Talk:MPEG-4: Difference between revisions
What's next? |
No edit summary |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
If I have made technical mistakes, its because this article is misleading :P |
If I have made technical mistakes, its because this article is misleading :P |
||
[[User:Chrislewis.au|Chris]] 05:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:Chrislewis.au|Chris]] 05:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Alternatives section == |
|||
The Alternatives section seems far too lengthy and prominent. There's more information in this article on what to use other than MPEG-4 than information on what it does and how it works. Maybe not quite NPOV-violating, but does have the air of an anti-patent troll Slashdotting things up (why wouldn't proprietary options like Windows Media, Real, or QuickTime also be considered "alternatives"?) Maybe the alternatives stuff should be a different article, or maybe it wouldn't be as bad if there were more meat to the article (for example, material on MPEG-4 performance, compatibility, popular uses, history, design theory, etc.). |
|||
[[User:Invalidname | Invalidname]] Wed Dec 6 02:44:44 GMT 2006 |
|||
== What's next? == |
== What's next? == |
Revision as of 02:47, 6 December 2006
I removed the link http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29679 from the bottom section because it seems to be having persistent redirect errors. I replaced it with a link from an "engadget.com" page, which is not a high quality link, but the best I could find in 5 minutes (my allotted time for such things). Please feel free to replace it, or put it back if/when the theinquirer.net link is healed.
- The link seems to work for me, but I've added a more interesting one so if the original one is unreliable, we can use yours and this new one. Stephen B Streater 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hinting
I'm working on a website in which we have a choice of viewing MPG files or MP4s. When implemented the same way, however, the MPG files stream, while the MP4 files wait for the entire file to load. See example here: http://www.proimagestudios.com/newsite/movtest
I used Cleaner 6 to compile the MP4, and was wondering if there was a setting or something I could change to make the MP4 stream in the same way the MPG did.
Thanks, Gregory Gritmon www.gregorygritmon.com GSquaredDesign@aol.com
Hi Greg. mp4 files stream really well. You need to open the files in Quicktime Pro & export as 'Hinted Movie' to enable them to stream (this is presuming that your other setting are correct. Try by passing Cleaner 6 with a single file first.
Cheers
James Frameline.tv
You can generalize "Hinting". Quicktime is not the only tool out there that does hinting, and of course, Quicktime does not guarantee that MPEG-4 elements not natively supported by quicktime (such as BIFS) are passed through to the output. Envivio makes some products that are capable of hinting, but they're probably too damned expensive ;^) Tzf
Licensing section
MPEG-4 is patented proprietary technology. This means that, although the software to create and play back MPEG-4 videos is easily available, a licence is needed to use it legally. I wonder if something should be mentioned about who owns MPEG-4, and how to license it. In particular, MPEG Licensing Authority can license some of the patents required for MPEG-4 visual (audio is more complex). Unfortunately, the one stop shop idea is currently open to doubt: this article claims that AT&T is suing companies such as Apple over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement. Stephen B Streater 12:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Proposed wording
MPEG-4 is patented proprietary technology. This means that, although the software to create and play back MPEG-4 videos may be readily available, a licence is needed to use it legally. Patents covering MPEG-4 are claimed by over two dozen companies. There is no simple way to license MPEG-4, but the MPEG Licensing Authority can license patents from a wide range of companies required for MPEG-4 visual techniques (audio is licensed separately). A one stop shop is currently not possible: this article claims that AT&T is suing companies such as Apple over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement. This AT&T action against Apple illustrates that it is hard to know how many companies have patents covering MPEG-4. Stephen B Streater 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Added this in with a couple of refinements. Stephen B Streater 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Part 2 and Quicktime
The article implies that SP and ASP are the only profiles of MPEG-4 Part 2 I however I know the following exist:
- Core
- Main
- N-bit
- Advanced Coding Efficiency
- Core Scalable
- Simple (SP)
- Simple Scalable
- Advanced Real Time Simple
- Advanced Scalable Texture
- Advanced Simple (ASP)
- Fine Granularity Scalable
Ref: http://www.m4if.org/resources/mpeg4userfaq.php#ArbitraryObjects
The MPEG-4 Part 2 article mentions 21 profiles. Because of this I think the claim that the 5G iPod supports all of part 2 may be incorrect. I'd like to see a citation that it supports all 21 profiles.
--70.39.108.127 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nice find. If this iPod supported all of part 2, it'd be the only device to ever do so! Personally I suspect many of the profiles have never been implemented (and never will be), but I've never attempted to verify this suspicion... Snacky 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Very confusing
Lots of words, very little explaination. This article should be made much easier for people researching before buying an mpeg-4 player etc. The article should begin with a conscise definition of mpeg-4, continue onto what it encapsulates, file formats, comparison with other codecs. If I have made technical mistakes, its because this article is misleading :P Chris 05:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Alternatives section
The Alternatives section seems far too lengthy and prominent. There's more information in this article on what to use other than MPEG-4 than information on what it does and how it works. Maybe not quite NPOV-violating, but does have the air of an anti-patent troll Slashdotting things up (why wouldn't proprietary options like Windows Media, Real, or QuickTime also be considered "alternatives"?) Maybe the alternatives stuff should be a different article, or maybe it wouldn't be as bad if there were more meat to the article (for example, material on MPEG-4 performance, compatibility, popular uses, history, design theory, etc.). Invalidname Wed Dec 6 02:44:44 GMT 2006
What's next?
What codec is being planned after MPEG-4? --24.249.108.133 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)