[Matroska-general] Where do we go from here ?

Liisachan Liisachan at faireal.net
Wed May 5 16:52:29 CEST 2004


Christian HJ Wiesner <chris at matroska.org> wrote:

> Liisachan wrote:
> 
> >Christian HJ Wiesner <chris at matroska.org> wrote:
> >
> >>I second all of this requests from Liisachan, maybe with the exception 
> >>of APE. Honestly, since FLAC has such nice support in matroska already ( 
> >>thanks to Jory ), and when looking at the very small differences between 
> >>all the lossless codecs, i wonder if we need anything else but FLAC ? 
> >>APE is even closed source, only the SDK to use it is open, should we 
> >>really support that ?
> >>    
> >>
> >Well, unlike FLAC, APE is not always backward compatible,
> >so it is true that FLAC is "safer"
> >But APE is generally smaller (i.e. higher compress ratio) than 
> >FLAC, and because of that reason, APE is used more than FLAC is.
> >  
> >
> Question :
> 
> I can see lossless audio in MKV only as a temporary solution for 
> capturing or editing, but not really for archiving ? Am i wrong ? Do you 
> know of anybody who would like to have his audio lossless compressed in 
> a movie, and why ?
> 
> >Since there are already (more than one) DirectShow Filters for 
> >APE, I guess APE support in MKV would be not too difficult
> > (tho, technically, I m not sure...)
> >NOTE: This does not mean I don't like FLAC and/or CoreFlac.
> >I do like CoreFlac, even tho the current version is still beta.
> >I do like FLAC, even tho the spec for Ogg Flac is now being a 
> >bit confused.
> >Anyway, I just mean it would be nice if users have a lot of 
> >choices.
> >  
> >
> ACK ... matroska is all about choices and freedom, so i second that 
> ..... but its hard to motivate the devs to do this, when there are so 
> many other, maybe more important things to be done at the same time.
> 
> >>About USF support in matroska :
> >>
> >>Well, i honestly hope unmei will have the necessary time and motivation 
> >>to look at that one day,
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Well, I'm afraid it's unfair to say that.
> >Please look at this thread:
> >http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73417&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
> >His newest post in dated 1/5/2004
> >Liisachan
> >
> >  
> >
> Jesus, i complete missed out on this thread to be honest :O ...... in 
> other words, i had no idea there is actually something happening about 
> USF ... good news, thanks for pointing me to that  !!!
> 
> Best regards
> 
Christian HJ Wiesner <chris at matroska.org> wrote:

> Question :
> 
> I can see lossless audio in MKV only as a temporary solution for 
> capturing or editing, but not really for archiving ? Am i wrong ? Do you 
> know of anybody who would like to have his audio lossless compressed in 
> a movie, and why ?

Oh come on....Matroska is not only for movies,
but you can make a big MKA for a whole CD, for instance.

Browse http://anime.mircx.com/ or somewhere,
and you'll soon find that many ppl prefer to have their music 
all in APE, than MP3 etc.

Not only that, but
- if you capture classic music concert from TV
- if you rip a music video DVD, where the audio is LPCM
probably you would think to yourself like this, wouldn't you?
"The audio is most important, here. It's OK that the video
part is poorer (like 300Kbps), but I'd like to have the music 
track at the best quality possible (like 600Kbps)"

Because "music" is obviously more important here than the vid of 
the orchestra or the movement of conductor's butt :)
Classic music can be lossless if you're ok with 400-500 Kbps,
while the best MP3 is 320 Kbps. In other words, lossless is not 
so "expensive" bitrate-wise.

However 400-500 is still not very cheap anyway.
400 should be better than 450, 450 should be better than 500.
"10% smaller" is someting if you are talking about 500Kbps, and 
if it is not temporary (If temporary, WAV is enough, isnt it?)

That's why people use APE, not FLAC.

On the other hand, like you said, FLAC is better than APE when 
it comes to real-time capturing. Because FLAC is less 
cpu-intensive than APE at the cost of lower compression ratio.

So, FLAC has its forte (not cpu-eating) and APE has its own 
forte too (considerably smaller in size)

Personally I like FLAC and I have no personal reason to urge you 
to support APE, but anyway APE has its own goodness

> ACK ... matroska is all about choices and freedom, so i second that 
> ..... but its hard to motivate the devs to do this, when there are so 
> many other, maybe more important things to be done at the same time.

I can understand you. I'm not saying APE should be at the 
priority 1

I guess MusePack support would be at the higher priority.

> Jesus, i complete missed out on this thread to be honest :O ...... in 
> other words, i had no idea there is actually something happening about 
> USF ... good news, thanks for pointing me to that  !!!

:)

Actually, for most end-users, APE or MPC support would be much 
meaningful than USF support, but yes, as I am a subber,
I do have some personal reasons to ask you devs to support USF 
asap. My hope is, USF will be the real x-platform Unicode sub 
format. There might be a long way to go, tho.

I'm continuously testing the newest version of VLC,
but its SSA support is not perfect,
to say the least. So I guess SSA softsubs, being really great in 
MKV played on Windows, might be troublesome on other platforms.

Even on Windows, i heard font-embedding only works on Win2k/xp, 
not win98.

I'm not sure if USF is "the" sub format. Plus, it is obvious 
that you cannot start working on USF unless the spec is decided.
Anyway USF seems to be interesting and somehow promissing.

As a side note, xiph.org seems to have changed the spec of Ogg 
so it can now support overlapped timing in subs.
They have OggWrit, which will be perfectly x-platform.
If MKV's SSA support on non-windows machine is not too good,
and if OggWrit is really xplatform and fantastic,
probably many fansubbers will be interested in OggWrit.
(I don't know about OggWrit too well, so I may be guessing in a 
wrong way)
Plus, sub support is essential in hw support for MKV.
not only VOB but MP4 has its sub specs too.
Im guessing that MKV too should have its "native" sub format.


Liisachan






More information about the Matroska-general mailing list