Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

No, we dont need another audio format
[ 60 ] (28.6%)
No, Ogg does it all for us
[ 98 ] (46.7%)
Yes, but this is certainly not MCF
[ 12 ] (5.7%)
Yes, maybe MCF could be it if specs are done accordingly
[ 40 ] (19%)

Total Members Voted: 229

Topic: Do you believe there is the need for a new audio container f (Read 22114 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Do you believe there is the need for a new audio container f

Reply #25 –
Quote
Originally posted by robUx4

I think that's the main problem with OGG. It's possible to do  things but since you rely on people that don't have time to do it, it's not likely to be done soon. MCF people are really into it and doing only that. So they will probably progress faster. (and having a consitant standard is the base of MCF).

I think xiph should concentrate on their codec, while some other people take care of the container.


Well, seeing that Ogg Vorbis is an open sourced project, there's nothing to stop people from actually working with Xiph to develope the Ogg container while the main Xiph guy (Monty) goes on to develope Vorbis. All that needs to be done first is to open a dialogue with the Xiph people.

Do you believe there is the need for a new audio container f

Reply #26 –
One of the most important things that (IMHO) make very sense to develop MCF is internal support for INTERLACED VIDEO.
(even if codec doesn't not support it....
...very simple: encoding two parallel "lines" of frames )

Most of videos, specially *live* video can be found (or must be) in interlaced format (DV or MPEG-2), this permits 50 frames per second (human eye can easily notice the fluidity abyss difference between 25 and 50 ) at expense of 25 progressive frames (in terms of bitrate).

Encoding *real* interlaced content with a "progressive" codec using any kind of deinterlacing filter (even the best) give unrecoverable image *DETAIL LOSS*. TRUST ME.


Interlaced video is widely used today and will be also strongly used tomorrow...


So interlaced support is real a GOOD innovation for MCF.
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour
 

Do you believe there is the need for a new audio container f

Reply #27 –
Ooooops!  Topic titles talks about *audio container* ...

...MCF is rather interesting for video.
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour