|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 10:26 PM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
probably the best
http://www.archive.org/movies/computerchronicles.php
| QUOTE | | What do you mean "itīs you"? |
becase it only happens to you.
perhaps a wrong code-page detected by ie?
| QUOTE |
I am using IE6, yes. Why? |
that was a joke , as we're discussing ms world-domination and simillar schemes.
so you must use ie6. bill told us so!
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 07:31 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Looks interesting. And huge - 700MB for one file?
Maybe Iīll download a few of them at the end of the month(thatīs where I can download virtually endlessly).
| QUOTE | becase it only happens to you.
perhaps a wrong code-page detected by ie? |
Hmm. Might be - but why isnīt it happening all the time?
| QUOTE | that was a joke , as we're discussing ms world-domination and simillar schemes.
so you must use ie6. bill told us so!
|
Yeah, well, Iīm used to it, though Iīm seriously thinking about switching to Firefox or similar.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 08:00 AM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
im using firefox... and the quoting here is messed up too
"!" shows up as "!" and so on... not sure what the deal is here... it happens with me in IE6 too BTW...
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 09:26 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | And huge - 700MB for one file? |
well, there is a choice, right?
there is mpeg1,mpeg2 and mpeg4(although not always); in linked thread i was pushing for wmv9 encodings too, but ia is obviously running linux only.
this
http://www.archive.org/download/Amigaand19...d1985_256kb.mp4
should be 17mb mpeg4
(although the 64kbit file has 34mb???? misnamed?swapped with 256kbit file?)
i tried to get a small 64k file once, but it was in fact 114kbit file with half the bitrate wasted on 48khz stereo sound?
a stereo sound for a human voice?
48khz?
amateurs!
as i said in the linked discussion (on ia forum)
"(but for example, episode i wanted to dload was 114kbit/s clip that looks awfull, has commercials, and is 30mb; did anybody hear somebody actually paying money to watch commercials? (which is what would i be doing if i dload that stuff)) "
i was getting the stuff via flashget; i just dloaded few mb's to preview the few files.
if you find (it seems it has to be searched for!) 256 streams and dload one, tell me what you think.
if you wan't, i'll try finding that amiga episode with acceptable quality (if you'll be willing to dload those 30mb or so)
| QUOTE | | Yeah, well, Iīm used to it, though Iīm seriously thinking about switching to Firefox or similar. |
been there, done that.
it's this
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?...31#640009016631
and i like IE's autohide unused favorites (ie show only recenlty used favs), and i didn't saw 'smooth-scroll' in moz-based stuff.
for me, that's unusable browser. ie spoiled me.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 10:49 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
while we're on the subject of web, i just found this;
http://tinyurl.com/3s7nl
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 11:18 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | i tried to get a small 64k file once, but it was in fact 114kbit file with half the bitrate wasted on 48khz stereo sound?
a stereo sound for a human voice?
48khz?
amateurs! |
Real stereo? Not even Joint Stereo or itīs variants(M/S or what itīs called)?
| QUOTE | | and i like IE's autohide unused favorites (ie show only recenlty used favs), |
You actually LIKE that? I hate that. It hides every function youīre not using often enough - requiring you to search it again every time.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 01:40 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | Real stereo? Not even Joint Stereo or itīs variants(M/S or what itīs called)? |
that is beside the point;half the bitrate (ie cca.56kbit) was wasted on sound.
so you have a hi-fi sound, but you don't really see the video (56kbit ffmpeg-mpeg4 video is hard to see!)
| QUOTE | | You actually LIKE that? I hate that. It hides every function youīre not using often enough - requiring you to search it again every time. |
not a 'function' but unused favs that i care less about anyway.
http://i4004i4004i4004.bizhosting.com/autohide/
a real life-saver; if i didn't had it, i would need to make subfolders. and the more links i have the lazier i get to do that. (and some of the subfolder categories would get too big again)
and when i need to find stuff i use rarely, well i just click that double-arrow.
now i see all of it.
wonderfull.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 02:11 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Maybe itīs different in IE, but in Word it even rearranges the icons.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 25 2004, 03:37 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
wait a minute; did i say that 56kbit sound on 48khz stereo is 'hi-fi'?
well, it's not really. i would encode the sound at 16khz/16kbit mono with wma9 voice, or speex.
i would still get everything they say.
i had some success in making this clip (labeled 64kbit but really twice that) semi-acceptable. i used mplayer
| CODE | | mplayer -vf noise=12ut,scale=512:384 D:\Tech\_web_elektronik_\06-CC\CC1301_windows_95_64kb.mp4 |
qtplayer is rather unacceptable crap!
see some shots (on file properties and qt/mplayer playback screenshots for 64kbit file) here:
http://i4004i4004i4004.bizhosting.com/CC/
i think i'll be dloading this stuff (i'll pick "256kbit" streams) bit-by-bit; in one hour i can probably get 18-20mb or so.
and my connection is usually idle when i'm answering the forums etc.
migth as well dload something in the background.
and if i do 120hrs per month, i can probably dload 2,1Gb or so; and that's about 30 70mb episodes.
10% of
http://www.archive.org/download/amiga_2/am...iga_2_256kb.mp4
dloaded; let's see if this one looks better than "64kb" streams.
edit/ corrected the transfer numbers; at 5kB/s it's more of a 18mb per hour than '8-10' as was stated previously...and and it usually goes somewhat faster than 5, so expected dload rate is 18-20mb/h.
the quality of stream labeled "amiga_2_256kb.mp4" is not bad (infact, it's quite acceptable to me..still used mplayer to add a bit of noise, but now i can clearly see what's displayed on the monitors etc. ).
it seems as if they're labelling according to the video-bitrate. (in this stream 256kbit is the video (31.3kB/s)...audio stayed the same bitrate as in "64k" stream, ie 7.7kB/s )
programme itself is real fun; gary kildall asking questions about the amigas, amiga's gui and the mouse-pointer (that pointer is too large, for sure!), and the mouse clicking that can probably be heard few rooms away.
these programmes are a real treasure.
well worth the 70mb dload.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 27 2004, 04:35 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
and now back to the subject;
lookin' at ms patents, guys at doom9 figured out that ms is responsible for at least something in the mpeg4 specs->block-skipping.
that's kinda interesting; xvid has simillar stuff (cartoon mode) where some blocks are skipped, but xvid's cartoon mode is still not the same thing as divx3; xvid's cartoon mode does help on noisy stuff, but not always. i have seen sequences where CM yields pretty pleasant results(in stopping the walls from swimming), but sometimes it doesn't.
(ie i still havent found a good xvid settings that would work well with any noisy source, while divx3 does it by default)
in another post, skal says wmv9 is inferior to h.264; i am wondering; if i was in a process of making h.264 codec (like he is) what would i say?
so far skal made mpeg4 codec which was nothing special; i think he'll have to make a pretty decent h.264 to compete with wmv9; let's see if he succeeds.
he also said;
| QUOTE | | Oh, and yes: MS's patents in MPEG4 are ridiculous. |
i think he should of tried the block-skipping too, instead of making another dvd-ripping-ready codec (his version of mpeg4) that works well only on clean sources.
(ie i believe at least part of the divx3 robustenss to noise is caused by block-skipping techniques->instead of wasting bits by trying to describe the noise by mv's or by encoding the prediction error, divx3 just skips it...and it still looks better than xvid/divx5...)
and to answer wilbert's question:
| QUOTE | | Would it be possible for other companies to make a VC-1 codec (or people making an open source one)? |
offcourse; you dont' believe ms will be the one making the vc1 hardware?
(i mean....you have the paper too; based on that paper encoders/decoders should be built.)
open-source?
anyone can buy the license and use it, but i doubt OS community will be buying vc1 license; they'll just steal the patented stuff as they've been doing so far.
(a reason for linux and open-source crowd to fight against patent laws. in a sense, proves their lack of imagination to try to _make_ 'patents' better than the ones mpeg uses! recent 'snow' codec is claimed to use some sorts of wavelet compression, but who's patent is wavelet? i'm sure you understand the problems OS community is facing; they can't go the whole mile and make their own codec. so they must steal other people's ideas (patents))
this means mpeg-la can close down most of the OS mpeg4 stuff and the OS h.264 stuff that's starting to appear; they will do it if they feel it's endangering their profits (which are now centered around mpeg2 mostly, and that's why they closed down the ympeg mpeg2 encoding ...other freeware mpeg2 encoder are either hard to use, or producing crappy quality...for example , mencoder and bbmpeg)
offcourse wmv9 may not be the best codec imaginable, but it's the best lobitrate codec available now. it is very easy to prove this via codec comparisons.
ms said they tried to make less computational intensive codec, and if they didn't they would probably just copy the h.264 entirely.
does ms take the mpeg patents and use it on their stuff?
yes, and thats' why i like them;stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
one more thing as skal mentioned blurring;
both h.264 and wmv9 use inloop filtering, as it seems (as i already said) codecs have faced a wall which can't be overcomed so easy; so they use dirty tricks.
i really am wondering; the 'hand' sequence on wmv9 versus h.264 with and without inloop filter.
i hope i'll get to do the test soon, and i hope something out there will be able to beat wmv9.
untill then, wmv9 is best.
(i'm tempted to upload the 'hand' sequence, so that everybody tries to compress it, but the ateme h264 codec owners (beta-testers) are not allowed to publish anything without asking the ateme folks; and even if they were, how will we watch it?
and i can test the mencoder x.264 for myself; so untill a nice h.264 codec comes into existance there is no reason to spit on ms; when(and if) the codec comes, we'll compare it to wmv9)
/ivo
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| trknop |
| Posted: Oct 29 2004, 11:41 PM |
|
|
Unregistered
|
The fact that the H.264 open-source "substandard" and "steve jobs replaced with mpeg" beta versions would even have a comparison to a codec with age, and $$$$$ paying for the development should hint that there is something to look at with this. H.264, when examined deeply and closley, goes a bit farther than a "video" codec. I'm not saying that it will replace everything. As long as we have MS to provide unlimited budgets for what should be considered as "legacy" software...there will always be something newer and better coming up. I also have to bring up the point that Windows codecs are not free. Yes, you can download the player...their player. That only works on...their systems (or about 1/8 of the potential on other systems)...therefore forcing you to run their OS and most likely something of theirs within the OS to do simple daily tasks that should be free. Microsoft has ruined many of my close friends...directly. And because of the ethics within that company they will continually produce fatally flawed code and sell it assuming that "everyone" has a PC. I hope that they continue to do so......to lose the aesthetics of someone moaning about their machine with a virus that they got from a website or a graphic image in email......or to keep hearing people complain about the fact that something is always wrong and attempt to provide techincal advice (babble) to their not-as-technically-inclined friends, amuses me as well as most other people I know that can work with both machines equally but have chosen to not limit ourselves to one specific platform in the hopes that it will improve...
Hail Longhorn...Windows Media 10...and the wonderful WinFS. Right.? Oh shoot forgot, Windows 10 is out sort-of. Already fully hacked and decrypted and awaiting service pack 99.
I'll stick with my BeOS, Amiga, and for coding... scheme. |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 30 2004, 11:55 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | The fact that the H.264 open-source "substandard" and "steve jobs replaced with mpeg" beta versions would even have a comparison to a codec with age, and $$$$$ paying for the development should hint that there is something to look at with this. |
no, not necessarily.
to me, all this politics means zilch (i just hate people attacking ms for no good reason); if wmv9 is better lobitrate codec, i'll use it.
if there is no h264, then there is no h264.
i hope h264 can beat it, but untill this happens, wmv9 is the best.
i see a battle of 2 codecs here and i say it is welcomed; let's not have only one codec/codec provider as we did with dvd/mpeg2.
let them struggle to beat one another!
customers profit this way.
| QUOTE | | H.264, when examined deeply and closley, goes a bit farther than a "video" codec. |
mpeg4pt2 also went much further..on paper, that is.
same will happen to h264 ; it will only be used as video-codec.
no video-objects no nothing; that's not being done, and it's good it's not being done, as that tech can only be used for few purposes; news broadcasts, for example; but for talkign heads (static backgrounds) mpeg's are already effective enuff as a video-codecs only.
so "video-object" coding and the bunch means nothing;
when i see the possibilites of a mere mpeg2 via satellite (dvb) and i see what is being used ; no, audio/video-formats are not really used to bring all other goodies; they are mostly used to bring video/sound.
so you may as well forget about something will change because mpeg4 has many things in the specs.
because mpeg2 has many things too; and most of those are never used.
| QUOTE | | As long as we have MS to provide unlimited budgets for what should be considered as "legacy" software... |
if wmv9 is "legacy" i'm asking you to provide a better (presumably new) codec that beats it.
if you can't, then you are not honest.
| QUOTE | | there will always be something newer and better coming up. |
hopefully!
i'm not a fan of wmv9 either; but still i can't say it's not the best lobitrate codec.
if there is nothing better than it, it means it's the best.
(vc1 standardization also means vc1 can also be improved, same as it happened with mpeg1/2 which were greatly improved over the years..specs stayed the same, codec was imporved.)
| QUOTE | | I also have to bring up the point that Windows codecs are not free. |
if somebody expects ms to make codecs for linux, then he's wrong.
do you expect win to make codecs for realnetworks?
| QUOTE | | therefore forcing you to run their OS and most likely something of theirs within the OS to do simple daily tasks that should be free. |
well, if someone is into this kind of video, then win is surely the best solution anyway.
i mean if we start to discuss video on linux, then you won't bring as many nice pieces of software as i will.
or ?
while it is true that we have a poor choice of os'es, it is also truth that anyone can try making the os, and if it's better than ms' then it will be widely accepted:
but that is a problem, as ms is making operating systems for well over 20years.
with win2k and xp, it seems so hard to beat them.
linux command lines won't do it, that's for sure.
apple won't do it either (but for different reasons_mainly their grab tight of the hardware and hardware prices)
| QUOTE | | Microsoft has ruined many of my close friends...directly. |
it's either that , or
"microsoft is much tougher competition than my friends could handle"
or
"microsoft bought my freinds company and sent him home" , but in that case there was somebody that actually sold the company, right?
i'm sure toyota has ruined many mercedes deals (that could be strucked), but do you attack toyota?
so why do you attack ms?
| QUOTE | | And because of the ethics within that company they will continually produce fatally flawed code and sell it assuming that "everyone" has a PC. |
"fatally flawed"?
which one?
what piece of ms software is 'fatally flawed'?
any linux/apple zealot will say ms stuff is fatally flawed, while his linux/apple box will be crashing more than my win2k, and we'll be doing the same things.
if apple/linux had the desktop share the win has, they would probably be even less secure than win.
| QUOTE | | to lose the aesthetics of someone moaning about their machine with a virus that they got from a website or a graphic image in email |
as i said, there are viruses for apple/linux too;
who would you attack, win(90%) or apple(5%) of users?
virus writers wanna see their babies in the news, so why should they bother writing viruses for linux/apple?
10 people will get the virus and will never report it...heh..
| QUOTE |
or to keep hearing people complain about the fact that something is always wrong and attempt to provide techincal advice (babble) to their not-as-technically-inclined friends, |
you have mistaked apple/linux for ms; where and how is apple/linux user support?
does it exist?
| QUOTE | | can work with both machines equally but have chosen to not limit ourselves to one specific platform in the hopes that it will improve... |
limited?
so win is limited and linux is limitless?
linux is still a geeks stuff, while apple seem to be children's stuff (what the hell is that gui all about?)
and they can't do video as win can do (they have chronic lack of software, because nobody is trying to make a software for 5+5% marketshare platforms)
the market share peoblem of apple/linux is THEIR problem; not ms's!
they must make easy to use stuff(linux) , but that can still be configured at a deeper level (apple).
most of apple's software is made by apple; that's rubbish.
| QUOTE | | I'll stick with my BeOS, Amiga, and for coding... scheme. |
that's fine, but we won't be seeing nice lobitrate video-clips from you, that's for sure.
btw. let there be no mistake; i'll use nice stuff regardless from which camp it's coming; i can use mencoder/mplayer for some things, while i can use wmv for other things.
company name means less to me; but please, attack ms if you have a reason.
the stuff you just said is no good reason to attack any software company.
let's take qdos for example( an example from history); neo-neko said ms stole the ms-dos; yeap, that is correct, but qdos itself is a slightly modded cp/m.
and?
and who forced 'seattle computer products' (makers of qdos) to sell in the first place?
bill gates came with a gun and pointed it to qdos maker?
right,right...
so, i'm still waiting a valid reason to attack ms.
running their software on a daily basis, i don't see one.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 30 2004, 02:25 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | let them struggle to beat one another!
customers profit this way. |
Not necessarily. Think about what happened with Browsers. They tried to hinder each other by introducing new tags into the HTML code.
The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C.
| QUOTE | so, i'm still waiting a valid reason to attack ms.
running their software on a daily basis, i don't see one. |
Ever used Win9X? Or a copy of IE that has the latest patches but still crashes every 20 minutes or so?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 30 2004, 05:34 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | Not necessarily. Think about what happened with Browsers. They tried to hinder each other by introducing new tags into the HTML code. |
and how will this happen to codecs?
where's the simillarity?
ms can't touch mpeg codec and mpeg can't touch ms codec.
they can't introduce anything now the standard is finished.
for web, this modifications may work(given the variety of web browsers at hand), but for hardware video-players they won't.
a mod means particular dvd-player is unusable, so it's not been done/it won't be done.
| QUOTE | | The result? You canīt really make a site thatīs optimized for all browsers, even if you cling to the HTML Standard as defined by the W3C. |
well, optimize it for IE6 and you'll know i'll be there.
| QUOTE | | Ever used Win9X? Or a copy of IE that has the latest patches but still crashes every 20 minutes or so? |
yes i did use win98, but i never had such IE copy.
infact i used win98 few hours ago, as some program i needed is not installed on win2k.
but sure, win98 is not the best thing ms released.
offcourse.
anyhow, see this
http://cliki.tunes.org/Microsoft%20Windows?source
you will notice that win98 is the last os that had the legacy 16bit portions in it.
all of the win98 poor memory management problems are redeemed by win2k.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 30 2004, 07:28 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | where's the simillarity?
ms can't touch mpeg codec and mpeg can't touch ms codec.
they can't introduce anything now the standard is finished. |
They canīt? Why not?
Whoīs going to stop them? They simply say itīs THEIR codec.
Or they say that THEIR codec can only be used in THEIR programs/container.
| QUOTE | well, optimize it for IE6 and you'll know i'll be there.
|
Never! There is only one standard I will acknowledge! The W3C!
| QUOTE | | yes i did use win98, but i never had such IE copy. |
The IE is from Win2K. I have it at work. Itīs annoying as hell.
| QUOTE | but sure, win98 is not the best thing ms released.
offcourse. |
Thatīs an understatement. Every second day it crashed, froze up and wouldnīt restart unless you switched the computer off. Which is next to impossible when the on-off switch is one of those that let you wait endlessly until the computer is really turned off.
| QUOTE | | you will notice that win98 is the last os that had the legacy 16bit portions in it. |
So? That doesnīt make it any better, does it?
| QUOTE | | all of the win98 poor memory management problems are redeemed by win2k. |
Great! Now if they could give me back all the time I lost waiting for a dead system to respond, Iīd be glad.
Why didnīt they fix these problems with Win9X? They had time(and money) enough, didnīt they?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
|
