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: 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: 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" for parallel) container, and the begin time is relative to the begin time of the "par" container. BTW, the XMT also supports the (for sequential) container, whose semantics you can easily infer. A very short example would be: 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 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: 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 > 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 .... 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: 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 Compressed Video Consulting, Training, and Encoding My Book: Cleaner e-book: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 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 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" To: "Michael Igarta" ; 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" To: "Michael Igarta" ; 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" >Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73 >To: >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" >Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73 >To: >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" To: 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" > >Subject: Re: [Mp4-tech] Poor H.264 PSNR Results with JM73 > >To: > >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- 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 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: 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: 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: 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: Message-ID: 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: 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 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 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: 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: 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: 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: References: 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: 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: 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" 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: 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: References: 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: 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: 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: 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