From mykim  us.ibm.com  Wed Oct  1 17:10:32 2003
From: mykim  us.ibm.com (Michelle Y Kim)
Date: Wed Oct  1 19:01:18 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] multiplexing   2 audio file  +  video file
In-Reply-To: <20030929085153.85087.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <OFC0177C5A.59F71CCA-ON85256DB2.006C5CD6-85256DB2.006EE388@us.ibm.com>
Sabriana, 
 Perhaps you haven't seen the answer to this question posted on the IBM 
alphaWorks forum. You can use the XmtBatch tool which is part of the IBM 
Toolkit for MPEG-4 to  multiplex multiple audios and videos in a single 
.mp4 file.  It uses the SMIL-like XMT syntax  which can then be compiled 
to  produce an mp4 format. A simple example  given by you can be 
represented as: 
<par>
<audio begin="0s" dur="10s" src="audio1.aac"/>
<audio begin="5s" dur="5s" src="audio2.aac"/>
<video begin="0s" dur="10s" src="video1.cmp"/>
</par>
in this example,  audio1 starts at time "0s" along with  video1, and at 
time "5s", audio2 starts. At time "10s" both audios  and the video will 
stop.    You can use "begin" and  "dur" attributes to indicate the  offset 
of the start time and duration for each element.  The three elements in 
this example are enclosed in a <par>  ("par" for parallel) container, and 
the begin time is relative to the begin time of the "par" container. BTW, 
the XMT also supports the <seq> (for sequential) container, whose 
semantics you can easily infer.  A very short example would be:
<seq>
<video dur="10s" src="video1.cmp"/>
<video dur="10s" src="video2.cmp"/>
</seq>
As you might have guessed, in this example video1 starts when the seq 
container starts, plays for 10s,  after which  video2 starts, etc.
  Regards,
  Michelle
  Dr. Michelle Y. Kim, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
  Manager, Composite Media Technologies Group
  mykim@us.ibm.com (e-mail)
  (914) 784-7709 (voice)
  (914) 784-7455 (fax)
sabrina <pina_sabrina@yahoo.fr>
Sent by: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
09/29/2003 04:51 AM
        To:     Technotes@lists.m4if.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Mp4-tech] multiplexing   2 audio file  +  video 
file
thinks for yours response 
I created an .mp4 file by multiplexing the .cmp and .aac file 
for this i used the ibm tools, it is simple and it work correctly 
the only problem is that i can 't multiplex 2 audio file with an video 
file 
i would to know  what tools i can use to do this multiplex ?
@ +
sabrina 
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031001/23fab2ab/attachment.html
From neff  PacketVideo.COM  Wed Oct  1 19:12:24 2003
From: neff  PacketVideo.COM (Ralph Neff)
Date: Wed Oct  1 21:32:00 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] 3GPP Live streaming
Message-ID: <72263E8E8622D611975C0002B32C19D80463E104@misty.packetvideo.com>
Hi Christophe,
If you want to encode a live stream for consumption on
P800, there are multiple options.  P800 supports 3GPP
Packet-Switched Streaming services, so it should work
with any 3GPP-compliant stream source.  Here are a few
possibilities:
1. You could encode the live stream with PacketVideo's
	pvAuthor, and relay it to pvServer, which would
	then offer the streams for consumption on P800 and
	other 3GPP-compliant handsets.  This is a good
	solution if you want to serve a lot of clients
	simultaneously.
	pvAuthor can be downloaded here (free 30 day trial):
	http://www.pv.com/shop/authordownload.asp
	If you are interested in pvServer, let me know and
	I'll put you in touch with the right person.
2. If you need only a few simultaneous streams (<10), there 
	are some 3GPP-compliant live camera solutions which
	could work.  I know of at least one that has been
	tested with P800, and can be purchased for around
	$300.  If you're interested in this, please contact
	Gavin Kim (kim@packetvideo.com) for more info.
-Ralph 
-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Lenaerts [mailto:christophe.lenaerts@dad.be]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2023 7:04 AM
To: Technotes@lists.m4if.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] 3GPP Live streaming
Hi,
does any one know how to get a live stream setup to a P800? I get VOD 
to work, and also get live streams, but how do i encode one?
Thank you very much,
Christophe Lenaerts
Streaming Media Expert
DAD - Digital Age Design
Tel		(+32) 2 706 05 40
Fax		(+32) 2 706 05 69
Direct	(+32) 2 745 58 66
http://www.dad.be
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
From ugarg  neomagic.com  Mon Oct  6 19:45:00 2003
From: ugarg  neomagic.com (Umang Garg)
Date: Mon Oct  6 09:26:36 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Release tags for MPEG-4 Audio and Systems from MPEG CVS
Message-ID: <3F816AD4.2000000@neomagic.com>
Dear Members,
Can anybody please advise me - if I want to download the latest code for 
MPEG-4 Audio and Systems from the MPEG CVS then what Release Tag (and 
other information) I need to provide ?
I will be using the WinCVS to check-out the code, as advised at 
mpeg.nist.gov
Thanks,
Umang Garg
NeoMagic Corporation, based in Santa Clara, California, provides 
applications processors to enable new generations of handheld Internet 
systems, offering the lowest power, smallest form-factor, and best 
multimedia features and performance. The company has pioneered the 
integration of complex logic, memory and analog circuits into 
single-chip solutions. NeoMagic is mobilizing multimedia for the 
Internet age. Information on the company may be found on the World Wide 
Web at www.neomagic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031006/0ad3afb7/attachment.html
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Thu Oct  2 16:32:32 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Mon Oct  6 09:47:07 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
In-Reply-To: <OFC0177C5A.59F71CCA-ON85256DB2.006C5CD6-85256DB2.006EE388@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20031002133232.17299.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com>
Thanks for your answer 
OK,  that work very well,
i just have a question 
I learned about H264, and every people said that H264 give a better quality for the same bitrate, thats way i downloaded JM 73 the latest open source for H264 and when i tested this code the results is exellent 
i compress akyio 25fps with 10kb/s and the quality is lovely 
the file generated is .264 
the IBMtools can't support this type of file 
i would to know this extension is what exactly
 is 'it equivalent to .cmp in MPEG4 or is it equivalent to .mp4 
and if it'is the case what player that support this kind of file ".264"
thanks 
sabrina  
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031002/7a307633/attachment.html
From mikael  sevenier.com  Mon Oct  6 11:12:08 2003
From: mikael  sevenier.com (Mikael Bourges-Sevenier)
Date: Mon Oct  6 13:26:27 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Release tags for MPEG-4 Audio and Systems from MPEG CVS
In-Reply-To: <3F816AD4.2000000@neomagic.com>
Message-ID: <007a01c38c2d$028651c0$6601a8c0@Merlin>
Dear Umang,
Follow the procedure in the CVS user's guide on NIST web site, you will
download the latest version of any MPEG software.
Kind regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
[mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Umang Garg
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2023 6:15 AM
To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Release tags for MPEG-4 Audio and Systems from MPEG CVS
Dear Members, 
Can anybody please advise me - if I want to download the latest code for
MPEG-4 Audio and Systems from the MPEG CVS then what Release Tag (and other
information) I need to provide ? 
I will be using the WinCVS to check-out the code, as advised at
mpeg.nist.gov
Thanks, 
Umang Garg
NeoMagic Corporation, based in Santa Clara, California, provides
applications processors to enable new generations of handheld Internet
systems, offering the lowest power, smallest form-factor, and best
multimedia features and performance. The company has pioneered the
integration of complex logic, memory and analog circuits into single-chip
solutions. NeoMagic is mobilizing multimedia for the Internet age.
Information on the company may be found on the World Wide Web at
www.neomagic.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031006/819c3ce9/attachment.html
From igino.manfre  tiscali.it  Mon Oct  6 21:08:09 2003
From: igino.manfre  tiscali.it ( Igino Manfre')
Date: Mon Oct  6 14:07:52 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Mpeg 4 studio profile...
Message-ID: <002501c38c34$cd88f9c0$22000cac@fisso>
Excuse me all,
while a lot of people is hardly fighting to find a work-around to the many problems related h264 or visual and audio ISO 14496, I'm here to ask to you all something about studio profile...
I need to know something "more" about studio profile, possibly avoiding to buy the part of the standard...
Does anybody know where...
Thank you, Igino Manfre'
---------------------------
Igino Manfre'  - igino.manfre@tiscali.it  
Broadcast Video Consultant
13, Largo Nearco
I 00124 Roma (Italy)
home   (+39) 0650916416
mobile (+39) 335.8235346
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031006/dacefbf8/attachment.html
From abhijeetmhatre  yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 22:13:50 2003
From: abhijeetmhatre  yahoo.com (abhijeet mhatre)
Date: Tue Oct  7 00:23:17 2003
Subject: Re [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
In-Reply-To: <200310061601.h96G1GR9018016@lists1.magma.ca>
Message-ID: <20031007041350.96061.qmail@web10308.mail.yahoo.com>
 ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2023 15:32:32 +0200 (CEST)
> From: sabrina <pina_sabrina@yahoo.fr>
> Subject: [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
> To: Technotes@lists.m4if.org
> Message-ID:
> <20031002133232.17299.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
>  
> Thanks for your answer 
>  
> OK,  that work very well,
>  
> i just have a question 
> I learned about H264, and every people said that
> H264 give a better quality for the same bitrate,
> thats way i downloaded JM 73 the latest open source
> for H264 and when i tested this code the results is
> exellent 
> i compress akyio 25fps with 10kb/s and the quality
> is lovely 
> the file generated is .264 
....
<snip>
Can anyone please explain What is JM 73 ?
regards
Abhijeet D Mhatre
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From Wesley.DeNeve  ugent.be  Mon Oct  6 22:43:28 2003
From: Wesley.DeNeve  ugent.be (Wesley De Neve)
Date: Tue Oct  7 14:33:20 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
References: <20031002133232.17299.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01bd01c38c42$1d89dbd0$b191f051@dune>
Hi,
sabrina wrote:
>> Thanks for your answer
>>
>> OK,  that work very well,
>>
>> i just have a question
>> I learned about H264, and every people said that H264 give a better
>> quality for the same bitrate, thats way i downloaded JM 73 the
>> latest open source for H264 and when i tested this code the results
>> is exellent i compress akyio 25fps with 10kb/s and the quality is
>> lovely
>> the file generated is .264
>> the IBMtools can't support this type of file
>> i would to know this extension is what exactly
>>  is 'it equivalent to .cmp in MPEG4 or is it equivalent to .mp4
>> and if it'is the case what player that support this kind of file
>> ".264"
a .264 file is a compressed bitstream of which the syntax normally conforms
to the H.264/AVC specification. It's not a container like an .mp4 file. In a
certain sense, a .264 file is similar to a .cmp file: both just contain
compressed video data conforming to a bitstream syntax specification and
both are typically being generated by reference software.
Kind regards,
Wesley
From lehaneb  eeng.dcu.ie  Tue Oct  7 11:01:17 2003
From: lehaneb  eeng.dcu.ie (Bart Lehane)
Date: Tue Oct  7 14:35:30 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Tools for SUN
In-Reply-To: <3F816AD4.2000000@neomagic.com>
Message-ID: <001701c38cb1$91d807e0$2f650a0a@bart>
Hello,
I was wondering if anybody knows of an MPEG-4 encoder and streamer
(encoder and streamer can be 2 seperate programs) for a SUN
workstation??
The encoder only needs to be simple / advanced simple since we will only
be transmitting rectangular frames (of course of there is a more
advanced encoder then I would be grateful to be pointed in its
direction).
Could anybody help me with this,
Thanks in advance,
Bart Lehane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031007/6012c106/attachment.html
From kuo4him  yahoo.com  Tue Oct  7 11:57:29 2003
From: kuo4him  yahoo.com (Esther Kuo)
Date: Tue Oct  7 14:36:34 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Audio reference software
Message-ID: <20031007175729.16452.qmail@web12810.mail.yahoo.com>
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 02:08  PM, Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
>Anyway, you should consider that the software you purchased from ISO >is
outdated (it is about 2 years old). It always takes ISO a >significant
time to publish any new standard piece. So one reason to >become an MPEG
member might be to have access to weekly snapshots of >the MPEG-4 audio
reference software. 
Dear Ralph and M4IF members,
Is it true that the reference software you mentioned will always be kept
up-to-date for MPEG members? I hope it's a fully working version too?! I
believe my company is a MPEG meember. Could you please tell me where and
how to get the weekly snapshots of the reference software?
Thanks a lot,
E.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From ben  interframemedia.com  Tue Oct  7 13:07:22 2003
From: ben  interframemedia.com (Ben Waggoner)
Date: Tue Oct  7 18:48:17 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Tools for SUN
In-Reply-To: <001701c38cb1$91d807e0$2f650a0a@bart>
Message-ID: <BBA85CFA.23C89%ben@interframemedia.com>
Bart,
    I don't know of any commercial products, but if you're up to tweaking
some makefiles, Cisco's open-source MPEG4IP project should work.
http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net/
    It is developed on Red Hat Linux, but there certainly have been people
who have gotten at least parts of it to work on Solaris.  If you get it
working, I'm sure they'd appreciate some patches!
Ben Waggoner <http://www.benwaggoner.com>
Compressed Video Consulting, Training, and Encoding
My Book:            <http://www.benwaggoner.com/books.htm>
Cleaner e-book:     <http://www.cmpbooks.com/cleaner>
on 10/7/03 2:01 AM, Bart Lehane at lehaneb@eeng.dcu.ie wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody knows of an MPEG-4 encoder and streamer (encoder
> and streamer can be 2 seperate programs) for a SUN workstation??
> The encoder only needs to be simple / advanced simple since we will only be
> transmitting rectangular frames (of course of there is a more advanced encoder
> then I would be grateful to be pointed in its direction).
From babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM  Wed Oct  8 16:32:49 2003
From: babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM (Baby Reeja Jayan)
Date: Wed Oct  8 06:14:18 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
Message-ID: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C28F@mail.ushustech.com>
hi,
Can anybody please let me know what are the licensing issues surrounding
H.263.
Does H.263 licensing also come under the purview of MPEG LA?
thanks
reeja
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/cb662f4f/attachment.html
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Wed Oct  8 18:13:41 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Wed Oct  8 11:24:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] where i can finf a  .seg  file 
Message-ID: <20031008151341.35913.qmail@web20505.mail.yahoo.com>
hi all 
Can anyone know a link where i can find the .seg file correspondant to the classic sequence test  " akiyo foreman or other sequence  "
thanks for your help 
sabrina 
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/4ed5acc9/attachment.html
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Wed Oct  8 18:07:31 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Wed Oct  8 11:36:39 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] .seg file 
Message-ID: <20031008150731.78906.qmail@web20504.mail.yahoo.com>
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/67486fb3/attachment.html
From rbleidt  hdtv.com  Wed Oct  8 16:21:02 2003
From: rbleidt  hdtv.com (Robert Bleidt)
Date: Wed Oct  8 18:42:51 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
In-Reply-To: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C28F@mail.ushustech.com>
References: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C28F@mail.ushustech.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20031008150552.03ff9d58@localhost>
As far as I know, no one asserts patents against H.263. There is no formal 
patent pool. Up until now, the "H" series standards have always been 
royalty-free. That will change, of course, with H.264/AVC.
As a practical matter, I suspect H.263 has never been employed in 
applications where there is enough revenue to warrant establishing a 
licensing program. Of course, I could also argue that the "G" series 
standards have established programs to cover many of the same markets.
This is just my casual opinion, and I would welcome the comments of others 
on this list.
At 03:02 AM 10/8/2003, you wrote:
>hi,
>
>Can anybody please let me know what are the licensing issues surrounding 
>H.263.
>Does H.263 licensing also come under the purview of MPEG LA?
>
>thanks
>
>reeja
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mp4-tech mailing list
>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
Robert Bleidt
www.streamcrest.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/145f4451/attachment.html
From SKulkarn  harman.com  Wed Oct  8 16:59:50 2003
From: SKulkarn  harman.com (Kulkarni, Sanjay)
Date: Wed Oct  8 19:02:53 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Streaming and its Licensing
Message-ID: <BD01EB2E260F8A40A6F5A3C5D0E1134B08306D@HIINRX3.USNr.ad.harman.com>
Hello:
Can someone please point me to MPEG4 as used in streaming media over IP
and licensing and royalty issues surrounding it. 
Thanks much.
Sanjay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/549e164d/attachment.html
From rkothari_iit  rediffmail.com  Thu Oct  9 01:29:10 2003
From: rkothari_iit  rediffmail.com (rakesh  kothari)
Date: Wed Oct  8 20:37:02 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] problem with darwin server
Message-ID: <20031009003147.12861.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031009/30856dd3/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
hi all,
I am new to Darwin streaming server. I installed it on the linux RH9.
I can play the file sample_500kbit.mp4(/usr/local/movies) with the local player(gmp4player) by accessing  it with url "rtsp://myserverIP/file.mp4" but I am unable to play that file from external client. The player (DivX) couldn't connect to darwin server.
I would be very thankful if someone can find out the problem. Is there any kind of access lists?
Regards,
Rakesh
From rbleidt  hdtv.com  Wed Oct  8 23:39:06 2003
From: rbleidt  hdtv.com (Robert Bleidt)
Date: Thu Oct  9 01:49:47 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
In-Reply-To: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFEE3@WIN-MSG-10.wingro
	up.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFEE3@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20031008222424.0406c9e8@localhost>
At 03:58 PM 10/8/2003, you wrote:
>I believe there is agressive patent assertion against H.262.
>
>-Gary
Thanks for pointing this out - Though I seem to use H.264 and AVC 
interchangeably, H.262 has always been MPEG-2 to me (from my TV background, 
I guess), and I forgot about it in making that statement.
Robert Bleidt   - rbleidt@hdtv.com  
From dattaguru.b.n  celstream.com  Thu Oct  9 12:26:00 2003
From: dattaguru.b.n  celstream.com (Dattaguru B.N)
Date: Thu Oct  9 02:02:28 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] HE aac bitstreams
Message-ID: <50EE5AD0AF6ED511833900B0D020C858023E1AEE@localhost>
HI,
I am looking for HE aac(aacPlus or SBR aac) bitstreams.  Can anybody help me
in finding these bitstreams.
Thanks
Dattaguru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031009/d57c00bd/attachment.html
From nicolas.goutte  mmce.mee.com  Thu Oct  9 20:07:37 2003
From: nicolas.goutte  mmce.mee.com (Nicolas GOUTTE)
Date: Thu Oct  9 13:20:52 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MP4/3GP File Format 
References: <50EE5AD0AF6ED511833900B0D020C858023E1AEE@localhost>
Message-ID: <3F8595D9.666090C5@mmce.mee.com>
Hi,
I am working on a 3GP File maker and I can not understand why QuickTime
did play it.
It is a 3gp file with one AMR-NB track. All the samples are filled into
one chunk.
Thanks to have a look at the 3GP attached file and explain me my
mistakes.
Nicolas.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3gpfile.3gp
Type: audio/3gpp
Size: 48761 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031009/085aed40/3gpfile-0001.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nicolas.goutte.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 218 bytes
Desc: Card for Nicolas GOUTTE
Url : /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031009/085aed40/nicolas.goutte-0001.bin
From singer  apple.com  Thu Oct  9 15:03:18 2003
From: singer  apple.com (Dave Singer)
Date: Thu Oct  9 17:21:51 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MP4/3GP File Format
In-Reply-To: <3F8595D9.666090C5@mmce.mee.com>
References: <50EE5AD0AF6ED511833900B0D020C858023E1AEE@localhost>
	<3F8595D9.666090C5@mmce.mee.com>
Message-ID: <p06002042bbab7c9fccf7@[17.202.35.52]>
At 19:07 +0200 10/9/03, Nicolas GOUTTE wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am working on a 3GP File maker and I can not understand why QuickTime
>did play it.
>It is a 3gp file with one AMR-NB track. All the samples are filled into
>one chunk.
>Thanks to have a look at the 3GP attached file and explain me my
>mistakes.
Only two, both small:
a) in the track header flags, you need to set them to at least enable 
the track (1);  I'd recommend 7 as the value, as that enables the 
track for playback in normal play and preview also;
b) I think QuickTime is balking at loading such a large chunk.  Most 
3G phones also load each media chunk by chunk, so you should still 
chunk up your media into say, 1/2 second intervals.  QuickTime *can* 
play your file if you ask it to save a movie (which re-chunks it), so 
that is my suspicion.
Very close!
>
>Nicolas.
>
>
>Content-Type: audio/3gpp;
>  name="3gpfile.3gp"
>Content-Disposition: inline;
>  filename="3gpfile.3gp"
>
>Attachment converted: DaveG49:3gpfile.3gp (????/----) (00012F0C)
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
>  name="nicolas.goutte.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Nicolas GOUTTE
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>  filename="nicolas.goutte.vcf"
>
>Attachment converted: DaveG49:nicolas.goutte.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (00012F0D)
>_______________________________________________
>Mp4-tech mailing list
>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
From migarta  purdue.edu  Fri Oct 10 01:56:32 2003
From: migarta  purdue.edu (Michael Igarta)
Date: Fri Oct 10 02:15:38 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
Message-ID: <3F864A10.2020700@purdue.edu>
Hello,
I am performing some test encodes of mobile CIF (300 frames) using 
latest the JM 7.3 reference software.
The resulting PSNR settings and visual quality seem much worse than I 
should be getting:
I/P Frame QP=30, B Frame QP = 32: PSNR(Y) = 30.79 dB
I/P Frame QP=38, B Frame QP = 40: PSNR(Y) = 25.15 dB
I/P Frame QP=46, B Frame QP = 48: PSNR(Y) = 20.22 dB
Using AHM20 with rate control gives me much better numbers.  Can someone 
tell me what I am doing wrong with the
constant QP?  I changed the following in the default encoder.cfg:
InputFile = "mobile.cif"
LastFrameNumber = 299
FramesToBeEncoded = 299
SourceWidth = 352
SourceHeight = 288
Thanks you very much for any advice.
From bfelts  envivio.com  Fri Oct 10 03:21:39 2003
From: bfelts  envivio.com (Boris Felts)
Date: Fri Oct 10 05:40:10 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Streaming and its Licensing
In-Reply-To: <BD01EB2E260F8A40A6F5A3C5D0E1134B08306D@HIINRX3.USNr.ad.harman.com>
Message-ID: <00f001c38f0f$e9b88010$220110ac@UBFELTS>
This is explained fairly clearly on MPEGLA website. 
Boris
-----Original Message-----
From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
[mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Kulkarni, Sanjay
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Streaming and its Licensing
Hello:
Can someone please point me to MPEG4 as used in streaming media over IP
and licensing and royalty issues surrounding it. 
Thanks much.
Sanjay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031010/dfef47dc/attachment.html
From mandar  motechsoftware.com  Fri Oct 10 16:01:51 2003
From: mandar  motechsoftware.com (Mandar Nanivadekar)
Date: Fri Oct 10 05:46:53 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Query about 3gpp mulriplexing
Message-ID: <BMEMKFDIHIAPKLOMPCPCGELJCGAA.mandar@motechsoftware.com>
Our aim is to multiplex h.263 stream and AMR audio
in 3GPP format, write a multiplexer and demultiplexer for this.
We went through many 3GPP documents but did
not get the exact file format, how both the streams should
be combined.
Can you suggest some sites or material which mentions
the exact file format?
Mandar Nanivadekar,
Senior Software Engineer,
Motech Software Pvt. Ltd.
Phone - 28214541 , ext - 1407
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Wed Oct  8 11:14:30 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Fri Oct 10 10:36:39 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
In-Reply-To: <001001c38c11$22d6eff0$f044ef0a@jingyixp>
Message-ID: <20031008081430.28630.qmail@web20505.mail.yahoo.com>
hi 
you can simply change the value of the quantifications for the I,  P and B frame. If you increase the value of quantification,  the bitrate of your sequence decrease.   
best regards 
sabrina 
Jingyi Hu <jhu@cmguc.com> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Hi Sabrina,
How can I set the bitrate in the configured file when I encode the H.264 bitstream?
Thanks.
Jingyi Hu
-----Original Message-----
From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sabrina
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Technotes@lists.m4if.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] play file .h264 
Thanks for your answer 
OK,  that work very well,
i just have a question 
I learned about H264, and every people said that H264 give a better quality for the same bitrate, thats way i downloaded JM 73 the latest open source for H264 and when i tested this code the results is exellent 
i compress akyio 25fps with 10kb/s and the quality is lovely 
the file generated is .264 
the IBMtools can't support this type of file 
i would to know this extension is what exactly
 is 'it equivalent to .cmp in MPEG4 or is it equivalent to .mp4 
and if it'is the case what player that support this kind of file ".264"
thanks 
sabrina  
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/0f85c823/attachment.html
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Wed Oct  8 16:58:00 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Fri Oct 10 10:39:08 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFEE3@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative
From LHorn  mpegla.com  Wed Oct  8 21:39:09 2003
From: LHorn  mpegla.com (Larry Horn)
Date: Fri Oct 10 10:41:25 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Streaming and its Licensing
Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC4E5703@oxford.mpegla.com>
Dear Sanjay,
For information, please go to http://www.mpegla.com, then to MPEG-4
Visual regarding licensing and royalty issues.  If you have additional
questions, Dean Skandalis dskandalis@mpegla.com or I will be glad to
answer them.  Just email us.
Best regards,
Larry Horn 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Kulkarni, Sanjay [mailto:SKulkarn@harman.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2023 4:00 PM
	To: Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
	Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Streaming and its Licensing
	Hello:
	Can someone please point me to MPEG4 as used in streaming media
over IP and licensing and royalty issues surrounding it. 
	Thanks much.
	Sanjay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/3f9637f1/attachment.html
From LHorn  mpegla.com  Wed Oct  8 21:51:27 2003
From: LHorn  mpegla.com (Larry Horn)
Date: Fri Oct 10 10:45:05 2003
Subject: FW: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
Message-ID: <8DDF6652F243A7419BC9BA168417EDDC8D52EA@oxford.mpegla.com>
Hello, Reeja.
We are not aware of any joint licensing efforts for H.263, so the only
alternative for now is to deal with individual patent owners.  For your
information, our MPEG-4 Visual License specifically names the current
MPEG-4 Visual Part 2 profiles in its field of use but does not name
H.263.  Even though H.263 is not included in the MPEG-4 Visual License,
the License does not exclude H.263 products where there are products
within the MPEG-4 Visual licensed field of use that are also covered by
the H.263 standard (e.g., MPEG-4 video frame with short header and H.263
baseline). For example, an H.263 decoder that can only decode H.263
bitstreams is not covered under the MPEG-4 Visual License, but an
encoder that generates H.263 baseline could be licensed for MPEG-4
Simple, which would include the video frame with short header that is
equivalent to H.263 baseline. 
I hope this is helpful.  Please let me know if you have additional
questions.
Best regards,
Larry Horn
-----Original Message-----
From: Baby Reeja Jayan [mailto:babyreeja@ushustech.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2023 3:03 AM
To: MP4-Tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.263 licensing issues
hi,
Can anybody please let me know what are the licensing issues surrounding
H.263.
Does H.263 licensing also come under the purview of MPEG LA?
thanks
reeja
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031008/6a60a579/attachment.html
From jacques.libchaber  alcatel.fr  Thu Oct  9 12:19:56 2003
From: jacques.libchaber  alcatel.fr (jacques libchaber)
Date: Fri Oct 10 10:47:17 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] h.263 standards
Message-ID: <3F85283C.279FC39C@alcatel.fr>
Hi everybody,
I have in my possession an ITU-T standard called H.263 whose date of
issue 
is 03/96. I assume that it is the first edition of the 'h263 video codec
standard'.
I've read that there exists also two other editions of the h263
standard.
They are named h263+ and h263++.
I guess that the h263++ standard is the one that was issued in 08/98. It
is also the one that you can get on the ITU website currently.
Does anyone know where I can get the h263+ standard ?
Thanks
               Jacques
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Fri Oct 10 20:29:22 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Fri Oct 10 13:41:45 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MPEG-4 Audio reference software
In-Reply-To: <20031007175729.16452.qmail@web12810.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031007175729.16452.qmail@web12810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3F86EC72.1040006@iis.fhg.de>
Esther Kuo wrote:
> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 02:08  PM, Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
> 
>>Anyway, you should consider that the software you purchased from ISO >is
> 
> outdated (it is about 2 years old). It always takes ISO a >significant
> time to publish any new standard piece. So one reason to >become an MPEG
> member might be to have access to weekly snapshots of >the MPEG-4 audio
> reference software. 
> 
> Dear Ralph and M4IF members,
> 
> Is it true that the reference software you mentioned will always be kept
> up-to-date for MPEG members? I hope it's a fully working version too?! I
> believe my company is a MPEG meember. Could you please tell me where and
> how to get the weekly snapshots of the reference software?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> E.
> 
Dear Esther,
the MPEG-4 Audio references software is continuously maintained and improved. 
The weekly snapshots are available here:
ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
(password of the 63rd MPEG meeting)
Best regards,
Ralph
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From kuo4him  yahoo.com  Fri Oct 10 18:41:29 2003
From: kuo4him  yahoo.com (Esther Kuo)
Date: Fri Oct 10 21:03:34 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MPEG-4 Audio reference software
In-Reply-To: <3F86EC72.1040006@iis.fhg.de>
Message-ID: <20031011004129.68243.qmail@web12806.mail.yahoo.com>
Thanks a lot, Ralph.
I have downloaded the refSoft from the web site, but am confused by those
directories and could not find any readme file. 
Could you pls briefly tell me what is in each directory? 
mp4AudVm
mp4AudVm_Rewrite 
mp4mcDec
mp4mcEnc
...
Thanks a lot for your help.
Best regards,
Esther
--- Ralph Sperschneider <sps@iis.fhg.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Esther,
> 
> the MPEG-4 Audio references software is continuously maintained and
> improved. 
> The weekly snapshots are available here:
> 
> ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
> (password of the 63rd MPEG meeting)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ralph
> -- 
> Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
> FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
> Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
> D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
> 
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From biswas  tataelxsi.co.in  Mon Oct 13 16:04:36 2003
From: biswas  tataelxsi.co.in (Biswajit Biswas)
Date: Mon Oct 13 05:46:57 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] problem with darwin server
In-Reply-To: <20031009003147.12861.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com>
Message-ID: <005701c3916d$384589d0$0c14010a@telxsi.com>
check your proxy settings. you can try with QT..
  -----Original Message-----
  From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
[mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org]On Behalf Of rakesh kothari
  Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2023 6:02 AM
  To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
  Subject: [Mp4-tech] problem with darwin server
  hi all,
  I am new to Darwin streaming server. I installed it on the linux RH9.
  I can play the file sample_500kbit.mp4(/usr/local/movies) with the local
player(gmp4player) by accessing  it with url "rtsp://myserverIP/file.mp4"
but I am unable to play that file from external client. The player (DivX)
couldn't connect to darwin server.
  I would be very thankful if someone can find out the problem. Is there any
kind of access lists?
  Regards,
  Rakesh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031013/33e16819/attachment.html
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Mon Oct 13 14:43:48 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Mon Oct 13 07:51:43 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MPEG-4 Audio reference software
In-Reply-To: <20031011004129.68243.qmail@web12806.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031011004129.68243.qmail@web12806.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3F8A8FF4.6030902@iis.fhg.de>
Esther Kuo wrote:
> Thanks a lot, Ralph.
> 
> I have downloaded the refSoft from the web site, but am confused by those
> directories and could not find any readme file. 
> 
> Could you pls briefly tell me what is in each directory? 
> mp4AudVm
MPEG-4 Natural Audio encoder and decoder (decoder not maintained anymore)
> mp4AudVm_Rewrite 
MPEG-4 Natural Audio decoder rewrite
> mp4mcDec
MPEG-4 AAC Decoder (with multichannel support)
> mp4mcEnc
MPEG-4 AAC Encoder (with multichannel support)
> ...
> 
> Thanks a lot for your help.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Esther
> 
> --- Ralph Sperschneider <sps@iis.fhg.de> wrote:
> 
>>Dear Esther,
>>
>>the MPEG-4 Audio references software is continuously maintained and
>>improved. 
>>The weekly snapshots are available here:
>>
>>ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
>>(password of the 63rd MPEG meeting)
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Ralph
>>-- 
>>Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
>>FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
>>Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
>>D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
>>
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Fri Oct 10 22:11:41 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Mon Oct 13 11:25:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFF01@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I think the clue here is the word "mobile".  Are you using this with
some packet loss or data corruption?  The reference software is
primarily intended for the error-free case.
What encoders and decoders do to provide robustness to loss or
corruption of data is outside the scope of the standard.
I don't know what AHM20 is.
-Gary
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of 
+> Michael Igarta
+> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2023 10:57 PM
+> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
+> 
+> 
+> Hello,
+> 
+> I am performing some test encodes of mobile CIF (300 frames) using 
+> latest the JM 7.3 reference software.
+> The resulting PSNR settings and visual quality seem much 
+> worse than I 
+> should be getting:
+> 
+> I/P Frame QP=30, B Frame QP = 32: PSNR(Y) = 30.79 dB
+> I/P Frame QP=38, B Frame QP = 40: PSNR(Y) = 25.15 dB
+> I/P Frame QP=46, B Frame QP = 48: PSNR(Y) = 20.22 dB
+> 
+> Using AHM20 with rate control gives me much better numbers.  
+> Can someone 
+> tell me what I am doing wrong with the
+> constant QP?  I changed the following in the default encoder.cfg:
+> 
+> InputFile = "mobile.cif"
+> LastFrameNumber = 299
+> FramesToBeEncoded = 299
+> SourceWidth = 352
+> SourceHeight = 288
+> 
+> 
+> Thanks you very much for any advice.
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Fri Oct 10 22:11:41 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Mon Oct 13 11:27:13 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] h.263 standards
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFEFC@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Jacques et al,
(copying to VCEG for information)
Yes, the version of H.263 dated in March 1996 is the first version.
I believe the approval meeting for that version was in November 1995,
but the approval process at that time required the published approval
dates
to lag a few months behind the meetings where documents were approved.
The document drafting work probably finished several months before that,
but I don't know the exact date.
To clarify the relationship to MPEG-4 (since this question was asked on
an MPEG-4
reflector), the "baseline" part of the first version of H.263 is what
was included
in a compatible way into the MPEG-4 visual standard.  That part is
called
the "short header" format in MPEG-4 visual.  All decoders that
can decode the simple profile of MPEG-4 visual can also decode the
baseline
profile of H.263.  All encoders that can encode the "short header" form
of MPEG-4
visual elementary streams are producing video that can be decoded by
decoders for the
baseline profile of H.263.
The baseline part of H.263 is also the part that was adopted as the
mandatory video
codec in H.323, H.324 and 3GPP.
Although there were additional "non-baseline" features in the original
version of H.263
(in Annexes C through F), those were not included in MPEG-4 (at least
not in
exactly the same form).
The base document for H.263 that is now on the ITU web site is the
1997/1998 version, known
as "H.263+".  The approval meeting for that version spanned Jan & Feb
1998.
I believe the ITU-T SG16 approval decision was on 27 January, but the
document bears
a Feb '98 approval date on the ITU web site because the rest of the
meeting
wasn't finished until February.  The "white
document" was submitted for translation and approval in September 1997
by VCEG, and SG16 acted on the document several months later, as the
approval
process at the time required translation into at least French and
Spanish and
additional time for final consideration prior to approval.
The technical content of the existing '95/'96 version was not changed
in the '97/'98 version -- there were only some extensions added.
If you look at what you can do with the new version without using
any annexes later than Annex F and without using the PLUSPTYPE field
in the headers, you will be looking at exactly what was in the '95
version.
In addition to the base document, you will find four newer annexes as
separate
documents on the ITU-T web site.  These are Annexes U, V, W, and X.
The base document was not changed when these annnexes were added.
Annexes U, V, and W are the extensions known as H.263++.  They were
approved
in November of 2000 (again, based on a document completed and submitted
a few
months before that).
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of 
+> jacques libchaber
+> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2023 2:20 AM
+> To: mp4 newsgroup
+> Subject: [Mp4-tech] h.263 standards
+> 
+> 
+> Hi everybody,
+> I have in my possession an ITU-T standard called H.263 whose date of
+> issue 
+> is 03/96. I assume that it is the first edition of the 'h263 
+> video codec
+> standard'.
+> I've read that there exists also two other editions of the h263
+> standard.
+> They are named h263+ and h263++.
+> I guess that the h263++ standard is the one that was issued 
+> in 08/98. It
+> is also the one that you can get on the ITU website currently.
+> Does anyone know where I can get the h263+ standard ?
+> Thanks
+>                Jacques
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From harmanci  ece.rochester.edu  Mon Oct 13 13:43:56 2003
From: harmanci  ece.rochester.edu (Oztan Harmanci)
Date: Mon Oct 13 12:51:28 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
References: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFF01@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <00f501c391a9$327031e0$bfa49780@h414pc4>
I think "mobile" stands for the name of the sequence ( the one with the
train and calendar )
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Sullivan" <garysull@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Michael Igarta" <migarta@purdue.edu>; <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2023 12:11 AM
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
> I think the clue here is the word "mobile".  Are you using this with
> some packet loss or data corruption?  The reference software is
> primarily intended for the error-free case.
>
> What encoders and decoders do to provide robustness to loss or
> corruption of data is outside the scope of the standard.
>
> I don't know what AHM20 is.
>
> -Gary
>
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of
> +> Michael Igarta
> +> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2023 10:57 PM
> +> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
> +>
> +>
> +> Hello,
> +>
> +> I am performing some test encodes of mobile CIF (300 frames) using
> +> latest the JM 7.3 reference software.
> +> The resulting PSNR settings and visual quality seem much
> +> worse than I
> +> should be getting:
> +>
> +> I/P Frame QP=30, B Frame QP = 32: PSNR(Y) = 30.79 dB
> +> I/P Frame QP=38, B Frame QP = 40: PSNR(Y) = 25.15 dB
> +> I/P Frame QP=46, B Frame QP = 48: PSNR(Y) = 20.22 dB
> +>
> +> Using AHM20 with rate control gives me much better numbers.
> +> Can someone
> +> tell me what I am doing wrong with the
> +> constant QP?  I changed the following in the default encoder.cfg:
> +>
> +> InputFile = "mobile.cif"
> +> LastFrameNumber = 299
> +> FramesToBeEncoded = 299
> +> SourceWidth = 352
> +> SourceHeight = 288
> +>
> +>
> +> Thanks you very much for any advice.
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +> _______________________________________________
> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From harmanci  ece.rochester.edu  Mon Oct 13 13:51:47 2003
From: harmanci  ece.rochester.edu (Oztan Harmanci)
Date: Mon Oct 13 12:55:54 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
References: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFF01@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <010001c391aa$4de92a20$bfa49780@h414pc4>
I think "mobile" stands for the name of the sequence ( the one with the
train and calendar )
I'm having similar SNR problems with 7.3 software when I turn off the RD 
optimizations. However, the problem is not bad mode/mv decisions. When 
I look at the output I see black and white spikes around 4x4 blocks. 
Decoder decodes the stream and the resulting video is the same "noisy" 
video :). Anyone else having (or had) similar problems?
Oztan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Sullivan" <garysull@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Michael Igarta" <migarta@purdue.edu>; <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2023 12:11 AM
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
> I think the clue here is the word "mobile".  Are you using this with
> some packet loss or data corruption?  The reference software is
> primarily intended for the error-free case.
>
> What encoders and decoders do to provide robustness to loss or
> corruption of data is outside the scope of the standard.
>
> I don't know what AHM20 is.
>
> -Gary
>
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of
> +> Michael Igarta
> +> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2023 10:57 PM
> +> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> Subject: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
> +>
> +>
> +> Hello,
> +>
> +> I am performing some test encodes of mobile CIF (300 frames) using
> +> latest the JM 7.3 reference software.
> +> The resulting PSNR settings and visual quality seem much
> +> worse than I
> +> should be getting:
> +>
> +> I/P Frame QP=30, B Frame QP = 32: PSNR(Y) = 30.79 dB
> +> I/P Frame QP=38, B Frame QP = 40: PSNR(Y) = 25.15 dB
> +> I/P Frame QP=46, B Frame QP = 48: PSNR(Y) = 20.22 dB
> +>
> +> Using AHM20 with rate control gives me much better numbers.
> +> Can someone
> +> tell me what I am doing wrong with the
> +> constant QP?  I changed the following in the default encoder.cfg:
> +>
> +> InputFile = "mobile.cif"
> +> LastFrameNumber = 299
> +> FramesToBeEncoded = 299
> +> SourceWidth = 352
> +> SourceHeight = 288
> +>
> +>
> +> Thanks you very much for any advice.
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +> _______________________________________________
> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From jayank  vidiator.com  Mon Oct 13 16:09:15 2003
From: jayank  vidiator.com (Jayank Bhalod)
Date: Mon Oct 13 18:22:10 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Query about 3gpp mulriplexing
Message-ID: <787ED0EC136B854DB341E7662D666CD652225C@bels002.mediator.com>
3GPP TS  26.244 Transparent end-to-end streaming service; 3GPP file format (3GP) http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/html%2Dinfo/26244.htm
and 3GPP TS  26.234 Transparent end-to-end streaming service; Protocols and codecs
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/html%2Dinfo/26234.htm
this might help,
-Jay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandar Nanivadekar [mailto:mandar@motechsoftware.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2023 2:32 AM
> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> Subject: [Mp4-tech] Query about 3gpp mulriplexing
> 
> 
> Our aim is to multiplex h.263 stream and AMR audio
> in 3GPP format, write a multiplexer and demultiplexer for this.
> We went through many 3GPP documents but did
> not get the exact file format, how both the streams should
> be combined.
> 
> Can you suggest some sites or material which mentions
> the exact file format?
> 
> 
> Mandar Nanivadekar,
> Senior Software Engineer,
> Motech Software Pvt. Ltd.
> Phone - 28214541 , ext - 1407
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> 
From migarta  purdue.edu  Tue Oct 14 12:30:53 2003
From: migarta  purdue.edu (Michael Igarta)
Date: Tue Oct 14 12:49:11 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: Mp4-tech Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
In-Reply-To: <200310141605.h9EG3qdR000136@lists1.magma.ca>
References: <200310141605.h9EG3qdR000136@lists1.magma.ca>
Message-ID: <3F8C24BD.3090405@purdue.edu>
I could not get the JM 7.3 software to achieve proper results.  
Apparently, too many MBs were picked to
be coded as Intra (with R-D mode enabled).  I switched to JM 61e and am 
achieving better numbers.
-Michael
mp4-tech-request@lists.mpegif.org wrote:
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2023 12:51:47 -0400
>From: "Oztan Harmanci" <harmanci@ece.rochester.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
>To: <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
>Message-ID: <010001c391aa$4de92a20$bfa49780@h414pc4>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I think "mobile" stands for the name of the sequence ( the one with the
>train and calendar )
>
>
>I'm having similar SNR problems with 7.3 software when I turn off the RD 
>optimizations. However, the problem is not bad mode/mv decisions. When 
>I look at the output I see black and white spikes around 4x4 blocks. 
>Decoder decodes the stream and the resulting video is the same "noisy" 
>video :). Anyone else having (or had) similar problems?
>
>Oztan
>  
>
From migarta  purdue.edu  Tue Oct 14 12:32:35 2003
From: migarta  purdue.edu (Michael Igarta)
Date: Tue Oct 14 12:50:47 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: Mp4-tech Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
In-Reply-To: <200310141605.h9EG3qdR000136@lists1.magma.ca>
References: <200310141605.h9EG3qdR000136@lists1.magma.ca>
Message-ID: <3F8C2523.9060500@purdue.edu>
I could not get the JM 7.3 software to achieve proper results.  
Apparently, too many MBs were picked to
be coded as Intra (with R-D mode enabled).  I switched to JM 61e and am 
achieving better numbers.
-Michael
mp4-tech-request@lists.mpegif.org wrote:
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2023 12:51:47 -0400
>From: "Oztan Harmanci" <harmanci@ece.rochester.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
>To: <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
>Message-ID: <010001c391aa$4de92a20$bfa49780@h414pc4>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I think "mobile" stands for the name of the sequence ( the one with the
>train and calendar )
>
>
>I'm having similar SNR problems with 7.3 software when I turn off the RD 
>optimizations. However, the problem is not bad mode/mv decisions. When 
>I look at the output I see black and white spikes around 4x4 blocks. 
>Decoder decodes the stream and the resulting video is the same "noisy" 
>video :). Anyone else having (or had) similar problems?
>
>Oztan
>  
>
From harmanci  ece.rochester.edu  Tue Oct 14 15:26:09 2003
From: harmanci  ece.rochester.edu (Oztan Harmanci)
Date: Tue Oct 14 14:36:24 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: Mp4-tech Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
References: <200310141605.h9EG3qdR000136@lists1.magma.ca>
	<3F8C2523.9060500@purdue.edu>
Message-ID: <016201c39280$b2c72290$bfa49780@h414pc4>
Hi Michael. I relaized the mode decisions favoring the intra coding when
RD is turned on, that was why I was turning it off: to get some
inter coded MBs for test. I thought of using one of the previous
versions, but I dont know if 61e(or others for that matter) is conforming
to the G050 or not. Do you have any knowledge of this? Thanks
Oztan
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Igarta" <migarta@purdue.edu>
To: <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2023 12:32 PM
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: Mp4-tech Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
> I could not get the JM 7.3 software to achieve proper results.
> Apparently, too many MBs were picked to
> be coded as Intra (with R-D mode enabled).  I switched to JM 61e and am
> achieving better numbers.
>
> -Michael
>
> mp4-tech-request@lists.mpegif.org wrote:
>
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2023 12:51:47 -0400
> >From: "Oztan Harmanci" <harmanci@ece.rochester.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73
> >To: <mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org>
> >Message-ID: <010001c391aa$4de92a20$bfa49780@h414pc4>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >I think "mobile" stands for the name of the sequence ( the one with the
> >train and calendar )
> >
> >
> >I'm having similar SNR problems with 7.3 software when I turn off the RD
> >optimizations. However, the problem is not bad mode/mv decisions. When
> >I look at the output I see black and white spikes around 4x4 blocks.
> >Decoder decodes the stream and the resulting video is the same "noisy"
> >video :). Anyone else having (or had) similar problems?
> >
> >Oztan
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From lupomail  gmx.de  Wed Oct 15 12:01:52 2003
From: lupomail  gmx.de (Simon Bergweiler)
Date: Wed Oct 15 05:23:31 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
Message-ID: <29503.1066208512@www30.gmx.net>
Hi Julian, 
you wrode that you streamed 3gp files with the DSS. 
I want to stream short films to my mobile phone..., so I used ffmpeg to
generate a 3gp-file 
with h263 video and amr audio, but I cannot find a tool to add hint tracks
for streaming 
I'm searching for an command line tool, to combine it with ffmpeg or other
tools 
best regards 
Simon 
>Actually, streaming the .3gp file with Darwin Streaming Server, does not 
>require to transcode the video (into an MPEG-4 video stream wrapped in an 
>MP4 file) but to hint the h263 video track according to the RFC specified
in 
>the 3GPP specs. 
>    We have successfully streamed such files using DSS as a server and 
>Philips player as a client. Our tool is not immediatly available to the 
>public though... If you want more information you can contact us directly
at 
>contact   resonate-mp4.com 
-- 
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
From lupomail  gmx.de  Wed Oct 15 11:23:38 2003
From: lupomail  gmx.de (Simon Bergweiler)
Date: Wed Oct 15 09:44:39 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3GP file
Message-ID: <5368.1066206218@www14.gmx.net>
Hi all, 
I'm searching for a command line tool, which can add hint tracks to a 3gp
file.  
Bye 
Simon 
-- 
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
From Giuliano.Catrambone  h3g.it  Wed Oct 15 16:39:22 2003
From: Giuliano.Catrambone  h3g.it (Catrambone Giuliano)
Date: Wed Oct 15 09:44:57 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
Message-ID: <5CE529F3A4DD004F84C48DBDC354C14F7D985D@MIEXC03.h3g.it>
Hi Simon,
	I built just for fun a 3GPP and ISMA streaming server.
	I called it the CatraStreamingServer.
	If you want I built also a tool to add the hint tracks
	to a MP4 file.
	The CatraStreamingServer is compliant to the following
	standards:
	- TS 26.234 Rel. 5 to be compliant to the 3GPP standard
	- rfc2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
	- rfc2327: Session Description Protocol (SDP)
	- rfc1889: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications (RTP)
	- rfc2429: RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of
		ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)
	- rfc3016: RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams
	- rfc3267: Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage
		Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate
		Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs
	Technical feactures of the CatraStreamingServer:
	- C++ language used to implement the server
	- java language used to realize the GUI
	- CORBA for the communication between GUI and server
	- independence of the OS
	- use of the BIRD libraries
	- the choice of the standard to use (3GPP or ISMA) is based on the file extension:
		3GPP for ".3gp" file
		ISMA for ".mp4" file
	Attached find the Windows version of the CatraStreamingServer with an example of a 3GPP
	content.
	You can use the 3GPP philips player (http://www.digitalnetworks.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FHomepage-NoXCache.asp?lNodeId=756&channel=756&channelId=N756A2167) or the ISMA MPEG4IP player
	to ask for a request. The URL will be something like: rtsp://127.0.0.1:7777/blabla.3gp.
	rgds
		giu
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Bergweiler [mailto:lupomail@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2003 11:02
To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
Hi Julian, 
you wrode that you streamed 3gp files with the DSS. 
I want to stream short films to my mobile phone..., so I used ffmpeg to generate a 3gp-file 
with h263 video and amr audio, but I cannot find a tool to add hint tracks for streaming 
I'm searching for an command line tool, to combine it with ffmpeg or other tools 
best regards 
Simon 
>Actually, streaming the .3gp file with Darwin Streaming Server, does 
>not
>require to transcode the video (into an MPEG-4 video stream wrapped in an 
>MP4 file) but to hint the h263 video track according to the RFC specified
in 
>the 3GPP specs.
>    We have successfully streamed such files using DSS as a server and
>Philips player as a client. Our tool is not immediatly available to the 
>public though... If you want more information you can contact us directly
at 
>contact   resonate-mp4.com 
-- 
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien... Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CatraStreamingServer_1_37.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 2209751 bytes
Desc: CatraStreamingServer_1_37.zip
Url : /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031015/f4d00e22/CatraStreamingServer_1_37-0001.bin
From rob.koenen  mpegif.org  Wed Oct 15 17:28:00 2003
From: rob.koenen  mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF))
Date: Wed Oct 15 10:32:25 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
In-Reply-To: <5CE529F3A4DD004F84C48DBDC354C14F7D985D@MIEXC03.h3g.it>
Message-ID: <000001c39328$8a160660$b50a010a@corp.intertrust.com>
Thanks for the stuff, but in the future, please send links to large files on
this list rather than large files themselves. There are many people on this
list that do no necessariliy need th e file and they may well be on a PSTN
link (like me).
Thanks,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catrambone Giuliano [mailto:Giuliano.Catrambone@h3g.it] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2023 15:39
> To: Simon Bergweiler; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> Cc: mezrouio@hotmail.com; Mizio Stefania
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 	I built just for fun a 3GPP and ISMA streaming server.
> 	I called it the CatraStreamingServer.
> 	If you want I built also a tool to add the hint tracks
> 	to a MP4 file.
> 
> 	The CatraStreamingServer is compliant to the following
> 	standards:
> 	- TS 26.234 Rel. 5 to be compliant to the 3GPP standard
> 	- rfc2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
> 	- rfc2327: Session Description Protocol (SDP)
> 	- rfc1889: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications (RTP)
> 	- rfc2429: RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of
> 		ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)
> 	- rfc3016: RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams
> 	- rfc3267: Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload 
> Format and File Storage
> 		Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and 
> Adaptive Multi-Rate
> 		Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs
> 
> 	Technical feactures of the CatraStreamingServer:
> 	- C++ language used to implement the server
> 	- java language used to realize the GUI
> 	- CORBA for the communication between GUI and server
> 	- independence of the OS
> 	- use of the BIRD libraries
> 	- the choice of the standard to use (3GPP or ISMA) is 
> based on the file extension:
> 		3GPP for ".3gp" file
> 		ISMA for ".mp4" file
> 
> 	Attached find the Windows version of the 
> CatraStreamingServer with an example of a 3GPP
> 	content.
> 	You can use the 3GPP philips player 
> (http://www.digitalnetworks.philips.com/InformationCenter/Glob
> al/FHomepage-NoXCache.asp?lNodeId=756&channel=756&channelId=N7
> 56A2167) or the ISMA MPEG4IP player
> 	to ask for a request. The URL will be something like: 
> rtsp://127.0.0.1:7777/blabla.3gp.
> 	rgds
> 		giu
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Bergweiler [mailto:lupomail@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2003 11:02
> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
> 
> 
> Hi Julian, 
>  
> you wrode that you streamed 3gp files with the DSS. 
> I want to stream short films to my mobile phone..., so I used 
> ffmpeg to generate a 3gp-file 
> with h263 video and amr audio, but I cannot find a tool to 
> add hint tracks for streaming 
>  
> I'm searching for an command line tool, to combine it with 
> ffmpeg or other tools 
>  
>  
> best regards 
>  
> Simon 
>  
>  
> >Actually, streaming the .3gp file with Darwin Streaming Server, does 
> >not
> >require to transcode the video (into an MPEG-4 video stream 
> wrapped in an 
> >MP4 file) but to hint the h263 video track according to the 
> RFC specified
> in 
> >the 3GPP specs.
>  
> >    We have successfully streamed such files using DSS as a 
> server and
> >Philips player as a client. Our tool is not immediatly 
> available to the 
> >public though... If you want more information you can 
> contact us directly
> at 
> >contact   resonate-mp4.com 
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien... 
> Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
> 
> Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
> 
> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org 
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-> tech
> 
From Giuliano.Catrambone  h3g.it  Wed Oct 15 18:17:50 2003
From: Giuliano.Catrambone  h3g.it (Catrambone Giuliano)
Date: Wed Oct 15 11:20:18 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] 3GPP player buffer size
Message-ID: <5CE529F3A4DD004F84C48DBDC354C14F1992C5@MIEXC03.h3g.it>
Hi all,
    do you know how many bytes is the buffer size
    of a 3GPP player (Visual simple profile level 0)?
    In which document I can find this information?
    rgds
        giu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Giuliano Catrambone
Project Manager
H3G Italia
Via Leonardo da Vinci 1
20090 Trezzano sul Naviglio (Milano)
Office +39.(0)2.4458 2527
Mobile +39.393.1113334
FAX +39.(0)2.4458 ...
e-mail giuliano.catrambone@h3g.it <mailto:giuliano.catrambone@h3g.it> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031015/86bfd62f/attachment.html
From tohara  tensilica.com  Wed Oct 15 11:50:12 2003
From: tohara  tensilica.com (Tomo Tohara)
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:05:02 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
In-Reply-To: <5CE529F3A4DD004F84C48DBDC354C14F7D985D@MIEXC03.h3g.it>
References: <5CE529F3A4DD004F84C48DBDC354C14F7D985D@MIEXC03.h3g.it>
Message-ID: <3F8D88D4.50000@tensilica.com>
Dear Giuliano.
It is not a good idea to send huge file to this mail address. Your 
message made my small
mailbox overflow. Sending huge file to anonymous mail account is not 
good idea.
If you need to communicate with specific person, please do so directory 
or if you
want to share files to anonymous, I appreciate you to create ftp site 
for downloading.
Thank you,
Catrambone Giuliano wrote:
>Hi Simon,
>	I built just for fun a 3GPP and ISMA streaming server.
>	I called it the CatraStreamingServer.
>	If you want I built also a tool to add the hint tracks
>	to a MP4 file.
>
>	The CatraStreamingServer is compliant to the following
>	standards:
>	- TS 26.234 Rel. 5 to be compliant to the 3GPP standard
>	- rfc2326: Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
>	- rfc2327: Session Description Protocol (SDP)
>	- rfc1889: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications (RTP)
>	- rfc2429: RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of
>		ITU-T Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)
>	- rfc3016: RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams
>	- rfc3267: Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload Format and File Storage
>		Format for the Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) and Adaptive Multi-Rate
>		Wideband (AMR-WB) Audio Codecs
>
>	Technical feactures of the CatraStreamingServer:
>	- C++ language used to implement the server
>	- java language used to realize the GUI
>	- CORBA for the communication between GUI and server
>	- independence of the OS
>	- use of the BIRD libraries
>	- the choice of the standard to use (3GPP or ISMA) is based on the file extension:
>		3GPP for ".3gp" file
>		ISMA for ".mp4" file
>
>	Attached find the Windows version of the CatraStreamingServer with an example of a 3GPP
>	content.
>	You can use the 3GPP philips player (http://www.digitalnetworks.philips.com/InformationCenter/Global/FHomepage-NoXCache.asp?lNodeId=756&channel=756&channelId=N756A2167) or the ISMA MPEG4IP player
>	to ask for a request. The URL will be something like: rtsp://127.0.0.1:7777/blabla.3gp.
>	rgds
>		giu
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon Bergweiler [mailto:lupomail@gmx.de] 
>Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2003 11:02
>To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint 3gp-file
>
>
>Hi Julian, 
> 
>you wrode that you streamed 3gp files with the DSS. 
>I want to stream short films to my mobile phone..., so I used ffmpeg to generate a 3gp-file 
>with h263 video and amr audio, but I cannot find a tool to add hint tracks for streaming 
> 
>I'm searching for an command line tool, to combine it with ffmpeg or other tools 
> 
> 
>best regards 
> 
>Simon 
> 
> 
>  
>
>>Actually, streaming the .3gp file with Darwin Streaming Server, does 
>>not
>>require to transcode the video (into an MPEG-4 video stream wrapped in an 
>>MP4 file) but to hint the h263 video track according to the RFC specified
>>    
>>
>in 
>  
>
>>the 3GPP specs.
>>    
>>
> 
>  
>
>>   We have successfully streamed such files using DSS as a server and
>>Philips player as a client. Our tool is not immediatly available to the 
>>public though... If you want more information you can contact us directly
>>    
>>
>at 
>  
>
>>contact   resonate-mp4.com 
>>    
>>
> 
> 
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mp4-tech mailing list
>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>  
>
From jayank  vidiator.com  Wed Oct 15 12:04:31 2003
From: jayank  vidiator.com (Jayank Bhalod)
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:05:56 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] 3GPP player buffer size
Message-ID: <787ED0EC136B854DB341E7662D666CD6522266@bels002.mediator.com>
check Table A.1 @ http://www.m4if.org/resources/profiles/index.php
-Jayank
-----Original Message-----
From: Catrambone Giuliano [mailto:Giuliano.Catrambone@h3g.it]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2023 8:18 AM
To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; bautz@bsoft.info
Cc: Mizio Stefania
Subject: [Mp4-tech] 3GPP player buffer size
Hi all,
    do you know how many bytes is the buffer size
    of a 3GPP player (Visual simple profile level 0)?
    In which document I can find this information?
    rgds
        giu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Giuliano Catrambone
Project Manager
H3G Italia
Via Leonardo da Vinci 1
20090 Trezzano sul Naviglio (Milano)
Office +39.(0)2.4458 2527
Mobile +39.393.1113334
FAX +39.(0)2.4458 ...
e-mail  <mailto:giuliano.catrambone@h3g.it> giuliano.catrambone@h3g.it
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031015/a479ae15/attachment.html
From rendeg  ieee.org  Wed Oct 15 21:13:42 2003
From: rendeg  ieee.org (Ing. Rennie Deguara)
Date: Wed Oct 15 14:17:36 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] avi vs mp4
Message-ID: <002101c39348$148dc6b0$a52efea9@p4>
Hi,
what is the difference between mp4 and avi ?
thanks,
Rennie 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031015/ede51d2c/attachment.html
From ugarg  neomagic.com  Thu Oct 16 12:15:49 2003
From: ugarg  neomagic.com (Umang Garg)
Date: Thu Oct 16 02:00:48 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] More Questions on... MPEG-4 Audio reference software
In-Reply-To: <3F86EC72.1040006@iis.fhg.de>
References: <20031007175729.16452.qmail@web12810.mail.yahoo.com>
	<3F86EC72.1040006@iis.fhg.de>
Message-ID: <3F8E308D.5020503@neomagic.com>
Dear Ralph and Forum Members,
If the audio reference software is kept at
ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
then, what is the need to maintain a CVS at http://mpeg.nist.gov/  ??
How old(outdated) is the software on NIST CVS with respect to Audio and 
Systems part of MPEG-4 ?
Can some-one also point out the significance of various Release Tags 
(r1, HEAD, MPEG) at the NIST CVS ?
Best Regards,
Umang Garg
NeoMagic Design Center
Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
> Esther Kuo wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 02:08  PM, Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, you should consider that the software you purchased from ISO >is
>>
>>
>> outdated (it is about 2 years old). It always takes ISO a >significant
>> time to publish any new standard piece. So one reason to >become an MPEG
>> member might be to have access to weekly snapshots of >the MPEG-4 audio
>> reference software.
>> Dear Ralph and M4IF members,
>>
>> Is it true that the reference software you mentioned will always be kept
>> up-to-date for MPEG members? I hope it's a fully working version too?! I
>> believe my company is a MPEG meember. Could you please tell me where and
>> how to get the weekly snapshots of the reference software?
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> E.
>>
> 
> Dear Esther,
> 
> the MPEG-4 Audio references software is continuously maintained and 
> improved. The weekly snapshots are available here:
> 
> ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
> (password of the 63rd MPEG meeting)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ralph
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Thu Oct 16 14:29:25 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Thu Oct 16 07:51:30 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: More Questions on... MPEG-4 Audio reference software
In-Reply-To: <3F8E308D.5020503@neomagic.com>
References: <20031007175729.16452.qmail@web12810.mail.yahoo.com>
	<3F86EC72.1040006@iis.fhg.de> <3F8E308D.5020503@neomagic.com>
Message-ID: <3F8E8115.6050407@iis.fhg.de>
Umang Garg wrote:
> Dear Ralph and Forum Members,
> 
> If the audio reference software is kept at
> ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
> 
> then, what is the need to maintain a CVS at http://mpeg.nist.gov/  ??
> 
> How old(outdated) is the software on NIST CVS with respect to Audio and 
> Systems part of MPEG-4 ?
> 
> Can some-one also point out the significance of various Release Tags 
> (r1, HEAD, MPEG) at the NIST CVS ?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Umang Garg
> 
> NeoMagic Design Center
> 
Dear Umang,
this answer concerns audio only (I am not involved in any systems software 
development and can hance make no statement rearding the systems software):
I am aware of that CVS repository, but it has never been used by the audio 
refsoft developers. Someone has sometimes committed something. Everything else 
would be guessing, but it might be that the audio repository is the same than 
the 2001 standard release of part 5 (just guessing!!).
Best regards,
Ralph
> 
> 
> Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
> 
>> Esther Kuo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 02:08  PM, Ralph Sperschneider wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, you should consider that the software you purchased from ISO 
>>>> >is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> outdated (it is about 2 years old). It always takes ISO a >significant
>>> time to publish any new standard piece. So one reason to >become an MPEG
>>> member might be to have access to weekly snapshots of >the MPEG-4 audio
>>> reference software.
>>> Dear Ralph and M4IF members,
>>>
>>> Is it true that the reference software you mentioned will always be kept
>>> up-to-date for MPEG members? I hope it's a fully working version too?! I
>>> believe my company is a MPEG meember. Could you please tell me where and
>>> how to get the weekly snapshots of the reference software?
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot,
>>>
>>> E.
>>>
>>
>> Dear Esther,
>>
>> the MPEG-4 Audio references software is continuously maintained and 
>> improved. The weekly snapshots are available here:
>>
>> ftp://mpeg4vm@ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/incoming/cvs/
>> (password of the 63rd MPEG meeting)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ralph
> 
> 
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From rendeg  maltanet.net  Thu Oct 16 14:01:14 2003
From: rendeg  maltanet.net (rendeg@maltanet.net)
Date: Thu Oct 16 08:20:17 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG4
Message-ID: <200310161101.h9GB1ESj016178@lists1.magma.ca>
Hi,
I am using the Microsoft-FPDAM1-1.0-000403 MPEG4 codec.  It seems that
from the user manual you can oly generate avi files. IS it possible to
genrate mp4 files and how ??
Another question when you decode the file is it posible to view it on the 
screen at the same time the decoding is going on ?
thanks and regards,
Rennie 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birthdays? Anniversaries? Send a gift online from http://shop.di-ve.com . FREE DELIVERY TO MALTA ADDRESSES
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Thu Oct 16 15:35:57 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Thu Oct 16 08:44:40 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] segmentation of sequence
Message-ID: <20031016123557.29873.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com>
hi all 
i try  to use the object codec of Momusys . i would to know if anyone know where i can find  the file that conatin the segmented sequence akyio or foreman .. 
thanks for help 
sabrina 
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Testez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031016/93be6a3f/attachment.html
From pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr  Fri Oct 17 16:38:00 2003
From: pina_sabrina  yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?sabrina?=)
Date: Fri Oct 17 09:52:40 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] play y file under linux 
Message-ID: <20031017133800.64921.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com>
hi 
I play yuv under linux with avilib.h 
the format that i use in my source is 'I','Y','U',V' 
now i would just to play y file , i try to search the
different format of yuv and i found that the format
for the luminance is 'Y'8''0'0'
but when i try to play the avi file it didn't work the
player said that the format is not available.
can anyone help me  
thank :)
the source is below :
 FILE* fpYUV;
 char input_file[60];
 avi_t*  pAviHandle;
 char  buffer[176*144];
 int i;
 char VideoFmtYV12[4] = 
 {
   'Y','8','0','0'
 }
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran?ais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
From a17435  alunos.det.ua.pt  Mon Oct 20 10:24:00 2003
From: a17435  alunos.det.ua.pt (ANTONIO RICHARD ABREU DA SILVA)
Date: Mon Oct 20 04:37:20 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 Transform
Message-ID: <web-450357@controller.cgpmail.ua.pt>
I'm studying the transform used by this new standard, and 
using the information of the JVT_B038 document of the 
standarization process and from the paper "Low Complexity 
Transform and Quantization in H.264/AVC" from the Special 
Issue of CSVT of IEEE, I can't implement a reverse 
transform. I'm doing exactly as they propose and i can't 
obtain a reverse transformation/Quantization. 
Is anyone already try this, i'll appreciate a contact.
Regards,
Ant?nio Silva
From sunticha  ratree.psu.ac.th  Mon Oct 20 17:11:12 2003
From: sunticha  ratree.psu.ac.th (Santichai Chuaywong)
Date: Mon Oct 20 05:11:34 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Profile for video telephony
Message-ID: <000e01c396ea$1d3b3900$86141eac@SC>
Dear All,
Is the simple scalable profile suitable for applications sucha as video telephony and video conference? I mention on its latency and complexity.
Regards,
Santichai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031020/d8ce3867/attachment.html
From rendeg  maltanet.net  Mon Oct 20 15:57:49 2003
From: rendeg  maltanet.net (rendeg@maltanet.net)
Date: Mon Oct 20 18:43:28 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] YUV video sequences
Message-ID: <200310201257.h9KCvp9C002902@lists1.magma.ca>
Dear ALL,
I am searching for the follwing raw data in YUV video sequence files:
ORIG/akiyo/akiyo_cif.yuv	{Name of source VOP Y file on disk}
ORIG/akiyo/akiyo_cif.yuv	{Name of source VOP U file on disk}
ORIG/akiyo/akiyo_cif.yuv	{Name of source VOP V file on disk}
ORIG/akiyo/akiyo_cif.seg	{Name of source VOP Alpha file on disk}
to be used in the MoMuSys codec. any ideas on from where i could download 
these files ?
thanks and best regards,
Rennie 
rendeg@ieee.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birthdays? Anniversaries? Send a gift online from http://shop.di-ve.com . FREE DELIVERY TO MALTA ADDRESSES
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Mon Oct 20 13:29:02 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Mon Oct 20 18:44:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 Transform
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFF86@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Those papers and the standard itself should give you the essential information you need.  However, you may also want to check the reference software implementation (http://bs.hhi.de/~suehring/tml/) and the VCodex tutorial written by Iain Richardson (http://www.vcodex.fsnet.co.uk/h264.html).  Those links are probably also easily found on the MPEG-IF web site.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of 
+> ANTONIO RICHARD ABREU DA SILVA
+> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2023 1:24 AM
+> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 Transform
+> 
+> 
+> I'm studying the transform used by this new standard, and 
+> using the information of the JVT_B038 document of the 
+> standarization process and from the paper "Low Complexity 
+> Transform and Quantization in H.264/AVC" from the Special 
+> Issue of CSVT of IEEE, I can't implement a reverse 
+> transform. I'm doing exactly as they propose and i can't 
+> obtain a reverse transformation/Quantization. 
+> 
+> Is anyone already try this, i'll appreciate a contact.
+> 
+> Regards,
+> 
+> Ant?nio Silva
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM  Wed Oct 22 15:47:15 2003
From: babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM (Baby Reeja Jayan)
Date: Wed Oct 22 05:33:59 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 licensing
Message-ID: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C312@mail.ushustech.com>
hi all
Is H.264 Baseline license free? What are the diferences between H.263++ and
H.264 ?
Can anybody help
Reeja
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031022/814f3ae0/attachment.html
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Wed Oct 22 06:51:57 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Wed Oct 22 09:04:39 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 licensing
In-Reply-To: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C312@mail.ushustech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310220549270.18364-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Baby Reeja Jayan wrote:
> hi all
>
> Is H.264 Baseline license free? What are the diferences between H.263++ and
> H.264 ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
H.263++ is almost H.263, while H.264 is absolutely a new extension of
H.263, in which the motion coding is extended, Huffman coding is replaced
by AC, AC/DC prediction is extended, etc.
> Can anybody help
>
> Reeja
>
>
From rob.koenen  mpegif.org  Thu Oct 23 14:44:48 2003
From: rob.koenen  mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF))
Date: Wed Oct 22 23:56:35 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 licensing
In-Reply-To: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C312@mail.ushustech.com>
Message-ID: <000001c39918$056a8e40$b50a010a@corp.intertrust.com>
 >  Is H.264 Baseline license free?  
That's hard to answer right now because many discussions are still ongoing,
but here is some indication to the contrary:
See
http://www.vialicensing.com/news/via_pr_0315_OwnerSupportAVCLicenseTermsPR.h
tml
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031023/2bd6ece4/attachment.html
From rob.koenen  mpegif.org  Thu Oct 23 15:33:40 2003
From: rob.koenen  mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF))
Date: Thu Oct 23 00:38:24 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] H.264 licensing
In-Reply-To: <000001c39918$056a8e40$b50a010a@corp.intertrust.com>
Message-ID: <000501c3991e$d8b31730$b50a010a@corp.intertrust.com>
OK, the exact indication is not in the press release but in the terms
themselves. It may be a bit hard to find if you don't start on VIA's
homepage; please see here:
http://www.vialicensing.com/developments/avc/license.terms.html
 >  Is H.264 Baseline license free?  
Note that I interpret that question to be about *royalty*-free not
*license*-free. 
Best,
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Koenen (MPEGIF) [mailto:rob.koenen@mpegif.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2023 13:45
To: 'Baby Reeja Jayan'; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] H.264 licensing
 >  Is H.264 Baseline license free?  
That's hard to answer right now because many discussions are still ongoing,
but here is some indication to the contrary:
See
http://www.vialicensing.com/news/via_pr_0315_OwnerSupportAVCLicenseTermsPR.h
tml
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031023/8955e2b7/attachment.html
From kavassis  otenet.gr  Thu Oct 23 12:46:29 2003
From: kavassis  otenet.gr (Anthony Kavassis)
Date: Thu Oct 23 04:59:36 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] IM1 for 64bit processors
Message-ID: <001401c39942$27064740$0100a8c0@cr1>
Dear all,
quick question with regards to 64-bit processors. Is there any consideration for a future release of IM1 that would support x86 64bit processors (i.e new 64bit Athlon)?
Regards,
Anthony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031023/81628c29/attachment.html
From jean-claude.dufourd  enst.fr  Thu Oct 23 12:11:48 2003
From: jean-claude.dufourd  enst.fr (Jean-Claude Dufourd)
Date: Thu Oct 23 05:17:44 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] IM1 for 64bit processors
References: <001401c39942$27064740$0100a8c0@cr1>
Message-ID: <3F979B54.1060607@enst.fr>
You may want to check Osmo4-GPAC, which should be very easy to port.
gpac.sourceforge.net
Best regards
JC
Anthony Kavassis wrote:
> Dear all,
>  
> quick question with regards to 64-bit processors. Is there any 
> consideration for a future release of IM1 that would support x86 64bit 
> processors (i.e new 64bit Athlon)?
>  
> Regards,
> Anthony
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mp4-tech mailing list
>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031023/fafdc578/attachment.html
From pancrazio.auteri  tvblob.com  Thu Oct 23 20:01:52 2003
From: pancrazio.auteri  tvblob.com (Pancrazio Auteri)
Date: Thu Oct 23 13:14:35 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MP4 file format specifications
Message-ID: <DKECKMJPGIIKOEHDGHAAEEEHDJAA.pancrazio.auteri@tvblob.com>
Hi,
I have two ES: MPEG-4 video and MP3 audio.
I have to write them on disk as one file (audio+video) in MP4 format.
Where can I find specifications and, eventually, sample code?
Thank you
Pancrazio Auteri
Tvblob Srl
Milano, Italy
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Thu Oct 23 15:26:43 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Thu Oct 23 17:38:36 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MP4 file format specifications
In-Reply-To: <DKECKMJPGIIKOEHDGHAAEEEHDJAA.pancrazio.auteri@tvblob.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310231424190.19171-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
Download MPEG4IP software package, in which the following formats are
supported:
Visual: avi, m4v
Audio:  aac, mp3
check the sample project "mp4creator".
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Pancrazio Auteri wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have two ES: MPEG-4 video and MP3 audio.
> I have to write them on disk as one file (audio+video) in MP4 format.
> Where can I find specifications and, eventually, sample code?
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Pancrazio Auteri
> Tvblob Srl
> Milano, Italy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From lupomail  gmx.de  Fri Oct 24 12:51:49 2003
From: lupomail  gmx.de (Simon Bergweiler)
Date: Fri Oct 24 06:04:50 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint MP4 | 3GP file
Message-ID: <21319.1066989109@www34.gmx.net>
Hi Giuliano, 
thanks for your help. 
Is it very difficult to build such a tool to add hint Tracks to a mp4-file
or a 3gp-file? 
I want to stream a film to my siemens u10 mobile phone, which can play AMR 
(clockrate 8000) and H263.  
rgds 
Simon 
-- 
NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Fri Oct 24 04:38:41 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Fri Oct 24 06:48:14 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint MP4 | 3GP file
In-Reply-To: <21319.1066989109@www34.gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310240335280.13755-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
no hard at all. what you need is to clearly understand the MP-4 file
format. MP4 is actually a tree, where each node is named as "atom". you
can check the "mp4creator" project included in the "MPEG4IP" package. but
if you want to change the order of the atoms, you may need to do more
jobs, coz some atoms are semantically dependent. you may need to apply
multiple passes to dump out the atom tree to the mp4 file. roughly that
may the only difficulty.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Simon Bergweiler wrote:
> Hi Giuliano,
>
> thanks for your help.
>
> Is it very difficult to build such a tool to add hint Tracks to a mp4-file
> or a 3gp-file?
>
> I want to stream a film to my siemens u10 mobile phone, which can play AMR
> (clockrate 8000) and H263.
>
> rgds
>
> Simon
>
> --
> NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
> Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService
>
> Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
>
> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From gural  noterik.nl  Fri Oct 24 15:02:34 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Fri Oct 24 08:05:54 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031024140142.0275a5c8@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Hello,
Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting 
MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the 
software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
Thanks,
Gural 
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Fri Oct 24 09:33:45 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Fri Oct 24 11:44:55 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031024140142.0275a5c8@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310240828490.20284-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
In the MPEG-4 System, you can customize your own atoms by putting them as
subtree of the atom "uuid". "uuid" is the only atoms allowing you to
customize. So you can put your own DRM info under the "uuid" atom. Note
that there may be multiple "uuid" atoms in one mp4 file. Also, you can put
some encrypted keys there, e.g., the UUID/class id there to make other
MPEG-4 decoder cannot decode your own DRM info. It depends how you utilize
them. If you only want to do it in the m4v file, then the only possibility
is to use the "userdata" segment. Check out the spec for more details.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jechiam Gural wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting
> MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the
> software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gural
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From singer  apple.com  Fri Oct 24 09:44:04 2003
From: singer  apple.com (Dave Singer)
Date: Fri Oct 24 11:45:52 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] hint MP4 | 3GP file
In-Reply-To: <21319.1066989109@www34.gmx.net>
References: <21319.1066989109@www34.gmx.net>
Message-ID: <p0600207cbbbef8f0088c@[17.202.35.52]>
At 11:51 +0200 10/24/03, Simon Bergweiler wrote:
>Hi Giuliano,
>
>thanks for your help.
>
>Is it very difficult to build such a tool to add hint Tracks to a mp4-file
>or a 3gp-file?
>
>I want to stream a film to my siemens u10 mobile phone, which can play AMR
>(clockrate 8000) and H263. 
>
I'd really suggest that you get involved with 
3GPP and the interop group of IMTC if this is 
your direction.  3GPP specs are public (as I 
expect you know).
>rgds
>
>Simon
>
>--
>NEU F?R ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - f?r Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
>Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gru?, GMX FotoService
>
>Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net
>
>+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More! +++
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mp4-tech mailing list
>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
From gural  noterik.nl  Fri Oct 24 18:51:40 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Fri Oct 24 11:50:56 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310240828490.20284-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031024140142.0275a5c8@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031024174926.01e89d68@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Sunx ,
Thanks for the info. Are there any running examples of these procedure?
Do you have any links to the specs regarding DRM and MPEG-4?
Regards,
Gural
At 08:33 AM 10/24/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>In the MPEG-4 System, you can customize your own atoms by putting them as
>subtree of the atom "uuid". "uuid" is the only atoms allowing you to
>customize. So you can put your own DRM info under the "uuid" atom. Note
>that there may be multiple "uuid" atoms in one mp4 file. Also, you can put
>some encrypted keys there, e.g., the UUID/class id there to make other
>MPEG-4 decoder cannot decode your own DRM info. It depends how you utilize
>them. If you only want to do it in the m4v file, then the only possibility
>is to use the "userdata" segment. Check out the spec for more details.
>
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jechiam Gural wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting
> > MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the
> > software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gural
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> >
From bfelts  envivio.com  Fri Oct 24 10:12:51 2003
From: bfelts  envivio.com (bfelts@envivio.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 12:16:50 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310240828490.20284-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310240828490.20284-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
Message-ID: <1067011971.3f994f8386e73@email.envivio.com>
Actually, MPEG-4 systems has defined a whole section about DRM integration 
called IPMP. You will find two versions of IPMP: IPMP-H (IPMP "hooks" to plug a 
DRM solution) and IPMP-X (full support for DRM). IPMP-H is compatible with IPMP-
X. We have implemented IPMP-H in our plug-in for example.
You can also check www.isma.tv, which has defined full encryption and signaling 
for MPEG-4.
Best regards,
Boris Felts
Envivio.
> 
> In the MPEG-4 System, you can customize your own atoms by putting them as
> subtree of the atom "uuid". "uuid" is the only atoms allowing you to
> customize. So you can put your own DRM info under the "uuid" atom. Note
> that there may be multiple "uuid" atoms in one mp4 file. Also, you can put
> some encrypted keys there, e.g., the UUID/class id there to make other
> MPEG-4 decoder cannot decode your own DRM info. It depends how you utilize
> them. If you only want to do it in the m4v file, then the only possibility
> is to use the "userdata" segment. Check out the spec for more details.
> 
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jechiam Gural wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting
> > MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the
> > software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gural
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> 
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
From shyam  emuzed.com  Sun Oct 26 12:12:00 2003
From: shyam  emuzed.com (P S S B K Gupta)
Date: Sun Oct 26 01:55:49 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] ftp site problem
Message-ID: <JFEJIFMBPEBLKNFOOEBLOELOCPAA.shyam@emuzed.com>
Dear experts,
I am unable to access the 
ftp://standard.pictel.com/video-site/
site. 
Is the site working properly?
	Thanks in advance.
With Warm Regards,
Shyam.
From gural  noterik.nl  Sun Oct 26 13:53:22 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Sun Oct 26 08:05:11 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Mpeg-4 live Webcast
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031026134435.020210f0@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Hello,
I' am investigating some details on Mpeg-4 live casting through a CDN.
Does anyone have experience in Live Mpeg-4 events with companies such as 
Akamai or Speedera.
Any useful information with respect to reliable Mpeg-4 (ISMA) encoders and 
servers required for multi hours Web events in Mpeg-4, for example 
Mepegable, Envivio, QT Broadcaster in
combination with a Helix, Envivio or Darwin server   ?
Technical pointers and tips on specific setups for Live Mpeg-4 are appreciated.
BTW: any ideas / time estimations when H264 will become widely available as 
codec in the running Mpeg-4 encoders / decoding devices and what the 
improvement is in terms of quality versus bitrate compared to H263, 
specifically in the lower bitrate part, i.e. 34 to 200 kbps range.
Regards,
Gural
From ugarg  neomagic.com  Mon Oct 27 15:44:23 2003
From: ugarg  neomagic.com (Umang Garg)
Date: Mon Oct 27 05:26:29 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 Audio Conformance...problem with reference Wav
	files ?
Message-ID: <3F9CEFFF.40405@neomagic.com>
Dear Members,
Can someone please corroborate if the reference Wav files for AAC-LC 
kept on the following FTP fite
ftp://mpaudconf:adif2mp4@ftp.iis.fhg.de/mpeg4audio-conformance/referencesWav
have problem in their header !
Example Problem:
al01_48.wav:
The byte numbers 20 in this file contains the value 0xFE while the byte 
number 21 contains the value 0xFF.
If I am not wrong then according to the Wav PCM Format, byte number 20 
and 21 represent the AudioFormat.
For PCM(linear quatization) this value should be 1. Hence, the correct 
value for byte 20 should be 0x01 and for byte number 21 should be 0x00.
Due to this problem we can not play these Wav files in the CoolEdit and 
also in the RealOneplayer.
These comments also hold true for various other al*.wav files in the 
directory 'referencesWav' on the aforesaid FTP site.
Thanks and Regards,
Umang Garg
NeoMagic Corporation, based in Santa Clara, California, provides 
applications processors to enable new generations of handheld Internet 
systems, offering the lowest power, smallest form-factor, and best 
multimedia features and performance. The company has pioneered the 
integration of complex logic, memory and analog circuits into 
single-chip solutions. NeoMagic is mobilizing multimedia for the 
Internet age. Information on the company may be found on the World Wide 
Web at www.neomagic.com.
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Mon Oct 27 12:14:29 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Mon Oct 27 15:24:30 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] ftp site problem
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFFD5@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Such questions would probably be better to ask on the VCEG reflector
than on an MPEG-4 reflector
(see http://mail.imtc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=vceg).
But anyhow, those files have been moved to
 http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/video-site/.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of P S 
+> S B K Gupta
+> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2023 11:42 PM
+> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: [Mp4-tech] ftp site problem
+> 
+> 
+> Dear experts,
+> 
+> I am unable to access the 
+> ftp://standard.pictel.com/video-site/
+> site. 
+> Is the site working properly?
+> 	Thanks in advance.
+> 
+> With Warm Regards,
+> Shyam.
+> 
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From zyhuang  psl.com.sg  Tue Oct 28 15:26:56 2003
From: zyhuang  psl.com.sg (Huang Zhongyang)
Date: Tue Oct 28 02:43:07 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
In-Reply-To: <1067011971.3f994f8386e73@email.envivio.com>
Message-ID: <KAEILHFADMLNPGCMIBJEIEIDCMAA.zyhuang@psl.com.sg>
Hi, all,
Moses (http://www.crl.co.uk/projects/moses/) has an implementation of MPEG-4
IPMP-X which was shown in the recent IBC (Sept, 2003).
MPEG-4 IPMPX also has its reference software implementation in IM1, which is
located in MPEG CVS server.
regards,
Huang Zhongyang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org]On Behalf Of
> bfelts@envivio.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2023 12:13 AM
> To: sunx
> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Jechiam Gural
> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
>
>
> Actually, MPEG-4 systems has defined a whole section about DRM
> integration
> called IPMP. You will find two versions of IPMP: IPMP-H (IPMP
> "hooks" to plug a
> DRM solution) and IPMP-X (full support for DRM). IPMP-H is
> compatible with IPMP-
> X. We have implemented IPMP-H in our plug-in for example.
> You can also check www.isma.tv, which has defined full encryption
> and signaling
> for MPEG-4.
> Best regards,
>
> Boris Felts
> Envivio.
>
>
> >
> > In the MPEG-4 System, you can customize your own atoms by
> putting them as
> > subtree of the atom "uuid". "uuid" is the only atoms allowing you to
> > customize. So you can put your own DRM info under the "uuid" atom. Note
> > that there may be multiple "uuid" atoms in one mp4 file. Also,
> you can put
> > some encrypted keys there, e.g., the UUID/class id there to make other
> > MPEG-4 decoder cannot decode your own DRM info. It depends how
> you utilize
> > them. If you only want to do it in the m4v file, then the only
> possibility
> > is to use the "userdata" segment. Check out the spec for more details.
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jechiam Gural wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting
> > > MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the
> > > software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gural
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From pkudumakis  crl.co.uk  Tue Oct 28 12:05:09 2003
From: pkudumakis  crl.co.uk (Panos Kudumakis)
Date: Tue Oct 28 07:22:54 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
Message-ID: <3881968149@crl.co.uk>
Many thanks to Boris and Huang for their replies
MPEG IPMP eXtensions specification represents the best balance achieved to date
between the IPR protection needs expressed by content owners and the demand for
interoperability coming from end users and manufactures Therefore a number of
companies have commit to support it  See their press release at:
http://www.crl.co.uk/projects/moses/Public/docs/IPMPX PressRelease.pdf
Also efforts are in place to signal ISMAcrypt as an IPMPX Tool
Rgds
Panos
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    RE: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
Author: "Huang Zhongyang" <zyhuang@psl.com.sg>
Date:       28/10/2023 07:26
Hi, all,
Moses (http://www.crl.co.uk/projects/moses/) has an implementation of MPEG-4
IPMP-X which was shown in the recent IBC (Sept, 2003).
MPEG-4 IPMPX also has its reference software implementation in IM1, which is
located in MPEG CVS server.
regards,
Huang Zhongyang
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org]On Behalf Of
> bfelts@envivio.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2023 12:13 AM
> To: sunx
> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Jechiam Gural
> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] DRM MPEG-4
>
>
> Actually, MPEG-4 systems has defined a whole section about DRM
> integration
> called IPMP. You will find two versions of IPMP: IPMP-H (IPMP
> "hooks" to plug a
> DRM solution) and IPMP-X (full support for DRM). IPMP-H is
> compatible with IPMP-
> X. We have implemented IPMP-H in our plug-in for example.
> You can also check www.isma.tv, which has defined full encryption
> and signaling
> for MPEG-4.
> Best regards,
>
> Boris Felts
> Envivio.
>
>
> >
> > In the MPEG-4 System, you can customize your own atoms by
> putting them as
> > subtree of the atom "uuid". "uuid" is the only atoms allowing you to
> > customize. So you can put your own DRM info under the "uuid" atom. Note
> > that there may be multiple "uuid" atoms in one mp4 file. Also,
> you can put
> > some encrypted keys there, e.g., the UUID/class id there to make other
> > MPEG-4 decoder cannot decode your own DRM info. It depends how
> you utilize
> > them. If you only want to do it in the m4v file, then the only
> possibility
> > is to use the "userdata" segment. Check out the spec for more details.
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Jechiam Gural wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Does someone have a references available to DRM solutions targeting
> > > MPEG-4,  i.e. experience with implementation of a vendor, cost of the
> > > software, ( perhaps open source),  example project etc?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gural
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
-*********************************************************************
This communication contains information which is confidential
and may also be privileged.  It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s).  Please note that any unauthorised
distribution, copying or use of this communication, or the
information in it, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us by email or by
telephone (+44 20 8848 9779) and then delete the email and
any copies of it.
This communication is from Central Research Laboratories Ltd.,
whose principal office is at Dawley Road, Hayes, Middlesex,
England.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
checked for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
From gedeon  irit.fr  Tue Oct 28 16:22:03 2003
From: gedeon  irit.fr (Serge GEDEON)
Date: Tue Oct 28 10:35:31 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <002f01c39d67$3e1a7720$1940738d@pcsara>
Dear All,
I am currently comparing different compression solutions for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I find a bit odd.
Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone advise me with another soft?
or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
Thanks in advance,
Serge GEDEON
Ph.D. Student
Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031028/f8130e34/attachment.html
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Tue Oct 28 08:35:19 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Tue Oct 28 11:45:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <002f01c39d67$3e1a7720$1940738d@pcsara>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310280832240.18240-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am currently comparing different compression solutions for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
>
> But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
> I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I find a bit odd.
>
> Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone advise me with another soft?
> or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
>
I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 is that it
has better motion compensated coding, which is especially true in H.264.
My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters of control
PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from MPEG-2 (?),
so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in most
cases.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Serge GEDEON
> Ph.D. Student
> Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
From peter  noterik.nl  Tue Oct 28 20:08:05 2003
From: peter  noterik.nl (Peter Maas)
Date: Tue Oct 28 14:23:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Is Quicktime MPEG 4 ISO complient?
Message-ID: <3F9EBE95.3010208@noterik.nl>
Hi list,
we've got the following Lab setup:
Quicktime Broadcaster (Mac) ==> Darwing Streaming Server (WinXP)
The broadcaster broadcasts in what apple calls 'MPEG 4 ISO' and 
generates the following lines in the sdp file:
a=rtpmap:96 mpeg4-generic/16000/1
a=fmtp:96 
profile-level-id=1;mode=AAC-hbr;sizelength=13;indexlength=3;indexdeltalength=3;config=1408 
Quicktimeplayers in al operating systems can show this file, but the 
quality is poor. Other players (like RealOne and Windows Media) with the 
Envivio plugin installed are only able to play the sound contained in 
the stream.
I also tried with another encoder (mpegable) which generated the 
following lines and works in all players:
a=isma-compliance:1,1.0,1
a=mpeg4-iod: 
"data:application/mpeg4-iod;base64,AoIbAA8AAAAAAAOBNgAAQKBkYXRhOmFwcGxpY2F0aW9uL21wZWc0LW9kLWF1O2Jhc2U2NCxBVmtCT0FVZkF6UUFBQUFFTENBUkZBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUZIUUFBQWJBREFBQUJ0UWtBQUFFQUFBQUJJQURJaUlIMFVMQkNRVUVEQmdFQkFSMENud01aQUFBQUJCRkFGUlFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQlFJU2lBWUJBUT09BA0BBRQAAAAAAAAAAAAABgEBA1kAAEA+ZGF0YTphcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9tcGVnNC1iaWZzLWF1O2Jhc2U2NCx3QkFTZ1RBcUJYSmhCSWhRUlFVL0FBPT0EEgINFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAwAAQAYBAQ==" 
But this encoder seems to be multicast-only....
Can I somehow get the same compatibility in the Quicktime broadcaster??
gr,
Peter
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Tue Oct 28 11:19:01 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Tue Oct 28 14:24:00 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFFE1@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to encode
video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
differing quality.  You should never look at the quality decoded from
some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular standard
and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the best quality)
that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
definitely not expect the quality produced by all products to be the
same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of pre-processors
and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in post-processing and
display aspects after decoding.
Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there are a number of
different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 video".  There are
somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4 part
10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which profile
was implemented in that Envivio product.
And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not even
constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality it produces is
constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its design project.
Best Regards,
-Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> To: Serge GEDEON
+> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> 
+> > Dear All,
+> >
+> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions 
+> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> >
+> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station 
+> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as 
+> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I 
+> find a bit odd.
+> >
+> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a 
+> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone 
+> advise me with another soft?
+> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed 
+> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> >
+> 
+> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 
+> is that it
+> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially 
+> true in H.264.
+> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters 
+> of control
+> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from 
+> MPEG-2 (?),
+> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in most
+> cases.
+> 
+> >
+> > Thanks in advance,
+> > Serge GEDEON
+> > Ph.D. Student
+> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Tue Oct 28 11:55:20 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Tue Oct 28 15:02:34 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FBFFE9@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Oops.  The first sentence should end with "only how to decode it".
-G.
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Gary Sullivan
+> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 11:19 AM
+> To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
+> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> 
+> 
+> One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify 
+> how to encode
+> video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
+> provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
+> differing quality.  You should never look at the quality decoded from
+> some particular implementation of an encoder using a 
+> particular standard
+> and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the 
+> best quality)
+> that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
+> definitely not expect the quality produced by all products to be the
+> same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of 
+> pre-processors
+> and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in post-processing and
+> display aspects after decoding.
+> 
+> Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there are 
+> a number of
+> different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 video".  
+> There are
+> somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
+> MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
+> syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of 
+> MPEG-4 part
+> 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify 
+> which profile
+> was implemented in that Envivio product.
+> 
+> And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to 
+> is not even
+> constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality it 
+> produces is
+> constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
+> expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its design project.
+> 
+> Best Regards,
+> 
+> -Gary Sullivan
+> 
+> +> -----Original Message-----
+> +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> +> To: Serge GEDEON
+> +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> +> 
+> +> 
+> +> 
+> +> 
+> +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> +> 
+> +> > Dear All,
+> +> >
+> +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions 
+> +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> +> >
+> +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station 
+> +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as 
+> +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I 
+> +> find a bit odd.
+> +> >
+> +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a 
+> +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone 
+> +> advise me with another soft?
+> +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed 
+> +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> +> >
+> +> 
+> +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 
+> +> is that it
+> +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially 
+> +> true in H.264.
+> +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters 
+> +> of control
+> +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from 
+> +> MPEG-2 (?),
+> +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative 
+> performance in most
+> +> cases.
+> +> 
+> +> >
+> +> > Thanks in advance,
+> +> > Serge GEDEON
+> +> > Ph.D. Student
+> +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> +> 
+> +> _______________________________________________
+> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> +> 
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
From alexandros.tourapis  thomson.net  Tue Oct 28 15:02:40 2003
From: alexandros.tourapis  thomson.net (Tourapis Alexandros)
Date: Tue Oct 28 15:06:06 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <8FC831532CEE564AB88AC1D999C29DEB037DFD@prinsmail01.am.thmulti.com>
According to the system's specifications seen here :
http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile MPEG-4, and does not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both realnetworks and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are considerably better than this profile (but not better than MPEG-4 part 10). 
Alexis
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to encode
video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
differing quality.  You should never look at the quality decoded from
some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular standard
and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the best quality)
that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
definitely not expect the quality produced by all products to be the
same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of pre-processors
and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in post-processing and
display aspects after decoding.
Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there are a number of
different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 video".  There are
somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4 part
10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which profile
was implemented in that Envivio product.
And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not even
constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality it produces is
constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its design project.
Best Regards,
-Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org 
+> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> To: Serge GEDEON
+> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> 
+> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> 
+> > Dear All,
+> >
+> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions 
+> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> >
+> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station 
+> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as 
+> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I 
+> find a bit odd.
+> >
+> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a 
+> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone 
+> advise me with another soft?
+> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed 
+> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> >
+> 
+> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 
+> is that it
+> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially 
+> true in H.264.
+> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters 
+> of control
+> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from 
+> MPEG-2 (?),
+> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in most
+> cases.
+> 
+> >
+> > Thanks in advance,
+> > Serge GEDEON
+> > Ph.D. Student
+> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
From bfelts  envivio.com  Tue Oct 28 13:35:29 2003
From: bfelts  envivio.com (Boris Felts)
Date: Tue Oct 28 16:48:17 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <0ADFC3A378B7B2408351059DCC465DAD63B569@xchange.sfo.envivio.com>
Message-ID: <0ADFC3A378B7B2408351059DCC465DAD430770@xchange.sfo.envivio.com>
Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
  To answer Serge's questions:
- The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
- There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the encoded results
highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
optimization.
- You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs which can do a
better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a fairly large
amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
while. Conformance insures compatible and backward compatible products,
but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
- MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
encoder to assess their quality.
Best Regards
Boris Felts
Envivio.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
> bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
> To: Serge GEDEON
> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> 
> According to the system's specifications seen here :
> 
> http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
> 
> this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile MPEG-4, and
does
> not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
realnetworks
> and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
> considerably better than this profile (but not better than MPEG-4 part
10).
> 
> Alexis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
> To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> 
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
encode
> video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
> provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
> differing quality.  You should never look at the quality decoded from
> some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
standard
> and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the best quality)
> that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
> definitely not expect the quality produced by all products to be the
> same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
pre-processors
> and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in post-processing and
> display aspects after decoding.
> 
> Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there are a number
of
> different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 video".  There are
> somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
> MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
> syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
part
> 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
profile
> was implemented in that Envivio product.
> 
> And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
even
> constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality it produces
is
> constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
> expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its design project.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> -Gary Sullivan
> 
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
> +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
> +> To: Serge GEDEON
> +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
> +>
> +> > Dear All,
> +> >
> +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
> +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
> +> >
> +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
> +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
> +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
> +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
> +> find a bit odd.
> +> >
> +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
> +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
> +> advise me with another soft?
> +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
> +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
> +> >
> +>
> +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
> +> is that it
> +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
> +> true in H.264.
> +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
> +> of control
> +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
> +> MPEG-2 (?),
> +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
most
> +> cases.
> +>
> +> >
> +> > Thanks in advance,
> +> > Serge GEDEON
> +> > Ph.D. Student
> +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
> +>
> +> _______________________________________________
> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Wed Oct 29 07:57:12 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Wed Oct 29 02:08:46 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MPEG-4 Audio Conformance...problem with reference
	Wavfiles ?
In-Reply-To: <3F9CEFFF.40405@neomagic.com>
References: <3F9CEFFF.40405@neomagic.com>
Message-ID: <3F9F64C8.9000806@iis.fhg.de>
Umang Garg wrote:
> Dear Members,
> 
> Can someone please corroborate if the reference Wav files for AAC-LC 
> kept on the following FTP fite
> 
> ftp://mpaudconf:adif2mp4@ftp.iis.fhg.de/mpeg4audio-conformance/referencesWav 
> 
> 
> have problem in their header !
> 
> Example Problem:
> 
> al01_48.wav:
> The byte numbers 20 in this file contains the value 0xFE while the byte 
> number 21 contains the value 0xFF.
> If I am not wrong then according to the Wav PCM Format, byte number 20 
> and 21 represent the AudioFormat.
> For PCM(linear quatization) this value should be 1. Hence, the correct 
> value for byte 20 should be 0x01 and for byte number 21 should be 0x00.
> 
> Due to this problem we can not play these Wav files in the CoolEdit and 
> also in the RealOneplayer.
> 
> 
> These comments also hold true for various other al*.wav files in the 
> directory 'referencesWav' on the aforesaid FTP site.
> 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Umang Garg
> 
> 
> NeoMagic Corporation, based in Santa Clara, California, provides 
> applications processors to enable new generations of handheld Internet 
> systems, offering the lowest power, smallest form-factor, and best 
> multimedia features and performance. The company has pioneered the 
> integration of complex logic, memory and analog circuits into 
> single-chip solutions. NeoMagic is mobilizing multimedia for the 
> Internet age. Information on the company may be found on the World Wide 
> Web at www.neomagic.com.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
Dear Umang,
I already stated some time ago in an e-mail from me to this reflector:
"
Have you tried to play the waveforms with the Windows MediaPlayer? This should 
work. The files are in 24 bit wav format as specified recently by Microsoft. 
Before, there was no standard but just a pro-forma standard. Unfortunately, 
Microsoft did not use that pro-forma standard, but changed some header bits. 
Thus, many audio tools cannot yet handle this format.
"
BTW: Newer versions of CoolEdit 2.x) should be able to read those files.
Please find below a more extensive info from Peter Kabal, the creator and 
maintainer of the AFsp library:
 >> Microsoft has never recognized 24-bit files created using the WAV
 >> standard even though the standard quite clearly indicated that one could
 >> use bit depths greater than 16.
 >>
 >> Recently, Microsoft introduced an "WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE" and has
 >> declared: "WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE shall be used whenever the PCM data
 >> has more than 16 bits" or the number of channels is more than 2".
 >> Programs such as Microsoft Media Player will not accept 24 bit files in
 >> the older format, but does accept them in the newer format.
You might also read about the details here:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/audio/multichaud.mspx
Best regards,
Ralph
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Wed Oct 29 08:27:37 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Wed Oct 29 02:31:28 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MP4 file format specifications
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310231424190.19171-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310231424190.19171-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
Message-ID: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
sunx wrote:
> Download MPEG4IP software package, in which the following formats are
> supported:
> 
> Visual: avi, m4v
> Audio:  aac, mp3
> 
> check the sample project "mp4creator".
> 
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Pancrazio Auteri wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>I have two ES: MPEG-4 video and MP3 audio.
>>I have to write them on disk as one file (audio+video) in MP4 format.
>>Where can I find specifications and, eventually, sample code?
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>
>>Pancrazio Auteri
>>Tvblob Srl
>>Milano, Italy
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Mp4-tech mailing list
>>Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
>>http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
Dear Pancrazio, all,
please note that MPEG is currently in the process to ammend the MPEG-4 Audio 
standard as to specify the usage of mp3 content in an MPEG-4 compliant manner. 
There are actually two ways, one is already possible and is just denoted 
explicitly, while the other one is a real extension and will even allow for 
multichannel mp3 content.
Details can be found in the following output document (issued in Trondheim):
5717	Text of ISO/IEC 14496-3:2001/PDAM 3 (MP3onMP4)
This PDAM is currently under ballot (being the first of four ballots).
Best regards,
Ralph
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From romeroantonio74  hotmail.com  Thu Oct 30 08:09:27 2003
From: romeroantonio74  hotmail.com (Romero Antonio)
Date: Thu Oct 30 03:21:40 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Rate conversion
Message-ID: <Law11-F106szzowlUVA0002a88c@hotmail.com>
Hello,
I?m using video sequences for testing H.264 codec. For example the sequence 
foreman.qcif has a rate of 25 fps. How can I convert this sequence to a 
lower or higher bitrate? Is any software available for this conversion? As 
it is suggested from an analysis in the frequency domain, a simple frame 
dropping, for example to halve the rate, doesn?t seem to be the correct 
solution.
Thank you for your help,
Have a nice day.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail? - ?Absolut kostenfrei! Der weltweit gr?sste E-Mail-Anbieter im 
Netz:  http://www.msn.ch/hotmail
From s.wright  indigovision.com  Thu Oct 30 11:58:26 2003
From: s.wright  indigovision.com (Steve Wright)
Date: Thu Oct 30 09:35:14 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <0ADFC3A378B7B2408351059DCC465DAD430770@xchange.sfo.envivio.com>
Message-ID: <002301c39ef0$d0143230$23000a0a@PORTREE1>
Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best codec available
do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
processing? If for example you can only load a processor by 200MHz is a part
10 codec still better than SP?
Thanks
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
  To answer Serge's questions:
- The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
- There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the encoded results
highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
optimization.
- You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs which can do a
better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a fairly large
amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
while. Conformance insures compatible and backward compatible products,
but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
- MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
encoder to assess their quality.
Best Regards
Boris Felts
Envivio.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
> bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
> To: Serge GEDEON
> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
>
> According to the system's specifications seen here :
>
> http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
>
> this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile MPEG-4, and
does
> not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
realnetworks
> and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
> considerably better than this profile (but not better than MPEG-4 part
10).
>
> Alexis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
> To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
>
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
encode
> video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
> provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
> differing quality.  You should never look at the quality decoded from
> some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
standard
> and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the best quality)
> that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
> definitely not expect the quality produced by all products to be the
> same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
pre-processors
> and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in post-processing and
> display aspects after decoding.
>
> Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there are a number
of
> different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 video".  There are
> somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
> MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
> syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
part
> 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
profile
> was implemented in that Envivio product.
>
> And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
even
> constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality it produces
is
> constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
> expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its design project.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -Gary Sullivan
>
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
> +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
> +> To: Serge GEDEON
> +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
> +>
> +> > Dear All,
> +> >
> +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
> +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
> +> >
> +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
> +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
> +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
> +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
> +> find a bit odd.
> +> >
> +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
> +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
> +> advise me with another soft?
> +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
> +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
> +> >
> +>
> +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
> +> is that it
> +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
> +> true in H.264.
> +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
> +> of control
> +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
> +> MPEG-2 (?),
> +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
most
> +> cases.
> +>
> +> >
> +> > Thanks in advance,
> +> > Serge GEDEON
> +> > Ph.D. Student
> +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
> +>
> +> _______________________________________________
> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
_______________________________________________
Mp4-tech mailing list
Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
From hans-juergen.bardenhagen  arcor.de  Thu Oct 30 15:51:58 2003
From: hans-juergen.bardenhagen  arcor.de (Hans-Juergen Bardenhagen)
Date: Thu Oct 30 11:01:31 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MP4 file format specifications
In-Reply-To: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
Message-ID: <8wpDEwQzTuB@id-50271.news.dfncis.de>
On 29.10.03, 08:27 local time (received 30.10.03, 00:23 GMT+1) Ralph
Sperschneider wrote:
> Details can be found in the following output document (issued in
> Trondheim):
>
> 5717	Text of ISO/IEC 14496-3:2001/PDAM 3 (MP3onMP4)
>
> This PDAM is currently under ballot (being the first of four
> ballots).
That's interesting... by the way, are there any plans to include mp3PRO  
in the MPEG Audio standards as well? This would make sense especially  
when using it for multichannel encodings, because its higher efficiency  
wouldn't blow up the size and overall bitrate of multichannel files as  
much as plain MP3.
From gural  noterik.nl  Thu Oct 30 18:55:59 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Thu Oct 30 13:05:47 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding
In-Reply-To: <8wpDEwQzTuB@id-50271.news.dfncis.de>
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Hello,
Is there anybody on the list who would recommend a software vendor that 
provides the "best" price-quality ratio  for live encoding ISO/ISMA of 
Mpeg-4 which will work with Darwin, Kasenna or Helix server?
Will standard players such as QT 6.04, Realone etc playback MPEG-4 with 
H264 codec?
Is there any experience when it comes to getting WMP 9 (with envivio 
plugin) playing back a live MPEG-4 stream.
Thanks,
Gural
From oamato  wanadoo.fr  Thu Oct 30 19:47:42 2003
From: oamato  wanadoo.fr (Olivier Amato)
Date: Thu Oct 30 13:55:45 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <006b01c39f16$4ddf69d0$f340fea9@maewanto>
Hi Gural,
> Is there anybody on the list who would recommend a software vendor that
> provides the "best" price-quality ratio  for live encoding ISO/ISMA of
> Mpeg-4 which will work with Darwin, Kasenna or Helix server?
I would say Apple's QuickTime Broadcaster (
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/broadcaster/ ), MPEG4IP (
http://www.mpeg4ip.net/ ) or Dicas' Mpegable Broadcaster (
http://www.mpegable.com/showPage.php?SITE=dicas&PAGE=broadcast ).
> Will standard players such as QT 6.04, Realone etc playback MPEG-4 with
> H264 codec?
I think that QuickTime Player will support AVC and HE AAC in the future, but
I don't know when ...
I've tried a version of Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) which already supports H.264
decoding ( as a plugin for Real, Windows Media and QuickTime players ).
> Is there any experience when it comes to getting WMP 9 (with envivio
> plugin) playing back a live MPEG-4 stream.
You should already able to do it with Envivio's plugin ...
Best regards,
Olivier
From gural  noterik.nl  Thu Oct 30 19:59:40 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:06:01 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding
In-Reply-To: <006b01c39f16$4ddf69d0$f340fea9@maewanto>
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031030195405.04160b60@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Hi Oliver,
Thanks !
We have tried applications you mentions, but as H264 is emerging we hoped 
for solutions incorporating this new codec, narrowing the gap between 
propriety codecs such as rv9 and  wm9.
Did any one see the showcase examples of harwarde based coding, such 
Optibase Mpeg-4 encoding card at IBC? Quality of these cards?
Regards,
Gural
At 07:47 PM 10/30/2003 +0100, Olivier Amato wrote:
>Hi Gural,
>
> > Is there anybody on the list who would recommend a software vendor that
> > provides the "best" price-quality ratio  for live encoding ISO/ISMA of
> > Mpeg-4 which will work with Darwin, Kasenna or Helix server?
>
>I would say Apple's QuickTime Broadcaster (
>http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/broadcaster/ ), MPEG4IP (
>http://www.mpeg4ip.net/ ) or Dicas' Mpegable Broadcaster (
>http://www.mpegable.com/showPage.php?SITE=dicas&PAGE=broadcast ).
>
>
> > Will standard players such as QT 6.04, Realone etc playback MPEG-4 with
> > H264 codec?
>
>I think that QuickTime Player will support AVC and HE AAC in the future, but
>I don't know when ...
>I've tried a version of Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) which already supports H.264
>decoding ( as a plugin for Real, Windows Media and QuickTime players ).
>
>
> > Is there any experience when it comes to getting WMP 9 (with envivio
> > plugin) playing back a live MPEG-4 stream.
>
>You should already able to do it with Envivio's plugin ...
>
>Best regards,
>
>Olivier
From gural  noterik.nl  Thu Oct 30 20:05:37 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:09:35 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
In-Reply-To: <006b01c39f16$4ddf69d0$f340fea9@maewanto>
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031030200428.01d50170@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Hi Oliver,
Were do you download
Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) plugin
I see only version 1.5 on their site
Regards,
Gural
At 07:47 PM 10/30/2003 +0100, Olivier Amato wrote:
>Hi Gural,
>
> > Is there anybody on the list who would recommend a software vendor that
> > provides the "best" price-quality ratio  for live encoding ISO/ISMA of
> > Mpeg-4 which will work with Darwin, Kasenna or Helix server?
>
>I would say Apple's QuickTime Broadcaster (
>http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/broadcaster/ ), MPEG4IP (
>http://www.mpeg4ip.net/ ) or Dicas' Mpegable Broadcaster (
>http://www.mpegable.com/showPage.php?SITE=dicas&PAGE=broadcast ).
>
>
> > Will standard players such as QT 6.04, Realone etc playback MPEG-4 with
> > H264 codec?
>
>I think that QuickTime Player will support AVC and HE AAC in the future, but
>I don't know when ...
>I've tried a version of Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) which already supports H.264
>decoding ( as a plugin for Real, Windows Media and QuickTime players ).
>
>
> > Is there any experience when it comes to getting WMP 9 (with envivio
> > plugin) playing back a live MPEG-4 stream.
>
>You should already able to do it with Envivio's plugin ...
>
>Best regards,
>
>Olivier
From oamato  wanadoo.fr  Thu Oct 30 20:15:16 2003
From: oamato  wanadoo.fr (Olivier Amato)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:20:20 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030195405.04160b60@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <000f01c39f1a$2917d660$f340fea9@maewanto>
> We have tried applications you mentions, but as H264 is emerging we hoped
> for solutions incorporating this new codec, narrowing the gap between
> propriety codecs such as rv9 and  wm9.
Some companies provide H.264 encoding implementations yet, and I think the
list will grow fast in the next future :
- http://www.envivio.com/products/h264.html
- http://www.vsofts.com/codec/h264_products.html
- http://www.moonlight.co.il/soft.htm
- http://www.pixeltools.com/experth264.html
- http://www.provideo.com.tw/PV245.htm
- http://www.dspr.com/www/products/overview_video.htm
- http://www.hikvision.com/en/products/
...
> Did any one see the showcase examples of harwarde based coding, such
> Optibase Mpeg-4 encoding card at IBC? Quality of these cards?
I've seen some examples recently from Optibase's board and the results were
good. I've also tested Vitec's VM4-2 ( which only produces MP4 files, and
not streams ), and the results were also very good to me. I'd like to test
Darim's MPEGator 4 now ...
Regards,
Olivier
From oamato  wanadoo.fr  Thu Oct 30 20:16:05 2003
From: oamato  wanadoo.fr (Olivier Amato)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:20:30 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030200428.01d50170@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <001d01c39f1a$44b2a3f0$f340fea9@maewanto>
> Were do you download
> Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) plugin
I was beta tester ;-)
Olivier
From gural  noterik.nl  Thu Oct 30 20:21:46 2003
From: gural  noterik.nl (Jechiam Gural)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:26:20 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
In-Reply-To: <001d01c39f1a$44b2a3f0$f340fea9@maewanto>
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030200428.01d50170@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031030202105.0424af08@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
OK, you probably don't have an Idea when it will be released...?
Jechiam
At 08:16 PM 10/30/2003 +0100, Olivier Amato wrote:
> > Were do you download
> > Envivio TV ( v2.0.144 ) plugin
>
>I was beta tester ;-)
>
>Olivier
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Thu Oct 30 11:34:21 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:39:56 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FC002F@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
The basic answer to your question is that the statements about part 10
(AVC) being better than prior standards *are* made under the assumption
that a sufficient amount of processing power is available to do a good
job of using the standard.
The complexity of decoding AVC/H.264 video is higher than MPEG-4 SP
decoding.  Probably at least double the complexity.
The complexity of encoding it is up to the discretion of the encoder.
It is possible to make a very-low-complexity AVC-compliant encoder (i.e.
an encoder that does not use non-zero motion vectors) with *lower*
complexity than an equivalent-quality MPEG-4 SP encoder (because the
transform in AVC has lower complexity than the transform in MPEG-4 SP).
However, a *good quality* encoder for AVC is probably more complex than
a good quality MPEG-4 SP encoder.  Probably at least 3 times the
complexity.
A key distinction is to recognize that in order to conform to the
standard, a decoder must accept any conforming bitstream as its input,
while an encoder only needs to do what it wants to do.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com] 
+> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 3:58 AM
+> To: bfelts@envivio.com; 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> 
+> 
+> Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best 
+> codec available
+> do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
+> processing? If for example you can only load a processor by 
+> 200MHz is a part
+> 10 codec still better than SP?
+> 
+> Thanks
+> Steve
+> 
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
+> Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
+> To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> 
+> 
+> Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
+> 
+>   To answer Serge's questions:
+> 
+> - The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
+> was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
+> 
+> - There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
+> syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
+> quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the 
+> encoded results
+> highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
+> postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
+> optimization.
+> 
+> - You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs 
+> which can do a
+> better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a 
+> fairly large
+> amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
+> while. Conformance insures compatible and backward 
+> compatible products,
+> but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
+> 
+> - MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
+> quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
+> probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
+> MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
+> different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
+> encoder to assess their quality.
+> 
+> Best Regards
+> Boris Felts
+> Envivio.
+> 
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
+> > bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
+> > To: Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> > According to the system's specifications seen here :
+> >
+> > http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
+> >
+> > this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile 
+> MPEG-4, and
+> does
+> > not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
+> realnetworks
+> > and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
+> > considerably better than this profile (but not better than 
+> MPEG-4 part
+> 10).
+> >
+> > Alexis
+> >
+> >
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
+> > To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> >
+> > One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
+> encode
+> > video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
+> > provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
+> > differing quality.  You should never look at the quality 
+> decoded from
+> > some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
+> standard
+> > and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the 
+> best quality)
+> > that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
+> > definitely not expect the quality produced by all products 
+> to be the
+> > same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
+> pre-processors
+> > and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in 
+> post-processing and
+> > display aspects after decoding.
+> >
+> > Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there 
+> are a number
+> of
+> > different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4 
+> video".  There are
+> > somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
+> > MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
+> > syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
+> part
+> > 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
+> profile
+> > was implemented in that Envivio product.
+> >
+> > And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
+> even
+> > constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality 
+> it produces
+> is
+> > constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
+> > expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its 
+> design project.
+> >
+> > Best Regards,
+> >
+> > -Gary Sullivan
+> >
+> > +> -----Original Message-----
+> > +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> > +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> > +> To: Serge GEDEON
+> > +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> > +>
+> > +> > Dear All,
+> > +> >
+> > +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
+> > +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
+> > +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
+> > +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
+> > +> find a bit odd.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
+> > +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
+> > +> advise me with another soft?
+> > +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
+> > +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> > +> >
+> > +>
+> > +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
+> > +> is that it
+> > +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
+> > +> true in H.264.
+> > +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
+> > +> of control
+> > +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
+> > +> MPEG-2 (?),
+> > +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
+> most
+> > +> cases.
+> > +>
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Thanks in advance,
+> > +> > Serge GEDEON
+> > +> > Ph.D. Student
+> > +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> > +>
+> > +> _______________________________________________
+> > +> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> > +>
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> 
+> 
From oamato  wanadoo.fr  Thu Oct 30 20:41:31 2003
From: oamato  wanadoo.fr (Olivier Amato)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:43:27 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
References: <3F9F6BE9.70600@iis.fhg.de>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030185436.01d81008@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030200428.01d50170@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031030202105.0424af08@pop.vuurwerk.nl>
Message-ID: <003701c39f1d$d2d07290$f340fea9@maewanto>
> OK, you probably don't have an Idea when it will be released...?
No sorry, but I'm pretty sure some folks from Envivio on the list will
answer you ...
Boris ???
Olivier
From bfelts  envivio.com  Thu Oct 30 11:53:21 2003
From: bfelts  envivio.com (Boris Felts)
Date: Thu Oct 30 14:59:58 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
In-Reply-To: <003701c39f1d$d2d07290$f340fea9@maewanto>
Message-ID: <002401c39f1f$7b1608b0$220110ac@UBFELTS>
There is no freely available release planned for now...
Boris Felts
Envivio.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
> bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Amato
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 11:42 AM
> To: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Jechiam Gural
> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] software Mpeg-4 encoding (2)
> 
> > OK, you probably don't have an Idea when it will be released...?
> 
> No sorry, but I'm pretty sure some folks from Envivio on the list will
> answer you ...
> Boris ???
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
From babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM  Fri Oct 31 16:52:00 2003
From: babyreeja  USHUSTECH.COM (Baby Reeja Jayan)
Date: Fri Oct 31 06:37:49 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] de-blocking techniques in MPEG-4
Message-ID: <79DD1BC58DD7AC418EC0D1D5B169ACB8B9C345@mail.ushustech.com>
Hello
I have a doubt about de-blocking techniques in MPEG-4. Does MPEG-4 address
the problem of block artifacts? Or should one develop special post
processing filters to perform this de-blocking in the cae of MPEG-4?  Can
anyone help?
Regards
Reeja
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/mp4-tech/attachments/20031031/7700a603/attachment.html
From s.wright  indigovision.com  Fri Oct 31 11:29:52 2003
From: s.wright  indigovision.com (Steve Wright)
Date: Fri Oct 31 06:42:15 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24603FC002F@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c39fa2$4df86a70$23000a0a@PORTREE1>
Hi,
Thanks, this agrees with my understanding that an H.264 codec will require
2-3 times the MIP's of an MPEG-4 codec to do a good encoding job and produce
compliant bitstreams so in many applications (eg most mobile devices) there
will not be enough processing power to provide any benefit over MPEG-4.
As H.264 hardware implementations are years away and DSP's cannot provide
enough processing power it seems that H.264 will be limited in application
to expensive high-spec PC's for now and MPEG-4 is therefore the best choice
for the widest range of applications and markets.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: 30 October 2023 19:34
To: s.wright@indigovision.com; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis Alexandros;
Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
The basic answer to your question is that the statements about part 10
(AVC) being better than prior standards *are* made under the assumption
that a sufficient amount of processing power is available to do a good
job of using the standard.
The complexity of decoding AVC/H.264 video is higher than MPEG-4 SP
decoding.  Probably at least double the complexity.
The complexity of encoding it is up to the discretion of the encoder.
It is possible to make a very-low-complexity AVC-compliant encoder (i.e.
an encoder that does not use non-zero motion vectors) with *lower*
complexity than an equivalent-quality MPEG-4 SP encoder (because the
transform in AVC has lower complexity than the transform in MPEG-4 SP).
However, a *good quality* encoder for AVC is probably more complex than
a good quality MPEG-4 SP encoder.  Probably at least 3 times the
complexity.
A key distinction is to recognize that in order to conform to the
standard, a decoder must accept any conforming bitstream as its input,
while an encoder only needs to do what it wants to do.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
+> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 3:58 AM
+> To: bfelts@envivio.com; 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best
+> codec available
+> do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
+> processing? If for example you can only load a processor by
+> 200MHz is a part
+> 10 codec still better than SP?
+>
+> Thanks
+> Steve
+>
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
+> Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
+> To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
+>
+>   To answer Serge's questions:
+>
+> - The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
+> was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
+>
+> - There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
+> syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
+> quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the
+> encoded results
+> highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
+> postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
+> optimization.
+>
+> - You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs
+> which can do a
+> better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a
+> fairly large
+> amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
+> while. Conformance insures compatible and backward
+> compatible products,
+> but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
+>
+> - MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
+> quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
+> probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
+> MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
+> different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
+> encoder to assess their quality.
+>
+> Best Regards
+> Boris Felts
+> Envivio.
+>
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
+> > bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
+> > To: Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> > According to the system's specifications seen here :
+> >
+> > http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
+> >
+> > this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile
+> MPEG-4, and
+> does
+> > not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
+> realnetworks
+> > and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
+> > considerably better than this profile (but not better than
+> MPEG-4 part
+> 10).
+> >
+> > Alexis
+> >
+> >
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
+> > To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> >
+> > One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
+> encode
+> > video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
+> > provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
+> > differing quality.  You should never look at the quality
+> decoded from
+> > some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
+> standard
+> > and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the
+> best quality)
+> > that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
+> > definitely not expect the quality produced by all products
+> to be the
+> > same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
+> pre-processors
+> > and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in
+> post-processing and
+> > display aspects after decoding.
+> >
+> > Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there
+> are a number
+> of
+> > different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4
+> video".  There are
+> > somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
+> > MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
+> > syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
+> part
+> > 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
+> profile
+> > was implemented in that Envivio product.
+> >
+> > And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
+> even
+> > constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality
+> it produces
+> is
+> > constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
+> > expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its
+> design project.
+> >
+> > Best Regards,
+> >
+> > -Gary Sullivan
+> >
+> > +> -----Original Message-----
+> > +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> > +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> > +> To: Serge GEDEON
+> > +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> > +>
+> > +> > Dear All,
+> > +> >
+> > +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
+> > +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
+> > +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
+> > +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
+> > +> find a bit odd.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
+> > +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
+> > +> advise me with another soft?
+> > +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
+> > +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> > +> >
+> > +>
+> > +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
+> > +> is that it
+> > +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
+> > +> true in H.264.
+> > +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
+> > +> of control
+> > +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
+> > +> MPEG-2 (?),
+> > +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
+> most
+> > +> cases.
+> > +>
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Thanks in advance,
+> > +> > Serge GEDEON
+> > +> > Ph.D. Student
+> > +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> > +>
+> > +> _______________________________________________
+> > +> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> > +>
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+>
From SomWu  viatech.com.cn  Fri Oct 31 15:31:29 2003
From: SomWu  viatech.com.cn (Som Wu (HangZhou))
Date: Fri Oct 31 07:20:37 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] [M4IF Technotes] source code for H.264 Encoder
Message-ID: <81409C6755E1D5118B8700D0B7889D3A017252F8@ip-71-1-168-192.rev.dyxnet.com>
please send me a copy of h.264 codec
From alexandros.tourapis  thomson.net  Fri Oct 31 09:59:13 2003
From: alexandros.tourapis  thomson.net (Tourapis Alexandros)
Date: Fri Oct 31 10:11:07 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <8FC831532CEE564AB88AC1D999C29DEB037E01@prinsmail01.am.thmulti.com>
Dear Steve,
You can always use the exact same encoding algorithms in an H.264 based encoder, while keeping only equivalent features as in MPEG-4 part 2 and still do a better job. For example (talking obviously for baseline) you can disable variable block sizes, multiple references, de-blocking filter (a major reason of why H.264 is more complex), intra predictions etc. Of course there are still certain things that would add up to your complexity (subpel filters, CAVLC for example) but those are definitely not increasing complexity that high, while you can do certain tricks within the encoder to reduce their complexity. This could still lead to a significant performance benefit with comparable complexity. It could even be argued, although never tested, that some of the remaining features (e.g. 8x8 within H.264) could be even removed and still maybe achieve better performance (thus possibly having even lower complexity?). 
The argument though is not on the encoder, but mainly on the decoder where, as Gary has said, a compliant decoder has to support everything.
I would argue on the fact that H.264 hardware implementations are years away. 
Alexis
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2023 6:30 AM
To: 'Gary Sullivan'; Steve Wright; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis
Alexandros; Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Hi,
Thanks, this agrees with my understanding that an H.264 codec will require
2-3 times the MIP's of an MPEG-4 codec to do a good encoding job and produce
compliant bitstreams so in many applications (eg most mobile devices) there
will not be enough processing power to provide any benefit over MPEG-4.
As H.264 hardware implementations are years away and DSP's cannot provide
enough processing power it seems that H.264 will be limited in application
to expensive high-spec PC's for now and MPEG-4 is therefore the best choice
for the widest range of applications and markets.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: 30 October 2023 19:34
To: s.wright@indigovision.com; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis Alexandros;
Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
The basic answer to your question is that the statements about part 10
(AVC) being better than prior standards *are* made under the assumption
that a sufficient amount of processing power is available to do a good
job of using the standard.
The complexity of decoding AVC/H.264 video is higher than MPEG-4 SP
decoding.  Probably at least double the complexity.
The complexity of encoding it is up to the discretion of the encoder.
It is possible to make a very-low-complexity AVC-compliant encoder (i.e.
an encoder that does not use non-zero motion vectors) with *lower*
complexity than an equivalent-quality MPEG-4 SP encoder (because the
transform in AVC has lower complexity than the transform in MPEG-4 SP).
However, a *good quality* encoder for AVC is probably more complex than
a good quality MPEG-4 SP encoder.  Probably at least 3 times the
complexity.
A key distinction is to recognize that in order to conform to the
standard, a decoder must accept any conforming bitstream as its input,
while an encoder only needs to do what it wants to do.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
+> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 3:58 AM
+> To: bfelts@envivio.com; 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best
+> codec available
+> do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
+> processing? If for example you can only load a processor by
+> 200MHz is a part
+> 10 codec still better than SP?
+>
+> Thanks
+> Steve
+>
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
+> Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
+> To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
+>
+>   To answer Serge's questions:
+>
+> - The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
+> was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
+>
+> - There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
+> syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
+> quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the
+> encoded results
+> highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
+> postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
+> optimization.
+>
+> - You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs
+> which can do a
+> better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a
+> fairly large
+> amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
+> while. Conformance insures compatible and backward
+> compatible products,
+> but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
+>
+> - MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
+> quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
+> probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
+> MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
+> different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
+> encoder to assess their quality.
+>
+> Best Regards
+> Boris Felts
+> Envivio.
+>
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
+> > bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
+> > To: Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> > According to the system's specifications seen here :
+> >
+> > http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
+> >
+> > this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile
+> MPEG-4, and
+> does
+> > not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
+> realnetworks
+> > and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
+> > considerably better than this profile (but not better than
+> MPEG-4 part
+> 10).
+> >
+> > Alexis
+> >
+> >
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
+> > To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> >
+> > One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
+> encode
+> > video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
+> > provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
+> > differing quality.  You should never look at the quality
+> decoded from
+> > some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
+> standard
+> > and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the
+> best quality)
+> > that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
+> > definitely not expect the quality produced by all products
+> to be the
+> > same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
+> pre-processors
+> > and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in
+> post-processing and
+> > display aspects after decoding.
+> >
+> > Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there
+> are a number
+> of
+> > different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4
+> video".  There are
+> > somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
+> > MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
+> > syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
+> part
+> > 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
+> profile
+> > was implemented in that Envivio product.
+> >
+> > And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
+> even
+> > constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality
+> it produces
+> is
+> > constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
+> > expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its
+> design project.
+> >
+> > Best Regards,
+> >
+> > -Gary Sullivan
+> >
+> > +> -----Original Message-----
+> > +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> > +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> > +> To: Serge GEDEON
+> > +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> > +>
+> > +> > Dear All,
+> > +> >
+> > +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
+> > +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
+> > +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
+> > +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
+> > +> find a bit odd.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
+> > +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
+> > +> advise me with another soft?
+> > +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
+> > +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> > +> >
+> > +>
+> > +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
+> > +> is that it
+> > +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
+> > +> true in H.264.
+> > +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
+> > +> of control
+> > +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
+> > +> MPEG-2 (?),
+> > +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
+> most
+> > +> cases.
+> > +>
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Thanks in advance,
+> > +> > Serge GEDEON
+> > +> > Ph.D. Student
+> > +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> > +>
+> > +> _______________________________________________
+> > +> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> > +>
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+>
From sunx  pollux.usc.edu  Fri Oct 31 08:21:55 2003
From: sunx  pollux.usc.edu (sunx)
Date: Fri Oct 31 11:38:45 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <000b01c39fa2$4df86a70$23000a0a@PORTREE1>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0310310818000.340-100000@pollux.usc.edu>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Steve Wright wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks, this agrees with my understanding that an H.264 codec will require
> 2-3 times the MIP's of an MPEG-4 codec to do a good encoding job and produce
> compliant bitstreams so in many applications (eg most mobile devices) there
> will not be enough processing power to provide any benefit over MPEG-4.
>
> As H.264 hardware implementations are years away and DSP's cannot provide
> enough processing power it seems that H.264 will be limited in application
> to expensive high-spec PC's for now and MPEG-4 is therefore the best choice
> for the widest range of applications and markets.
This is true. Even porting of MPEG-4 SP to the DSP is a challenging job.
The motion estimation at the encoder end and even the Huffman coding at
the decoder end require large volume of access to memory, while the DSP
provides very restricted memory capacity and memory access approaches,
though DMA is always available.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: 30 October 2023 19:34
> To: s.wright@indigovision.com; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis Alexandros;
> Serge GEDEON
> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
>
>
>
> The basic answer to your question is that the statements about part 10
> (AVC) being better than prior standards *are* made under the assumption
> that a sufficient amount of processing power is available to do a good
> job of using the standard.
>
> The complexity of decoding AVC/H.264 video is higher than MPEG-4 SP
> decoding.  Probably at least double the complexity.
>
> The complexity of encoding it is up to the discretion of the encoder.
> It is possible to make a very-low-complexity AVC-compliant encoder (i.e.
> an encoder that does not use non-zero motion vectors) with *lower*
> complexity than an equivalent-quality MPEG-4 SP encoder (because the
> transform in AVC has lower complexity than the transform in MPEG-4 SP).
> However, a *good quality* encoder for AVC is probably more complex than
> a good quality MPEG-4 SP encoder.  Probably at least 3 times the
> complexity.
>
> A key distinction is to recognize that in order to conform to the
> standard, a decoder must accept any conforming bitstream as its input,
> while an encoder only needs to do what it wants to do.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gary Sullivan
>
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
> +> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 3:58 AM
> +> To: bfelts@envivio.com; 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
> +> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; 'sunx'
> +> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +>
> +>
> +> Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best
> +> codec available
> +> do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
> +> processing? If for example you can only load a processor by
> +> 200MHz is a part
> +> 10 codec still better than SP?
> +>
> +> Thanks
> +> Steve
> +>
> +> -----Original Message-----
> +> From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
> +> Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
> +> To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
> +> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
> +> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +>
> +>
> +> Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
> +>
> +>   To answer Serge's questions:
> +>
> +> - The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
> +> was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
> +>
> +> - There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
> +> syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
> +> quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the
> +> encoded results
> +> highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
> +> postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
> +> optimization.
> +>
> +> - You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs
> +> which can do a
> +> better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a
> +> fairly large
> +> amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
> +> while. Conformance insures compatible and backward
> +> compatible products,
> +> but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
> +>
> +> - MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
> +> quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
> +> probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
> +> MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
> +> different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
> +> encoder to assess their quality.
> +>
> +> Best Regards
> +> Boris Felts
> +> Envivio.
> +>
> +> > -----Original Message-----
> +> > From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
> +> > bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
> +> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
> +> > To: Serge GEDEON
> +> > Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
> +> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +> >
> +> > According to the system's specifications seen here :
> +> >
> +> > http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
> +> >
> +> > this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile
> +> MPEG-4, and
> +> does
> +> > not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
> +> realnetworks
> +> > and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
> +> > considerably better than this profile (but not better than
> +> MPEG-4 part
> +> 10).
> +> >
> +> > Alexis
> +> >
> +> >
> +> > -----Original Message-----
> +> > From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
> +> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
> +> > To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
> +> > Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +> >
> +> >
> +> > One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
> +> encode
> +> > video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
> +> > provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
> +> > differing quality.  You should never look at the quality
> +> decoded from
> +> > some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
> +> standard
> +> > and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the
> +> best quality)
> +> > that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
> +> > definitely not expect the quality produced by all products
> +> to be the
> +> > same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
> +> pre-processors
> +> > and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in
> +> post-processing and
> +> > display aspects after decoding.
> +> >
> +> > Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there
> +> are a number
> +> of
> +> > different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4
> +> video".  There are
> +> > somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
> +> > MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
> +> > syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
> +> part
> +> > 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
> +> profile
> +> > was implemented in that Envivio product.
> +> >
> +> > And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
> +> even
> +> > constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality
> +> it produces
> +> is
> +> > constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
> +> > expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its
> +> design project.
> +> >
> +> > Best Regards,
> +> >
> +> > -Gary Sullivan
> +> >
> +> > +> -----Original Message-----
> +> > +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
> +> > +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
> +> > +> To: Serge GEDEON
> +> > +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
> +> > +>
> +> > +>
> +> > +>
> +> > +>
> +> > +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
> +> > +>
> +> > +> > Dear All,
> +> > +> >
> +> > +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
> +> > +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
> +> > +> >
> +> > +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
> +> > +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
> +> > +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
> +> > +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
> +> > +> find a bit odd.
> +> > +> >
> +> > +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
> +> > +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
> +> > +> advise me with another soft?
> +> > +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
> +> > +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
> +> > +> >
> +> > +>
> +> > +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
> +> > +> is that it
> +> > +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
> +> > +> true in H.264.
> +> > +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
> +> > +> of control
> +> > +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
> +> > +> MPEG-2 (?),
> +> > +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
> +> most
> +> > +> cases.
> +> > +>
> +> > +> >
> +> > +> > Thanks in advance,
> +> > +> > Serge GEDEON
> +> > +> > Ph.D. Student
> +> > +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
> +> > +>
> +> > +> _______________________________________________
> +> > +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> > +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +> > +>
> +> >
> +> > _______________________________________________
> +> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +> >
> +> > _______________________________________________
> +> > Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
> +> _______________________________________________
> +> Mp4-tech mailing list
> +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> +>
> +>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
>
From s.wright  indigovision.com  Fri Oct 31 16:58:07 2003
From: s.wright  indigovision.com (Steve Wright)
Date: Fri Oct 31 12:05:30 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
In-Reply-To: <8FC831532CEE564AB88AC1D999C29DEB037E01@prinsmail01.am.thmulti.com>
Message-ID: <001401c39fd0$291df930$23000a0a@PORTREE1>
Hi Alexis,
On 31 October 2023 Tourapis Alexandros wrote:- "You can always use the exact
same encoding ...... etc"
Good points and very interesting. But the degree of testing that would be
required to verify the benefit would increase development time and increase
risk so I would still say MPEG-4 SP would be chosen over H.264.
On 31 October 2023 Tourapis Alexandros wrote:- "The argument though is not
on the encoder, but mainly on the decoder where, as Gary has said, a
compliant decoder has to support everything".
Yes and in many apps its the decoder which is running on the portable device
with limited MIP's so maybe it would have been better system design to place
the emphasis on compliance on the encoder rather than the decoder?
On 31 October 2023 Tourapis Alexandros wrote:- "I would argue on the fact
that H.264 hardware implementations are years away".
I say H.264 in hardware is years away because full hardware implementations
of MPEG-4 codecs are only just becoming available (rather than software
codecs running on DSP or ARM cores) so it will take another 18/24 months
before H.264 is in silicon.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Tourapis Alexandros [mailto:alexandros.tourapis@thomson.net]
Sent: 31 October 2023 14:59
To: s.wright@indigovision.com; Gary Sullivan; Steve Wright;
bfelts@envivio.com; Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Dear Steve,
You can always use the exact same encoding algorithms in an H.264 based
encoder, while keeping only equivalent features as in MPEG-4 part 2 and
still do a better job. For example (talking obviously for baseline) you can
disable variable block sizes, multiple references, de-blocking filter (a
major reason of why H.264 is more complex), intra predictions etc. Of course
there are still certain things that would add up to your complexity (subpel
filters, CAVLC for example) but those are definitely not increasing
complexity that high, while you can do certain tricks within the encoder to
reduce their complexity. This could still lead to a significant performance
benefit with comparable complexity. It could even be argued, although never
tested, that some of the remaining features (e.g. 8x8 within H.264) could be
even removed and still maybe achieve better performance (thus possibly
having even lower complexity?).
The argument though is not on the encoder, but mainly on the decoder where,
as Gary has said, a compliant decoder has to support everything.
I would argue on the fact that H.264 hardware implementations are years
away.
Alexis
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2023 6:30 AM
To: 'Gary Sullivan'; Steve Wright; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis
Alexandros; Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Hi,
Thanks, this agrees with my understanding that an H.264 codec will require
2-3 times the MIP's of an MPEG-4 codec to do a good encoding job and produce
compliant bitstreams so in many applications (eg most mobile devices) there
will not be enough processing power to provide any benefit over MPEG-4.
As H.264 hardware implementations are years away and DSP's cannot provide
enough processing power it seems that H.264 will be limited in application
to expensive high-spec PC's for now and MPEG-4 is therefore the best choice
for the widest range of applications and markets.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
Sent: 30 October 2023 19:34
To: s.wright@indigovision.com; bfelts@envivio.com; Tourapis Alexandros;
Serge GEDEON
Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; sunx
Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
The basic answer to your question is that the statements about part 10
(AVC) being better than prior standards *are* made under the assumption
that a sufficient amount of processing power is available to do a good
job of using the standard.
The complexity of decoding AVC/H.264 video is higher than MPEG-4 SP
decoding.  Probably at least double the complexity.
The complexity of encoding it is up to the discretion of the encoder.
It is possible to make a very-low-complexity AVC-compliant encoder (i.e.
an encoder that does not use non-zero motion vectors) with *lower*
complexity than an equivalent-quality MPEG-4 SP encoder (because the
transform in AVC has lower complexity than the transform in MPEG-4 SP).
However, a *good quality* encoder for AVC is probably more complex than
a good quality MPEG-4 SP encoder.  Probably at least 3 times the
complexity.
A key distinction is to recognize that in order to conform to the
standard, a decoder must accept any conforming bitstream as its input,
while an encoder only needs to do what it wants to do.
Best Regards,
Gary Sullivan
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Steve Wright [mailto:s.wright@indigovision.com]
+> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 3:58 AM
+> To: bfelts@envivio.com; 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Boris, when you say that MPEG-4 part 10 is probably the best
+> codec available
+> do you mean in the situation where unlimited MIP's are available for
+> processing? If for example you can only load a processor by
+> 200MHz is a part
+> 10 codec still better than SP?
+>
+> Thanks
+> Steve
+>
+> -----Original Message-----
+> From: Boris Felts [mailto:bfelts@envivio.com]
+> Sent: 28 October 2023 21:35
+> To: 'Tourapis Alexandros'; 'Serge GEDEON'
+> Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; 'Gary Sullivan'; 'sunx'
+> Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+>
+>
+> Thanks for your precisions Alexandros.
+>
+>   To answer Serge's questions:
+>
+> - The version of Envivio Encoding Station (2.1) released at that time
+> was using MPEG-4 part 2, more exactly it supported ASP level 5.
+>
+> - There has been few more releases of the product, still based on the
+> syntax and constraints of ASP. The current version is 2.5 and the
+> quality has improved since 2.1. Also, the quality of the
+> encoded results
+> highly depends on the set of prefilters, encoding parameters and
+> postfilters used for the considered job. This may require some
+> optimization.
+>
+> - You will find some other proprietary or standard codecs
+> which can do a
+> better job for a particular target. MPEG-4 part 2 enables a
+> fairly large
+> amount of applications and the decoder syntax has been frozen for a
+> while. Conformance insures compatible and backward
+> compatible products,
+> but may prevent from the latest technological advancement additions.
+>
+> - MPEG-4 part 10 is now part of our products, and shows significant
+> quality improvement over other legacy or proprietary codecs. It is
+> probably the best codec available. You will find (hopefully!) many
+> MPEG-4 part 10 implementations, but you need to be attentive to the
+> different profiles supported and the constraints respected by each
+> encoder to assess their quality.
+>
+> Best Regards
+> Boris Felts
+> Envivio.
+>
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org [mailto:mp4-tech-
+> > bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of Tourapis Alexandros
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 12:03 PM
+> > To: Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org; Gary Sullivan; sunx
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> > According to the system's specifications seen here :
+> >
+> > http://www.visiblelight.com/mall/products/envivio/docs/ees.pdf
+> >
+> > this coding station only supports Advanced Simple Profile
+> MPEG-4, and
+> does
+> > not claim support for MPEG-4 part 10. It is claimed that both
+> realnetworks
+> > and microsoft codecs (which were developed after MPEG-4 part 2) are
+> > considerably better than this profile (but not better than
+> MPEG-4 part
+> 10).
+> >
+> > Alexis
+> >
+> >
+> > -----Original Message-----
+> > From: Gary Sullivan [mailto:garysull@windows.microsoft.com]
+> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 2:19 PM
+> > To: sunx; Serge GEDEON
+> > Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > Subject: RE: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> >
+> >
+> > One thing to keep in mind is that standards do not specify how to
+> encode
+> > video -- only how to encode it.  There is a great deal of freedom
+> > provided in the standards that allows encoding designs of vastly
+> > differing quality.  You should never look at the quality
+> decoded from
+> > some particular implementation of an encoder using a particular
+> standard
+> > and assume that this quality is the only quality (or the
+> best quality)
+> > that is possible to obtain when using that standard.  You should
+> > definitely not expect the quality produced by all products
+> to be the
+> > same.  Not only is there freedom allowed in the design of
+> pre-processors
+> > and encoders but there is also freedom allowed in
+> post-processing and
+> > display aspects after decoding.
+> >
+> > Another aspect implicit in Sunx's response is that there
+> are a number
+> of
+> > different syntaxes that fall under the term "MPEG-4
+> video".  There are
+> > somewhere around 20 profiles in MPEG-4 part 2 and three profiles in
+> > MPEG-4 part 10.  For ordinary camera-view video, the most efficient
+> > syntax design currently in MPEG-4 is in the Main profile of MPEG-4
+> part
+> > 10 (a.k.a. AVC a.k.a. ITU-T H.264).  Serge did not specify which
+> profile
+> > was implemented in that Envivio product.
+> >
+> > And of course the RealNetworks codec that Serge referred to is not
+> even
+> > constrained by conformance to any standard.  The quality
+> it produces
+> is
+> > constrained only by the product's implementation resources, the
+> > expertise of its designers, and the deadlines of its
+> design project.
+> >
+> > Best Regards,
+> >
+> > -Gary Sullivan
+> >
+> > +> -----Original Message-----
+> > +> From: mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> [mailto:mp4-tech-bounces@lists.mpegif.org] On Behalf Of sunx
+> > +> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2023 8:35 AM
+> > +> To: Serge GEDEON
+> > +> Cc: bfelts@envivio.com; mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +>
+> > +> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Serge GEDEON wrote:
+> > +>
+> > +> > Dear All,
+> > +> >
+> > +> > I am currently comparing different compression solutions
+> > +> for streaming pedagogical multimedia contents over the Internet.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > But with the software I am using (Envivio coding station
+> > +> 2.1) to encode MPEG-4 content,
+> > +> > I can't reach the same quality with the same bitrate as
+> > +> with Real 9. Real 9 compression is better, the thing that I
+> > +> find a bit odd.
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Could anyone help me in this? did anyone do such a
+> > +> comparison? may it be the soft that I am using? could anyone
+> > +> advise me with another soft?
+> > +> > or may it be the parameters that I am using, I ve tryed
+> > +> aproximatly all the combinations possible!!!
+> > +> >
+> > +>
+> > +> I believe one major reason that MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2
+> > +> is that it
+> > +> has better motion compensated coding, which is especially
+> > +> true in H.264.
+> > +> My suggestion is that maybe you need to tune those paramters
+> > +> of control
+> > +> PVOP and BVOP coding carefully. Real format is modified from
+> > +> MPEG-2 (?),
+> > +> so MPEG-4 should at least achieve the comparative performance in
+> most
+> > +> cases.
+> > +>
+> > +> >
+> > +> > Thanks in advance,
+> > +> > Serge GEDEON
+> > +> > Ph.D. Student
+> > +> > Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse, France
+> > +>
+> > +> _______________________________________________
+> > +> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > +> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > +> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> > +>
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+> >
+> > _______________________________________________
+> > Mp4-tech mailing list
+> > Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> > http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+> _______________________________________________
+> Mp4-tech mailing list
+> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
+> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
+>
+>
From sps  iis.fhg.de  Fri Oct 31 18:30:38 2003
From: sps  iis.fhg.de (Ralph Sperschneider)
Date: Fri Oct 31 12:40:37 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] Re: MP4 file format specifications
In-Reply-To: <8wpDEwQzTuB@id-50271.news.dfncis.de>
References: <8wpDEwQzTuB@id-50271.news.dfncis.de>
Message-ID: <3FA29C3E.7080403@iis.fhg.de>
Hans-Juergen Bardenhagen wrote:
> On 29.10.03, 08:27 local time (received 30.10.03, 00:23 GMT+1) Ralph
> Sperschneider wrote:
> 
> 
>>Details can be found in the following output document (issued in
>>Trondheim):
>>
>>5717	Text of ISO/IEC 14496-3:2001/PDAM 3 (MP3onMP4)
>>
>>This PDAM is currently under ballot (being the first of four
>>ballots).
> 
> 
> That's interesting... by the way, are there any plans to include mp3PRO  
> in the MPEG Audio standards as well? This would make sense especially  
> when using it for multichannel encodings, because its higher efficiency  
> wouldn't blow up the size and overall bitrate of multichannel files as  
> much as plain MP3.
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
Hans-Juergen,
there are currently no plans to standardize SBR for MPEG-1/2 Layer-3. However,
the Audio Subgroup is exploring the possibility of standardizing technology for 
coding multi-channel signals via “spatial audio coding”. Since this technology 
is somewhat orthogonal to the audio coded in use, it might be applied for 
several MPEG audio codecs, e.g. for AAC but also for mp3 (once mp3 can be used 
in the MPEG-4 audio framework). Check out N6023 for details.
Best regards,
Ralph
-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Ralph Sperschneider  | Phone: +49 9131 776 344
FhG IIS                         | Fax:   +49 9131 776 398
Am Wolfsmantel 33               | mailto:sps@iis.fhg.de
D 91058 Erlangen                | http://www.iis.fhg.de/amm/
From Gerardo.Rosiles  motorola.com  Fri Oct 31 11:31:05 2003
From: Gerardo.Rosiles  motorola.com (Rosiles Gerardo-ra9355)
Date: Fri Oct 31 13:44:04 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] MPEG-4 compression
Message-ID: <6728517EECE7D511981B00D0B782903106322D48@az33exm27.corp.mot.com>
 IMO we should no measure the adoption of H.264 based on the MPEG-4 part 2 experience. I think that among other factors, MPEG-4 part 2 did not provide a compelling improvement over MPEG-2 for a switch, so there was really not a big enough market (i.e. DVD, consumer) to justify the production of MPEG-4 SP or ASP ASIC solutions at a big scale. 
Added to that was the fact that H.264 was on the works ... So the question is how fast the market will demand H.264? If H.264 can deliver the compression improvement it claims I can see it being seriously considered as the substitute format for MPEG-2 in different markets.
So if H.264 is adopted rapidly, then we can expect hardware solutions pretty soon. BTW, I think there are companies that have demoed at least H.264 encoders in FPGA. Integration in to ASICs should follow "easily". BTW 18 month seems to me about right for an H.264 solution to be available, and that is not "years away" in the silicon world :).
Gerardo
>>On 31 October 2023 Tourapis Alexandros wrote:- "I would argue on the fact that H.264
>>hardware implementations are years away".
>>
>>I say H.264 in hardware is years away because full hardware implementations of MPEG-4 codecs >>are only just becoming available (rather than software codecs running on DSP or ARM cores) 
>>so it will take another 18/24 months before H.264 is in silicon.
[x]General Business Information 
From rob.koenen  mpegif.org  Fri Oct 31 11:20:53 2003
From: rob.koenen  mpegif.org (Rob Koenen (MPEGIF))
Date: Fri Oct 31 14:30:54 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] [M4IF Technotes] source code for H.264 Encoder
In-Reply-To: <81409C6755E1D5118B8700D0B7889D3A017252F8@ip-71-1-168-192.rev.dyxnet.com>
Message-ID: <D5987FFC5C2504499274E608BA47C51B7AA4A7@exch-1.corp.intertrust.com>
please see resources section of www.m4if.org
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Som Wu (HangZhou) [mailto:SomWu@viatech.com.cn] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2023 23:31
> To: 'mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org'
> Subject: [Mp4-tech] [M4IF Technotes] source code for H.264 Encoder
> 
> 
> please send me a copy of h.264 codec
> _______________________________________________
> Mp4-tech mailing list
> Mp4-tech@lists.mpegif.org
> http://lists.mpegif.org/mailman/listinfo/mp4-tech
> 
From garysull  windows.microsoft.com  Fri Oct 31 11:38:50 2003
From: garysull  windows.microsoft.com (Gary Sullivan)
Date: Fri Oct 31 14:49:27 2003
Subject: [Mp4-tech] de-blocking techniques in MPEG-4
Message-ID: <91D7F2CEE3425A4A9D11311D09FCE24605870A42@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative