MPEG 4 Benefits?

Dan Sherman wrote on 2/18/2006, 5:55 AM
Looking for some information on MPEG 4.
Should we be excited about this format, or CODEC?
(Not sure of the term)
Have been using .wmv for web video.
Pretty good quality for the size.
But when I rendered to MPEG 4, quality seems comparible, but file is larger.
So, the question is;
Where's the benefit?
I'm no technie,---just asking an honest question.
Go easy.

Comments

randy-stewart wrote on 2/18/2006, 6:24 AM
Sherman,
When you play back the MPEG4 file, expand the screen to full. Then do the same with the .wmv file. I've seen a very big difference in quality. The MPEG4 file does not artifact like the .wmv file does (assuming you rendered to something less than full screen (720x480). The talk is that MPEG4 gives you better quality at smaller file sizes which will be great for streaming and file transport. I'm sure others will respond with a more technical explanation.
Randy
fldave wrote on 2/18/2006, 6:26 AM
Much smaller than MPEG 2 at comparable data rates. The HD-DVD and BluRay standard calls for H.264, MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC, for Advanced Video Coding, different names for the same thing. At one time, Microsoft got HD-DVD and BluRay to include .wmv, but not sure if it made it to the final spec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264


MPEG 4 is essentially the future.
MH_Stevens wrote on 2/18/2006, 6:36 AM
For short video clips on a website is MPEG4 better than flash or does one still convert the MPEG4 to flash for streaming?


fldave wrote on 2/18/2006, 6:47 AM
Flash currently has more widespread player support than MPEG4. Think of MPEG4 the equivalent technology level as Flash 7/8.

Depends on who your target audience is and if you provide the embedded player. It would be a while before a large % of the web surfers get to MPEG4/Flash 8 (current tech geeks, those with the latest PCs). I would think that most everyone can play .wmv / Flash 5/6 (Mom/Pop/Grandma).
MarkMc wrote on 2/18/2006, 6:47 AM
Isn't it a pretty well known fact that the flash player has a larger installed base in browsers? It sure is easier to install it into your browser than Qt or windows media player. I would say for short clips the new flash video on2 codec and the integration with flash for controlling media still make flash the way to go IMO.
Dan Sherman wrote on 2/18/2006, 8:00 AM
Randy,

Tried that.
Still don't see appreciable difference in resolution,---at least to my aging eyes.
Likely stick with .wmv,---player's more common,---and better quality for file size trade off.
p@mast3rs wrote on 2/18/2006, 8:02 AM
Ok, here you go. The number one benefit is it is platform agnostic. Mpeg4 can be played on any OS where, Mac users suffer greatly in the playback of wmv. Same can be said for Linux users.

As others have said, comparable quality to mpeg-2 around the same bit rate with a smaller file size. H.264 AVC only makes it better. :)

Microsoft's VC-1 is included in the next gen specs. However, dont confuse VC-1 with WM9. VC-1 was based off of it but its not the same thing.

Mpeg-4 can be included in avi and mp4 containers giving the user more choice for playback compatibility. Mpeg-4 is also available in many free open source and low priced commerical options (xvid, divx, nero etc....) Its not controlled by one company (MS).

Its more efficent in the encoding and less taxing on the CPU for playback at HD rates. H.264 AVC is a little more demanding than Mpeg-4 ASP for playback but I can decode full frae rate 1080p AVC at 8Mbs on my P4 2.4 GHz where the same system chokes on a WM9 HD Advanced profile at the same bit rate.

WM9 or Flash On2 is great for streaming but if you are looking to provide DVD/HD quality, Mpeg-4 is the way to go.

John_Cline wrote on 2/18/2006, 8:23 AM
"comparable quality to mpeg-2 around the same bit rate with a smaller file size"

Since file size is entirely determined by bitrate, you can't have a smaller file size using the same bit rate. Generally speaking, MP4 can achieve the same perceived image quality using half the bitrate of MPEG2, hence the smaller file size.

John
fldave wrote on 2/18/2006, 10:32 AM
"comparable quality to mpeg-2 around the same bit rate with a smaller file size"

Boy, that was a dumb statement, wasn't it. I'll blame it on lack of coffee this morning.

Meant to say " at a lower bit rate" instead of "around the same".
p@mast3rs wrote on 2/18/2006, 10:40 AM
Actually my remark isnt that far off. As you notice, I said comparable quality AROUND (not exact) the same bit rate. Mpeg-4 is more efficient with its encoding than Mpeg-2 so therefore can offer nearly the same quality around the bit rate of Mpeg-2. H.264 AVC further can offer the same quality at a lower bit rate and file size.
Dan Sherman wrote on 2/18/2006, 2:21 PM
"more efficient with its encoding than Mpeg-2"

But, we don't burn to DVD with MPEG 4, right?
I'm sure that sounds like a stupid question to the technically-minded.
But I feel there are no stupid questions in the learning process.
So, I'll hang myself out there.
fldave wrote on 2/18/2006, 2:43 PM
Current DVD players use MPEG2 and most can read MPEG1/VCD.

Some new players can read MPEG 4 from a DVD+/-R and output to HD tv through HDMI. So yes you can burn MPEG 4 to DVD, the audience is very small.

Near future HD DVD (HD-DVD and Sony BluRay) will have to be burned with AVC (H.264 version of MPEG 4) or Microsoft VC-1. The players/recorders aren't out yet, at least to a normal schmuck like me :)