A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lamenting the loss of mp4



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 21st 18, 07:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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. :-)


Ads
  #2  
Old November 21st 18, 11:40 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
JJ[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 744
Default 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.
  #3  
Old November 21st 18, 08:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.


  #4  
Old November 22nd 18, 06:31 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
JJ[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 744
Default 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.
  #5  
Old November 22nd 18, 06:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.


  #6  
Old November 22nd 18, 04:24 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
JJ[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 744
Default 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.
  #7  
Old November 24th 18, 08:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
default[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default 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.
  #8  
Old November 24th 18, 09:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.


  #9  
Old November 24th 18, 10:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
default[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default 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?

  #10  
Old November 25th 18, 12:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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 :-)


  #11  
Old November 25th 18, 10:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
default[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default 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."

  #12  
Old November 26th 18, 12:57 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default 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.


  #13  
Old December 28th 18, 09:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
No_Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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?


  #14  
Old December 28th 18, 03:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Lamenting the loss of mp4

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. :-)


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?


Yes, there is a difference.

https://www.quirksmode.org/html5/tests/video.html

Notice how difficult it is to keep everybody happy ?

When you pick a single video mode/format, you're screwing
somebody out of the opportunity to view your video. It's much
better for the web page to "sniff" browser capability and
present a useful format.

*******

Anyone who designs cross-platform browsers, is not going to
depend on file extension for container information. You read
the header of the file to determine the container. Renaming
a .webm to .mp4 isn't going to fool anyone. In Windows, you
can use this package for such determinations.

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/file.htm

(If you use the Bash shell in Windows 10, "file" is already installed.)

While at one time, MIME declarations were used to identify
content, I don't know what the approach is today. For example,
I no longer see "octet-stream" failures on browsers any more,
which suggests MIME isn't being used or relied on absolutely.

A design that has to run on a Linux platform, isn't going
to rely on file extension. A design that only worked in
Windows, might. It would be interesting to test Internet
Explorer and see how it behaves to the "rename trick".

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.