Mpeg4 part 10, any testers yet ?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
How is Mpeg4 part 10 ? It is in the preview of Quicktime no ?? IS it smaler aand scales or is it just not ready yet ??
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Is that the same as H.264?

    If so, than I've used it and it rocks! And no, Quicktime can't play it yet but Mplayer can.



    If you want, I could post a few samples I encoded. (Roughly 500-800MB or if you want something smaller, just tell me what size.)
  • Reply 2 of 41
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    Yes, it is the same as H.264.



    I would like to see some samples of it, though probably something smaller (maybe 250-300 MB)
  • Reply 3 of 41
    cakecake Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    And no, Quicktime can't play it yet but Mplayer can.



    Can anything else play H.264?

    I've encoded some gaming footage as H.264 (or AVC as Sorenson Squeeze calls it) and Mplayer "unexpectedly quits" each time I try to play it. \
  • Reply 4 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    Is that the same as H.264?

    If so, than I've used it and it rocks! And no, Quicktime can't play it yet but Mplayer can.



    If you want, I could post a few samples I encoded. (Roughly 500-800MB or if you want something smaller, just tell me what size.)




    Yeah sure why not- I'd like to see some samples...



    I'm on campus so I've got some serious speed.
  • Reply 5 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    Is that the same as H.264?

    If so, than I've used it and it rocks! And no, Quicktime can't play it yet but Mplayer can.



    If you want, I could post a few samples I encoded. (Roughly 500-800MB or if you want something smaller, just tell me what size.)




    me too I would like to test it out, what is the size ratio of the footage if it is at that megabite size ? I though the video was supose to scale and have a high compression size with little artifacts ???? Either way I would love to test out some samples.
  • Reply 6 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Patients, my friends. I only have a Dual G5 so it's gunna take some time...



    EDIT: Here you go. A bunch of H.264 files.



    The Enterprise movie is the largest resolution that can fit on a single CD. (42 Minutes)



    The MadTV clip is about 20 minutes and compressed to a pretty-good resolution.



    The Pumpkin movies are encoded at 3 different sizes and bitrates. It is a 4 minute video.



    One thing I noticed it that this CODEC does not compress small videos as efficiently as it does large files. But for those large files, it really shines. 8)



    Edit Edit: Oh yea, I'm on a cable modem. Sorry. \
  • Reply 7 of 41
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    H.264 is going to be a new standard for us as well (talking from satellite broadcasting).



    Actually, we're looking between AVC and WMV9 VC-1 for broadcasting HD (1080i & p, 720i & p). It will be a year or so before we can start seeing which standard is going to 'win'. Short term, VC-1 since there are tons of encoders, the quality is same, and MS has a very mature DRM system. However the hardware (set top boxes) that are cheap enough for a mass distribution (less than 200usd) are just not available yet. All the STB manufacturers don't see anything that cheap coming out for at least another 6 to 12 months.



    Nonetheless, all these boxes appear to be capable of decoding both formats, so, it will come down to: cost of encoders, cost and availability of post production tools, support. In this case, I see AVC winning in the long run.



    So, to answer the original question, yeah, lots and lots of testers here
  • Reply 8 of 41
    ic1maleic1male Posts: 121member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ebby

    The Enterprise movie is the largest resolution that can fit on a single CD. (42 Minutes)



    The MadTV clip is about 20 minutes and compressed to a pretty-good resolution.



    The Pumpkin movies are encoded at 3 different sizes and bitrates. It is a 4 minute video.




    Any chance you could post the dimensions of these files before I attempt a big download? Are they above SDTV (720x480) res?
  • Reply 9 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Enterprise: 944x528, 29.97fps, 41 minutes, 498.7MB

    MadTV: 560x416, 23.98fps, 24 minutes, 462.2MB

    PumpkinChunkin:

    Small: 320x240, 23.98fps, 4 minutes, 32MB

    Medium: 480x352, 23.98fps, 4 minutes, 54.6MB

    Large: 720x544, 23.98fps, 4 minutes, 101.4MB

    Third Presidential Debate: 640x480, 29.97fps, 90 minutes, 912.7MB



    Tadaa!

    I just realized I encoded the MadTV and PumpkinChunkin clips in theater framerates (23fps) not NTSC (29.97fps). Woops. Still looks good though.
  • Reply 10 of 41
    ic1maleic1male Posts: 121member
    Thanks for that information.



    What is your source for these files? Do you have HDTV?
  • Reply 11 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I have a EyeTV 500, a firewire HDTV tuner. It is an awesome little gizmo but the software has room for improvement. No big problems though (except for running out of hard drive space :P ) and excellent picture quality.
  • Reply 12 of 41
    ic1maleic1male Posts: 121member
    It must be amazing. I live in England and have never seen an HDTV broadcast. (It is not readily available here yet.)
  • Reply 13 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Sorry to whomever was downloading. My computer crapped out and had to restart. I hope resume works. \
  • Reply 14 of 41
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    HD is very hyped now and not fully mature. Its actually very dumbed down by broadcasters and few people will tell the difference between a normal broadcast and HDTV.



    A PAL resolution, 6 to 10 MBit MPEG 2 broadcast (DVB-S for example) will still look a thousand times better than a 720i 4 mbit broadcast in MPEG2.



    It really depends on a few factors: The TV you have. You cant see a hires broadcast if your screen/equipment is crap.

    The encoding. Currently, a 2mbit/s MPEG2 broadcast is BARE minimum. You can already start seeing artifacts.

    The quality of the cameras used. Some still use old cameras and doesnt make quality any better.



    There is a lot of talk about how TV producers loathe HD-TV because if done properly, you.. can... see... every... detail. If you were to actually see a TV set within a few feet (take any sitcom or live tv show, etc) you'll clearly notice the masking tape, bad paint, paper mache', etc.

    Not to mention actors hate it. If now you have to spend an hour on makeup, with HD, they have to spend 3... or retire prematurely. With a good encoding and all things lined up in HD, you'll see every little detail of your favorite actors/actresses.

    Many broadcasters are playing around with blurs and tricks so as to soften out aging in actors, cheap props, etc... which kinda defeats the purpose of HD, but hey, whatya gonna do?



    In the UK, you'll see SKY TV broadcasting HDTV content soon, and the BBC probably has a couple.



    At an expo last month we showed off a satellite broadcast demo of HD TV in 1080i @ 26MBit MPEG2. You could probably blow that image up on a 30foot screen and you still wouldn't see any pixels.



    Just to recap, unless you have an HD TV (which are still bloody expensive), you're not really missing anything. In Europe, you'll see some real momentum next year and it'll be the must have thing by next christmas, and will probably much more mainstream by '06.
  • Reply 15 of 41
    wow ebby those are sharp ! Still a huge file size, but very nice quality of images..



    Though I was under the impression that the movies scaled to larger and smaller sizes without the artifacts ... Oh very cool pumpkins toss :P
  • Reply 16 of 41
    can you do one more test ? A 10 meg file? Is there anyway to make one of those to test the quality ?
  • Reply 17 of 41
    Ebby, thanks for those files. What encoder did you use? Apple's under Tiger or another? I know mencoder is supposed to have one. And could you encode that Enterprise episode to half-CD size? I want to see what that would look like. And any way you could use AAC audio? That would be sweet.
  • Reply 18 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I used ffmpeg and it is very picky about what it will allow you to do.



    Unfortunately, 10MB filesizes are pretty unrealistic since I can't change the audio format. It is always 192Kbps AC3 at 48,000Khz. I hope it is just a bug, because at some low resolutions, the video bitrate can match the audio's.



    I also encoded a 42 minute of an episode of Firefly off the DVD set I have. The MPEG 4 file is 350MB while the H.264 is 230MB. I won't post these files though. I used the latest version of Handbrake which, as it turns out, was the first application I downloaded that could encode H.264. I never used it before because nothing could play the files on a Mac.



    EDIT: Just for fun, I'll try to tinker with the audio to see if something else works. I don't need 48,000Khz 192K AC3 anyways.
  • Reply 19 of 41
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    VLC plays AVC.
  • Reply 20 of 41
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Audio is gimpy right now, but more advanced support is planned in the future for ffmpeg.
Sign In or Register to comment.