Talk:Comparison of video container formats/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

JFIF?

Although the article doesn't explicitly say so, the page is very much titled towards containers that can contain video/audio data. All of the other containers are video/audio, and all of the headings of the table relate to audio/video. JFIF doesn't belong in this comparison. Any objections to removing it? Qutezuce 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Maybe the title could be "Comparison of media container formats" or "Comparison of multimedia container formats" to distinguish it from tar (file format), etc. —Fleminra 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that "container format" is used pretty widely on Wikipedia with this specific meaning, so this probably isn't the forum where such a change could be decided. —Fleminra 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RMVB missing..

RMVB

Not anymore... --Kamasutra 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to AVI

I made a few changes to AVI:
1. Chapters are possible through the 'Vidomi' hack.
2. A quick Google search told me about variable framerates ([1]). MrTroy 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Filesize?

Can anyone tell me which format gives you the smallest possible file size? --207.237.119.236 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends entirely on what kind of video you put in it. Because AVI supports hardly anything natively, it COULD produce the smallest file if your video doesn't contain B-frames, variable framerate, chapters and subtitles. But if your video does include such, Matroska may be smaller. MrTroy 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hacks or not?

I disagree with the use of the word 'hack' as in "Yes, but only through hacks".

This doesn't give the reader enough information other than a general bad feeling about AVI's support for the feature. 'Hack' is an emotive word which implies a hastily implemented quick-fix.

Your proposed change was "extension to the format" instead of "hack". But the name for those 'extensions' IS hack! The ones who made the hacks call them 'hacks' themselves, should we ignore that? MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It would help to answer the following questions:

- does the 'hack' work? - does the 'hack' work well? - does the 'hack' result in a valid AVI file?

Of course it doesn't, that's why it's a hack. MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- is the 'hack' specified / described somewhere? (the fact it is not described in original MS AVI documentation doesn't mean it's a hack)

If the answer to most of these questions is yes, then 'hack' is an inappropriate word. A footnote would be helpful.

Attaching a bigger pipe to a moped makes it go faster. Does it work? Yes. Does it work well? Yes. Is it still a good moped? Yes. Is this method for speeding up a moped described somewhere? Yes. ..... I guess we should start calling it an 'extension to the moped' now, shouldn't we.......? MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the word "problematic" is vague and unhelpful. Do these containers support these formats or not? If I understood why these formats are problematic, I'd add a footnote explaining why.

To be honest, I don't understand it either. For instance, using the x264 CLI, h264 doesn't go into avi. But using x264 VFW, it perfectly does. That's hardly problematic. MrTroy 08:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Plus, recent FFDShow update and X264 enabled possible use of H.264 on Avi without any problem or bug found what so ever. I have the video file of proof (22 minute; 150 megabytes; 29.97/30fps), and there seems to be no error or supposed "problemomatic". I did add in the extra, and not removed anything, however. User:Dooly00000 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased towards MOV

When mov only half supports something or requires apple's direct support and implementation of a format, MOV gets a YES, but when another format say OGM has the same restrictions it gets a partial rating. --206.191.28.13 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If a feature is not fully supported then indicate so. Also, I'm not entirely sure the purpose of your message since you weren't very specific. --Kamasutra 06:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Patented?

How about another column describing whether each is patent-free and open? --Oldak Quill 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the "owned by" column is misleading. It conflates the idea of "Who maintains the standard?" (informational) with "If I write a program that uses this format, who can legally stop me from selling that program?" (patent law) with "If I print a bunch of copies of the standard document, who can legally stop me from selling those documents?" (copyright law). I'm pretty sure all three can be different. For example, at one time (parts of) the GIF file format was patented by Unisys, but the file format specification was copyrighted by Compuserve. For example, U.S. Federal standards (such as Federal Information Processing Standard) are maintained by a particular group in the government, but are released into the public domain.
Would splitting it into 2 columns "maintained by" and "patented by" be adequate, or do we need all 3 columns? --65.70.89.241 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


XVID

Where does xvid fit into all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.72.90 (talk • contribs)

XviD is a video codec, not a container format. It goes inside the container as a video stream. But for your information, its standard container is MP4. --Kamasutra 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't, actually, XviD standardly goes into AVI. But for compatibility it is indeed better to mux it into an MP4 file. MrTroy 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It is, actually. Just because it is possible doesn't mean that it is the standard. The MPEG consortium created MPEG-4 Part 14 as the container in which to put MPEG media streams. Obviously MPEG-4 ASP is able to go into AVI, as that was the container most streams were put into before Part 14 was finalized. Also, I wouldn't call having to use hacks for B frames very standardly. --Kamasutra 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Bitstream packing isn't a hack. The MPEG Consortium doesn't decide what container is standard for a codec. If I would create a new codec, I would be the one to choose the container format, not the MPEG Consortium. In the XviD case, they chose AVI. Some time later, the MPEG Consortium came with part 14, in which it's possible to mux XviD. But that doesn't mean it's the standard! MrTroy 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't waste my time arguing over this any further, but try taking a look here and decide if you still disagree that it's a hack. --Kamasutra 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

comment

The page contains "Note: The following table may be biased by the encoders preference."

What is that supposed to mean? Suoerh2 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Compression

Would anyone object to a new column for transparent container level compression? --Tene 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Flash as a video format?

I'm not sure about the last column in video formats supported. Isn't VP6 that is used as video codec in flash format? If it is, Matroska and Avi suport it. Manabu 02:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Flash is neither a codec nor a container. FLV is the container which contains either Sorensen (Flash 6+) or VP6 (Flash 8+) encoded video streams. -84.59.131.131 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ASX missing ?

Can axs (MS) be considered as a container formats ? 2006.11.21

ASX is not a container format, but a playlist file. -84.59.131.131 04:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MXF missing?

MXF is described in [[2]] as a container format but it is missing from this page. My understanding is that this is a widely used professional format. Is there a reason for its exclusion here? 62.49.253.115 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add it; it's appropriate.

AVI - RIFF

AVI is really more of a descriptor than a container format, it is a RIFF chunk identifier. This table should be updated to describe it properly or remove it, but this will take much work, I suggest we work on it in a userspace or an unlinked 'subpage' to make it more technically correct. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AVI a container format implemented as RIFF. That AVI files are RIFF files does not mean that they are not containers, or that AVI is not a container format. Shinobu (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FLV metadata

I corrected the table for the FLV container. It does support metadata. See:

In fact, I see the metadata, and can edit it (title, subject, author, category, keywords, comments), in the properties sheet | summary tab on my system in Explorer, just like an ASF container file, or a JPEG file. — Becksguy (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit in-place

What is "Edit in-place"?--Hhielscher 10:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Came here to ask that question. Maybe it's got something to do with video editing? Shinobu (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it means that each frame is independent, so that you can cut into it anywhere, not just on I-frames. MPEG2 isn't very editable for this reason, if you cut on a P-frame it loses the I-Frame that it refers to. But I don't know if that's what this column means. Perhaps if no-one else does it should be deleted.--stib (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, then that seems like it would be a property of the underlying video format, and not the container. I searched for about thirty minutes trying to figure out what this column means, and I'm still unclear on what it is, why it would be desirable, and whether or not it's a property of the container format itself or the underlying video/audio codec. It's been a few months and nobody seems to know what this column means, so I think it should be struck from the page. Jnoring (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Multi-channel audio capability

I read somewhere that .mov can contain multi-channel (>2 channels) audio, while mp4 cannot? Sounds weird since mp4 is so modern. Would be interesting to know anyway, and maybe add as a column.--62.84.192.238 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is false. For example, MP4 supports AAC, which has specifications for multi-channel audio. What probably was meant, is that MP4 does not support AC3, the multi-channel format for DVDs, which as far as I know is true. But AC3 is not the only multi-channel format in the world. MOV on the other hand is not much more than a slight modification of MP4. It could be they added support for AC3. --81.241.180.45 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

False or not, two years later I still don't see a column for multi-channel audio support. I need to know which containers support this and compare them. Any reasoning behind this column missing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.51.102 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is misleading. Stereo is multi-channel audio (there are 2 channels and multi actually means >1 not >2 ) but I suspect the poster means multiple audio streams in the same container (e.g. an English track, a Spanish track and a director's commentary). MP4 can do this.86.0.254.239 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

column 'streaming capable'

It's been important for me whether a container is streaming capable, mostly for playing partially downloaded videos to check their quality so I could decide whether to download them completely. It has been my experience that avi does not support streaming, while mp(e)g does. Darsie from german wiki pedia (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been my experience that everything except AVI does, simply because AVI stores some of its required information in the footer (which you won't have if you are streaming it in order). However, I agree that this should be added, if worded slightly differently. 86.0.254.239 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Update Required

The .TS container does support VC-1 video. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Added explanation about AAC support in the AVI container. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.226.78.253 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Change of title to: Comparison of media container formats

Please consider to change the title to "Comparison of media container formats". The current tile is too inaccurate and makes the page hardly to find trough the web. - Revision as of 19:20, 28 May 2010 - by 217.83.200.36 (I removed this text from the article. --89.173.66.229 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

OGG

This article should contain information on what codecs ogg can handle without DirectShow filters (i.e. ogg with DirectShow filters is ogm). I know it can at least handle vorbis, speex and Theora (probably flac, too). Shoreu (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment doesn't makes sense. OGG (OGM) is a container. Yes, it is possible to have vorbis, speex, theora, flac and even more in it, but this has nothing to do with directshow filters. --178.95.76.235 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

VOB+IFO and variable framerate

VOB+IFO absolutely can be with variable fraberate. If we talking about just VOB, then no, bot VOB+IFO - absolutely yes. For example we can have different framerates for opening, main part abd ending of some series. There is also much more complicated situations. --178.95.76.235 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Musepack in matroska

Article says that support for musepack in matroska is partial|Scheduled. This is can't be valid. Maybe mkvmerge (most popular muxer out there) doesn't have support at this moment, but this doesn't means that container itself can'tcontain this format! --178.95.76.235 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like what they did with last packet - you can't distinguish it from full packet and it does not contain padding data. That's why their decoder tracks the number of samples and that probably will create troubles for other containers since seeking should update number of decoded samples for decoder.
It would be nice if someone told them it's wrong to do that way.
( source: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/064439.html )
KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 189.120.138.176 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Max number of streams

I would like to know the maximum number of video and audio streams each container can support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.138.183 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For the AVI container, the maximum quantity of streams is 255. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 201.81.66.233 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anamorphism

Should anamorphism be added? I think it's a pretty important feature for a container to support even though workarounds like storing the AR in the video bitstream are used for non-supporting containers like AVI. However, I would be be putting {{dunno}} next to all but three. --Kamasutra 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting dunno is ok, people will come by and fill it in. I've seen it happen on this page. IMO, go ahead and add it. Qutezuce 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am against it. It is a feature of the video codecs, not the containers 90.153.113.248 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I am for it. It's the same as for b-frames, although it is port of the video codec it has to be supported by the container. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.36.161 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bug with .ps column/line at "Video formats supported"?

Can one confirm that the entry "MPEG program stream PS (.ps)" has a white background at "Video formats supported" although "partial" is selected? The source looks OK to me, but the result does not. It should be some kind of yellow like all other "partial" fields, but it (only this entry) appears white to me. 84.61.3.44 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Add relation to VP6/7/8 codecs

It would be nice, if somebody adds the information about how VP3, VP6, VP7 and VP8 encoded video streams fit into existing containers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkatsubo (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

VP8 has been added. Which is good and I'm more than OK with it. Does one see a reason to add VP7 and maybe prior? 84.61.3.44 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


MP4 PCM support

It is possible to store PCM audio in an MP4 container, although it is not supported by software very well. I have seen MP4 with PCM, so it is possible. The only problem might be the playback. It's like AVI and vorbis, it is possible but the file might not be played with some players. Shouldn't it be "yes2" or "partial" as the container can "hold" this format? The container itself can't be "responsible" for the support by players. 84.61.3.44 (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. Which also makes me think, and say,
this article needs a major re-write and re-formatting.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid many wikipediacs would tag the
necessary changes as "too technical" and/or "not-encyclopedic" :-(
KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 201.52.56.106 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New bit rate comparison article?

Can we split the bit rate article and move the multimedia part into a separate article? At least the list of bit rates. Now the article has too wide scope. We may for example create Bit rate in multimedia or Multimedia encoding bit rate, or list of multimedia format bit rates? The bit rate article still can sumarize the multimedia aspects but skip the technical details. Please answer at talk:Bit rate. Mange01 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dirac not listed

It would be an improvement, I believe, if they got some information about the Dirac compression method added to the tables where it applies. Thank you. 190.226.220.102 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dirac is listed in the first table. The other two tables seem to be a bit redundant... Or the first table is. But sure, Dirac could be added to the third table, too.—J. M. (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Explanation/reference legend to clarify the meanings of the colors

There are only three colors but it is still unclear... it was rather simple, but to establish the pattern I did have to look closely. And I'm not even sure if I have figured it out completely correctly. I obviously wasn't involved in the creation of this page and I don't want to use guess work to establish the meanings of the colors. Therefore, it would be great if someone who does know their meaning and purpose could take a minute to include those details. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjcripe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of introduction

I think date of introduction would be a really valuable column to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.231.145 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of introducing the each format and whether that purpose was realized by the "inventor" of the format.

Purpose of introducing the each format and whether that purpose was realized by the "inventor" of the format. This would give people a sense of where the format is coming from and whether it's use would suit ones purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.29.40 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Native and 3rd-party support

I think it is worth it to note that as far as support for any given audio, video, subtitle and other format as far as quicktime is is concerned is that it can support anything as long as there is a codec there to read/write the info. So I think it would be more useful to note for for containers like quicktime and matroska if any given data-type is supported natively out of the box as opposed to supported with a third party codec. For example, Perian provides support for many of the subtitle formats for quicktime that don't ship with Mac OS X. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

M4V is not included and should be.

M4V is not included and should be, definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.29.40 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is, as M4V = MP4. — Yngwin (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Column "Support for B-frames" — should be updated or deleted

I vote for *deletion*. Now it's clear to me that its existence is centered upon the *outdated* controversy about the "packed bitstream" thing. The ACTUAL problem never was the AVI container itself, but the obsolete Video-for-Windows API, and any software/firmware that totally or partially shares its limitations. Besides, and more importantly, most people still ignore other containers which (according to the usual and flawed explanations) "should not" support B-frames either, because of the way that they use the *timestamps* (namely, ASF, MPEG Program Stream and MPEG Transport Stream). 186.204.29.47 (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just adding sources:

http://guru.multimedia.cx/avi-and-b-frames/

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=120407

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=930964#post930964

http://blog.monogram.sk/janos/2008/06/08/b-frames-in-directshow/

signed: 177.140.166.36 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"RealAudio in AVI" updated.

Older types of RealAudio (including ATRAC3) use constant bitrate compression, and therefore are fully-compatible with the ancient ACM interface. Newest type of RealAudio is actually AAC, which never has been a problem to the DirectShow-based decoders. 186.204.105.49 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DRM support

Can DRM information be added to the table? Kxra (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WTV container is missing

WTV_(Windows_Recorded_TV_Show) 189.120.185.55 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

VOB+IFO Multi-angle

One of the features of VOB+IFO (And I think Blu ray as well) format is the possibility of multi-angle video. That is, have several alternative video tracks for specific fragments of hte video Example: Star wars has some titles at beginning. With multi-angle you may have the part of the titles in several languages, but the rest of the film is encoded only once.

Don't know if any other formats support multi-angle

Rober2D2 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Matroska does not support menus

The article says that matroska supports DVD-like menus, but it is not true. If you read the linked specifications: [1] you may read that the menu specifications are just a draft. That is, matroska is expected to have a menu system in future versions.

Rober2D2 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.matroska.org/technical/menu/index.html

Help to improve table readability

I changed the size of video and audio tables, because the column label was not readable. I do not know the markup language, the result was not satisfactory to me, but it is better than it was.

Adjusting font size of labels may help to make the tables 100% of screen size again.

Can the header be fixed and the data rows scrollable when watching the screen, and expand all when printing?

I gave up, to make cosmetic changes to the first table, but it should be made more readable, maybe by splitting in two tables, or by introducing intuitive abbreviations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.76.94 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest rename

I suggest renaming the article to Comparison of digital media container formats. SharkD (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that analogue media container formats even exist. It would probably be better to keep it as "container formats" but add sections for container formats that contain things other than audio/video (TIFF etc). This would not get in the way of the current list. 86.0.254.239 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is a good suggestion, but not 100% convinced that "Comparison of media container formats" (omitting digital) could be a good idea, because analog recordings, like VHS or beta-max should have a kind of protocol to keep some synchronization and time labeling. Can this be considered an "analog media container"?, I do not know.
The title that SharkD suggests is very sensate. I do not know how to change the title, but this should be done to either Comparison of digital media container formats or Comparison of digital multimedia container formats as suggested in the related comments by SharkD and Fleminra, the choice of media or multimedia is not clear to me because I am not an English native speaker, the exact connotation of each term is not clear to me.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.76.94 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Uncompressed 10 bit video

This article fails to mention which containers can hold 10 bit uncompressed video. I know quicktime can but what about others like AVI and Matroska? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.131.165 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of video container formats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Information table

This table is far too wide, please split it into two tables. –Be..anyone 💩 20:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

HEVC (H.265)

Maybe it's time to include references to HEVC...
So far, it's been successfully wrapped in the following containers:
FLV, AVI, MKV, MP4, ASF and TS.
177.140.169.21 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The table on the article notes "possible" in the field of HEVC × MP4. Is that an error? I think it should be simply switched to "Yes", as HEVC goes standardly into an MP4 anyway. Int 80h (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WebM and b-frames

The article says that WebM supports b-frames. However this is a misleading. WebM container is a subset of MKV container MKV supports many things but again because WebM is a subset, for WebM we should say "supported" only if feature is really used. b-frames are not used in WebM because this container restricted to use only VP8 codec and VP8 doesn't supports b-frames (and never will, because bitstream is frozen). --178.95.76.235 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not exactly true. I've put VP9 video streams into WebM, and it works absolutely flawlessly. Now, VP9 dpesn't use B-Frames - only P-Frames, but also things similar (but not equal to) B-Frames, called "GoldenFrames" and "AltRef". Aside of that, even if a feature is never used but technically supported, I don't see why it's incorrect to state that. If anything, wording might be improved by disclaiming, that even though that feature is available by technical spec, it has never seen practical use as of yet, due to no codec making use of it. Int 80h (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of video container formats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of video container formats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing columns for "MPEG Video File"

Each container type listed in the rows of the main (1st) table should have a column in the content type tables.

There's no column for the container type "MPEG Video File" in the content (video, audio, subtitle) tables.

Could that be because the MPEG-1,2 container formats are MPEG-PS and MPEG-TS, and the "MPEG Video File" container, not mentioned in the linked Type entry, actually means some version of MPEG-PS? In which case there should be some reconciliation between the rows for "MPEG Video File" and MPEG-PS so that "MPEG Video File" can be merged into MPEG-PS.

Also, even though "formats" is in the article title, it would be good to change the Legend "Format" in the main table to "Container" so as to reduce the use of "Format" in different contexts.

46.208.6.24 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know what the "MPEG Video File" container format is, too. The table says it is a file with the .mpg or .mpeg extension, but these are typically MPEG-PS files. As for the "Format" table header, I would not change it to "Container", because a container and a container format are two very different things (MPEG-PS, AVI, Matroska etc. are not containers, they are container formats). It's true that the word "format" by itself can be confusing, but I think the meaning is actually quite clear from the context in these tables, I think the section headings explain it sufficiently. But it could be changed to "Container format" in the first table, "Coding format" (or "Video coding format" and "Audio coding format") and "Subtitle format" in the following tables.—J. M. (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

MetaData

  • 3GP can imho have the same ISO metadata as MP4 files. The containers are build on the same principles (like also mov).
  • AVI (like any other RIFF file) can have a INFO chunk with metadata chunks

Ensonic (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • TS can also have metadata (ID3 tags are commonly embedded for reasons such as Dynamic Ad Insertion). Perhaps this might be considered technically not part of the container, as it's carried in a contained Elementary Stream, but it is nevertheless referenced in the Program-specific_information#PMT_(Program_map_specific_data) PMT TS Packet using stream type 0x15 ("Private Data") and there is a corresponding PSI descriptor in the PMT tables which describes the nature of the contents within (eg ID3). Ffmpeg is aware of this and correctly identifies what it is eg:

Stream #0:1[0x63]: Data: timed_id3 (ID3 / 0x20334449) LightTangent (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The new tables are a mess.

Years ago I added some notes regarding the AVI container and the audio formats it supports; today I find that a not-so-smart person skrewed everything. 177.25.83.48 (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific (what exactly is wrong), and preferably without personal attacks?—J. M. (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am all ears if anyone wants to recommend improvements or point out any error in those edits. By checking the audio formats in AVI in the oldest version before I started work on this article, you can verify the differences in declared support for Vorbis, FLAC, ALAC and MLP. All references that mention AVI have been preserved, perhaps only modified slightly. A reference for WMA in AVI has been removed because it seemed to be talking about something unrelated and didn't seem to apply elsewhere either. I checked the history and this reference had been in this situation for years. Be sure to check the new references as there are many misconceptions surrounding AVI and the word "support" has several different interpretations, that were previously being applied inconsistently across the various containers, which seemed biased and misleading to me. I hope I have adopted a format that embraces the various perspectives, but again I'm all ears. The article was receiving very few edits, was quite incomplete and was missing a lot of references and a lot of information about supported codec/container combinations.--Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you be more specific (what exactly is wrong), and preferably without personal attacks?
Yes, I can be very specific, and nope, I won't avoid """personal""" attacks when they are well-deserved. Today I re-checked the article with more attention and realized the situation is even worse than I thought. For example, ATRAC3 IS supported in .AVI, but the current table says it's not. Hell, ANY strictly-constant-bitrate audio codec can be successfully wrapped in a .WAV file and therefore can be wrapped in a .AVI file as well. And just as a logical consequence, it can be remuxed to Matroska too. How do I know this? Been there, done that, confirmed that it works, period.
No personal attacks. Wikipedia is about representing information, facts. I hope you have references to support your claims. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
As for .EAC3: same thing, if it can be succesfully wrapped in a. WAV file and successfully played back by MPlayer, ffplay, mpv and LAV Filters, then there is no reason why the table should say .AVI cannot contain EAC3 streams (yes, plural, because .AVI does support up to 256 video /audio /text streams).
I've filled in the tables based on official documentation and, for other situations, I've searched for support in applications. If it is not officially supported, but supported by common applications, it makes sense that the table says exactly so. Do not confuse official format support with software support using non-compliant implementations. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding OPUS: the table says "yes" (LOL), but ¿can anyone please give me a link to a functional .AVI sample file that contains Opus audio? Because even though Opus can be made strictly-CBR and therefore suitable for the .AVI container, the trolls from Xiph.org who worship the false god Ogg haven't made the task easy (not to say possible — if ever).
191.255.235.9 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, specific software support, not format support. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
P.S.: The current table also says MP4 does not support Enhanced AC3... well, actually it does. 191.255.235.9 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Another claim without providing a credible reference. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is discussed in the spec for CMAF here: https://uvcentral.com/files/CFFMediaFormat-2_2.pdf, section 5.6.2.1.2 where it specifically mentions support for the "dec3" Audio Sample Entry box for Enhanced AC-3. This is further discussed in Annex F of ETSI TS 102 366 v. 1.3.1 (2014‐08), “Digital Audio Compression (AC‐3,

Enhanced AC‐3) Standard” LightTangent (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Matroska too supports EAC3, guys. 191.255.235.9 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Another claim without providing a credible reference. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
P.S.4 "ALAC in AVI" = yes (LOL again) — a link to a sample file plus the method used in the task, please.
Another claim without providing a credible reference. At this point I doubt you've read any of the references present in the article. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"VP6 in AVI" = not standard (double LOL) — even though On2 themselves created VfW codecs for VP3, VP4, VP5, VP6 and VP7 during the decade before.
Please read the references in the article or provide references for this claim. I couldn't find any. VfW is a proprietary API and codecs can be implemented without it. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"Theora in AVI" = needs ffdshow — WRONG. Theora in AVI can be created and watched on non-Windows operating systems too. ffdshow is required for Theora-in-AVI only by the VfW interface itself.
References? Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"VP8 && VP9 in OGG" = needs Firefox — ¿What the devil?
The official docs from Xiph about Ogg do not list VP8 and VP9 as supported formats. I could not find any other application that claims to support this combination other than Firefox. Again, please provide satisfactory references. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Program Streams && Transport Streams: 1) PS and TS should not occupy the same column; 2) there is a difference between the "official hack" named M2TS and the Blu-Ray specifications... I mean, surely there is no place for MPEG-1 audio in a Blu-Ray structure, but surely it's possible to store MPEG-1 audio in an ordinary M2TS file.
191.255.235.9 (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The main difference between PS and TS is that PS allows private data. We could split the two columns, but TS will be exactly the the same as PS with Private replaced with No. As for the second point, again, references? Everything is possible if one accepts non-standard files. Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe that this is not correct. TS does allow private data (as an Elementary stream of type 0x15 as specified in the PMT). LightTangent (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that 192.255.235.9 (whoever this person may be, who knows if this is a Wikipedian or not) has discussed inaccuracies under the wrong topic ("mess"). I am assuming that sections and the new table layout are not in question. I've attempted to check each claim and edit, and for clarity, I've organized them below with my findings.
Edits by 192.255.235.9:
  1. AVI officially supports MJ2, VP6, RealVideo, Theora, MPEG-4 AVC, E-AC-3, ATRAC3
    • None of those are officially supported according to RFC-2361 or to Microsoft's documentation on Media Foundation. Any support for those codecs is currently non-standard by definition. If you can provide references that demonstrate that there has been official support at some point in the past, they should be listed using Template:Dropped.
  2. MKV officially supports E-AC-3
    • Correct. Matroska documentation says MKV supports Quicktime codecs, and Quicktime documentation (the format, not the software) says it supports E-AC-3.
  3. ASF officially supports ATRAC3
    • No one in the Internet supports this claim.
  4. AVI and ASF do not support Opus and ALAC due to lack of supporting software implementations.
    • Again, confusing software support with format support. I can at best agree that these combinations are very rare since Opus and ALAC are typically used with other container formats.
  5. AVI does not support WMA Lossless due to lack of supporting software implementations
    • It should according to official documentation from Microsoft, even though it seems to be very rare.
Other claims by 192.255.235.9 that did not result in any edits on his/her part:
  1. Any CBR audio codec is automatically supported in WAV files (RIFF container) and, as a result, in AVI. This is why E-AC-3 is supported in AVI.
    • Any CBR audio codec is possibly, maybe supported in AVI, but not automatically by the official AVI standards.
    • VBR audio is supported in AVI. There is a note on MP3 VBR in AVI explaining this, which was already there before my edits. In fact, I've learned this by reading this article carefully.
  2. Can anyone provide links to AVI files that contain Opus or ALAC audio along with instructions to elaborate them?
    • Again, confusing software support with format support.
  3. MP4 officially supports E-AC-3.
    • Correct, according to MP4RA.
  4. On2 created VfW codecs for VP3, VP4, VP5, VP6 and VP7.
    • If so, it should at least require additional software. There is a FourCC code for VP6, so I'll accept that it works with AVI using non-standard software.
  5. MPEG-1 is not supported by the BluRay structure but it is officially supported in M2TS.
    • Not according to the official documentation, which is referenced in the main .m2ts article.
I will revert all of the edits that were not supported by references, fix the misuse of Template:Not implemented which does not exist in Wikipedia, and adjust edits regarding actual mistakes on my part. Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_video_container_formats/Archive_1&oldid=1210753183"