full stop :-) |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:13:26 -0700, "Bill in Co"
surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:11:17 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. I don't have a smart TV, and skipped getting one, because I figured the Roku would give me more flexibility, in part for the reasons you just mentioned. However, this Samsung TV, which is just a few years old, has *native* mp4 capability built in, so when I select USB, it reads the plugged in USB flash drive, and shows all my mp4 folders and files just like a windows explorer interface, so then I can click on any one of them and play the mp4 file. I don't know how many other TV manufacturers have built that capability into their TV sets, but I'm guessing this is more the exception than the rule, at least for mp4 (video) files. That sounds like mine. Samsung dumb TV but can read media files (mp4, avi, mkv) from a USB flash drive. I just replaced my "MXq Pro" TV box with an "H96 max" TV box so I can watch HEVC 265 format videos. How do you like the Roku (what do you like about it) and what model/year do you have? I had to look that up. I guess that's another streaming media player like the Roku? Well, the Roku has been great, since it seems to have thousands of channels, and a nice GUI interface (at least on the older ones). I'm using the older Roku 2, because I can't stand the new "upgraded" GUI that comes with the Roku 3 for a lot of stuff. What they've done with the newer version(s) is made the main GUI interface "more slick" (so they think) to appeal to mass consumers, who just love more bells and whistles thrown in their face, instead of functionality. My term for it is: "dumbed down for the masses to keep their attention". But I may be an outlier, and it may not bother most people :-) I could perhaps make an analogy with Firefox and the new Quantum version, or Windows 7, without Classic Shell. To me ALL of it is just dumbed down for the masses, full stop :-) Thanks for the info. Yeah it is another media player like the Roku. There are lots of different TV sticks or boxes for sale these days, and quality control on some of the Chinese stuff is pretty bad. I had to send first "H95 max" back because the remote control range was less than 12"... I only buy that stuff on Ebay or Amazon with the caveat that "buyer pays return shipping." |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
default wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:13:26 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:11:17 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: default wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Know what you are on about... Makes a lot more sense to buy a dumb TV then just get a TV stick/box that can be replaced when the standards change than relying on the TV maker to put out an update. I was reading somewhere that some 60% of people with smart TV's also own TV sticks so they can use the apps that the TV manufacturer doesn't offer. I don't have a smart TV, and skipped getting one, because I figured the Roku would give me more flexibility, in part for the reasons you just mentioned. However, this Samsung TV, which is just a few years old, has *native* mp4 capability built in, so when I select USB, it reads the plugged in USB flash drive, and shows all my mp4 folders and files just like a windows explorer interface, so then I can click on any one of them and play the mp4 file. I don't know how many other TV manufacturers have built that capability into their TV sets, but I'm guessing this is more the exception than the rule, at least for mp4 (video) files. That sounds like mine. Samsung dumb TV but can read media files (mp4, avi, mkv) from a USB flash drive. I just replaced my "MXq Pro" TV box with an "H96 max" TV box so I can watch HEVC 265 format videos. How do you like the Roku (what do you like about it) and what model/year do you have? I had to look that up. I guess that's another streaming media player like the Roku? Well, the Roku has been great, since it seems to have thousands of channels, and a nice GUI interface (at least on the older ones). I'm using the older Roku 2, because I can't stand the new "upgraded" GUI that comes with the Roku 3 for a lot of stuff. What they've done with the newer version(s) is made the main GUI interface "more slick" (so they think) to appeal to mass consumers, who just love more bells and whistles thrown in their face, instead of functionality. My term for it is: "dumbed down for the masses to keep their attention". But I may be an outlier, and it may not bother most people :-) I could perhaps make an analogy with Firefox and the new Quantum version, or Windows 7, without Classic Shell. To me ALL of it is just dumbed down for the masses, full stop :-) Thanks for the info. Yeah it is another media player like the Roku. There are lots of different TV sticks or boxes for sale these days, and quality control on some of the Chinese stuff is pretty bad. I had to send first "H95 max" back because the remote control range was less than 12"... I only buy that stuff on Ebay or Amazon with the caveat that "buyer pays return shipping." I definitely like the Roku streaming media player (which cost me around $100), due to the huge selection of available channels, and its basic interface. And it's not a stick, it's an actual player, but albeit a bit pricey one, I guess. |
Lamenting the loss of mp4
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 23:46:15 -0700, "Bill in Co"
surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote: Anybody else lamenting the waning of the mp4 file format as an almost defacto standard on the web (and elsewhere)? Why? Well, for one, most of the tools we had for working on these files are now useless, like tools to mux and demux the file, cut and edit the file, etc. All those programs... I can't tell you how many times such mp4 tools have come in handy for working with mp4 video files, like for cleaning up and restoring the audio tracks from some Youtube clips, as just one example (and boy do some of them need some work). And two, and perhaps of more importance to most people, many TV sets won't even play these new video formats - unlike the mp4 files. Sure, they can still play mpg files, but that's pretty limiting, to say the least! But I'll have to concede that mp4 was proprietary format, unlike webm and its vp9 video codec, so here we are, whether we want it or not. I still think it sucks. :-) Rename any WEBM file to MP4 and is still plays. What is the difference, or is there any difference at all aside from the extension? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters