Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Video Codecs and AW: Technical Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Video Codecs and AW: Technical Discussion

    This board is dedicated to open discussion on video codecs, encoding workflows and technical video quality.

    THIS is the place to voice your concerns, ask questions, suggest ideas and critique our decisions when it comes to all things codec related. I am expecting and indeed encourage a high technical level of content.



    So this is NOT designed to be a tech-support thread.

    Over the coming weeks and months I will be posting updates on where we are headed in the land of back-end NLE and encoding practices, workflow and technology. I am inviting all of you to continue a healthy debate so far as it relates to AW. So please don’t stray too far from the point.

    With these concepts in mind I will lay down one golden rule that will be enforced if necessary:

    No needless name/company/platform bashing.

    This is a forum about codecs, not the computers and OS's that sit behind them.

    So bring out the geeks, post away and I will try and field questions where they relate to our current intentions!

    #2
    MP4 Encodings

    First I have to say... it's about time. It is interesting that I've previously advocated MPEG-4 is the past, specifically DivX at that time. And I was told that because it wasn't something that came with PeeCees, it wouldn't happen. Well, H.264 MPEG-4 playback doesn't necessarily come with the PeeCee either. So, I guess I'm not the only one to finally get AW to join the 21st century.

    In any event. The reason that downloading wants to add the .txt extension (you can thank MicroCrap for trying to know it all) is that it appears that the web server doesn't have the mp4 MIME extension configured into the system, so by default it is described as being text/plain. So Windblows adds .txt. I downloaded it via Linux and wget and wget reports what it was told that the file type was, but not being Windblows, doesn't do anything with the file name.

    As for the video playing at 720x576, you can again thank Windblows for not adhering to the standard. Actually, someone said that they used Quicktime to play it and it too got it wrong. Interesting.

    If you play it using VLC (VideoLanClient), the correct 16:9 aspect ratio will be used, because it knows how to read the anamorphic 16:9 flag that is part of the file. It also has the codec as part of the distro, so no having to hunt it down. Also, VLC works on ALL platforms. Yes, there is a neat encoding trick whereby one can leave the original anamorphic file alone and flag it as being so, just like DVDs have a widescreen flag. So, when I played it on my XP box, using VLC, it did so at the correct aspect ratio.

    If the file wasn't flagged, VLC can be quickly set to 16:9.

    What did surprise me was the poor encoding. Based upon the file size and length, the encoding should have been a lot better. I've recently converted from DivX/AVI files to H.264/MKV files. I can encode 640x480 29.97 files at 1 Mbps and have none of the problems that I see in this encoding. I'm curious as to what bitrate was used for this encoding and what program was used to do the encoding.

    I use the meGUI program, which automatically downloads, and keeps up-to-date, all of the pieces that it needs. My source files aren't DV, they are MPEG-2 OTA or DVB-S transport streams. But that should not make a difference, as meGUI will work with DV files.

    I'm extremely impressed with the quality and file size of the H.264 encodings. If the right settings are used, the videos can look flawless, and even so at a bitrate lower than I really expected.

    For a first step, AW is on the right track.

    Comment


      #3
      Very bad choice of CODEC in my opinion, the only native support is in QuickTime and that's a horrible system resources hog if you're on a PC (which the vast majority are), making playback more likely to be choppy on older machines. And just look at all the people in this thread installing CODECs and new players, and judging by their responses they're power users.

      H.264 also has limited support on external devices, for example I watch all of the AW videos on a HD plasma via a MediaBox and know for a fact there's no way to get it to support H.264.

      A far better choice would be the VC-1 CODEC in Windows Media, the quality difference is negligible but the support is wide-ranging; all current Windows machines (XP, Vista et al), all Blu-Ray and HD DVD devices and hardware such as the XBox 360. And before all the open-source and Macolites cry foul, surely it's in the best interests of the site and its support crew to have a file format that plays straight away for 93.78% of visitors without CODEC or player issues.

      So to answer the question, yes, I could play it, by opening it in my editing suite. Not sure if that's representative though!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by stylus80 View Post
        Very bad choice of CODEC in my opinion, the only native support is in QuickTime and that's a horrible system resources hog if you're on a PC (which the vast majority are), making playback more likely to be choppy on older machines. And just look at all the people in this thread installing CODECs and new players, and judging by their responses they're power users.

        H.264 also has limited support on external devices, for example I watch all of the AW videos on a HD plasma via a MediaBox and know for a fact there's no way to get it to support H.264.

        A far better choice would be the VC-1 CODEC in Windows Media, the quality difference is negligible but the support is wide-ranging; all current Windows machines (XP, Vista et al), all Blu-Ray and HD DVD devices and hardware such as the XBox 360. And before all the open-source and Macolites cry foul, surely it's in the best interests of the site and its support crew to have a file format that plays straight away for 93.78% of visitors without CODEC or player issues.

        So to answer the question, yes, I could play it, by opening it in my editing suite. Not sure if that's representative though!
        I want to dispell a few myths...

        h.264 actually has far better "support" on external devices than VC1. In fact OTA and cable DVB, HDDVD, Blueray, most mobile devices including ipod are all h.264 based systems. In fact the DTV tuner in your plasma screen is a hardware h.264 decoder. The Microsoft propritory mediabox you speak of is one of the only devices that DOESNT support it.
        While VC1 is supported on HDDVD and Blueray, it was a later addition to the standards war started by Sony and Toshiba that came about when MS and Toshiba signed a deal so the xBox could have a compeditive HD optical device to the PS3's blueray. Both orrigonal standards called for codec support for HD playback (h.264/AVC) and backward compatability with the established MPEG2 transport stream used on SD-DVD's.
        As a codec, VC1 is very good. In fact under a veriety of situations it performs as well as h.264 however it ONLY does so in windows based machines. If your argument is to NOT alienate people, how is adopting a codec that CANNOT be played back on any Mac be a good thing? Add to that, in the absence of a hardware decoder (such as your mediabox) VC1 is actually MORE computationally expensive at the decoder end than AVC. Results may differ depending on a lot of factors but i can say that with the file sizes and qualities that WE will be using VC1 is not quite as efficient as h.264
        Regardless of all this, we do have plans in the future to replace .wmv with VC1 but will not be doing so until its market penetration is as significant as .wmv9, which at this point it isnt.
        Last edited by Frans; 9 February 2008, 08:56 AM. Reason: adapted to thread move

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by stylus80 View Post
          Very bad choice of CODEC in my opinion, the only native support is in QuickTime and that's a horrible system resources hog if you're on a PC (which the vast majority are), making playback more likely to be choppy on older machines. And just look at all the people in this thread installing CODECs and new players, and judging by their responses they're power users.
          If you install VLC, it will be the only player you'll ever need.

          H.264 also has limited support on external devices, for example I watch all of the AW videos on a HD plasma via a MediaBox and know for a fact there's no way to get it to support H.264.
          Media box needs an upgrade. H.264 is fast becoming a very standard standard.

          A far better choice would be the VC-1 CODEC in Windows Media, the quality difference is negligible but the support is wide-ranging; all current Windows machines (XP, Vista et al), all Blu-Ray and HD DVD devices and hardware such as the XBox 360. And before all the open-source and Macolites cry foul, surely it's in the best interests of the site and its support crew to have a file format that plays straight away for 93.78% of visitors without CODEC or player issues.
          While VC-1 is now an open standard, it started out as a MicroCrap only codec. I'm guessing that turned a lot a people off. Turned me off.

          I haven't seen any open source VC-1 encoders. Do any exist? Is it a license only codec? If so, that eliminates it from the "free" world. If VLC can't play it (do not know either way), I'll want nothing to do with it because I'll have nothing to do with Windblows Media Player.


          Obviously, YMMV

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by EnricoAW View Post
            What we're trying to guage is how the general user, with a general system and very little IT or post production knowledge is going to fair trying to playback the file. Yes VLC is fabulous, yes it's about as xplatform as it gets, yes i use it on most of my systems. BUT suggesting people download it to solve their problems is actually diminishing the accuracy of the test.
            Then maybe I've misread the initial posting, and so have others.

            Those who have only vanilla systems appear to be the most that can't play MPEG4, because Windblows doesn't appear to support it out-of-the-box. So, non-savy users are having to hunt down something that they are not sure what exactly it is that they need.

            By telling users who only have WMP on their system to go and get VLC and install it, the codec hunting problem is solved and now you (AW) gets to find out if the user has the computer power to play the file, i.e., is the user's computer technology too out-of-date. You can't determine that unless different software gets loaded on the system. As pointed out by others, QuickTime also supports MPEG4 out-of-the box (no hunting for codecs), but it is platform limited.

            That said, the order of savy users, based upon their platform, will be Linux, Mac and then Windblows. Throw a problem like this at a Linux user and that user will be able to get a solution working. There are many more savy Mac users as well, but because Mac is trying to get PeeCee users to buy Macs, the overall geekiness level is not as high.

            Because it is the Windblow user that will probably require the more support, you really need to point out a generic player to download because of non-geeky level of many users.

            What is interesting is that a majority of the responders in this thread are of the geeky type and know what to go look for. Not sure why more generic users haven't posted anything. This not meant as an offense to anyone. Maybe the overall AW subscriber geek level is higher than average, making your support job a lot easier.

            Comment


              #7
              Encoder Used?

              So, just what encoder package is AW currently using to create the MP4 files? Maybe a better question is the workflow, from camera video (DV?) to the final product. If anything is proprietary, just say "blackbox" at that point.

              Comment


                #8
                MrVideo:
                What is current and what we are headed to are two very different beasts. Ill cover this in more detail at a later stage but our content is shot and edited DCVProHD 1080/50i and encoded using a program called TMPGEnc. It's been a great little app for what we HAVE been doing but we've grown to big for it now.
                What it does do better than anything i have EVER seen (which is a lot) is mpeg1 encoding.

                The future is a different thing. At this point we are looking at Telestream FlipFactory to do network wide, multi-system-multi-core (ie mass paralell) encoding in an automated way.
                As far as the workflow, this thread aint that big but i will get into parts of it as we progress.

                And thanks for the comments about DTV in the US. I didnt realise that only mpeg2 was supported, I was making a (foolish) assumption that as the standard for IPTV states h.264/AVC stream as the primary HD carrier that it was a global thing. i stand corrected. That said, the point i was trying to make to the VC1 supporter was the prolification of codecs doesnt end at the computer infront of you. Its much MUCH bigger than that. Which is where VC1 has absolutly no place at all.

                More later.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Is there an easier solution to let people play H264 on Windows, without installing ffmpeg/haali-splitter or letting them use vlc? There doesn't appear to be a freeware codec like there is for xvid? That part has me most worried about overall support, you can't really tell people to jump through that many hoops in order to watch stuff? (and they WILL download it and they WILL complain if they can't view, trust me on that ;-)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by EnricoAW View Post
                    What is current and what we are headed to are two very different beasts. Ill cover this in more detail at a later stage but our content is shot and edited DCVProHD 1080/50i and encoded using a program called TMPGEnc.
                    I think you meant to type DVCProHD. Gotta slap those fingers for getting the characters out of order

                    In any event, I do indeed know TMPGenc. When I was going to use it, I found it way too slow. I went with a Janaese MPEG-1 plugin for Adobe Premiere, which was lots faster and easier to work with.

                    The future is a different thing. At this point we are looking at Telestream FlipFactory to do network wide, multi-system-multi-core (ie mass paralell) encoding in an automated way.
                    As far as the workflow, this thread aint that big but i will get into parts of it as we progress.
                    Damn, sounds like you are getting serious. Do not know Telestream FlipFactory.

                    And thanks for the comments about DTV in the US. I didnt realise that only mpeg2 was supported,[/QUOTE]

                    Stateside DTV ATSC development goes back many, many years. As such, only MPEG-2 was available. So that is what was written into the spec. Another drawback was the limitation of the 6 MHz OTA channel width, which results in a total mux transport of about 19.3 Mbps. With all the crap that goes into the transport stream, HD quality suffers. It is being touted as the be all to end all in digital television. But it is far from the truth. I've complaint alot that our DTV system sucks. There are several TV engineers who agree. Yet there is nothing we can do about it now.

                    The 1080p that is available via hidef DVD is far superior to what we get DTV (be it OTA, DBS satellite or cable). Yes, DirecTV is doing all of their new HD channels in MPEG-4, so that will help a little bit, only a little because their source is still MPEG-2.

                    I'm sorry to say that our DTV system is inferior. Kinda like NTSC came first and then PAL improved it. With Europe taking longer to go HD, they got the chance to use MPEG-4.

                    Sigh.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Frans View Post
                      Is there an easier solution to let people play H264 on Windows, without installing ffmpeg/haali-splitter or letting them use vlc? There doesn't appear to be a freeware codec like there is for xvid? That part has me most worried about overall support, you can't really tell people to jump through that many hoops in order to watch stuff? (and they WILL download it and they WILL complain if they can't view, trust me on that ;-)
                      But there is a freeware H.264 codec. Otherwise programs like VLC would be able to ship it with VLC and be able to play MP4 files. Nor could programs like meGUI be able to be free and encode MP4/MKV files. meGUI does autoupdate of the pieces that it uses, and one of them is the H.264 codec.

                      Over on the other thread, others posted that they downloaded the H.264 codec so that WMP would work.

                      I'm not sure what you are asking, since a codec by itself is worthless. You have to have something to use it in order to play the MP4 videos, be it WMP, QT or VLC, for a few examples.

                      It boils down to user choice when it comes to media players. I can't stand MS players. Other swear by them. Others like QT. I love VLC, as it seems to play anything I throw at it. So, AW can't even try to restrict users to a particular player. That was possible before with WM9 files, since they were pretty much only MS compatible. With H.264, there are a lot of players available to the user.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        VLC uses ffmpeg, which indeed can decode H264 (and VC1 btw). In order to decode H264 for use with other players Windows users need to install ffdshow which makes ffmpeg available to directshow programs. WMP11 on it's own still can't handle the direct output from that when it contains extra stuff (AW most likely wont include that, e.g. subtitles ;-) so the WMP11 users also need the Haali Spliiter.

                        So yeah there IS a freeware solution but it's not exactly easy to install for non-experienced members. I was more looking for a single click-here and it works thing. You COULD make an automated install of ffdshow with splitter if you want, but I'm not so sure AW wants to support that Once you have ffdshow working you can play both VC1 and H264 on any directshow player you like so the format isn't important any more once ffdshow is deemed nessecary for playback.

                        VC1 would be easier in this regard since WMP11 can handle that out of the box. I'm curious why H.264 was selected, is it easier to work with? Quality difference seems to be minimaal between VC1 and H264, which makes decoding-support important. Flip4Mac does support VC1 by the way, so that should work.

                        I don't mind either way, since I can play both formats nicely. I do foresee a flood of support-questions though.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Frans View Post
                          VLC uses ffmpeg, which indeed can decode H264 (and VC1 btw). In order to decode H264 for use with other players Windows users need to install ffdshow which makes ffmpeg available to directshow programs. WMP11 on it's own still can't handle the direct output from that when it contains extra stuff (AW most likely wont include that, e.g. subtitles ;-) so the WMP11 users also need the Haali Spliiter.
                          Which is why I'm an advocate of supporting the install of QT or VLC, since out-of-the-box those two programs support MP4 without having to hunt anything else down.

                          So yeah there IS a freeware solution but it's not exactly easy to install for non-experienced members. I was more looking for a single click-here and it works thing.
                          QT/VLC install no differently than any other MS program. Simple and easy and you get a "single click-here and it works thing."

                          I'm curious why H.264 was selected, is it easier to work with?
                          Explained in detail in the thread that started this whole discussion. http://forums.abbywinters.com/vbulle...184#post203184

                          I do foresee a flood of support-questions though.
                          So do I, but do believe that most of them can handled by a FAQ page.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by MrVideo View Post
                            Explained in detail in the thread that started this whole discussion.
                            Not really, that only tells me you don't like Vista nor jumping of cliffs

                            It's pretty much a fact supporting VC-1/WMV-HD would be easier, at least on the download/decode/view/member side of things. What is so much better about H.264 which offsets that (perceived) negative about it, needing to install software to view vids from this site?

                            The reasoning for not going back to offering divx files was that it would increase support-handling because members would need to install either codecs or programs to view such files (DivxPlayer). I'm not seeing much difference with the H.264 idea.

                            p.s. given the choice I would use vlc over QT because it wont whine about wanting you to upgrade to the 'pro' version

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Frans View Post
                              Not really, that only tells me you don't like Vista nor jumping of cliffs
                              Not by me, by EnricoAW!

                              p.s. given the choice I would use vlc over QT because it wont whine about wanting you to upgrade to the 'pro' version
                              That is so true.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Frans View Post
                                It's pretty much a fact supporting VC-1/WMV-HD would be easier, at least on the download/decode/view/member side of things. What is so much better about H.264 which offsets that (perceived) negative about it, needing to install software to view vids from this site?
                                For Windows computers that is. There is no VC-1 decoder for Mac/Linux (yet). I think ffmpeg is working on a decoder but last I knew it still wasn't usable. Macs have native support for h.264 (QuickTime). Linux has good support for h.264, anything that uses the ffmpeg decoder (VLC, gstreamer, MPlayer, etc). Most Windows users will need to install something either way (QuickTime, VLC, ffdshow, CoreAVC, WMP11). The only exception to this is VC-1 on Vista where they already have WMP11.

                                As for what makes h.264 better, you can get better quality at the same bitrate with h.264 over VC-1. MS decided that the most important feature for VC-1 was low decode overhead. So it had to leave out some of the more advanced features in order to meet this objective. This in turn means that in order to retain the same comparative quality you have to raise bitrate, resulting in larger file sizes.

                                [Edit]
                                Well guess ffmpeg has had a VC-1 decoder since last March.
                                Last edited by konvert; 12 February 2008, 01:37 AM.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Enrico, or someone at AW, I'm curious, but what all h.264 features does the test video use?

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by konvert View Post
                                    For Windows computers that is. There is no VC-1 decoder for Mac/Linux (yet).
                                    As noted ffmpeg supports it (so ffdshow prolly handles it as well but that's kinda pointless on a Windows system). Most of the AW members will be Windows users though, likely XP. Makes it very interesting to be prepared to support whatever you choose as the new high-res codec for that platform. VC1 is build-in and as far as I know an open-standard, sort of unique for Microsoft I know

                                    Anyway, flip4mac seems to support VC1 since mid-2007 already. Read here in MacWorld, I've got zero experience with it though. So that would need testing.

                                    In order of easy-of-use for h.264 it's: Mac (build-in pretty much), Linux (vlc very common), Windows. For VC1 it's pretty much the exact reverse, with Linux again in the middle since those users usually have learned to adapt more ;-).

                                    I'd be very interested in knowing why H.264 was chosen, esp. since Garion mentioned something about wanting stuff that works the first-time for most users... which sounds like no choice has yet been made?

                                    Enrico, why are you still using tmpgEnc? AW bought Avid for HD editing and handling months ago? Surely it can encode wmv, h264 and vc1 if so desired?

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Frans View Post
                                      I'd be very interested in knowing why H.264 was chosen, esp. since Garion mentioned something about wanting stuff that works the first-time for most users... which sounds like no choice has yet been made?
                                      based on the survey we ran, 80% of people can play h.264 out of the box (as in, with their current system configuration), and 10% more can play it with a simple codec download and install. That's pretty good.

                                      MPG1 is pretty much the only format that everyone can play, out of the box, first time everyt ime, with no problems, but thre are a bunch of other problems with that (large file size, poor quality).

                                      Enrico, why are you still using tmpgEnc? AW bought Avid for HD editing and handling months ago? Surely it can encode wmv, h264 and vc1 if so desired?
                                      I am sure Enrico will be here soon to comment ont he details, but Avid is a video editing software package, not an encoding package. I think it can do a few crude output methods, but none are suitable for web sure. We use TmpgEnc for encoding currently, cos it makes extremely good MPGs and quite good WMV's.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Frans View Post
                                        Enrico, why are you still using tmpgEnc? AW bought Avid for HD editing and handling months ago? Surely it can encode wmv, h264 and vc1 if so desired?
                                        As Garion has said our current encoder is TMPGEnc primarily because of the brilliant job it does with MPEG1. I have to say with all my experience it does a remarkable job. But times are changing. Our test files are being generated on TMPGEnc for the time being until we finalise a new encoding platform. Avid, like every other NLE (except perhaps Discreet Smoke) simply uses the QuickTime framework behind it to encode things like h.264. As an encoder QT only supports the Baseline Profile of the h.264 standard which is inadiquate for our needs. Only the Main and High Profiles offer some of the features that will ensure quality as bitrate goes down such as B-Slices and CABAC entropy encoding. QT's encoder was primarily deployed for encoding files for mobile devices (iPods mainly) thus is limited to CALVC entropy encoding.
                                        Avid will not output to VC-1 at all.
                                        The encoder that replaces TMPGEnc will (at this stage) be either Telestream's FlipFactory or Vangard Software's VSSEncoder.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Thanks for opening this thread, I have some questions which I didn't wanna post on the h264 trial thread.

                                          I am a member who always downloads the Mpeg version of the videos where possible, because it is compatible with most of the players I have on my computer. I prefer to watch the videos in Windows Media Player above anything else.


                                          What I'd like to know is:

                                          1) Are you planning to keep the MPEG, WMV and Flash formats or is this H264 gonna replace one of them? If it is the MPEG (and I'd prolly rather you replaced the WMV than the MPEG personally as it is compatible with very few players) then can I be reassured that I can get a simple codec and the vids will work fine on Windows Media Player. I currently have WMP 10 and a 2007 Divx codec but the trial VNL would only play in Itunes for me and I don't wanna use that to view the videos.

                                          2) What other players/programmes might you recommend to be sure I have one or more programmes on my computer that can play AW videos?

                                          3) For the first time recently I did not download a couple of DIMs because the videos were 400MB or 500MB and I cannot justify one video taking up this much space on my computer. Most of the time you guys are really good in keeping the videos a reasonable size for people on all kinds of download speeds and with all kinds of disc space to enjoy but I think 400 to 500MB is getting out of hand. Would the new format help keep file sizes down again (eg not too much over 300MB), especially if the video quality is improved further.

                                          Okay those are some initial questions. I'd like to ask some of those people who are demanding the latest formats, super quality videos etc to have a little more thought for other members and not be too selfish in their demands. We don't all have the highest quality systems/computers/internet connections/HD monitors etc etc. Surely what matters is that the maximum proportion of members possible (ie the great majority) can enjoy the site and the videos in a decent quality and at a decent size also. They don't have to be HD Digital Cable ready to be enjoyable. I thank the AW tech people for taking a step back and doing trials/surveys to ensure any changes do not sacrifice compatibility or user friendliness.

                                          SF

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Oh, I thought you could buy add-in encoder with Avid. Must have confused with something else. If Avid doesn't work with VC1 at all the choice sort of becomes forced yeah

                                            Most of the encoder-tech itself is lost on me sorry to say. I know about main vs. advanced profiles and such but CALVC doesn't mean much to me.

                                            I sincerely doubt 80% of total members will be able to view a h264 clip without effort. Given that neither Vista nor XP can play it out-of-the-box that 80% seems way to high. There is no such thing as a simple codec-download for h264 on Windows. People either need QT or VLC as a viewer, or go the ffdshow route. Maybe it does help that HD/BD-dvd players need to support h.264 so all the newer software players must handle it.

                                            It's not surprising tmpgEnc does good on mpg1 and mpg2, that is their own (as in written by them) encoder engine. It's how they started. The other encoding Xpress offers are automated calls of a licensed codec (or free one).

                                            Is the plan for the h264 files to be roughly the size wmv's are today, thus offering better quality? If so will the wmv's be done at a lower bitrate? Or more to the point will wmv files become smaller? Some are rather large now (Kobe's vid was around 400Mb for example).

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                              2) What other players/programmes might you recommend to be sure I have one or more programmes on my computer that can play AW videos?
                                              www.videolan.org VLC 0.8.6d will play pretty much anything you throw at it, including mpeg,wmv or h264. But that is a player.

                                              If you want to play such files in WMP10 or 11 you need to install ffdshow, I posted a link how to do that in the trial thread. The big advantage once you have done that is that you can play pretty much anything in WMP (esp. if you install Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative as well, take a guess what those do;-). It's bit more install work though.

                                              Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                              Okay those are some initial questions. I'd like to ask some of those people who are demanding the latest formats.
                                              I think formats perse are almost never demanded. It's higher resolution/quality we're after here. The h.264 encoding does allow for smaller file if you were to keep the same quality you get in the current wmv's. You could end up with 3 qualities of h264; low, normal, high - were high is only available for selected shoots and low is basically current-wmv quality.

                                              I don't see much use for mpeg1 anymore once h264 is available, has little to no advantage over wmv already (if you can play wmv of course). The list of available formats per video would become a bit large then, crowded.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Cheers Frans,

                                                I do realise that it is higher quality that people would like but I'm just saying that when that necessitates new formats/encoding/file sizes/codecs then it is important that you guys don't sacrifice compatibility, user friendliness and the ability of the maximum number of members possible to still enjoy the videos. Yes AW needs to keep up with developments and progress but we are watching lovely natural girls getting naked here, not the latest cinematic masterpiece or sporting event. For sure increase the quality of the vids a bit more whilst keeping file sizes down but I don't personally need to see every little pore on the body, not if it meant that lots of other members would have difficulties downloading or watching future videos.

                                                Anyway my little rant over, back on topic, thanks for your help Frans. Like I say I've been downloading the MPEG version cos I presumed it was a lot more compatible with different players than WMV, which I presumed really only worked well with WMP. And if for instance something f'ed up with my WMP, I thought I will still be able to watch the MPEGs in Real Player or Quicktime. Am I stupid in assuming this? I guess my above questions were to make sure that I wouldn't have too much trouble with getting codecs/new players so I could be watching these new H264 vids because I don't really wanna revert to getting WMVs for future videos. That is presuming these H264 will eventually (like MPEGs) play on a wider variety of players etc than WMVs do.

                                                SF

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                                  downloading the MPEG version cos I presumed it was a lot more compatible with different players than WMV, which I presumed really only worked well with WMP.
                                                  Which player do you want to use? If you use WMP already stick to wmv's.

                                                  Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                                  And if for instance something f'ed up with my WMP, I thought I will still be able to watch the MPEGs in Real Player or Quicktime. Am I stupid in assuming this?
                                                  Realplayer is not nice, avoid it. Installs stuff you don't want. QT works but has another interface so takes some getting used to. The vlc player mentioned earlier is freeware and pretty much plays anything except RealMedia and Quicktime (propetary stuff). Get the 'alternative' codecs for those and you're set to play most files available today.

                                                  Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                                  I guess my above questions were to make sure that I wouldn't have too much trouble with getting codecs/new players so I could be watching these new H264 vids because I don't really wanna revert to getting WMVs for future videos.
                                                  To watch h264 you have several options as mentioned earlier here and in the trial thread. If you want to keep using WMP10/11 to view all your movies you need to install ffdshow and the haali splitter. Once done you're set for life though

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by sweatyfox View Post
                                                    I am a member who always downloads the Mpeg version of the videos where possible, because it is compatible with most of the players I have on my computer. I prefer to watch the videos in Windows Media Player above anything else.
                                                    *sigh* you're the kinda guy we spend a fair bit of time talking about in development meetings, you know? Most people are like you (I'm the same. I think it's basic human nature). They choose a certain format of video for a reason that has nothing to do with that format of video. It's a "feelings" based decision, usually due to perceptions. For me, it's because ages ago, I had a computer that could not play this newfangled "WMV" video format, so I choose MPG's when downloading videos, and have been a loyal user ever since then. Even tho, fixing the WMV problem in the first place is pretty easy, and it's certainly not an issue any more.

                                                    So, you're loyal to MPG's, even tho the quality is lower AND the file size larger for no reason otehr than, you have always downloaded MPG's so you want to keep downloading them (I don't mean you specifically SF, tho maybe it applies).

                                                    In fact, most video formats are compatible with most players. It's not really ABOUT the players at all - it's about the codecs installed on your system (with a few exceptions that Frans mentioned). Some players come bundled with codecs (the more grumpy among us say that codecs come bundled with PLAYERS, but it amounts to the same thing).

                                                    Once you have the h.264 (or, divX or WMV or whatever) codec installed, the same video will play in QuickTime player, Windows Media Player, VLC, Media Player Classic, or any of the dozens of other players out there. CODECs are installed on your COMPUTER, and any player can utilise them. What player you use is up to you - maybe you like the "playlist" feature of Windows Media Player 11, or maybe you like the pared-down conveneince of Media Player Classic... it does not matter one whit to us, or the format the video is encoded in - so long as that codec is installed on your system.

                                                    (again, there are some exceptions to this, that I expect Mr Video will write verbosely about).

                                                    1) Are you planning to keep the MPEG, WMV and Flash formats or is this H264 gonna replace one of them? If it is the MPEG (and I'd prolly rather you replaced the WMV than the MPEG personally as it is compatible with very few players) then can I be reassured that I can get a simple codec and the vids will work fine on Windows Media Player. I currently have WMP 10 and a 2007 Divx codec but the trial VNL would only play in Itunes for me and I don't wanna use that to view the videos.
                                                    We may keep MPG, but it's unlikely. Its day has passed. It's being succeeded by VC1, and it's more likely we'll replace it with that (if anything). ATM, we plan to phase it out over the next six months, but we'll see what h.264 take up is like before we make any rash decisions.

                                                    We will keep Flash for some time yet. Its' streaming client has extremely high market penetration, and many of our customers want streaming video. I image there will be VC1 and h.264 streaming clients in the near future (or rather, I expect they exist, but are not widely supported yet).

                                                    2) What other players/programmes might you recommend to be sure I have one or more programmes on my computer that can play AW videos?
                                                    I am a huge fan of Media Player Classic (MPC). Despite it's name, it has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's free, tiny (5.4mb), and does not install - you just associate whatever video files you want with it, and have the exe on your computer somewhere (I have it on my keychain USB drive as well, it's a handy nerd gift when you go visiting). It's kinda the MPG of video players: reliable and has huge compatibility. It comes with a lot of codecs when you install it (like most players, but in addition it has a few obscure ones as well), and of course will observe whatever other codecs you have installed on your system. I am not sure if it plays back h264 natively (I doubt it). But as I said, it's a matter of installing the h264 codec on your computer, and it will. MPC plays DVD's as well, tho DVD navigation is a bit clumsy. It does not do playlists.

                                                    Other people here have been recommending VLC. Similar to MPC, tho does a proper install into Windows OS. I actually installed it today, and I quite like it. Again, free, small, reliable, compatible. Not sure if it plays DVD's?

                                                    3) For the first time recently I did not download a couple of DIMs because the videos were 400MB or 500MB and I cannot justify one video taking up this much space on my computer.
                                                    Well, you cannot make that decision until you have seen the video, surely! What if it was the best IM ever? It's not like you have to keep it if it's bad, right?

                                                    Most of the time you guys are really good in keeping the videos a reasonable size for people on all kinds of download speeds and with all kinds of disc space to enjoy but I think 400 to 500MB is getting out of hand. Would the new format help keep file sizes down again (eg not too much over 300MB), especially if the video quality is improved further.
                                                    Most feedback we get is for better quality videos, not for smaller sized videos, so you are in the minority, tho it's not hugely slanted either way (60:40, maybe?).

                                                    Your disk space argument does not really wash any more. It's around $450 for a 1Tb drive now, disk space has never, ever been cheaper (and it'll keep getting cheaper). Few people cite lack of disk space as an issue in this discussion (tho many will be concerned about download time). Most people have desk space to burn. And in general, bandwidth is increasing, becomming cheaper, and peoples tastes are becoming more "expensive" (they demand higher quality). You may not want high clarity in your porn, but plenty of people do (and our competition offers it, and the feeling we're getting is, we're loosing customers cos we're not offering it).

                                                    That being said, we do plan to cater for those who require smaller files. It does not cost us much (ironcailly, it costs us LESS, cos we end up paying for less bandwidth for you) to have LQ version of files, but they may not be in a format you like (Flash? h.264? VC1?).

                                                    As you allude, another aspect of this is that h.264 by its nature allows for higher compression (smaller file size) and higher quality. That means we have a choice: We can use what we have gained to...
                                                    • Offer SMALLER (file size) videos of a similar quality, or...
                                                    • Offer files of the same file size that are INCREASED quality.
                                                    Your vote is for smaller files, cos you're happy with the quality, but plenty of people will vote the other way (maybe there's a survey in that?). You might change your vote when you see the quality, too.

                                                    (Of course, the other aspect of this is that higher quality video for customers means we have to massively lift our production values (I am sure everyone has heard the probably apocryphal anecdote of the porn star who never wanted to be shot in HD cos it showed her flaws TOO clearly?). Garbage in, garbage out. We need to increase our quality of lighting, camera handling, editing... and heaven forfend we should actually have to increase the quality of our CONTENT, let alone our delivery method!)).

                                                    Okay those are some initial questions. I'd like to ask some of those people who are demanding the latest formats, super quality videos etc to have a little more thought for other members and not be too selfish in their demands.
                                                    Aw, I think that's a two way street, SF... (and I think you're in the minority, FTR).

                                                    I thank the AW tech people for taking a step back and doing trials/surveys to ensure any changes do not sacrifice compatibility or user friendliness.
                                                    Hey, it isn't just the tech people, pal! (we do actually have a plan for this project, that comes from on high)

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Now THAT is a reply

                                                      One minor quible; there is no free downloadable common-use codec as there is for xvid/divx. Means you either are stuck using a player like QT or VLC, or buying a codec for $10 which will play on lower-end systems to btw. QT and VLC do have internal decoding for H264 but they don't 'offer' that service to other windows programs. That is what ffdshow does, to some degree vlc is just ffdshow (which is really ffmpeg which works with directshow) combined with a player

                                                      You can't install say VLC and then play h264 movies in WMP for example.

                                                      I read that FlashPlayer9 supports H264 from 9.0.2 upwards. Not really sure if that can somehow be used to let people view local movies, but it would be usefull. Most people have that player installed anyway.

                                                      I thought you are already shooting in HD ? So you should be able to judge how much impact a higher resolution has on what we see. Then again, the stills already ARE high-res and thus show those 'imperfections' already.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Hey Garion and Frans,

                                                        Well thanks for your detailed replies. I guess you are right about my choice of mpeg to some extent, it is based on an assumption that it is more compatible with different players and more likely to still be watchable in the future. Whereas I think with WMV I probably thought, what if they move on to a new format and ditch WMP or WMV in the future and I have these WMVs saved. Trying to second guess the future is difficult but I prefer to try and go with what looks like the most compatible file format which works on the largest number of different media players.

                                                        As for the file sizes, the DIMs in question were for sure worth getting, in fact I've rarely known you guys to produce a dud one. Heck I can even watch the Flash version if it was a question of is this worth downloading or not. But when one of the vids was 500MB I just thought, that is not only going to take over half an hour to load but two of those vids would take almost 1GB on my hard drive, just for one DIM. I guess I was kinda hoping you would still be able to offer vids of up to between 300MB and 350MB and split the vids in two if they are larger. On some of the Divx sites I've seen they offer surprisingly small file sizes for pretty good quality videos, even the ones which are a rip of the HD version or DVD.

                                                        Maybe if not enough people are using WMV anymore you could offer 2 versions of the new H264 instead, providing that a vast majority of members are happy with this format. That is you could have a higher quality H264 version and then an H264 version which keeps the quality similar or only slightly better than now but which keeps the filesize decent? Or maybe I should just go for the WMV in future if they are the ones you decide to keep at current quality. Just one idea amongst many. I do get your point about video quality but I'm of the opinion that it is possible to satisfy the 'higher tech' members whilst making sure those at the other end don't lose their ability to enjoy your content.

                                                        It is a two way street but whereas I am saying for sure offer a higher quality but keep a version of lower quality and filesize (ie around or just above what it is now) for those of us who choose. There you are everyone is happy. I'm not trying to hold back progress or saying those who want it can't have it. Whereas I wonder if some of these people clamouring for far higher quality and HD etc etc would give a shit if others of us couldn't use the videos properly any more. I'm not sure if I am in the minority, I'm certainly not sure if folks like MrVideo, who is obviously a smart guy, are necessarily the majority. To his creadit even MrVideo recognises in one of his earlier post on this thread that a lot of tech savvy members seem to be contributing so far whilst he hasn't heard much from "generic members". I wouldn't like to think this is a place where a small number of people who shout the loudest are the ones who get listened to or that certain people lose out cos they can't expend quite as much cash on new equipment. I do need to store other stuff on my computer apart from porn, even if it is the wonderful AW kind.

                                                        I am quite surprised to hear about your concern that you may be losing members cos of video, I only raise this as a matter of interest, not to make a point. It's just that the photography and quality of it used to be the main selling point of the site. For me I love both the stills and video, they compliment each other nicely and I would feel like I was missing out if either was not there. Interesting though.

                                                        Anyway thanks guys for listening and thanks to Garion and Frans for suggestions made as to programmes/codecs to get and for giving pretty thorough answers. I do give you guys credit and realise it is tough to satisty everyone and make such decisions. Please know that in my defence I am not just a luddite or someone who objects to all change. But I make no apologies for saying that your wonderful content and the models are the most important thing to me. That and the wonderful interaction on the messageboards with models and fellow members make my experience here.
                                                        Of course give me better quality where you can but not if it's going to mean missing out on aspects of the site I and others love just for a better picture. So shoot me if matters like who are going to be in the next bunch of T3s you shoot or the recent staff changes seem more important than whether I can see a video in HD or not.

                                                        Hope I'm not one of the guys you slag off in meetings, I still like to think of myself as one of the good guys in what is almost my fourth year here, even though I don't expect special treatment. It's not many sites where you get a detailed reply from the CEO so much appreciated.

                                                        SF
                                                        Last edited by sweatyfox; 13 February 2008, 02:09 PM.

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by garionhall View Post
                                                          *sigh* you're the kinda guy we spend a fair bit of time talking about in development meetings, you know? Most people are like you (I'm the same. I think it's basic human nature). They choose a certain format of video for a reason that has nothing to do with that format of video. It's a "feelings" based decision, usually due to perceptions.
                                                          Personally I tend to be very pragmatic about selecting video formats - as long as I can get a codec for my player of choice (MPlayer) then I'd be fine with using the format based on its technical merits alone.

                                                          My only reservation for WMV in the past, and now h.264, would be if the respective patent holders of the formats started taking legal action against open-source developers and clamping down on unlicensed implementations, to the point where it becomes difficult to obtain a codec for my player of choice - then I'd raise strong concern for using a format with a publically documented royalty-free decoder (MPEG-1 in this case).

                                                          Given that both Microsoft and MPEG-LA are most likely wanting to increase their market share for their respective formats, then I see this as very unlikely in the meantime.

                                                          So, you're loyal to MPG's, even tho the quality is lower AND the file size larger for no reason otehr than, you have always downloaded MPG's so you want to keep downloading them (I don't mean you specifically SF, tho maybe it applies).
                                                          Other than software compatibility, I believe the last standing straws for MPEG-1 is the reduced CPU load in decoding (for those with low-end systems), and those who use specialised hardware (ie. DVD players) that only natively support MPEG-1, to play back the videos on a TV.

                                                          Sidenote: I've got a DVD player that natively supports DivX, and for an experiment I tried converting (using MEncoder) various movie formats on my computer, including some AW WMV videos, to DivX and tried playing them on the DVD player. The end result worked pretty well - I could document how to go about it here if anyone's interested and they've got a similar setup.

                                                          Other people here have been recommending VLC. Similar to MPC, tho does a proper install into Windows OS. I actually installed it today, and I quite like it. Again, free, small, reliable, compatible. Not sure if it plays DVD's?
                                                          Mindless Trivia: Actually that was the original purpose of VLC - to stream DVDs over a LAN.

                                                          As for Sweatyfox's problem with storage - are you, or have you ever considered archiving your downloads to removable media such as CD/DVD-R? Whenever I purchase digital content over the web, I always do this instinctively (making sure I have a near-permanent record of what I purchased), and as a result I have a massive array of CD-R's - having multiple CD-ROM drives helps with the changing around of discs though. I suppose with the cost of blank DVD-R media nowadays, I guess the real cost only is a little bit of your time to arrange directories for each disc and to do the burning (which can be alleviated with some scripting, like I have used).

                                                          Personally, I also think the WMV files are starting to get rather obscene in size anyway - but more for a bandwidth/download point of view. My ISP plan is already $49.95/mth for just 2GB/month @ 1500Mbps before it gets shaped down to 64kbps - and I presume many other AW subscribers in Australia and in countries/areas where shaped plans are predominant, are in a similar predicament (it doesn't take too much YouTube surfing to break that cap!). Upping the size of the video files is likely to cause such users to have to increase spending on their ISP plans as well, which could affect the viability of them continuing an AW subscription.

                                                          I presume there are users who feel like this and would probably want to see the return of offering videos at bitrates, say, like 1.1Mbps (like late 2005 AW standards), would I be right?

                                                          And lastly: Enrico, I miss you already! Let's catch up for a beer sometime!

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            Can I throw in a question regarding the WMV format that I prefer and download since the quality is better than the mpg version!?!?

                                                            I am thinking about buying one of these multimedia HD players that you connect to your TV to run computer videos. Some of them support WMV formats, and one describe their support as:

                                                            Video @ Format :.wmv9( No DRM , do not support WMV9 Pro nor WMV9 Advanced profile), WMV
                                                            HD( No DRM ), .avi, .mpg, .vob, .mp4, .asf, .tp, .tr, IFO, ISO

                                                            Codec : MPEG 1 / 2 / 4, XVID

                                                            Audio @ MP3, WMA (lossy only), AAC, FLAC, Ogg, PCM, M4A(no drm)
                                                            WHat kind are the WMV files that AW uses?

                                                            Comment

                                                            Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                                             
                                                            Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                                            Working...
                                                            X