|
|
Matroska video (.mkv) - annoying
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't like things that annoy me. All over (certain places) HD videos are being distributed in Matroska containers.
I know VLC can play it, so can MPlayer and even QT with Perian (some sound-bugs there though), however it is a silly container format. (why is it silly? it is silly like OGG Vorbis is silly - it is -highly redundant and will never become standard)
MPEG4 (.mp4) container is better, if for no other reason that it is industry standard and universally accepted.
Point being: why would anyone choose mkv when they could use mp4? I don't get it. What's so great about mkv?
The avi container wasn't made to handle HD and 5.1 sound so that's that, but why Matroska?
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I also hate nerd e-penis formats, OGG is absolutely rubbish and pointless, MKV not as bad as ogg but god was I annoyed first time I saw them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Open/free/unencumbered standard
Unlimited number of video, audio, picture or subtitle tracks in a single file
Uses EBML (Extensible Binary Meta Language) to make future extensions easy
Compared to mp4, it has better support for chapters (mp4 puts them in the userdata atom (started by Nero Digital) and can't interact with the sceneDescription, or via segmentDescriptor), subtitles (again, not usable in mp4 with the sceneDescription) and supports more types of audio and video streams (AC3 audio and WM video come to mind).
Inertia is really the only reason not to use mkv; there's nothing any other container can do that it can't. If Apple is serious about using free and open standards and software, hopefully they'll start supporting it (or even defaulting to it) in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The point is not that open formats are better in any technical sense or that they lend some kind of prestige; the point is that they're available for anyone to use without paying a gigantic "Thanks for nothing" fee to some conglomerate. I completely sympathize with the idea.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
The point is not that open formats are better in any technical sense or that they lend some kind of prestige; the point is that they're available for anyone to use without paying a gigantic "Thanks for nothing" fee to some conglomerate. I completely sympathize with the idea.
Why the sympathy? We've done just fine so far with mpegs and jpegs. They sure work for me!
Matroska and OGG are non-standard junk. Seeing as it's the 'conglamorates' who set the standards, using these containers/formats is a waste of everyone's collective time.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
I must agree, while having open alternatives for file formats, in the technological world that we live where the corporations decide what format to follow it's damn near impossible to make an open format work out as well as it could. I hate MKV with a passion for the manner in which it contains all the data, but it's a worthy attempt at making a format that is open. But in the end, whatever format the corporations choose it what's going to win out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
The point is not that open formats are better in any technical sense or that they lend some kind of prestige; the point is that they're available for anyone to use without paying a gigantic "Thanks for nothing" fee to some conglomerate. I completely sympathize with the idea.
Open source software doesn't seem to have a problem with supporting MP4 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Why the sympathy? We've done just fine so far with mpegs and jpegs. They sure work for me!
Matroska and OGG are non-standard junk. Seeing as it's the 'conglamorates' who set the standards, using these containers/formats is a waste of everyone's collective time.
V
I think you've stumbled onto a Mac forum by mistake. The standard, Windows, is thattaway.
Anyway, to be serious, the fact that society hasn't keeled over is hardly proof that having to pay companies to do absolutely nothing is the best way things could work. Unless you can demonstrate a practical reason why MPEG is worth an exorbitant license fee, I don't think I can agree. It's just extortion.
(
Last edited by Chuckit; Sep 23, 2007 at 01:25 AM.
)
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would like to think the biggest conglomerate are the users.
While I am not arguing about which format is better I just want it NOT to be annoying with the user, if I have to look for a certain app then mess with it and what not in order to be able to watch a video, movie whatever… I would move along and look for alternatives, it there isn't such an alternative, well, now that's indeed thanks for nothing
It is just like dealing with HD DVD - BR stuff… let's guess I would like to have the whole filmography of the lady that serves as my signature as high definition footage sooner than later, but for that I would have to get both high-def standards wannabe… I would stick to 'standard' (willful pun) DVD, cause actually it delivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
You could always pay for the content and get your MPEG/MP4/etc instead of downloading the MKV/OGG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by angelmb
I would like to think the biggest conglomerate are the users.
And Ogg Vorbis is the format that is owned by the users, not licensed from some (apparently smaller) conglomerate.
Originally Posted by angelmb
While I am not arguing about which format is better I just want it NOT to be annoying with the user
Neither do I. Take for example the fact that I have to pay an additional $20 to play MPEG-2 in QuickTime Player. That's darn annoying. I'm sure Apple would have liked to build in support, but with such an expensive format, it's just not possible. And there's no good reason for it to be so expensive; it just is. Meanwhile, the cost of including Ogg Vorbis support is nothing more than the time it takes to put it in. That's what's great about open formats. They exist for us, not as a money machine for Sony.
Originally Posted by angelmb
It is just like dealing with HD DVD - BR stuff… let's guess I would like to have the whole filmography of the lady that serves as my signature as high definition footage sooner than later, but for that I would have to get both high-def standards wannabe… I would stick to 'standard' (willful pun) DVD, cause actually it delivers.
And guess what? This would be a whole lot easier if they'd just agreed on an open standard rather than having a bunch of corporations push their own proprietary standard in hopes of making bank.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, for playing on a computer it doesn't really matter - I can always install something that can play any open source format. It's when I have to play it on a set-top box or similar that odd containers become an issue - but then, mp4/mov doesn't work either, it's usually avi. Shouldn't we use avi then - even more standard? For that matter, how about .mpg, the old MPEG1 container? Muxing audio and video is not a problem, right?
You can't keep working like this - technology has to move forward. I agree that file formats that are free but otherwise suck are terrible, but .mkv is quite decent and as Mark pointed out, has some advantages compared to other formats. .ogg is more annoying in that case - it's really just .mp3 again, except not compatible.
(I'm fairly sure that I've watched mp4s with ac3 audio, though. I'll check my HD when I get home)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have this nice movie on 1080p Matroska video. It is an H.264 encoding of the video.
IHowever the reproduction is very choppy and annoying. This is on a machine that plays 1080p H.264 mp4 just fine.
Another sign of Matroska sucking balls.
|
“Building Better Worlds”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
A sign of my Matroska decoder sucking balls.
Fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I have this nice movie on 1080p Matroska video. It is an H.264 encoding of the video.
IHowever the reproduction is very choppy and annoying. This is on a machine that plays 1080p H.264 mp4 just fine.
Another sign of Matroska sucking balls.
I ran 10.4 on an original iMac, and it couldn't even play 1080p at all! Macs suck balls! (Logical argument, right?)
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I have this nice movie on 1080p Matroska video. It is an H.264 encoding of the video.
IHowever the reproduction is very choppy and annoying. This is on a machine that plays 1080p H.264 mp4 just fine.
Two things to note:
Not all 1080p H.264 files are equal; different profiles, different bitrates, different encoding settings.
Some MKV decoders suck; you haven't mentioned which one you're using, but you probably want to try another one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
I am but a lowly servant of my corporate overlords.
Fixed
|
“Building Better Worlds”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I ran 10.4 on an original iMac, and it couldn't even play 1080p at all! Macs suck balls! (Logical argument, right?)
No. It isn't.
You should really have saved yourself the humiliation of opening your mouth before following the simple mantra:
Read.
Comprehend.
Post.
|
“Building Better Worlds”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Two things to note:
Not all 1080p H.264 files are equal; different profiles, different bitrates, different encoding settings.
Some MKV decoders suck; you haven't mentioned which one you're using, but you probably want to try another one.
Mm yes I reckon this is so. Not all H.264 are equal.
I don't know exactly what decoder is used, but I used MPlayer OS X, VLC and QuickTime with Perian. All the latest versions.
Are there other options? Other better decoders?
All of them lagged, but QuickTime was the fastes. It did have sound errors though, which the others did not.
To sum up:
VLC: rather consistent lagging and frame-dropping, sound ok
MPlayer: even more obvious frame-dropping, sound ok
QuickTime: some frame dropping, sound with errors (loud noises every now and then)
This was on an iMac, C2D 2GHz, 1GB RAM.
Movie is:
Audio: 48000 Hz, 6 channel AC3
Video: codec H.264, 23.98 fps, 1920x1040, 11.24 mbps bitrate.
edit: this machine handles 1080p movie trailers from apple.com perfectly. Of course they only have 2 channel sound, but similar bitrate (≈10 mbps)
|
“Building Better Worlds”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes Matroska sucks and MP4 shines. My point exactly. Open source doesn't equal good. If it sucks it sucks.
And since Matroska consistently annoys me, it does suck.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
No. It isn't.
You should really have saved yourself the humiliation of opening your mouth before following the simple mantra:
Read.
Comprehend.
Post.
So when I draw a broad conclusion from a single, poorly controlled data point, it's invalid — but when you do it it's great proof that Matroska sucks?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Two things to note:
Not all 1080p H.264 files are equal; different profiles, different bitrates, different encoding settings.
Some MKV decoders suck; you haven't mentioned which one you're using, but you probably want to try another one.
A container format needs a decoder and not just a reader?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I am a fountain of non-sequitur platitudes masqueradinng as astute commentary.
Fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm pretty sure that the choppiness people (myself included) tend to experience when playing 1080p H.264 video in a .mkv container is actually usually due to the sound encoding. The reason people use .mkv as the video container is that it allows them to use AC3 sound. As far as I can tell, it's the AC3 that is causing problems. Neither of my computers (a PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 and a MacBook Core Duo 2.0) can play .mkv files using 1080p H.264 and AC3, both can play .mkv files using 1080p H.264 and MP3 or OGG just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Audio: 48000 Hz, 6 channel AC3
Video: codec H.264, 23.98 fps, 1920x1040, 11.24 mbps bitrate.
edit: this machine handles 1080p movie trailers from apple.com perfectly. Of course they only have 2 channel sound, but similar bitrate (≈10 mbps)
Originally Posted by nonhuman
I'm pretty sure that the choppiness people (myself included) tend to experience when playing 1080p H.264 video in a .mkv container is actually usually due to the sound encoding. The reason people use .mkv as the video container is that it allows them to use AC3 sound. As far as I can tell, it's the AC3 that is causing problems. Neither of my computers (a PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 and a MacBook Core Duo 2.0) can play .mkv files using 1080p H.264 and AC3, both can play .mkv files using 1080p H.264 and MP3 or OGG just fine.
Bingo.
Comparing H.264+AAC in MP4 to H.264+AC3 in MKV is dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Bingo.
Comparing H.264+AAC in MP4 to H.264+AC3 in MKV is dishonest.
I disagree. There is no significant difference in bitstream or decoding CPU demand. It simply shows how Matroska sucks.
I've seen it myself. Where mp4 delivers, Matroska fails. Deal with it.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's a container format. I don't see how it could have any effect on decoding speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TETENAL
It's a container format. I don't see how it could have any effect on decoding speed.
Simpler container formats can contain different types of audio codecs, while more advanced (flexible) container formats can support audio, video, subtitles, chapters, and metadata (tags) - along with the synchronization information needed to play back the various streams together.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Everybody's so nice around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
<3 Keep it up, boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Simpler container formats can contain different types of audio codecs, while more advanced (flexible) container formats can support audio, video, subtitles, chapters, and metadata (tags) - along with the synchronization information needed to play back the various streams together.
V
Just out of curiosity, which category do you think matroska falls in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Just out of curiosity, which category do you think matroska falls in?
Russian dance category. Or russian doll? eh? eh? Whaddyathink?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Just out of curiosity, which category do you think matroska falls in?
Just out of curiousity, what color do you think the sky is?
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
Just out of curiousity, what color do you think the sky is?
So you agree that matroska is a "more advanced (flexible) container formats" that "can support audio, video, subtitles, chapters, and metadata (tags)"?
Or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
And wtf does that have to do with decoding performance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TETENAL
And wtf does that have to do with decoding performance?
My point exactly.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
So in other words, the matroska container itself has absolutely nothing to do with the decoding performance.
Your thread has just disintegrated.
Thank you for playing; we're here to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Matroska might be slightly more advanced but the real reason for its popularity is because it's open-source and a pirate's heaven.
How else do you explain why FLAC is used for audio? FLAC compression is absolutely terrible but it's open-source and a pirate can play that format on many hardware music devices and almost every computer music software.
Anyways, I'm sure someone will twist it this 'new' revelation back to the old "it's the more advanced container".
(
Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Oct 12, 2007 at 07:36 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
How else do you explain why FLAC is used for audio? FLAC compression is absolutely terrible but it's open-source and a pirate can play that format on many hardware music devices and almost every computer music software.
Better compression than Apple Lossless with the same quality (both being lossless) is absolutely terrible?
Sure, it's not as good as WMA Lossless or some of the even more niche formats, but it is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
Matroska might be slightly more advanced but the real reason for its popularity is because it's open-source and a pirate's heaven.
Matroska has popularity?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
Matroska might be slightly more advanced but the real reason for its popularity is because it's open-source and a pirate's heaven.
I've only ever encountered it twice, I think.
DivX ring a bell for you?
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
How else do you explain why FLAC is used for audio? FLAC compression is absolutely terrible but it's open-source and a pirate can play that format on many hardware music devices and almost every computer music software.
You're out of depth on this one, Horsepoo.
The "L" in "FLAC" stands for "lossless". And FLAC is used primarily by live-show/bootleg traders, from what I've seen, so I'm not entirely sure why you're seeing it as "absolutely terrible" or a "pirate's heaven".
Its main advantage over Apple's Lossless Encoder (apart from size) is that it's not tied to iTunes, so for that reason alone it's preferable for show traders, who are not necessarily iTunes users. They're also generally collectors and thus not interested in lossy compression.
bt.etree.org | Community Tracker <-- Pirate's heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Better compression than Apple Lossless with the same quality (both being lossless) is absolutely terrible?
Sure, it's not as good as WMA Lossless or some of the even more niche formats, but it is pretty good.
But it doesn't have better compression. I've compressed music in both FLAC and ALAC and ALAC is consistently smaller (in the vicinity of almost 50MB smaller when an entire album is compressed).
When comparing lossless formats quality, as you said, isn't a factor...so the size of the output becomes important, the time to encode becomes important (but is less important than the performance overhead) and the performance overhead to decode.
I believe FLAC is faster to encode than ALAC and it's performance overhead when decoding is also slightly better...but the file sizes are atrocious. And to me that factor has got to be the most important one considering computers and music devices all have the power to decode lossless formats...but everyone's always fighting for storage space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
You're out of depth on this one, Horsepoo.
The "L" in "FLAC" stands for "lossless". And FLAC is used primarily by live-show/bootleg traders, from what I've seen, so I'm not entirely sure why you're seeing it as "absolutely terrible" or a "pirate's heaven".
Its main advantage over Apple's Lossless Encoder (apart from size) is that it's not tied to iTunes, so for that reason alone it's preferable for show traders, who are not necessarily iTunes users. They're also generally collectors and thus not interested in lossy compression.
bt.etree.org | Community Tracker <-- Pirate's heaven.
Wow, thanks for reiterating everything I said. Except for that lossless bit...I don't know what the hell you're trying to tell me there. I'm talking about file sizes and you're giving me some lecture on losslessness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
Fixed.
Come on analogika, you have to see the irony there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
But it doesn't have better compression. I've compressed music in both FLAC and ALAC and ALAC is consistently smaller (in the vicinity of almost 50MB smaller when an entire album is compressed).
What FLAC encoding options did you use?
Unlike ALAC where there are no options, FLAC has dozens that let you trade encoding time for encoded size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
What FLAC encoding options did you use?
Unlike ALAC where there are no options, FLAC has dozens that let you trade encoding time for encoded size.
Using xACT, I use the option that yields the smallest size. Because it's a GUI front end to bunch of CLI compression tools, it may be missing a few options...but realistically, I don't think there's an option that allows for smaller sizes that *isn't* available on the GUI front end.
On average, song I compress with FLAC at the highest compression setting (slowest encode time) yield files that are 4 (between 2 and 5) megs heftier than ALAC. Bringing entire CDs close to 50MB larger than CD albums compressed with ALAC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
So in other words, the matroska container itself has absolutely nothing to do with the decoding performance.
Your thread has just disintegrated.
Thank you for playing; we're here to help.
As per lately your argumentative and not making sense, patting yourself on the back all the while.
Matroska videos have issues, movs/mp4s do not. Hmmm.. Decoded by the same apps do you say? Hmmm?
Yes, Matroska does suck.
V
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by voodoo
As per lately your argumentative and not making sense, patting yourself on the back all the while.
Matroska videos have issues, movs/mp4s do not. Hmmm.. Decoded by the same apps do you say? Hmmm?
Can you point me to a controlled test where the same movie in two different container formats produced much different results?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|