What exactly is MPEG4

megamind wrote on 7/22/2002, 11:37 AM
I was wondering what MPEG4 is exactly about, and yet I concluded that it is kinda a new file of the MPEG class, but working with the DivX codec technology, or something almost similar. I thought it might be a new standard, since it outplays MPEG1, MPEG2 and DiVX then cause its got all the advantages of these three and can make them obsolete.
But since Im not really sure about anything I have some questions. Is MPEG4 available as codec and useful by now, is that actual version recommended and compatible enough? What do I need to encode stuff to MPEG4, and is it really mostly the same as DivX except for being an mpeg file? Does Vegas Vid 3 support MPEG4 files, since it doesnt take DivX? And will there be MPEG4 compatible stand-alone DVD players soon, as well as a new type of MPEG4-based VCD?


Comments

drdespair wrote on 7/22/2002, 1:15 PM
Um.. ok.. here goes.. I am not a pro, but this is what I have understood, MPEG-4 is not the successor of MPEG-2 like MPEG-2 was for MPEG-1, MPEG-4 was designed with the internet in mind, it provides good quality at low bandwiths. MPEG-4 is not likely to replace DVD any time soon, I would expect that to fall on another standard, what you may see MPEG-4 in is wireless solutions, mobile telephone and such other stuff. DivX is basicaly an optimized MPEG-4 code, it was "borrowed" from Micropoft to start with, but then rewriten not to infringe on sertain doors. Anyway.. There are sertain players that will be supporting MPEG-4 in the near future in a similar way some DVD players can now play MP3. Anyway.. this is my view, perhaps I am way wrong. ;)

D.
taliesin wrote on 7/22/2002, 4:22 PM
Roughly spoken, MPEG-4 is similar to MPEG-2. It's keyframe-based, it's DCT-based, but it should be more effient than MPEG-2.
There are two formats which do MPEG-4 encoding for quite a long time now. One is WindowsMedia (WMV), the other one is DivX (which has been almost exactly the same like WMV for quite a long time).
Now a new MPEG-4 version is available with QuicktimePlayer 6.

For VegasVideo is able to import and to render WMV and DivX - yes - VegasVideo support such a MPEG-4.

Marco
Togotoon wrote on 7/22/2002, 4:47 PM
Yes, I use MPEG 4 (or .wmv) for clips that are destined for the web (either via streaming or download). The quality can be greatly diminished as a trade off for an amazingly small file size that even some dial up users can handle.

Mirosoft offers a free Windows Media Encoder that I highly recommend for such streaming applications and does a nice job at HUGE size reductions and compressions for the net. It gives you a .wmv file that most users with Windows Media Players can view. (Basically a thumbnail video file)

It took a 70MB MPEG 1 clip that I compressed and compressed it down to a mere 3MB. Yes, a quality loss is obvious, but for the Internet and use as a video viewing sample, you can't beat it.

TDolce

taliesin wrote on 7/22/2002, 5:07 PM
>Mirosoft offers a free Windows Media Encoder that I highly recommend for
>such streaming applications and does a nice job

You can do that within VegasVideo, which seems to be more easy to me than the MicrosoftMediaEncoder.

Marco
Greenland wrote on 7/22/2002, 11:03 PM
This is true. To each his/her own.
megamind wrote on 7/23/2002, 8:34 AM
So Im thinkin about this now:

1) Since Vegas dusnt support Divx, should I make my library in MPEG4? I need to have a lot of my video files on HD, and cant go with uncompressed DV avi. Whats everybodys favourite fileformat?

2) Is the new version of the MPEG4 codec, the one that comes with quicktime, improved? Is it better than DivX? Is it anything new at all or are they using the old codec?

3) Is quicktime 6 available now, as free version? I went to the quicktime site, and took the link to download QT6, and the damn thing downloaded QT5 instead. But when I checked, I found no sure proof that QT6 is available in the free version at all...
Togotoon wrote on 7/23/2002, 10:56 AM
Mega,

I think what we are saying here is that it's a matter of taste. Your final application is also a big factor. MPEG 4 is great and keeps the files small. I personally wouldn't use it for anything serious other than computer viewing or web streaming, but I'm no pro here and others may know things I don't. In fact I know they know things I don't.
I experimented with Cinepak, Indeo and the likes, but would rather use MPEG 1, 2 and 4 for my various needs. I'm unfamiliar with using DivX so I can't help you there.

td

Cheesehole wrote on 7/23/2002, 11:52 PM
>>1) Since Vegas dusnt support Divx, should I make my library in MPEG4? I need to have a lot of my video files on HD, and cant go with uncompressed DV avi. Whats everybodys favourite fileformat?

if you are creating a library of source videos to use in projects you shouldn't save them as any form of MPEG format because they are not good for editing. if you are saving your videos at full size, then DV is the best way to go.

if space is an issue:
120GB 7200RPM ATA100 (IBM Model# 07N8086) $140
that will hold about 8 hours of DV.

on the other hand, if your library is just for viewing and not for editing, I really like Windows Media 8. you could save your videos at 2-4Mbps at 30fps and get great quality. full screen video looks the best to me in the wm7/8 players compared to Quicktime's 'maximize' feature. maybe they fixed that in qt6 (I hope)
riredale wrote on 7/25/2002, 1:26 PM
DV avi is a compressed file format also, though at about 5:1, the compression is mild compared to MPEG2. If you want to archive video, I would suggest miniDV tape for the moment. If you really can't live with that format, then an MPEG2 compression at maximum bitrate (~8Mb/sec) would deliver images that are still very, very clean (i.e. can be used in the future for additional editing purposes).

Have you had a chance to look over www.extremetech.com? It is part of the PC Magazine dynasty, I think, and they have done some extensive testing of the Microsoft, Real, MPEG4, and Divx formats. Last summer they were disappointed in MPEG4 video. Their conclusions to date are that Microsoft's wmv format wins at low bitrates. What I like about Divx is that they are the "outlaws" and generally those kinds of projects are less constrained by convention.

Supposedly Microsoft has a new codec named Corona coming out next year that offers perhaps an additional 30% gain in compression. This video encoding business is one of the hottest niches in the PC industry, and the dust isn't settling for a while.